A Modern Day Crusade for the Holy Land Part II

Originally published as Chapter 2 of my book The Empire on Which the Black Sun Never Set.

[For Part I of this series refer here.]

A ‘Reformed’ Anti-Semitism: Fascists for Zionism

As previously mentioned, Kalergi’s father Heinrich published Das Wesen des Antisemitismus (The Essence of Antisemitism), what was originally meant to be a confirmation of anti-Semitism and turned into a support for the Zionist cause.

In 1935, Kalergi had his father’s book translated, with his edits and an addendum, titling the book Anti-Semitism Throughout the Ages.^[1] In Kalergi’s introduction, he describes his father as:^[2]

“Intellectually he was almost a free-thinker, but he remained a convinced Christian and a Catholic in his heart. His Christianity was irrational; he found it confirmed through Buddha and Schopenhauer in his ascetic and mystic nature. Although a pious Christian, he nevertheless remained until his death a disciple of Schopenhauer…How came this Catholic aristocrat of Aryan descent to intercede in favour of the Jews against their persecutors?”

Recall, Richard’s father Heinrich was a Jesuit trained diplomat for the Austro-Hungarian Empire who knew how to speak eighteen languages. He was raised with anti-Semitic convictions and has his epiphany towards the cause of Zionism while working on his treatise on anti-Semitism.

Heinrich Coundenhove-Kalergi writes:^[3] “’The best definition of the Jews,’ says the great Schopenhauer, ‘still remains that of a nation.’…What are the Jews in reality? They are an artificial nation, a compound of numerous nationalities brought about by a common religion, formed both by a voluntary and a forced separation from the other nations and by the prohibition of mixed marriages, all of which have been the result of religious principles…The definition applicable to the Jews would therefore be: ‘an artificial nation created by religious rules and ordinances and compounded of numerous racial elements.’

…Zionism is the inevitable result of Anti-Semitism. Both phenomena arise from the same root and have the same nature, being only different expressions for the same thing, although, of course, there is not a shadow of understanding between the Zionists and the Anti-Semites.

…We notice how all over the world both religious and national fanaticism are flaring up anew; we see how the latter is availing itself of religious particularism…Very frequently it is even difficult to say which is the driving force, whether politics or religion. Where, however, as is the case with the Jewish question, oppositions cannot be reconciled…where hatred and aversion, in spite of all attempts, are continually increasing, there separation is best for all parties. This separation the Zionist movement intends to bring about. The aim of Zionism, a movement which has now spread among the Jews all over the world, is to make it possible for the Jews in all countries to emigrate and to form a united nation and a Jewish State in Palestine. This is the one and only radical remedy possible for the present, for considering the small degree of enlightenment and of humanity to be met with today, it will take a long time before one may count upon peace and justice.

‘Out with the Jews’ is the cry resounding everywhere in Anti-Semitic camps. Very well, but whither? ‘That is not our business,’ reply the Anti-Semites, ‘that is for the Jews to decide; it is their concern where to go – but it is nothing to us.’ No, I say, it is very much the concern of the Anti-Semites, for the neighbouring States, too, shout: ‘Out with the Jews,’ and when one State ejects the Jews the neighbouring State sends them back and avails itself of the opportunity offered to smuggle in its own Jews and then one is just as far as before. The question ‘Whither with the Jews’ is therefore one which every State must seriously think how to solve, and it is worth their while to take counsel together and to arrive at a common decision. Once a country has been found and all the Jews have been proclaimed citizens of that country, then indeed they will be aliens and strangers among us; then, for aught I care, the desired specific laws may be promulgated without trampling under foot progress and enlightenment, humanity and Christian charity; then, without being cruel, one may behave against the Jews in such a way as to make them sick of and disgusted with a sojourn in a foreign land.  Then Anti-Judaism will no longer be cruel, although certainly narrow-minded and unwise, particularly very, very unwise. For it must be borne in mind that the Jews are one of the most highly gifted and talented nations in the world…the expelling State is the greatest loser, while the hospitable State which offers shelter to the exiles derives the benefit.

…But I am convinced that the great and wonderful nation of the Jews – Reform-Jewry, of course, never and never orthodox Jewry – is still destined one day to bring salvation and blessing to all mankind…”

What Heinrich is stating, is that it is not possible for both Jews and Christians to live harmoniously together, at least not with a large prevalence of ‘unreformed’ Jews; defined by Heinrich as Jews who refuse to be assimilated into Western Christian civilization. Heinrich claims he does not see one superior to the other, and that the exodus of the Jews is the Christian world’s loss, until we can live in a time of greater tolerance, peace and justice. Thus, the only solution in Heinrich’s eyes for the present, is to aid these ‘unreformed’ Jews to move to a homeland far away from Western Christian civilization; then anti-Semitism will not be so cruel for they will have a place to go where they can call home, whereas presently these ‘unreformed’ Jews have no where to go when faced with intolerance for their religion and culture.

Heinrich Coudenhove-Kalergi writes:^[4] “Oppressions and specific laws have developed the Jewish intellect and its capacity for work to the highest degree – at the expense of all other organs, particularly at the expense of the physical capacity of production. But then the Christian States should at least make an attempt to try to derive some profit from these intellectual gifts which they themselves have trained. Instead of expelling the Jews, of oppressing them and thus crowding them into business concerns where, the Christians pretend, they develop such a pernicious activity, the Christian States ought to put the Jews to the chariot of progress.

Five-sixths of the whole Jewry are in the highest degree interested in the accomplishment and the attainment of the aims of Zionism. Five-sixths of all the Jews in the world are ready to emigrate and to betake themselves to the Jewish States which is to be founded. It is not true what the Anti-Semites say that the Jews would not go…Try it, gentlemen, work for Zionism and you will soon see how crowds of Jews will emigrate… Should the aims of Zionism not be realized, cruel catastrophes are imminent, dangers of which no man can tell whether they will be limited to the Jews alone. Once the populace has been let loose, it will hardly make any distinction between Jewish and Christian capital, and if the moneyed Jews are threatened, the Jews themselves will set the mob against the Christians. They will say, and who could blame them for it: ‘If we are to be ruined financially, we are not going to crash alone; no, the rich Christians, too, shall be ruined in our company,’ and they will know well enough how to manage it.

May the Jews, therefore, emigrate if they so wish it, and let us be sure not to put any obstacles in their way, and let us work for the Zionist idea.”

Heinrich has made it abundantly clear that he regards the segregation of the ‘unreformed’ Jews as a merciful act, very similar in many ways to the defense Woodrow Wilson put forth in the segregation of the blacks from the whites, in order to avoid “friction”. Thus, segregation from this standpoint is meant to ‘protect’ the ‘unwanted’ race/religion/culture from the hatred of the Western Christian world.

As was also made clear in the previous chapter, Oswald Mosley viewed Africa for the blacks as one large labour camp that would serve as the coal furnace for the needs of white Europe. It appears that Heinrich is hinting at a similar vision for the ‘unreformed’ Jews, whose special gifts are not the “physical capacity of production” such as Africa was regarded, but rather for their “intellectual gifts.” Heinrich asks why should the Christian States not “at least make an attempt to try to derive some profit from these intellectual gifts which they themselves [the Christians] have trained…the Christian States ought to put the Jews to the chariot of progress.” It appears Heinrich is stating that much profit can be made by grouping all the ‘unreformed’ Jews together, where they can be put “to the chariot of progress.”

It is at this point in the book, that Richard’s writings are added as an addendum in 1935 to his father’s original publication from 1901.

Richard Coundehove-Kalergi writes:^[5] “When an alien body penetrates into an organism it is either eliminated or assimilated.

When the gates of the ghetto were opened, the Jewish alien body penetrated into the European organism, and the crisis which thus arose will last until the Jews will either have left Europe or been assimilated by the remaining Europeans. It will last until one portion of the Jews will have chosen one way and another the other way, that is, to say, until the Jews will have ceased to be minorities. The two radical ways leading to this goal are Zionism and Assimilation.

…Zionism is the most consistent retort to Anti-Semitism. It accepts the latter as a fact and endeavours to render the fate of the Jews independent of the consent of the non-Jews. It wishes the Jews to take their destiny into their own hands and to shape it by means of an historical deed…This aim of Zionism has been pursuing for over a generation with a wonderful perseverance and directness. The movement has already scored an international historical success: the Balfour Declaration and the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine…The Zionist idea in itself is still right and consistent, but the choice of Palestine as the new home was dictated by romance rather than by reason. There is a danger of the Jewish exodus to Palestine sharing one day the fate of its Christian predecessors, viz. the Crusaders; there is the danger of the strength of the Arabic world on Syrian soil proving much stronger than all the plans of the Western world. Strategically it is difficult to defend Palestine against any attack by land. The Pan-Arabian idea is on the increase and it will never voluntarily renounce this coast and Jerusalem which for the Mohammedans, too, is a holy city. A clash between the Zionist and Pan-Arabian ideas is threatening.”

