…by Jonas E. Alexis and Nicholas Kollerstrom

Nicholas Kollerstrom has a B.A. in the natural sciences from Cambridge University, with an emphasis on the history and philosophy of science. He is also an astronomer, receiving his Ph.D. from the University College London. He was a former correspondent for the BBC and received grants from the Royal Astronomical Society to do scientific work related to the discovery of Neptune.

Kollerstrom has written numerous technical articles and essays.[1] He is the author of Newton’s Forgotten Lunar Theory: His contribution to the Quest for Longitude (London: Green Lion Press, 2000) and The Metal-Planet Relationship: A Study of Celestial Influence (Eureka, CA: Borderland Sciences Research Foundation, 1993). Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers contained several of his essays on mathematician and astronomer John Couch Adams (1819-1892), astronomer John Flamsteed (1646-1719) and Isaac Newton. But because he has challenged the Holocaust establishment using science and reason, all his work was removed from the Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers.

Kollerstrom was widely cited in the scholarly literature[2]—until he began to look at chemical evidence for how Zyklon was used during World War II. Graham Macklin, manager of the research service at the National Archives, scorns at Kollerstrom’s claims that Auschwitz-Birkenau had a swimming pool for inmates and that the inmates themselves used to listen to orchestras.[3]



JEA: You write that both Russia and France were “wanted war -they believed they had territories they could only get back from Germany by war.” What territories and what did they do to invent a war?

NK: France wanted Alsace-Lorraine back. Russia wanted an area around Constantinople back.

What they did to invent a war: France sent message of total support to Russian Czar for war, on 31st July, while Russia was mobilizing a million troops on Germany’s border at the end of July. The Kaiser was still sending desperate telegrams to the Czar urging him to stop doing this, and to preserve the peace of Europe. The Czar sort of wanted peace but was too old and feeble to restrain his military. I recommend any books by the great American revisionist Harry Elmer Barnes on this topic.

JEA: You also write: “The other nation that wanted war was Serbia, but not with Germany – it wanted war with Austria, because it had dreams of a greater Serbia, and it believed that war was a way of getting this, and it believed that, although it was smaller, Russia would support it. So those were the countries that actually wanted war, and the situation was, that Russia would never have dared to go to war with Germany, unless it believed that France was supporting it, and France wouldn’t have dared to support Russia in war against Germany, unless it believed that Britain was supporting it. Britain had as such no motive for going to war with Germany, unlike France or Russia. So the Question is, did Britain want to do it? Did it initiate this situation, this cataclysm?”

And your answer? Expand on that for us here.

NK: I argue yes, elements within Britain did want to start the war, as shown by them discussing the printing of war-bonds with Lord Rothschild back in 25 July, a week before war was declared – when Parliament knew nothing about any war. (p.34) And then Churchill sent the whole British fleet up to a war-ready position outside Germany on July 28th – when the Kaiser had just returned from his summer holiday and was discussing how to resolve the Serbia-Austria conflict.

The only motive Britain had for war was imperialistic, ie to ‘smash Germany’ because its steel production had come to rival Britain’s, etc.

JEA: on page 5, you argue that there is a “secret elite,” a shadow government which “dragged” Britain to both wars. Can you expand on this a bit?

NK: The Secret Elite was described at length in the classic works by Carroll Quigley, (‘Tragedy and Hope’) – the ‘round table’ of Brits who dreamed of world-domination. This ‘secret elite’ pushed the two public figures Grey and Churchill towards war. Churchill did not need much pushing because he always loved war above all other things, however Grey was more equivocal and duplicitous. For more recent books on the subject I recommend Hidden History by Gerry Docherty and Jim McGregor. But also ‘The Unnecessary war’ by Patrick Buchanan is excellent.

JEA: You write that Kaiser Wilhelm was “a peacemaker” and cite the New York Times and even a former US president to support that statement. You quote former US president William Howard Taft saying: “‘The truth of history requires the verdict that, considering the critically important part which has been his among the nations, he has been, for the last quarter of a century, the single greatest force in the practical maintenance of peace in the world.”

