By Cynthia Chung
The following is Part III of this series. Originally published as Chapter 2 of my book The Empire on Which the Black Sun Never Set.
[For Part I refer here. And for Part II refer here.]
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 13th 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 5th, 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 19th, 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 book “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”.
Through A Glass Darkly
On matters of geopolitics, counterintelligence, revisionist history and cultural warfare.
Footnotes:
[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.