What Richard is writing here is almost indistinguishable from Oswald Mosley’s own writings. Recall from the previous chapter that Mosley thought of the ‘Jewish question’ in terms of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Jews, meaning respectively, those who are assimilated and those who do not wish to assimilate into ‘patriots’ of their countries. Mosley had a similar quote akin to Richard’s description of “when an alien body penetrates into an organism it is either eliminated or assimilated.” Mosley wrote in his magazine Action, describing the Corporate State as the “conception of a society working with precision and the harmony of a human body. Every interest and every individual is subordinate to the overriding purpose of the nation…if something is not in harmony with this then it must be a microbe, a virus harmful to the body.”^[6] Recall that Oswald Mosley was also for the formation of a homeland for the Jews, and supported the League of Nations initiative for the Balfour Declaration.

What is also disturbing by Richard’s above quote is that he clearly recognizes that the mobilisation of millions of Jews into Palestine is clearly not going to go over well with the Arabs in this region. Richard refers to the “Pan-Arabian idea is on the increase” as problematic. Recall, Richard never spoke about any Pan-Arabism or Pan-Africanism in his six regional zones under the League of Nations; consisting of the British Commonwealth, Pan-America, European Union, Soviet Union, China, and Japan. Thus, Richard who speaks as if he has the utmost respect for Islam, clearly sees it as playing no role in the new Holy Alliance. In fact, it rather looks like this very predictable clash between the ‘unreformed’ Zionist Jews and Pan-Arabia is exactly what they want to bring about, let them thin the herd themselves perhaps?[7] Was the lesson of the Crusades that one should have others do the fighting for you?

Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi continues:[8] “The second objection to the choice of Palestine is the fact of its being too small a country to offer shelter to the Jews in the event of a catastrophe in Europe. Should, for instance, a nationalist Anti-Semitic regime succeed the Communist rule in the Soviet Union, the question of immigration will become a vital one for two and a half million Jews. Should Anti-Semitism be victorious in Poland, the existence of another three million Jews will be at stake. Much as the Zionists may hope that such a catastrophe will never occur, their old and new experiences ought to tell them to be prepared for the worst. The problem of six million unassimilated Jews in the East is the most serious problem of Jewry. The shadow which has fallen over the Jews in Germany is a warning, for no one knows whether it is the last act or a mere prelude to a more poignant drama.

…The Jews, therefore…are on the look out for a land where there is room enough for millions of Jews and where they can be sure of being able to constitute the majority of the population without difficulty. The tablelands of the Great Portuguese Colony of Angola seem best fitted to meet these requirements, and the latest plans for Jewish settlements on a large scale are directed towards this country…Whether the choice will fall on Angola or on another part of Africa, of America or Australia, the idea of a Jewish home has anyhow been launched by Zionism and will not rest until the great goal will have been attained.”

This is an especially eerie quote from Richard, who chillingly predicts that the rise of anti-Semitism will create in the next few years a forced mass exodus of the “unassimilated Jews in the East.” He claims that the Jews in the West are assimilated, and thus the “Jewish problem” is contained in Eastern Europe. According to Richard, all of these “unassimilated Jews in the East” will have to leave, totalling about six million, however, Palestine is not big enough to fit them all. Thus, Richard concludes that the Great Portuguese Colony of Angola will do nicely! If one were under the illusion that this was about the Jews returning to their homeland in Jerusalem, the spell should now be fully broken. Richard makes it clear that these “unassimilated Jews of the East” will require dumping zones for their people and Africa, a continent far removed from Western Christian civilization, appears to be the most promising use for this. And thus, the Jews and Africans are increasingly in a similar predicament under this segregated vision of the New World Order under the Holy Alliance of the League of Nations.

In fact, it was Joseph Chamberlain, one of Mosley’s idols, who was the first to promote Britain’s support for the Zionist cause. After meeting Theodor Herzl in October 1902, Chamberlain offered Herzl in April 1903 British territory in East Africa, known as the Uganda Scheme (even though the territory in question was Kenya). The Zionist Organization rejected the proposal, as did the British settlers in East Africa, however, it was still regarded as a major break-through in making it a priority of Great Britain to find a territory for Jewish autonomy under British suzerainty. They would finally accomplish this in 1918 under the British Mandate of Palestine.^[9] [10]

Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi continues:[11] “…While some form of Zionism remains the solution of the Jewish question for the seven million of Eastern Jews who are clinging to their national ideal and to their rigid religious laws, the solution to the Jewish question for West and North Europe is called assimilation. In these European States, to the west, the north and the south of Germany and Austria (including Great Britain and Italy)…The majority of these Jews are thoroughly assimilated. They speak the same mother-tongue as their non-Jewish fellow-countrymen, have the same customs, the same education, the same moral and social ideas and conceptions. They feel themselves French patriots in France, English in England, Italian in Italy and Dutch in Holland. They are more closely bound up with their non-Jewish fellow-countrymen than with the national Jews in Poland or in Palestine. In spite of the Anti-Semitic prejudice from which not one European nation is exempt, they are considered and treated as fellow-countrymen by the overwhelming majority of their fellow-citizens. A remnant of Anti-Semitism does, of course, still exist, but every individual is able to dispel this prejudice by his personal qualities and actions. The number of fanatical Anti-Semites is relatively small.

These Jews have no cause to leave their respective native lands for the sake of the Zionist idea. Nor have they any inclination to profess themselves members of the Jewish nation, for they feel themselves to be Frenchmen, Englishmen, or Italians of the Jewish persuasion…The majority of these Jews look askance at Zionism, for the constant stress laid on Jewish nationalism facilitate to the Anti-Semites the task of identifying the Jewish religion with the Jewish nation, in order to consider the Jews and to treat them as aliens.

Such an attitude towards Zionism is, however, unjust, for it is in the interest of the Eastern Jewish problem. Should Zionism succeed in finding the solution, the assimilation of the Western Jews, instead of being rendered more difficult, will, on the contrary, be facilitated.”

Pan-Europeanism Meets International Fascism

“Germans, French, English, Czechs, Hungarians —all belonged to the one great paternal class of Europeans, children of a single race, a single continent, a single civilization, and a single destiny.”^[12]

-           Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi’s Crusade for Pan-Europe (1943)

Kalergi did not stop at recruiting European fascists to his Pan-European cause but met numerous kindred spirits from Nazi Germany, the United States and Great Britain as well.

Kalergi writes^[13]: “Two…brilliant German personalities were at this time converted to the Pan-European movement. The first was Hjalmar Schacht. His vivid mind was fascinated by the prospect of a European currency and federal banking system, and hopeful of the idea of equality among the competing European nations on the African continent. When the German branch of the Pan-European Union held its first meeting in the assembly hall of the Reichstag, it was Schacht who was the principal orator in favor of Pan-Europe…

Another important German sympathizer was the chancellor, Hans Luther…”

Hjalmar Schacht was the President of the Central Bank (Reichsbank) from 1923-1930 & 1933-1939 and was Minister of Economics from August 1934 - November 1937. Hans Luther was appointed Schacht’s successor as president of the Reichsbank on March 11^th, 1930. After the Nazis seized power in 1933, Luther acceded to a demand by Hitler and resigned his post on March 16^th, 1933. He was, however, offered the post of Ambassador of Nazi Germany to the United States which he accepted, and served from 1933 to 1937.^[14] In 1933, Luther lectured at the Columbia University campus, where he stressed Hitler’s “peaceful intentions” toward his European neighbours. There was a great deal of protest from Columbia’s students at this invitation of a Nazi to their university. Nicholas Murray Butler, Columbia’s president, rejected student appeals to cancel the invitation, calling the request “illiberal” and citing the need for academic freedom.^[15]

Butler was a long-time admirer of Benito Mussolini. He compared the Italian Fascist leader to Oliver Cromwell.^[16] In the 1920s, he noted “the stupendous improvement which Fascism has brought”.^[17] Months after the 1933 Nazi book burnings, he welcomed the Nazi ambassador to the United States to Columbia and likewise refused to appear with a notable German dissident when the latter visited the university. Kalergi describes Nicholas Murray Butler as “one of my most active friends and supporters in the United States…who presided over both Columbia university and the Carnegie Peace Foundation. He wrote the foreword to the American edition of my book Pan-Europe.”^[18]

Kalergi writes:^[19] “I never saw nor attempted to see Adolf Hitler or any other leader of his party. I met some ex-Nazis – Hermann Rauschning in Paris and Otto Strasser in Switzerland. I also met some future Nazis, such as Walter Funk, Schacht’s successor as minister of economy and president of the Reichsbank, and General Haushofer, head of the Geopolitical Institute in Munich, before they joined Hitler’s cause.”

What Kalergi fails to divulge is that some of his “ex-Nazi” acquaintances were not in the full sense of the term “ex-Nazi,” such as Otto Strasser who did indeed leave the Nazi party breaking from the Hitlerite faction, but only in order to form his own Nazi party named the Black Front (Kampfgemeinschaft Revolutionärer Nationalsozialisten) which he intended to use to take power from Hitler. Strasser would form his own brand of Nazism, Strasserism. Kalergi was most definitely aware of this, thus, it is a rather strange and suspect attempt at a defense.

