Conspiracies: The Facts * the Theories * the Evidence (12 page)

had been deliberately tipped off that
Lusitania
was carrying large 66

Conspiracy.indd 66

23/10/2012 15:42:21

false-flag conspiracies

amounts of explosives that would ultimately be deployed against

it, ensuring that
U-20
would turn its sights on the ship. Further suspicions have been raised by the observation that, as far as can be ascertained,
Lusitania
was never informed by radio that an alarming 23 British ships had been attacked (and three sunk)

by U-boats since its setting off from New York – in the same

southern Irish waters that it was heading into. It had not gone

out of its way, therefore, to manoeuvre in a fashion that might

evade enemy action as it entered the danger zone, and did not

proceed at the top speed, which the captain would surely have

ordered had he known of the peril nearby. The fact that records

of the transmissions between the Admiralty and
Lusitania

during its final voyage remain classified today can only deepen

conspiratorial musings.

All this might be dismissed as mere ‘incompetence’ or a

foul-up, the usual lame yet often effective defence given to explain major intelligence failures (deployed especial y around the events of 9/11, and the Iraqi ‘weapons of mass destruction’ debacle).

However, taken with the fact that
Lusitania
’s
military escort vessel
Juno
was mysteriously withdrawn, for reasons unknown, just as the liner entered the treacherous sector – allegedly on the orders of First Lord of the Admiralty, Sir Winston Churchill – one has

to wonder at the curious nexus of threads. On its maiden voyage

just two months earlier,
Lusitania
had enjoyed the consistent protection of
three
warships as it neared British waters, and lack of available fleet could not explain
Juno
’s strange disappearance on the day of the sinking, as at least four potential escorts were moored at Milford Haven without official duty.

Churchill himself, far from being seen as the great national

hero of history, is held by many truthseekers to have been a

key player in fomenting dubious New World Order policies.

Whether Churchill specifical y sealed the fate of
Lusitania
is unknown, but there is an unequivocal record which shows that

Churchill was more than happy for non-military ships to be

67

Conspiracy.indd 67

23/10/2012 15:42:21

conspiracies

sunk if such tragedies were to change the course of the war in

a desired direction. Just months before, on 12 February 1915,

in a letter to Walter Runciman, president of the Board of Trade,

Churchill wrote:

It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores
in the hope especial y of embroiling the United States with

Germany . . . For our part we want the traffic – the more the
better; and if some of it gets into trouble, better still.1

Thus, for Churchil , the sinking or attacking of ships was without doubt seen as useful bait to bring the USA into the war. Would

this extend to openly compromising the safety of one of his own

country’s liners, though? Critics of the conspiracy view contend

that the letter directly refers to ‘neutral’ shipping, rather than British, and challenge the thought that even this famous political gambler would be quite as gung-ho as to put into print a wish to

see some of his own vessels torpedoed. Yet it must have been in

his mind. History records that when stakes are high, ‘necessary

sacrifices’ can all too often become legitimized in the minds of

those we riskily entrust with our lives.

Viewed overal , it is difficult to dismiss entirely the notion that
Lusitania
’s safety was deliberately compromised, whoever might have been responsible, and it is clear that both British and US

leaders knew long in advance that such an event might be the

catalyst for the acceleration of one of the most terrible conflicts in history. The official narrative, just as with the Second World War, has it that America was keen to stay out of the self-styled Great War, until the moment its own citizens were attacked. However,

seasoned truthseekers believe that the ‘script’ was written long

in advance (just as the Project for the New American Century

appeared to anticipate 9/11 –
see
p. 192), to create an early step towards ‘one world government’, and that hints of foreknowledge

were dropped enough times to be more than chance asides. A

68

Conspiracy.indd 68

23/10/2012 15:42:21

false-flag conspiracies

conversation in the run-up to the
Lusitania
incident, recorded between Colonel Edward Mandell House, one of President Woodrow Wilson’s top political advisers, and Sir Edward Grey, British foreign secretary, had Grey asking:

What will America do if the Germans sink an ocean liner

with American passengers on board?

House reportedly answered with:

I believe that a flame of indignation would sweep the United

States and that by itself would be sufficient to carry us into
the war.

It could be argued that such a course of events might be bound to follow in a time of conflict, and that likely outcomes were merely being discussed, but something about the solidity of the answer

suggests a more knowing tone.

Some have suggested that the plans for
Lusitania
went one stage further, and that the ship might have been torpedoed by British

forces themselves. Given other shameful moments in conspiracy

history, events of such a hubristic magnitude cannot be entirely

ruled out, but in this case it seems unlikely. No whistleblowers nor convincing evidence have ever come forward to support such a

version of events, and records from
U-20
make it clear that the German navy was responsible for the attack.

The events that led
Lusitania
to be where it was, however, in a vulnerable position without escort, are far more questionable,

and it stands as a likely exhibit of a sacrifice being made for a wider cause. What constitutes a ‘cause’, of course, is somewhat

subjective, and the people or objects being sacrificed are more

often than not simply unfortunate pawns in a wider game that

cares little for human welfare – or the truth.

69

Conspiracy.indd 69

23/10/2012 15:42:21

conspiracies

ii) pearl harBor

During the next round of global conflict, the defining moment

of the apparently surprise Japanese attack on the American

naval base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii on 7 December 1941 is

also perceived by many doubters as having been a contrivance.