NK: How did that happen? The Kaiser was simply outwitted by the Brits and their war-plans. But also I can’t help feeling that if he had NOT gone on that summer vacation the week before he might have had a firmer grip on the situation: Serbia was just returning its ultimatum to Austria around the 26th July, as he came home – If he’d been a bit earlier maybe he could have instructed Austria more forcibly so that it did NOT start bombing Serbia. He did tell them not to and to stop – but he was just a bit too late! Austria and Germany were ‘joined at the hip’ the same nation really so the Germany was deeply involved in whatever Austria did.

The New York Times declared in 1913: “He is acclaimed everywhere as the greatest factor for peace that our time can show. It was he, we hear, who again and again threw the weight of his dominating personality, backed by the greatest military organisation in the world – an organisation built up by himself – into the balance for peace wherever war clouds gathered over Europe.’”

You conclude: “In twenty-five years on the throne, he’d never gone to war and the German army hadn’t fought a battle in nearly half a century.” Wilhelm also had a deep love for England. So how did the Powers That Be go to war with a peacemaker? How did that happen?

JEA: You write that Winston Churchill loved the First World War. You quote him writing a letter to his wife Clementine and saying: “My Darling, everything tends towards catastrophe and collapse, but I am geared up and happy, is it not horrible to be built like that?” Churchill also said: “Why I would not be out of this glorious delicious war for anything the world could give me.” We know that Churchill was evil incarnate. I particularly wrote a piece on him last year. Tell us a bit more about him.

NK: What strikes me is the way Churchill never gave any coherent reason for the war, the ‘reasons’ he gave kept changing. The Brits loved his thunderous oratory although sometimes he was just too sozzled to give his speeches and a stand-in had to give therm. He could well appeal to the very worst side of the British people, their need for an Enemy to hate and fear, a fully-demonized enemy who cannot be negotiated with because it is evil! Like Mordor in the Tolkein epic, it just has to be destroyed – and the Brits love him because they love the concept of a great war of Good versus Evil.

To this day Brits do not know and are not taught of the three-month gap after Britain began bombing German cities and before Germany retaliated; nor are they ever taught of the nonstop cascade of peace-offers from Germany all through the war. They are just given the crappy narrative of Germany wanting world-domination and so ‘they must be stopped.’

  • [1] See for example Nicholas Kollerstrom, “John Herschel on the Discovery of Neptune,” Journal of Astronomical History and Heritage, 9(2), 151-158 (2006); “Decoding the Antikythera Mechanism,” Astronomy Now, Vol. 21, No. 3, 32–35, 2007; “The Case of the Pilfered Planet: Did the British steal Neptune?,” Scientific American, December 1, 2004; “Overview/Neptune Discovery,” Scientific American, November 22, 2004.
  • [2] See for example William L. Harper, Isaac Newton’s Scientific Method: Turning Data into Evidence about Gravity and Cosmology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 65, 162; Nicholas Campion, A History of Western Astrology, Volume II: The Medieval and Modern Worlds (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2009), 310; James Gleick, Isaac Newton (New York: Vantage Books, 2004), 226; Roger Hutchins, British University Observatories 1772-1939 (New York: Routledge, 2008), 91, 94, 105, 117, 155, 156, 158, 460, 467.
  • [3] igel Copsey and John E. Richardson, eds., Cultures of Post-War British Fascism (New York: Routledge, 2015), 190.

ATTENTION READERS

We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed
In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.

About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

14 COMMENTS

  1. Rhodes worked for the Rothschilds. The Boer War and the role of Rhodes and Milner in creating that conflict is probably the best case study of how the false flag cassus belli for war tactic is used. See the Jameson Raid and the subsequent political machinations of Rhodes and Milner and how they used the British press to stir up the public and generate anti-Boer sentiments.

  2. If you say in a European school that Britain initiated both world wars, you would get F in history, but when you look at it, Britain profited like hell from all those wars, gaining influence and concessions, drawing Middle East borders etc. When you think of El Alamein (key WWII confrontation) battle alone there is no explanation for it other than British domination over resources. Britain treats Europe like a social projects hub or factory, and prefers and cherishes alliances far far from Europe. If Skripal case isnt enough to prove that then nothing is.