In addition, though Kalergi claims he never met with Walther Funk, Hjalmar Schacht or Karl Haushofer once they joined the Nazi party, he nevertheless, continues to speak about them in almost reverential terms and appears to take pride that they were likely using his ideas to shape the thinking of Hitler.

Kalergi writes:[20] “[Haushofer is] A man of rare knowledge and culture, he had nothing of the usual arrogance of a Prussian officer, everything of the polite and courteous type of a Bavarian gentleman. Before the First World War he had been a German military attaché in Tokyo, and from then on became Japan’s greatest German admirer and friend. He wrote a standard work about the country and devoted all his energy to establishing close relations between Germany and Japan…Haushofer had little interest in geography as such, only as a basis for power-political views…

He was a sincere admirer of Britain’s empire-builders…He was a close personal friend of Rudolf Hess. Hess, who had participated in Hitler’s Munich putsch in 1923, became a fugitive when the revolution miscarried, and sought shelter in Haushofer’s home…Hess…became his enthusiastic disciple. When Hess and Hitler were locked up in Landsberg and began to collaborate on the Nazi bible, Mein Kampf, Hess called in the general-professor [Haushofer] for help and advice.

I am positive that Hitler’s sympathy for Japan was inspired by Haushofer…Thanks to Haushofer Hitler accepted the paradoxical idea of an alliance with the only world power which is without a single ‘Aryan’ strain.

Haushofer had sympathized with our movement [Pan-Europe] for years. He even was a guest lecturer at one of our conferences. When, in 1929, I had organised a Pan-Europe meeting in Munich, he attended the Pan-Europe dinner afterwards…

Haushofer, Schacht, Funk did and probably still do everything to convince Hitler of the necessity of creating some kind of European federation under German hegemony…”

It was Haushofer’s conception of Geopolitik, through Rudolf Hess, that inspired Hitler’s expansionist strategies. Kalergi wrote, “In spite of his geopolitical leanings, Haushofer remained a Bavarian monarchist.”

Kalergi had met with Schacht numerous times throughout the 1920s to the early 1930s. Kalergi was in Germany the fall and winter of 1932 and January 1933.^[21] He would meet Schacht for the last time on January 30^th, 1933. Kalergi had been invited by the S.S.S. Club in Berlin (which stood for the last names of Walter Simons, General von Seeckt, and Wilhelm Solf) to give a presentation on Pan-Europe. The S.S.S. Club was described by Kalergi as a group that “united influential men of all parties and professions and was at that time Germany’s most important political club.”^[22] The meeting was held at the Hotel Kaiserhorf, Hitler’s headquarters. It was also where Kalergi’s Pan-European movement headquarters was located for ten years (1923-1933).

Kalergi writes:^[23] “But Hjalmar Schacht was of a different opinion. ‘Within three months Hitler will be German chancellor,’ he told me, and added with his usual vivacity, ‘but don’t be afraid of such a development. Hitler is the only man able to reconcile Germany with the Western powers. He’ll bring about Pan-Europe, you’ll see…Hitler will succeed because he had no opposition from the Right…Hitler alone need not fear the Right and is certain to secure peace and collaboration in Europe.’…

A few days later…On January 29, Hindenburg suddenly dismissed Von Schleicher and asked Hitler to form a new government.”

Hitler officially became Chancellor of Germany on January 30^th, 1933. Thus, Kalergi would speak to the S.S.S. Club in Berlin on the topic of Pan-Europe, the day Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, at Hitler’s headquarters…

On to Kalergi’s escapades in Britain. The first Englishman Kalergi meets who was “seriously interested in Pan-Europe” was Henry Wickham Steed, former chief editor of The Times, based in London. Lord Northcliffe[24] had bought The Times in 1908. In 1914, under the direction of Lord Northcliffe, Steed had urged the British Empire to enter the First World War. Steed was a known anti-Semite and in 1920 had endorsed the anti-Semitic forgery The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,[25] in an editorial for The Times, for which he blamed the Jews for the First World War and that the Bolshevik regime, a plot of “international Jewish financiers” was the greatest threat to the British Empire.^[26]

It was this man whom Kalergi would thank for opening doors in Britain for his Pan-Europe cause.

Kalergi writes:^[27] “The first Englishman who was seriously interested in Pan-Europe was Henry Wickham Steed, the former chief editor of the London Times, who had played a decisive rôle during the last war. He knew Europe’s problems well – better, in fact, than almost anyone in Britain. In the years preceding the war he had lived in Vienna, where he had known my mother and other members of my family socially. I had met him while a student at Theresianum Academy. His looks recalled seventeenth century courier rather than a modern Englishman. Twentieth century clothes never seemed in keeping with his inner dignity and style.

…His help was invaluable during my London stay. He brought me into touch with men like Ramsay MacDonald, Lord Robert Cecil, Lord Reading, Lord Balfour…George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, Philip Kerr (the future Lord Lothian), and Lionel Curtis.[28] Many of these men sympathized with the idea of a European union.”

One noteworthy feature of every single one of these individuals is their role as leading members of the Cecil Rhodes-Milner Round Table Movement and Fabian Society. Under the direction of Milner, Amery and Curtis, the Roundtable Movement was instrumental in a soft coup in Britain during the winter of 1916^[29] which unseated the labor government of Herbert Asquith and installed a Round Table Controlled government of Lloyd George which would now be well placed to shape the terms of the post-war order and League of Nations (see Appendix I).

Kalergi continues:^[30] “Only one Englishman was at that time ready to accept the consequences of European union and to support my plan wholeheartedly and effectively – the secretary of state for the dominions and colonies, L.S. Amery.

Amery is one of those men whose admirable qualities of character and mind make plausible why Britain became the world’s leading nation in the nineteenth century. He represents the tradition of the great empire builders and should be regarded as a legitimate successor of Disraeli and Joseph Chamberlain…after the fall of Norway, it was he who took the initiative in Parliament to oust Neville Chamberlain and put Churchill in his place as prime minister. Since then he has held one of the most difficult and important posts in the British Cabinet – the India Office.

…He agreed with me that the British Empire was a single political continent, as separate from Pan-Europe as it was from Pan-America. Our ideas about world organization, about pacifism, about the League of Nations, and about the defense of Western civilization were almost identical. And he championed the cause of Pan-Europe in a very effective manner. It was primarily due to him that no distrust of Pan-Europe arose in England and that nobody interpreted the movement as an attempt to separate Britain from the Continent. All through the coming years he remained my closest British friend and advisor in all matters of European union.”

Recall, Leo Amery was also one of the authors of the Balfour Declaration.

Kalergi continues:^[31] “…despite all articles and interviews about Pan-Europe, the American public remained only vaguely informed of our aims. I therefore decided that it might help the cause were I to plead it personally. However, the plan would not have matured so quickly without the good offices of my friend Max Warburg…Max Warburg had been one of the Pan-Europe’s earliest proselytes. He had two brothers living in the United States, Paul, the economist, and Felix, the philanthropist. At their suggestion the American Foreign Policy Association, directed by James MacDonald, invited me to deliver a series of dinner speeches throughout the United States.”

Max Warburg was the scion of the wealthy Warburg family based in Hamburg, Germany and was the director of M.M. Warburg & Co. from 1910 to 1938, overlapping with Nazi Germany.  He served on the board of the German Reichsbank under the governor Hjalmar Schacht for Nazi Germany, later emigrating to the United States in 1938.

Paul Warburg was the 2^nd Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve from 1916-1918, chief architect of the Federal Reserve Board of the United States. Felix Warburg, son-in-law of Jacob Schiff and partner in the Kuhn, Loeb & Co. bank^[32] and was founder and first president of the American Friends of the Hebrew University, which supported the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in British Mandate Palestine in 1925. Paul and Felix would be on the American Cooperative Committee of the Pan-European Union.

According to Kalergi, his introduction to Max Warburg occurred in 1924 through Baron Louis Rothschild. Warburg immediately gave a donation of sixty thousand gold-marks to see the movement through its first three years. Kalergi suggested the donation be divided equally between Germany and Austria. “We agreed on the appointment of two trustees: Geheimrat Fritsch of the Dresdner Bank for the German tranche and Vice-President Brosche of the Kreditanstalt for the Austrian tranche.”^[33]

The Dresdner Bank would later be a major stakeholder in the construction company for Auschwitz.^[34] The bank’s deputy director was Hjalmar Schacht from 1908-1915 and he would continue to work closely with the bank afterwards. The Dresdner Bank was known as the bank of choice of Heinrich Himmler’s SS.^{[35] [36]}

In 1925, after his visit to Britain, Kalergi sails for the United States. “To assuage American concerns, Max Warburg, in his usual friendly way, offered to make all necessary preparations for our journey.”^[37] Kalergi writes:^[38]

“The United States was at that time divided politically into isolationists, who opposed a policy of support for the League of Nations, and internationalists, who favoured such a policy. To my surprise I found that both groups were favourably inclined towards Pan-Europe: the isolationists looked upon European federation as an effective safeguard against the risk of entanglement in a new European war. The internationalists were aware that the creation of Pan-Europe would facilitate and hasten their entry into a regionally organized League.