In resonance with the
Lusitania
situation, the event shows signs of having been manipulated into occurring, and it again gave the

green light to bring an outwardly reticent USA into active combat.

There is little doubt that American politicians knew well that

an attack would come sooner or later, if only through their own

open provocation of Japan, responding to that country’s severe

hostilities in the Far East. This included the banning of Japanese oil exports earlier in the year, and other measures guaranteed to generate a reaction in a world at war.

Although the official view is that enemy action was first expected in the Philippines, hence US astonishment over the supposedly

unexpected targeting of Pearl Harbor, the growing accumulation of evidence over the years, including undisclosed intelligence reports and obfuscated code-breaking of Japanese transmissions, suggests

that there was more than sufficient advance warning for greater

protective status to have been accorded to Hawaii. Public awareness of this has seeped through enough that the theory of the pivotal

attack being deliberately allowed is now widely subscribed to, even beyond the conspiracy fringe – to the fury of American patriots.

It is well-known that President Franklin D Roosevelt – seen as

another major player in the NWO agenda by conspiracy theorists

– was keen to enter the struggle against Japan’s Nazi allies in

Europe, but faced resistance from internal political and corporate influences. Many Americans had strong business interests in

Germany and remained far from convinced that it would lose the

war. But the loss of nearly 2,500 US servicemen at Pearl Harbor,

with many more injured, together with the destruction of 18

warships and over 200 aircraft, soon encouraged their consent.

70

Conspiracy.indd 70

23/10/2012 15:42:21

false-flag conspiracies

Some observers felt this was a manufactured situation, even at

the time. Of the days in the run-up to the attack, Vice Admiral

Frank E Beatty wrote:

Prior to December 7, it was evident even to me . . . that we

were pushing Japan into a corner. I believed that it was the

desire of President Roosevelt, and Prime Minister Churchill,

that we get into the war, as they felt the Al ies could not win
without us and all our efforts to cause the Germans to declare
war on us failed; the conditions we imposed upon Japan – to

get out of China, for example – were so severe that we knew

that nation could not accept them. We were forcing her so

severely that we could have known that she would react

toward the United States. All her preparations in a military

way – and we knew their overall import – pointed that way.2

So the political environment in which the attack occurred was

clear. The question is whether the precise location of Pearl Harbor was anticipated as the main flashpoint. On this, arguments

continue, although it seems hard to believe, given the clear hints available at the time, that US intelligence could have real y been
that
unsuspecting that Pearl Harbor might be the place. It has also been argued that the best vessels in the US fleet were absent from the Hawaii base that day, as if being preserved from harm,

although this is hotly contended by military sceptics. Whatever the details, plainly, as with Churchil ’s letter on the benefits of ‘neutral’

shipping meeting trouble during the First World War, Roosevelt,

having lit fuses in a number of directions, was just waiting for the inevitable retaliation, although his aides professed that perhaps it came harder than expected. Of the President’s reaction, his

administrative assistant, Jonathan Daniels, wrote:

The blow was heavier than he had hoped it would necessarily

be . . . But the risks paid off; even the loss was worth the price.

71

Conspiracy.indd 71

23/10/2012 15:42:21

conspiracies

This statement in itself unequivocal y il ustrates that provocation was expected to bring action, although this was never openly

declared. From the comments of numerous other officials, it is

also likely that a number of insiders knew well where and when

the ‘blow’ would take effect, with Vice Admiral Libby writing:

I will go to my grave convinced that FDR ordered Pearl

Harbor to let happen. He must have known.

In times of conflict, natural y, there is always confusion, and a need to conceal information from the enemy. But it is transparent from a myriad of examples such as the Pearl Harbor events that the ‘fog of war’ let-out is used over and again to obscure knowledge of

events that appear to have been engineered for strategic purposes, sacrificing human life once more for a prioritized cause. Some

would argue that such sacrifices may be essential in times of

crisis. Yet where does one draw the line? Does falling back on

such a caveat not risk the outwardly righteous party crossing the line into behaviour equal y befitting the fascistic foe? For, just as outrage over Pearl Harbor-type incidents may have been used to

galvanize otherwise reluctant support (removing resistance to

more totalitarian policies along the way, in the name of public

safety), something similar may well have aided the ascension of

the very enemy Europe was facing in the 1940s.

iii) The reiChsTag fire

We have already seen (
see
chapter 2) how public fury over questionable fires in Roman times was, on more than one occasion,

used to crush resistance and enflame persecutions, with one side

blaming the other for the blazes, while London’s catastrophe in

1666 generated similar responses. Even in the 1930s, the same

game was being played.

72

Conspiracy.indd 72

23/10/2012 15:42:21

false-flag conspiracies

Great damage was inflicted on Germany’s economy when

the Allies imposed reparations following the armistice which

ended the First World War. Thousands of German citizens were

left disil usioned and in severe poverty. The conditions were

therefore ripe for the rise of fascism, with all its apparently easy answers and tough talking. Sure enough, by 1933, disil usioned

war veteran, convicted insurrectionist, anti-Semite and self-styled saviour of the nation Adolf Hitler had led his National Socialist German Workers’ Party – the Nazis – into a crucial role in the

ruling coalition. Yet ultimate power still eluded him. Ruthless

intimidation, masked by militaristic pageantry and social

discipline, had taken the Nazis almost, but not quite, to the top, with Hitler sworn in as chancellor in January of that year. The