    • Britain most certainly did not profit from the two world wars, quite the opposite – they destroyed Britain, impoverished us, left our country devastated. We bankrupted ourselves fighting those wars and were left with a country where what hadn’t been destroyed by war had been worn out by the intense use of the wartime years. For instance,Britain’s railways have never recovered, to the point where we have had to lose half of the pre-WWI network just to be able to keep the remainder going. Then there is the immense loss of wealth, we were the richest country on Earth before WWI, by the time it was over, we were almost bankrupt. The world wars were incredibly bad for Britain, the nation still bears the scars.

      El Alamein was a vital battle, if Rommel and the Afrika Korps had not been stopped an then defeated there, he would have taken Egypt and the vital Suez Canal, then there was very little to stop him taking the entire Middle East, most critically the British owned and operated oil fields in Iraq and Iran, which would have meant Germany could have fought much more effectively and for far longer. Rommel could then have attacked Russia from the south – the war would have been very different and the Germans might have won it.

  3. This article makes a huge error by completely ignoring the true culprits behind both world wars and instead blames the British and some spurious ‘secret elite’. The simple truth of the matter is that both wars were created by international Jewish bankers who were spread out in many countries, not just Britain. The actual spark that ignited WWI – the killing of Archduke Franz Ferdnand in Sarajevo was the work of these Jewish bankers. The Black Hand terrorist group was indeed Serbian, but it was financed by the Jewish bankers and had been deeply infiltrated by them. The group of young men sent to Sarajevo to carry out the killing was arranged and paid for by Jewish bankers in London – the Rothschilds primarily, and the arrangements and organisation carried out via the Serbian diplomatic service and Masonic P2 lodges in the Balkan, primarily in Salonika. The letter sent from the Serbian Legation in London to Serbia organising the final payment and instructions was published in the British magazine John Bull, it had been intercepted by he intelligence services and leaked to the press, but only John Bull was brave enough to publish it -showing how the mass media was just as compliant back then as it is today. The letter was written in Ladino, which is the language of the Sephardic Jews of the Mediterranean, it is a corrupted, low form of Spanish and is spoken by the Sephardic Jews living throughout the Balkans and Greece, where many had settled after being expelled from Spain in 1492.

    • The author blames Britain, which is incorrect, they also made reference to a secret elite yet fail to specify just who they are referring to, which is disingenuous. Yes, one of the goals of WWI and WWII was to smash Germany, but to single out Britain for blame is entirely incorrect.

    • Serbs always act very russophile. but the fact is that WW1 killed Russian Crown, Bolsheviks just finalized the job with million casualities.

    • Ian: We are not ignoring this crucial point. In fact, the intention was to talk about these issues in multiple articles. You are absolutely right in saying that there were “international Jewish bankers who were spread out in many countries, not just Britain.” This has been historically documented. Churchill himself was a puppet of Ernest Cassel, who “was widely disliked and distrusted as a ‘cosmopolitan financier,’ whose loyalty was neither to party or nation, but only to profits.” There were other forces at work as well. As German Jewish poet and writer Heinrich Heine himself put it: “No one does more to further the revolution than the Rothschilds themselves…and, though it may sound even more strange, these Rothschilds, the bankers of kings, these princely pursestring-holders, whose existence might be placed in the gravest danger by a collapse of the European state system, nevertheless carry in their minds a consciousness of their revolutionary mission.” So we understand who “the elite” and the oligarchic system were. But to explore all these things in a condensed article would not do justice to the deep issues.

    • Well why give the article such a misleading title then? It’s a bit late now, after publishing the article to backtrack and say you realise it wasn’t just Britain to blame.

    • This is not a misleading tittle or a backtrack. Britain ultimately did initiate both World Wars. The “Jewish bankers” could not do the work on their own. And we never said that it was Britain ALONE. For example, the United States did create a disaster in Iraq in 2003, and Bush was the guy who was used as a puppet to herald that disaster. But the debacle itself was an essentially Neoconservative ideology. That’s the argument. Again, to detail all the intricacies that could be discussed in a condensed article is just not wise.

    • What you call intricacies are actually important facts and their omission makes the article disingenuous and deeply flawed. Britain did NOT initiate both world wars, they were both complex supranational plots and no nation is to blame, the machinations were at a level above nation states and their governments; the forces used to initiate the wars were what we now call non state actors.