…Among the many Americans with whom I discussed Pan-Europe at the time were Herbert Hoover, Secretary of State Frank Kellogg, Owen D. Young, Bernard Baruch, Walter Lippmann, Colonel House, General Tasker Bliss, Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Thomas Lamont, Justice Hughes…”

To give us an idea of what sort of political eco-system Kalergi was operating in, let us go through the resumé of these Americans interested in a Pan-Europe.

Herbert Hoover was President of the United States from March 1929 to March 1933. During his first year in office, the stock market crashed, signaling the onset of the Great Depression. Hoover was staunchly opposed to any intervention from the federal government in the U.S. economy and blamed the Mexicans for the Depression, instituting policies and sponsoring programs of repatriation and deportation to Mexico.^[39] Hoover strongly criticized Roosevelt’s foreign policy and New Deal promoting instead money printing to bail out speculators and austerity.

Frank Kellogg was Secretary of State from March 1925 to March 1929. He coauthored the Kellogg-Briand Pact. In 1924 he was appointed by President Coolidge as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Great Britain serving from January 1924 to February 1925. During his time in public office, Kellogg was one of the few republicans who supported eliminating national sovereignty in favour of ratifying the League of Nations covenant.

Owen D. Young was an American industrialist, businessman, lawyer and diplomat. He founded the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) as a subsidiary of General Electric in 1919 and became its first chairman where he remained until 1929. RCA was initially a patent trust owned by General Electric, Westinghouse, AT&T and the United Fruit Company[40]. In 1928 he was appointed to the board of trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation, serving on the board until 1939. He participated in Woodrow Wilson’s Second Industrial Conference and in 1924 coauthored the Dawes Plan and established the Young Plan in 1929. The Young Plan proposed to settle Germany’s WWI reparations which involved the creation of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) as the ‘central banks of central banks.’ The BIS would prove invaluable in the funding and growth of the Nazi war machine before and during the war.[41]

Bernard Baruch was an American financier and statesman. He amassed a fortune by the age of thirty on the New York Stock Exchange and founded the Intercontinental Rubber Company of New York. His partners were Nelson Aldrich, Daniel Guggenheim, John D. Rockefeller Jr., George Foster Peabody et al. By 1903 Baruch had his own brokerage firm and gained the reputation of ‘The Lone Wolf of Wall Street.’ In 1916 he left Wall Street to advise Woodrow Wilson on national defense and terms of peace. He served on the Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense and in January 1918 became the chairman of the new War Industries Board. Baruch was appointed a staff member at the Paris Peace Conference, he agreed with Wilson’s view that there needed to be new form of cooperation, as well as the creation of the League of Nations.

Walter Lippmann was an American writer and reporter. During the First World War he was commissioned a captain in the Army and was assigned to the intelligence section of the AEF (American Expeditionary Forces) headquarters in France. In this position, he was assigned to the staff of Colonel Edward Mandell House. Through his connection to House, Lippmann became an advisor to Woodrow Wilson and assisted in the drafting of his Fourteen Points speech. Lippmann would play a notable role in Woodrow Wilson’s post-WWI board of inquiry, as its research director. In 1932, Lippmann infamously dismissed the future President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s qualifications and demeanor, writing “Franklin D. Roosevelt is no crusader. He is no tribune of the people. He is no enemy of entrenched privilege. He is a pleasant man who, without any important qualifications for the office, would very much like to be President.” Despite Roosevelt’s later accomplishments, Lippmann stood by his words, stating “That I will maintain to my dying day was true of the Franklin Roosevelt of 1932.” He believed his judgement was an accurate summation of Roosevelt’s 1932 campaign, saying it was “180 degrees opposite the New Deal. The fact is that the New Deal was wholly improvised after Roosevelt was elected.”

Colonel Edward Mandell House was an American diplomat and adviser to Woodrow Wilson. He was Wilson’s chief adviser on European politics and diplomacy during the First World War. He did not hold an official political office but was an ‘executive agent.’ He became a government official as one of the five American commissioners to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. House played a major role in shaping wartime diplomacy. Wilson had House assemble ‘The Inquiry’, a team of academic experts to devise efficient postwar solutions to all the world’s problems. In September 1918, Wilson gave House the responsibility for preparing a constitution for a League of Nations. In October 1918, when Germany petitioned for peace based on the Fourteen Points, Wilson charged House with working out details of an armistice with the Allies. Diplomat and historian Philip Zelikow argues that House’s action and advice to Wilson in the 1916-1917 period significantly extended World War I.^[42] House helped Wilson outline his Fourteen Points and worked with the president in the drafting of the Treaty of Versailles and the Covenant of the League of Nations. House served on the League of Nations Commission on Mandates with Lord Milner and Lord Robert Cecil. On May 30^th, 1919, House participated in a meeting in Paris which laid the groundwork for the establishment of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the American branch of the British Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA) aka Chatham House. It should also be noted that Chatham House itself was created by the Round Table Movement as part of the Treaty of Versailles program in 1919.[43] Historian G. Edward Griffin situates Mandel House as a key figure in the drafting and passage of the Federal Reserve in 1913.[44]

General Tasker Bliss was a United States Army officer who served as Chief of Staff of the United States Army under Woodrow Wilson. He was also a diplomat involved in the peace negotiations of WWI and was one of the co-signatories of the Treaty of Versailles.

Hamilton Fish Armstrong was an American diplomat and editor. He became the managing editor of Foreign Affairs in 1922, the journal of the newly formed Council on Foreign Relations. That same year he also introduced the Lodge-Fish resolution that gave U.S. support to the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate of Palestine.

Thomas Lamont was an American banker who caught the attention of Henry P. Davison, who asked Lamont to join the new Bankers Trust. He started as secretary and treasurer and then moved up to being Vice President and then director. He rose to the vice presidency of the First National Bank.^[45] In 1911 he became a partner of J.P. Morgan & Co., following Davison to the bank.^[46] During the First World War, Lamont also served as an unofficial adviser to a mission of Allies, led by Edward M. House, as requested by President Woodrow Wilson.^[47] Both Lamont and Norman H. Davies were appointed as representatives of the Treasury Department to the Paris Peace Conference and had to determine what Germany had to pay in reparations. Lamont also helped draw up the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan. In the interwar period he was a spokesman for J.P. Morgan and was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. In 1926, Lamont described himself as “something like a missionary” for Italian fascism and secured a $100 million loan for Benito Mussolini.^[48] On Black Thursday in 1929, Lamont was acting head of J.P. Morgan & Co. Five days prior to the Crash, he reassured President Hoover that there was no cause for concern about rampant market manipulation by Wall Street insiders, and thus no need for government intervention.^[49] After the Crash, the Senate Banking Committee found that J.P. Morgan (headed by Lamont) had maintained a ‘preferential stock list’ to allow for liquidation of stocks during the Crash at prices premium to actual market value.^[50] Following the reorganization of J.P. Morgan & Co., in 1943, Lamont was elected chairman of the board of directors, becoming the first non-Morgan after George Peabody to chair the bank.

In fact, J.P. Morgan would be directly implicated in an attempted military coup against Roosevelt, to which General Smedley Butler blew the lid off of. Thanks to the actions of General Butler, the attempted fascist takeover of the United States was thwarted.[51] Also recall from Chapter 1 that Diana Mosley was arranging “to make available £50-100 million (£1.7-3.4 billion) through loan bank Morgan” to the Nazis and that “Baron v. Schroeder is to test the ground in London”. Diana Mosley was arranging a meeting between a representative of Morgan’s Bank to travel to Germany and negotiate with v. Schroeder, “We’ll see what comes of it.”

Justice Charles Evan Hughes was Secretary of State from March 1921 to March 1925 and the 11^th Chief of Justice of the United States from 1939-1941. Responding to the Great Depression, Roosevelt passed a bevy of domestic legislation as part of his New Deal. The response to the New Deal became one of the key issues facing the Hughes Court. In May 1935 the Supreme Court unanimously struck down three New Deal laws. Hughes held that Roosevelt’s National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 was unconstitutional. In 1936 case of United States v. Butler, Hughes struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act. In doing so, the court dismantled the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the major New Deal agricultural program. In another 1936 case, Carter v. Carter Coal Co., the Supreme Court struck down the Guffey Coal Act, which regulated the bituminous coal industry. Hughes also struck down the 1936 Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo, on New York’s minimum wage law, which Roosevelt intended to use as a model for other states. It is not a coincidence that on top of waging war on FDR’s New Deal, Hughes was also a supporter of Mussolini.[52]

Franklin Roosevelt earned the hate directed at his efforts to revive America’s constitutional economic traditions on multiple levels. From his earliest moments in office, he sabotaged a League of Nations conference to institute a financiers’ dictatorship in the form of the London Conference on Banking and Commerce in the Summer of 1933. He additionally waged war on Wall Street financiers through the Pecora Commission, broke up the ‘too big to fail’ banks with Glass-Steagall and imposed broad oversight on Wall Street via the Securities and Exchange Commission. His use of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation bypassed the Federal Reserve and private banks becoming the primary lender to the real economy by the end of World War II and his banking methods were premised on the restoration of Lincoln’s system of productive credit.

It is of incredible importance that the very group that Kalergi adores and collaborates with in the United States are the very same operatives who had consistently worked to destroy the viability of the United States itself from within for decades while supporting imperial policies of world government abroad such as the Treaty of Versailles, and League of Nations.[53] Even Kalergi admits that Hitler’s very success was made possible largely through the Treaty of Versailles authored by his own key allies in Britain and the United States. On pg. 180 of his 1954 autobiography An Idea Conquers the World, he writes: “there is not doubt that Hitler’s popularity rested mainly on the fanatical struggle which he waged against the Versailles Treaty.”

Kalergi goes on to write:[54] “The use of mass hypnotism for propaganda purposes is most successful at times of crisis. When National Socialism made its bid for power, millions of Germans had been thrown completely off their balance: middle-class families had sunk to the level of the proletariat, whilst working-class families were without work. The Third Reich became the last hope for the stranded, of those who had lost their social status, and of those rootless beings who were seeking a new basis for an existence that had become meaningless. Looked at in this light, National Socialism seemed a repetition on a gigantic scale of Catilina’s conspiracy.[55] It differed from Socialism, which was a class movement in the tradition of that of the Gracchi, and from Bolshevism, whose classical prototype was the revolution of Spartacus.[56]

The economic background of the Hitler movement becomes apparent when on recalls that Hitler’s two revolutions coincided with Germany’s two great economic crises: the inflation of 1923 and the recession of the early 1930s, with its wave of unemployment. During the six intervening years, which were relatively prosperous for Germany, the Hitler movement was virtually non-existent.”

***

Recall that Kalergi would first meet with leading British statesmen in 1925 and maintained a close relationship afterwards, especially with Leo Amery. On February 15^th, 1930, Churchill published in The Saturday Evening an articled titled “The United States of Europe”, where he wrote:^[57]

“…The resuscitation of the Pan-European idea is largely identified with Count Coudenhove-Kalergi…The League of Nations, from which the United States have so imprudently – considering their vast and increasing interests – absented themselves, has perforce become in fact, if not in form, primarily a European institution. Count Coudenhove-Kalergi proposes to concentrate European forces, interests and sentiments in a single branch which, if it grew, would become the trunk itself, and thus acquire obvious predominance. For think how mighty Europe is, but for its divisions! Let Russia slide back, as Count Kalergi proposes, and as it already so largely a fact, into Asia. Let the British Empire, excluded in his plan, realize its own world-spread ideal, even so, the mass of Europe, once united, once federalized or partially federalized, once continentally self-conscious -Europe, with its African and Asiatic possessions and plantations, would constitute an organism beyond compare.”

Notice that the concept of a European Union and a British Empire (aka the British Commonwealth of Nations) have no means of existing and supporting its demanded standard of living, without its “African and Asiatic possessions and plantations,” as its economic support base. This is a fact that remains just as true today.[58] Churchill has also made clear that within this League of Nations vision for the world, the British Empire is a sort of free agent, left to realize its “own world-spread ideal.”

Churchill continues: “…The attitude of Great Britain towards European unification or ‘federal links’ would, in the first instance, be determined by her dominant conception of a united British Empire. Every step that tends to make Europe more prosperous and more peaceful is conducive to British interests…But even this compulsive conception must be reconciled with other forms of British interest. The policy of Canning has endowed us with holdings and connections in South America, and notably the Argentine, which, although in no way affecting the sovereignty of independent states, are of solid and durable importance to us. The scheme of a British Empire economically self-conscious, a commercial unit even perhaps a fiscal unit, can never be widely expressed in exclusive terms.

Here, then, is an aspect of the British Empire which the people of the United States would do well to study. The king’s dominions circle the globe. We can never lend ourselves to any antagonism, however unlikely or remote, economic or warlike, between continents or hemispheres. We belong to no single continent, but to all. Not to one hemisphere, but to both; as well to the New World as to the old. It [Britain] is a great American power. It is the Australasian power. It is one of the greatest Asiatic powers. It is the leading African power. Great Britain herself has for centuries been the proved and accepted champion of European freedom. She is the center and head of the British Commonwealth of Nations…”

Thus, according to Churchill, there will be these envisioned six regions under the League of Nations, however, Britain alone is contained within every one of these regions and is a great power in every one of these regions and expects to continue being so. It should be increasingly evident that the vision for a League of Nations made up of the British Commonwealth, Pan-Europe, Pan-America, Soviet Union, Japan and China has nothing to do with sovereignty of states, has nothing to do with even sovereignty of regions, but rather are to be regarded as tributary or vassal regions to the British Empire. The freedoms one will be granted, will depend on how they service the British Empire, and thus, with such a view, Britain does have everything to gain from the ‘prosperity’ of any of these regions.

Churchill ends with: “The conception of a United States of Europe is right…It is, however, imperative that as Europe advances towards higher international unity there shall be a proportionate growth of solidarity throughout the British Empire…”

Kalergi, who was in close discussion with Leo Amery, that spanned three decades, wrote this in reaction to Churchill’s speech:^[59]

“It seems obvious now that, had Churchill been prime minister during the thirties, there would be no Hitler and no war but a better integrated, more peaceful, more prosperous Europe. All of Churchill’s friends were in sympathy with the idea of European union, including, of course, Amery, who was the backbone of Churchill’s efforts in this direction. In the struggle between Churchill’s England and [Neville] Chamberlain’s England, Churchill was at last gaining the upper hand after the appeasers had almost ruined the moral credit of their nation.”

Again, what Kalergi is essentially stating here is that with a Churchill at the helm, a clear imperialist, this vision for the League of Nations could have been accomplished without the need for another world war. Just as fascism would not have needed to use so much force and violence to assert its rule on the European people. According to Kalergi, it would have been a ‘relatively’ peaceful transference to this global imperialism, or international fascism. Churchill wrote the preface to Kalergi’s Ideas Conquer the World (1954). It is not clear if Kalergi actually believed this, especially with Churchill’s abysmal military record and his monstrous handling of British India. It was hard to imagine the quick quelling of mass revolts under an Emperor Churchill, who was once sarcastically hailed as Mussolini in the British Parliament.

It is a common fantasy these romantic promoters of fascism and imperialism proclaim; that the execution was never as beautiful as it could have been, or they diminish or outright deny the suffering and destruction they leave in their wake, like in the case of Pinochet’s Chile. To such visionaries the ends will always justify the means, and if it means the violent handling and removal of the majority of a population, so be it. So much for the so-called world of ‘gentlemen aristocrats.’

In 1938, Kalergi publishes his book Europe Must Unite. The preface was written by Leo Amery which goes as such:^[60]

“The theme of Count Coudenhove-Kalergi’s book is the fate of that European Continent with which our own destiny must always be so closely concerned and of that European culture of which ours is an indissoluble part…Once Europeans can think of themselves [as Europeans]…[they] will follow and, in turn serve to strengthen the sense of common unity. What is needed, he [Kalergi] insists, is the moral foundation. Not, indeed, a new moral foundation, but rather the revival, for the needs of our own day, of that moral unity once embodied in the Roman Empire and in the Western Christendom of the Middle Ages…The basis of that unity is, in his view, an outlook formed by the fusion of three elements: the classical conception of citizenship, the Christian conception of the equal underlying value of every individual soul, the medieval conception of chivalry, all three summed up, in his view, in our own English conception of a gentleman.

…Only imminent or actual catastrophe will bring the new European into being…”

Kalergi first meets Churchill in February 1938 at his country home at Chartwell in Kent. Kalergi writes:^[61]

“I found him very much as I had imagined him: a genial aristocrat of tremendous intellectual grasp. I was remined of the famous words of Nietzsche: ‘This is how I like man to be…’ Churchill is neither a typical Englishman nor a typical product of our age…In talking to him one is struck by the fact that he would have been just as dominant a personality as he is now had he been born two thousand years earlier as a patrician of ancient Rome.”

Kalergi again visits the United States in the autumn of 1940 to deliver a series of lectures, his first was to be delivered to the Council on Foreign Relations[62] and his following lecture to the International House.

Kalergi remarks, “There were, however, only very few Americans who, at that time, had real faith in the creation of a United States of Europe on democratic lines. One of the men who had this faith was John Foster Dulles whose acquaintance I made shortly after my arrival in New York. As chairman of the Council of Protestant Churches of America, Dulles took his stand firmly on the side of a Pan-European peace programme.”^[63]

As we will see in Chapter 4, John Foster Dulles a partner in the Sullivan & Cromwell law firm, the most powerful corporate law firm in the nation, had business dealings with the Nazis through his representation of German cartels such as the notorious IG Farben. It reached a point where their attorneys at the Berlin office of Sullivan & Cromwell were signing their correspondences with “Heil Hitler.”[64] When Roosevelt attempted to block BIS funds in the United States, it was none other than John Foster Dulles who was hired as legal counsel, and who successfully intervened on the bank’s behalf. John Foster Dulles would serve as the Secretary of State during the Eisenhower Administration and was one of his closest advisors.[65]

Kalergi returns once again to New York in 1948:^[66]

“In Washington I handed a memorandum which I had composed to leading officials at the State Department and to several members of Congress. Its title was ‘How Europe can be saved by the Marshall Plan’. I argued that Europe required not only material but also moral assistance, not only dollars but also unity; that without some form of European Union, American dollars would be squandered, since money alone can prevent neither a third world war nor the total destruction of Europe which would follow such a war. America, the memorandum went on, had a vital interest in European integration; the Marshall Plan can be made the instrument of a policy of integration. For, once European Governments realize that America’s readiness to continue with Marshall Aid depends on their own readiness to unify, the pace of unification will be considerably accelerated.