    • No nation is to blame? Is that a serious argument? Can we honestly say that the United States is not to blame as well for the Iraq war? For Afghanistan? Can we honestly say that Britain has no responsibility at all in both World War I and World War II? And can we honestly say that Trump is not to take some responsibility as well for much of the debacle in the Middle East and the US? We know he is being used by the Israeli regime and his accolades such as Jared Kushner in the White House, but he has to take some blame. That’s the point.

    • In the case of both world wars, no nation is to blame, in both instances, the nations stumbled into the conflict, they had no intention to go to war but through the machinations of the supranational actors behind the scenes, war came about. Dozens, if not hundreds of books have been written about the failure of diplomacy in the summer of 1914 and how the great powers ‘sleepwalked’ into war. There was only one power that wanted a war that summer and that was Austria-Hungary, which wanted a small, short war against Serbia. On the national level, there simply is no blame to apportion, once the process was set in motion by Princip’s bullets, there was no stopping it because the plans for that war had been carefully laid out years before.

      At a millionaires’ club on Jekyl Island, Georgia, in November, 1910, the problem of financing a world war was resolved. Paul Warburg, of Kuhn, Loeb Co., and Henry P. Davison, of J. P. Morgan Co., met with Senator Nelson Aldrich to secretly draft a plan for an American central bank.

      On December 23, 1913, Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law.

      The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, the heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was carried out at Sarajevo on June 28, 1914.

      On July 11, 1914, Horatio Bottomley published in John Bull a document obtained from the Serbian Legation in London, dated April 14, 1914, which was found to be in “crude Spanish,” and which was decoded to reveal an offer of two thousand pounds for “eliminating” Ferdinand. In fact the language was not Spanish, but a language defined in the Encyclopaedia Judaica as “Ladino,” also known as “Latino,” “a Judeo-Spanish spoken and written language of Jews of Spanish origin after expulsion in 1492 by Ferdinand and Isabella.

      This is how that war was created, it was at a level above national governments, a world inhabited by international financiers and bankers, the parents and grandparents of the people who are behind the wars the world suffers in the present day, for these people represent a small number of banking families that have been the real power controlling our world for centuries, they can be traced back to Venice in the 15th century, they ran the African slave trade, they financed the rise and fall of empires, they created every war and they all happen to be Jewish; their names have changed over the years, but today they are known as Rothschild, Goldsmith, Rockefeller, Morgan etc. This is where the blame lies, not with any nation, but with a handful of very rich and powerful families.

    • I’m not sure if you did answer the central point that I raised earlier. If no nation is to be blamed, then there is no way we can hold the very nations that went into war accountable for anything whatsoever. I agree that the bankers and other forces were behind the wars; I agree that they were the ones who instigated the whole thing. But they could not have done so without the cooperation of other entities in the nation. Shouldn’t Winston Churchill, for example, be held accountable for the mess that he created during both wars? I again need to go back to the Iraq war. Can we seriously say that the United States does not have some responsibility in which Iraq was loused up in 2003? Can we seriously say that Bush should not be held accountable for following the Neoconservative ideology? Can we seriously say that Trump should not be held accountable for the debacle in Syria right after he took office? If that is so, then we cannot write things like “Trump is a monster” because he was just following the dictates of the Israeli regime. If your argument is taken to its logical conclusion, then it could easily be argued that Trump just happens to stumble upon the conflict in the Middle East. It’s just that simple.

    • No, nations should not be apportioned blame, blame can only be accurately attributed on a supra national level. In every war I can think of, all nations involved were victims, they all lost, no-one really won. Take Britain in WWI for instance, it cost us almost a million lives and left us almost bankrupt, with our industries and transport so worn out it all had to be replaced or scraped, we never recovered from that war and only escaped bloody revolution and anarchy in the 1920s by the skin of our teeth as a result of the war. Yet we were supposedly the winners? What did we win – poverty, death and debt? France suffered even worse, then there is Serbia, another of the ‘victorous’ nations, which lost half it’s population and saw the entire country wrecked.

      All warring nations are victims of the supranational forces that create the wars, the peoples of those nations do the suffering, a tiny elite that govern them on behalf of the bankers do alright out of it, but for the other 99.9% there is nothing good or beneficial about war, we are all victims.

Comments are closed.