My suggestions fell on fertile ground. The preamble of the European Co-operation Act, as drafted by John Foster Dulles, brought out very clearly the relationship between European integration and American aid. Speeches by leading Senators helped further to convince the Governments of Europe that, whilst America was ready to assist a unified Europe, she would never help a divided one.”

Kalergi had previously visited New York in March 1943 for his Congress on Pan-Europe. Kalergi writes in his Ideas Conquer the World that he requested Churchill send his fifth Pan-European Congress a message of good-will in a coming broadcast. For the first time since he had taken over the leadership of His Majesty’s Government, Churchill appeals publicly for a United Europe as one of the principal aims of British post-war policy. In his speech he said:^[67]

“…I hope we shall not cast aside all the immense work which was accomplished by the creation of the League of Nations. Certainly we must take as our foundation the lofty conception of freedom, law and morality which was the spirit of the League…we must try to make the Council of Europe…with all the strongest forces concerned woven into its texture; with a high court to adjust disputes and with forces, armed forces, national or international or both, held ready to enforce these decisions and prevent renewed aggression and the preparation of future wars.”

In other words, Churchill was calling for a global court, a global police and a global army so as to prevent future wars and secure world peace…Kalergi writes, “Churchill’s words provided the statesmanlike setting in which our fifth Pan-European Congress opened a few days later.”^[68]

Interestingly, despite this historical pronouncement by Churchill, to which Kalergi describes as having successfully generated a great deal of talk and support for the Pan-Europe idea in the United States, Roosevelt refused to meet with Kalergi to discuss his Pan-Europe vision. Kalergi writes:^[69]

“When I first arrived in New York I fancied that it would be rather easy to gain support in the United States for the idea of a European Union. My plan was to have a talk with President Roosevelt at the earliest opportunity and to convince him of the soundness of my ideas…Almost immediately after our arrival, Nicholas Murray Butler wrote to the President introducing me in very cordial terms. Much to my disappointment, the President replied that heavy pressure of work prevented him from granting me an audience of the time being.

…A second attempt to bring me together with Roosevelt was made by my friend William Bullitt. Bullitt had had an interesting and colourful career. As a young man, his outstanding intelligence and strong personality  had brought him to the notice of President Wilson. He drafter the famous Fourteen Points and took part in the Peace Conference in Paris…Unfortunately his approach to Roosevelt on my behalf also met with no success. Some months later Bullitt happened to hand Roosevelt a memorandum, some twenty pages longs, on Allied war aims. As far as Europe was concerned, Bullitt’s proposals tended in the direction of a federal system. When I saw him shortly after, Bullitt told me that Roosevelt had studied his memorandum carefully but had flatly turned down the proposals it contained. It appeared that the President was opposed to the idea of European Union, and that this was a fact which I would simply have to accept.

This intimation was the heaviest political blow which my ideas had received. All the plans and hopes I had based on Roosevelt collapsed abruptly. Luckily for us, few people were aware of the President’s attitude.”

Kalergi blamed Roosevelt as “the reason why Churchill’s ‘United Europe’ speech had such a bad reception in Washington official circles. One year later, in May 1944, when Churchill spoke again in Parliament about the necessity of creating a United Europe, the White House and the State Department once more remained silent.”^[70]

***

The Atlantic Charter had originally been intended by FDR to be the death knell for colonial empires. Western Europe and America thought of it in terms of safety within borders, but the Third World heard the true spirit; national sovereignty. It would take years to make its way around the globe but the fiery spirit had been lit among colonial peoples. Churchill only went along with it because he had to. The continued existence of the British Empire was at stake and only America could save it.

As recounted in Elliot Roosevelt’s As He Saw It, FDR made his thoughts clear on the matter: “I think I speak as America’s president when I say that America won’t help England in the war simply so that she will be able to continue to ride roughshod over colonial peoples.”

Churchill never understood FDR’s idea that economic independence, not slavish dependence, was the best economic solution to the world’s problems, nor did he understand that FDR believed the pursuit and maintenance of colonial empires was a root cause of the Second World War (as did Stalin), and that before independence of these countries could be accomplished it would need in the meantime a strong and balanced leadership of the four powers; U.S., Russia, China and Great Britain to defend nations’ right to sovereignty.

On February 23^rd, 1944, FDR stated at a press conference his thoughts on the United Nations:

Q: Do you conscientiously believe that the Conference can be the foundation of world peace for more than the generation of the men who are building that peace?

FDR: I can answer that question if you can tell me who your descendants will be in the year 2057.

Q: Can we look forward?

FDR: We can look as far ahead as humanity believes in this sort of thing. The United Nations will evolve into the best method ever devised for stopping war, and it will also be the beginning of something else to go with it.

On March 1^st, 1944, FDR spoke to a packed joint session of Congress stating:

“The Crimea [Yalta] Conference was a successful effort by the three [U.S., USSR and Britain] leading Nations to find a common ground for peace. It ought to spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balance of power, and all the other expedients that have been tried for centuries – and have always failed. We propose to substitute for all these, a universal organization in which all peace-loving Nations will finally have a chance to join.”

---

Part III

Kalergi Gains American Support

Kalergi’s frustration over Roosevelt would be short-lasted. Kalergi writes in his chapter gleefully titled “I Gain American Support”:^[1]

“On the 13^th April 1945 Roosevelt died and Truman became President. The change in the White House produced no change in the foreign policy of the United States. The whole of the American public opinion had been hypnotized into believing that out of the war there would emerge one single world – led by a consortium of the Big Four: America, Russia, Britain and China.

…Admittedly, the fact that a great deal of official publicity was then being given to the United Nations diverted attention to some extent form the idea of United Europe. But this publicity in no way militated against our idea. It was quite possible to find a place for Pan-Europe in the proposed world organization as one of several regional groups [now that Roosevelt was dead.]…If the Conference decided that the establishment of regional groups had to be subject to the great-power veto, then all hope of Pan-Europe must be shelved for the time being…

This question was on the agenda of the San Francisco Conference [the first conference of the United Nations], which had been convened to decide on the organization of the United Nations…On our arrival there I established contact at once…The most interesting personality I met in San Francisco was the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa, Field-Marshal Jan Christian Smuts^[2] [who was a close friend of Churchill]…We talked about the reconciliation between Boers and British after the South African War, which culminated in the establishment of the South African Union and in which Smuts himself had played a decisive role. We shared the hope that Europe would follow this example and work for unification after the present war. Smuts supported me unreservedly in my demand for a regional organization.

The San Francisco debates on regionalism gave rise to the now famous Article 52 of the United Nations Charter, which permitted the establishment of regional groups within the U.N.O. framework.”

Article 52 saved the vision for a Pan-Europe and effectively hijacked Roosevelt’s vision for a United Nations Big Four post-war strategy into a rebooted League of Nations. Of course, none of this would have been possible if President Roosevelt had still been alive to oversee the first conference of the United Nations which would determine which worldview would preside. With this advent, the flood gates were opened for a League of Nations orientation within the United States.

Kalergi writes:^[3] “…at the beginning of December 1945, Collier’s, the much-read monthly magazine, published an article by George Creel…about President Truman and the United States of Europe…In the First World War Creel had been chief information officer on President Wilson’s staff. Since Truman’s arrival at the White House, Creel was a regular guest there. One day Creel asked Truman what he really thought about the United States of Europe. ‘It’s an excellent idea,’ was Truman’s spontaneous reply. Creel asked for permission to publish this opinion. Having obtained this in principle, he proceeded to write a comprehensive article about the Pan-European movement, its background and its aims. He added that [President] Truman shared the views of its sponsors and that a decisive initiative in this respect was to be expected from him. Truman read the manuscript and signified his approval. Truman thus became the first leading American statesmen to identify himself publicly with the project for a United States of Europe.

…By the middle of 1946 the United States – from the White House to the Sate Department, from Congress to public opinion – was ready to promote the United States of Europe…”

With the announcement of the Iron Curtain by Churchill on March 5^th, 1946, dividing the East from the West and effectively launching the Cold War. Kalergi found even greater support for the idea of a United Europe against the Communist threat. Kalergi writes:^[4]

“In New York we were struck by the tremendous growth of anti-Communist feeling which had taken place during the five months since we left. Those who sympathized fanatically with Soviet Russia only yesterday had now suddenly become equally fanatical opponents of the Soviet regime. There was much apprehension lest the European countries would be destroyed in turn by the Soviets within and without and that they would thus fall an easy prey to the anti-American camp. It was not difficult to convince Americans that only a European federation could prevent such a catastrophe. The bugbear of all American thinking was a Soviet Empire stretching from the Behring Straits to Lisbon and Dakar and threatening the United States from east and west. Given this frame of mind, it was easy to find strong support among Americans for the idea of a United Europe.

Of decisive importance in this development was a speech delivered by John Foster Dulles, on 19th January 1947, in the big ballroom of the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, about America’s interest in the unification of Europe. The effect of this speech on American thinking was comparable to that which Churchill’s Zurich speech had within Europe. John Foster Dulles spoke with the voice of authority—not only for the Republican party, in which he had for some years been known as an expert on foreign policy, but also for the Administration itself and for Congress…Dulles thus became the spokesman for that bipartisan foreign policy which he had helped to initiate.”

In Churchill’s Zurich speech, delivered on September 19^th, 1946, he proclaimed:^[5]

“I wish to speak to you today about the tragedy of Europe…If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance there would be no limit to the happiness, the prosperity and the glory which its three hundred million or four hundred million people would enjoy [author’s note: a curiously low estimate of Europe’s population at the time…]

There is a remedy which, if it were generally and spontaneously adopted by the great majority of people in the many lands, would, as by a miracle, transform the whole scene and would in a few years make all Europe, or the greater part of it, as free and as happy as Switzerland is today…What is this sovereign remedy? It is to recreate the European family, or as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, safety and freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe…

Much work has been done upon this task by the exertions of the Pan-European Union which owes so much to Count Coundenhove-Kalergi, and which demanded the services of the famous French patriot and statesman Aristide Briand…

Let Europe arise!”

Europe: Faith and Plan

In 1958, Mosley would publish Europe: Faith and Plan calling for the Union of Europe. Mosley writes:^[6]

“The object of this book is to suggest that the complete Union of Europe with an European Government is now a necessity…the book does suggest a comprehensive policy for the new Europe…In particular, an economic method is proposed whereby an entirely free system, in a large and viable area such as Europe-Africa, could solve the recurrent crisis of the present European countries…

It is normal for great peoples to fear an immediate loss of national identity when they merge with other peoples in a greater nationhood and life. But in fact it does not occur…In our English case it is not so long ago in terms of history since village fought village until their struggle was merged into the conflict of the Saxon kingdoms, and finally was resolved in the greater wars between England and Wales, and England and Scotland, which preceded the union of Great Britain… We believe it is now necessary to make a European nation with a European Government, a complete merging of present national sovereignties in a unified European state…In fact the sentiment against a complete union is unlikely to be any stronger than the resistance which now retards a partial union, particularly when it can be clearly explained that popular and valuable institutions like the British Crown need be in no way affected… Communism can never come to Europe without the powerful assistance it derives from the natural conservatism of the European peoples.”[7]

Thus, Mosley claims that the need for a European Union is imperative, as a new economic order which will link Europe with Africa and in particular, be used as a defense against communism. He goes on to complain that after the First World War, Europeans were quick to forget those dark days of war, but that after the Second World War Europeans have never stopped talking about the terrible acts that were committed. According to Mosely, this remembrance of these terrible acts is standing in the way of a united Europe. In other words, fascism was too hasty but should not be abandoned. Thus, the past should be forgotten so that we can begin anew, this time with fascism as an ally to unite the European people.

“Why then alone of all the tragic incidents of history are certain events in the dark privacy of German concentration camps during the final frenzy of an agonising defeat in a decisive war, used to foster hatred and artificially to maintain the divisions of peoples whom every natural instinct and mutual interest should unite? The answer is, surely, that communism and its conscious and unconscious allies—more sinister in many respects than communism itself, because they are well concealed—have a paramount interest in perpetuating the divisions of Europe, and these interests are at present for various obscure reasons being assiduously served by the incessant propaganda which the dominant money power of the West commands.”^[8]

Thus, according to Mosley the still raw memory of these German concentration camps, rather than the forgetting of these dark days, is a form of “propaganda” by the “conscious and unconscious allies” of communism and the dominant money power in the West. When Mosley refers to the dominant money power, has he forgotten so soon the acts of the International Bank of Settlements, or the Bank of England, or the Dresdner Bank, Deutsche Bank, J.P. Morgan, J. Henry Schroder bank and many more, who helped fund the Nazi machine and Mussolini? For it seems the dominant money power was rather supportive to Mosley’s cause…

Mosley goes so far as to state the “unconscious allies” of communism. Thus, anyone who stands in the way of this Pan-Europe vision is viewed as an ally of communism.. As we will see in Chapter 6, this is what was used to justify the assassination of political leaders and terror acts on European citizens under the Gladio framework, in order to encourage and justify support for extreme-right-wing governments as a form of defense against the claimed threat of communism. Recall from the previous chapter that Mosley is directly linked to this Gladio framework.

Mosley concludes his eerie introduction to his book for a Pan-Europe writing:^[9]

“In the light of all Europe's recent history it is disingenuous nonsense to pretend that Germany is the only guilty party. It is more, it is a deliberate lie circulated for the vile purpose of perpetuating the division of Europe and for promoting the ultimate victory of communism. In the meantime it serves also the squalid purpose of those who snatch financial gain from the decay and collapse of a dying system, rather than make the effort to benefit both themselves and all Europe by honestly carrying the far greater rewards of constructive tasks in building the new system.

… In all nature the pangs of birth are severe, particularly in political nature. No fully grown man should be blamed for the pain or even the blood that accompanied his birth. For the long memory to linger on these things is to create a complex which can be disastrous to the whole psyche of Europe. That is precisely why we are continually invited to think about them.

Things were done in haste and passion which should now be forgotten. All who were drawn to the new movement of European dynamism and renaissance were people in too much of a hurry. It was a fault on the right side, for the results of the succeeding inertia are now plain to see. We felt that something must be done, and done quickly, to release the new and beneficent forces of science and to wipe away unnecessary suffering from the face of humanity. We were impatient with the forces of inertia, reaction and anarchy which opposed the new European order of mind and will that we believed alone could do these things with the speed that was necessary.

…The catastrophe of this generation has destroyed the old landmarks of politics, and the modern mind should equally eliminate their memory. We have passed beyond Fascism and beyond many tenets of the old Democracy, because science has rendered them irrelevant in a world which confronts us with new facts. Not only are the facts of the post-war period new, but science is continually adding still newer facts.[10] Old policies have no relevance to the present, and old memories of bitterness should have no place in it either.

One great lesson alone we can all derive from the past. We owe to Europe self-restraint in moments of passion, and kindness at all times to our kindred. These evil things which have occurred are not only wrong, they do not pay. In the end they destroy those who commit them. The time-honoured standards of the European alone can endure. In the events of a great age, honour, truth and manly restraint are not only as necessary as in the past but more than ever essential. The great qualities in man should grow in proportion to the age, not diminish. Let us remember the past only long enough to learn this. Then let us forget [the past].

Europe needs a great act of oblivion, before a new birth.”

---

Cynthia Chung is the President of the Rising Tide Foundation and author of the books “The Shaping of a World Religion” & “The Empire on Which the Black Sun Never Set,” consider supporting her work by making a donation and subscribing to her substack page Through A Glass Darkly.

Also watch for free our RTF Docu-Series “Escaping Calypso’s Island: A Journey Out of Our Green Delusion” and our CP Docu-Series “The Hidden Hand Behind UFOs”.

Foonotes for Part II:

[1] The book can be found on archive.org https://archive.org/details/antisemitismthro0000hein/page/n3/mode/2up?q=enoch.

[2] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Count Heinrich; Coundenhove-Kalergi, Count Richard. (1935) Anti-Semitism Throughout the Ages. Hutchinson & co., London, pg. 18.

[3] Ibid, pg. 197-208.

[4] Ibid, pg. 208-210.

[5] Ibid, pg. 275-278.

[6] Dorril, Stephen. (2006) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British fascism. Viking, London, New York, pg. 49.

[7] See Chapter 11 for more on this story.

[8] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Count Heinrich; Coundenhove-Kalergi, Count Richard. (1935) Anti-Semitism Throughout the Ages. Hutchinson & co., London, pg. 275-278.

[9] Marsh, Joseph Chamberlain. (1994) Entrepreneur in Politics. Pg. 543-545.

[10] See Chapter 10 for more on this story.

[11] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Count Heinrich; Coundenhove-Kalergi, Count Richard. (1935) Anti-Semitism Throughout the Ages. Hutchinson & co., London, pg. 279.

[12] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 24.

[13] Ibid, pg. 95.

[14] “Biografie Hans Luther (German)”. Bayerische Nationalbibliothek. https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/sfz55235.html. Retrieved October 2022.

[15] New York Times Staff. (November 20, 1933) DR. BUTLER REFUSES TO BAR NAZI ENVOY; Columbia Head Rejects Plea by Students to Cancel Dr. Luther's Address. CALLS REQUEST ILLIBERAL Stresses Need for Academic Freedom – Club Is Reported Planning Demonstration. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1933/11/20/archives/dr-butler-refuses-to-bar-nazi-envoy-columbia-head-rejects-plea-by.html?scp=1. Retrieved October 2022.

[16] Elon, Amos (February 23, 2006). A Shrine to Mussolini. The New York Review of Books. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2006/02/23/a-shrine-to-mussolini/. October 2022.

[17] TIMES Staff. (September 20, 1943) FOREIGN NEWS, ITALY: Axis (1936-1943). Time Magazine. September 20, 1943. http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,774563-4,00.html. Retrieved October 2022.

[18] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 121.

[19] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 154.

[20] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 155-156.

[21] Ibid, pg. 157-158.

[22] Ibid, pg. 158.

[23] Ibid, pg. 158.

[24] Recall from Chapter 1 that Northcliffe is the brother of Rothermere.

[25] For more on the forgery of the Protocols of Zion conducted by officials in the Paris branch of the Okhrana (Russian secret police) under the direction of Peter Rachkovsky and Matvei Golovinsky, see Mikhail Lepekhine’s research reviewed by Patrick Bishop (November 19, 1999). Protocols of Zion' forger named. The Daily Telegraph. No. 1638. Paris, France. https://web.archive.org/web/20080528005157/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1999%2F11%2F19%2Fwzion19.html.

[26] Liebich, Andre. (May 2012) The Antisemitism of Henry Steed. Patterns of Prejudice, Vol. 46, No. 2, 2002. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263592260_The_antisemitism_of_Henry_Wickham_Steed. Retrieved October 2022.

[27] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 108.

[28] Ramsay MacDonald was the head of the Fabian created Labour Party, and Prime Minister of England from 1929-1935. Lord Robert Cecil was the father of The League of Nations. Lord Balfour was one of the authors of the Balfour Declaration to establish a British Mandate of Palestine to which The League of Nations presented to Parliament in December 1922. G.B. Shaw was a leading Fabian and is discussed in Chapter 1. H.G. Wells was among the first Fabian members, and member of the Webb’s Coefficients and is discussed in Chapter 1. Philip Kerr (Lord Lothian) was a member of Alfred Milner’s Kindergarten, for more details see Appendix I. Lionel Curtis was another member of Alfred Milner’s Kindergarten. Recall Lord Milner is one of the authors of the Balfour Declaration.

[29] Mulhall, Ed. A very British Coup – Carson, the Press and the fall of Asquith. RTÉ Boston College. https://web.archive.org/web/20220929172144/https://www.rte.ie/centuryireland/index.php/articles/a-very-british-coup-carson-the-press-and-the-fall-of-asquith.

[30] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 108-109.

[31] Ibid, pg. 110.

[32] Ibid, pg. 110.

[33] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 99.

[34]  DW Staff. (January 23, 2006) Report: German Bank Helped Build Auschwitz. Deutsche Welle. https://web.archive.org/web/2/https://www.dw.com/en/report-german-bank-helped-build-auschwitz/a-1865973.

[35] Young, Von Marc. (February 18, 2006) Hitler's Willing Bankers. Spiegel Online International. https://www.spiegel.de/international/dresdner-bank-and-the-third-reich-hitler-s-willing-bankers-a-401575.html. Retrieved October 2022.

[36] Refer here for companies involved in the Holocaust. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust. Retrieved October 26, 2022.

[37] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 115-117.

[38] Ibid pg. 119-122.

[39]  Some scholars contend that the unprecedented number of repatriations between 1929 and 1933 were part of an “explicit Hoover administration policy". Herbert Hoover scapegoated Mexicans for the Great Depression, and instituted stricter immigration policies designed to free up jobs for Americans suffering financially. After Franklin D. Roosevelt became president, the rate of formal deportation and voluntary repatriation fell for all immigrants, but especially for Mexicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation.

[40] For more on the criminal actions of the United Fruit Company refer to Chapter 8.

[41] For more on BIS’s funding of the Nazi war machine refer to Chapter 4.

[42] Zelikow, Philip (2021). The Road Less Traveled: The Secret Battle to End the Great War, 1916-1917. Public Affairs.

[43] See Appendix I for more on this.

[44] Griffin, G. Edward. (1994) The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. American Media, California.

[45] Goldfarb, Stephen. Lamont, Thomas William. American National Biography Online. https://www.anb.org/view/10.1093/anb/9780198606697.001.0001/anb-9780198606697-e-1000952?a=1&d=10&n=thomas+lamont&q=1&ss=0. Retrieved 6 November 2013.

[46] Lamont, Edward M. (1994). The Ambassador from Wall Street: The Story of Thomas W. Lamont, J.P. Morgan's Chief Executive. Madison Books.

[47] Goldfarb, Stephan. "Lamont, Thomas William". American National Biography Online. Retrieved 6 November 2013.

[48] Sanders, Richard. Morgan - Facing the Corporate Roots of American Fascism. Coat.ncf.ca. https://web.archive.org/web/20220922124715/http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/morgan.html

[49] Stark, Irwin (December 14, 1985). Opinion | the Prosperity of '29. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1985/12/14/opinion/the-prosperity-of-29.html. Retrieved October 2022.

[50] "The Crash of 1929 | American Experience | PBS". PBS. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/crash/. Retrieved October 2022.

[51] For more on the attempted fascist takeover of the United States by J.P. Morgan refer to Chapter 4.

[52] Kontorovich, Eugene. (Spring 2014) When Fasces Aren’t Fascists: The strange history of America’s federal building. CJ – City Journal Magazine. https://www.city-journal.org/html/when-fasces-aren%E2%80%99t-fascist-13651.html. Retrieved October 2022.

[53] As we will soon see Roosevelt refused to meet with Kalergi on the subject of a Pan-Europe.

[54] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 183.

[55] For more on the Catilina conspiracy, the first attempt to overthrow the Roman Republic and which was thwarted by Cicero see my paper How To Conquer Tyranny and Avoid Tragedy: A Lesson on Defeating Systems of Empire on my Substack Through A Glass Darkly.

.

[56] Spartacus is the true story of a Roman gladiator slave who led an uprising in ancient Rome to free all the slaves.

[57] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 198-200.

[58] Refer to Chapter 12 section ‘Offshore Banking: Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand?’

[59] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 200.

[60] Ibid, pg. 204-205

[61] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 214.

[62] The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of the Royal Institute for International Affairs (aka Chatham House) based in London, England. It should also be noted that Chatham House itself was created by the Round Table Movement as part of the Treaty of Versailles program in 1919. See Appendix I.

[63] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 238.

[64] For more on John Foster Dulles see Chapter 4.

[65] It is also noteworthy to mention that John Foster’s brother Allen Dulles, who also worked for Sullivan & Cromwell, would join the board of the J. Henry Schroder Bank, whose German chairman, SS General Baron Kurt von Schroder, was one of the main assistants to Schacht in organizing the fund that financed Hitler’s 1933 rise to power. Allen Dulles remained on the board of the Schroder Bank until 1944, well after he had taken his post as chief of the OSS in Switzerland. Allen would eventually become the head of the CIA for over a decade during the Eisenhower Administration. Allen also was the first new director of the Council on Foreign Relations since its founding in 1921 and served as secretary of the CFR from 1933-1944, and as its president from 1946-1950. For more on Allen Dulles see Chapters 4 & 7.

[66] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 285

[67] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 245-246.

[68] Ibid, pg. 246.

[69] Ibid, pg. 249.

[70] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 251.

Footnotes for Part III:

[1] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 257.

[2] Jans Christian Smuts and his political parties supported existing policies of racial discrimination in South Africa. Smuts was, for most of his political life, a vocal supporter of segregation of the races, and in 1929 he justified the erection of separate institutions for blacks and whites in tones prescient of the later practice of apartheid. During his service as Premier, Smuts personally fundraised for multiple Zionist organisations. One of his greatest international accomplishments was the establishment of the League of Nations, the exact design and implementation of which relied upon Smuts. Smuts wrote the first draft of the preamble to the United Nations Charter, and was the only person to sign the charters of both the League of Nations and the United Nations. Smuts sought to redefine the relationship between the United Kingdom and her colonies, helping to establish the British Commonwealth, as it was known at the time. Smuts and Churchill first met during the Boer War. Their association continued in the First World War, when Lloyd George appointed Smuts, in 1917, to the War Cabinet in which Churchill served as Munitions Minister. By then they had formed a lasting and close friendship, with Churchill’s physician, Lord Moran, writing in his diary “Smuts is the only man who has any influence with the PM; indeed, he is the only ally I have in pressing counsels of common sense on the PM. Smuts sees so clearly that Winston is irreplaceable, that he may make an effort to persuade him to be sensible.” Source: Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Smuts.

[3] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 260-261.

[4] Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 276.

[5] Ibid, pg. 268.

[6] Mosley, Oswald. (1958) Europe: Faith and Plan. Washburn and Sons Limited, Essex, England. pg. 1-7.

[7] Throughout this book anything marked in bold or underlined within a quote is to be considered as ‘emphasis added’.

[8] Mosley, Oswald. (1958) Europe: Faith and Plan. Washburn and Sons Limited, Essex, England.  Pg. 13-14.

[9] Ibid, pg. 15-16

[10] Recall from Chapter 1 that Mosley’s concept of a “scientific dictatorship” was almost entirely influenced by H.G. Wells.