Eric Zuesse – Further Proof that US and UK Are One Empire, Not Two
Aerial View Diego Garcia (foto Giphy)
Diego Garcia, America s highly secretive Military base (foto New Internationalist)
Aerial port quarter view of the Forrestal Class, Aircraft Carrier USS Saratoga (CV 60) tied up at the British Naval Base at Diego Garcia, stopped at the British Protectorate during her 1987 deployment, visible on the flight deck as F 14A Tomcats, A 6E Intruders and E 2B Hawkeye Aircraft (foto US Navy)
Flag of the British Indian Ocean Territory (foto All Waving Flags)
American British Indian Ocean Territory (foto Twitter)
Downtown Diego Garcia (foto Chagos Climate)
Guidemap to the Provisional Peoples Democratic Republic of Diego Garcia (foto Pinterest)
Map Diego Garcia BIOT (foto Pinterest)
Diego Garcia and the Britisch Indian Ocean Territory (foto PopulationData.net)
Map of Diego Garcia (foto Pinterest)
Diego Garcia Prison (foto Facebook)
Nikki recaps her trip to Diego Garcia (foto Denver Broncos)
Map showing the location of the Chagos Archipelago including the four Sampling Sites (foto Pinterest)
Chagos Archipelago (foto Pinterest)
Distances from Diego Garcia to Washington DC, Iraq, Afghanistan and Tokyo (foto Twitter)
Control Segment (foto Pinterest)
Diego Garcia in the World Control Grid (foto Instagram)
GPS Master Control Stations (foto Twitter)
Grid Monitor Stations (foto Pinterest)
Diego Garcia Mileage Sign (foto Pinterest)
Further Proof that US and UK Are One Empire, Not Two
Although the “Special Relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom was first announced by Winston Churchill at Fulton, Missouri, on 5 March 1946, in the company of an approving US President Harry S Truman, it was actually started by Cecil Rhodes in 1877 when he drew up his plan for England secretly to retake America and use it so as to preserve and expand Britain’s Empire throughout the world, via the Rhodes Trust. Rhodes was the first person to think up a “US Empire,” but it was actually only as a tool for the preservation and extension of England’s existing Empire. And Winston Churchill, as a young man at the start of the 20th Century, was an acolyte and friend of Rhodes, and was viewed by Rhodes as being one of his most promising young followers.
But now, the Rhodesist scheme is finally starting to fall apart, because agencies of the United Nations are – at long last – beginning to rule against it.
The latest conclusive example of this relates to the US Military base in the Indian Ocean, on the island of Diego Garcia, where the US Government takes people in order to torture them in secret.
Here is how this US UK operation is coming to light, and its background (which goes all the way back to Rhodes’s scheme in the 1800’s).
On 1 February 2021, the whistleblower and former UK Ambassador Craig Murray headlined “UK Government Humiliated over Chagos Islands Again”, and he reported that,
“it is inconceivable that the United Kingdom, whose administration over the Chagos Archipelago constitutes a wrongful act of a continuing character and thus must be brought to an end as rapidly as possible, and yet who has failed to do so, can have any legal interests in permanently disposing of maritime zones around the Chagos Archipelago by delimitation.”
If WENI wants to keep its position on the UN Security Council it will need to be the sole successor state. But if it is, it will need to inherit all of the UK’s national debt and Scotland none (as Russia did for the Soviet Union). There will be strong international interest in WENI not being the sole successor state, as a lever to get this second rate power off its anomalous position on the UN Security Council. There are also consequences for nuclear weapon power status. Then there is the question of the colonies – to whom will they belong after separation? A disproportionate number of Scots shed their blood in obtaining those colonies or died of malaria administering them. (It is not lost on me they shed a lot more of the blood of those the colonies were stolen from). Scotland should demand the Chagos Islands as its share of colonial possessions – and then immediately decolonise. A plan which properly explained will certainly help attain UN recognition. The US base would then become a matter of negotiation between Mauritius and the USA, but from the starting point of the US having no right to be there.
This is from Wikipedia’s article on Diego Garcia.
And here is the background.
Churchill was an intense imperialist. He believed, exactly as did the founder of modern British imperialism, Cecil Rhodes, starting in 1877, that the larger the percentage of this planet’s surface that is controlled by the English “race,” the better. The only difference between Rhodesist imperialism and prior British imperialism is that Rhodes’s plan was based upon the geostrategic belief that the only way in which Britain could continue its Empire and expand it would be by retaking the United States via subversion (as he planned), in which the leaders of America would be deceived to believe that, in the US and UK “Special Relationship” which Rhodes had in mind, Britain would be following America’s lead, when actually those American leaders would be following Britain’s lead and not be aware of that subterranean UK supremacy. Rhodes championed subversive aristocratic rule. Subversion is basic to his plan.
Churchill himself was a Rhodesist and he was also very close with Rhodes’s business partner and political successor, Abe Bailey. The 1911 book Cecil Rhodes: His Private Life, says of Rhodes (p. 256), “He was very much entertained by Mr Churchill’s ready wit and clever conversation, and he listened intently to his views on the political questions of the day. He admired his intellectual powers, which, in conjunction with his dash and ‘go,’ he said must inevitably bring him to the front.”
Here is how the Rhodesist view was stated, originally, in the 1877, first, version of Rhodes’s will (as it became published in 1920). “To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, (…) the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, (…) and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity.” Instead of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s goal of developing a democratic federation of all nations, there was to be an all encompassing British Empire, a global British dictatorship, in which a ‘superior race’ is to be ruling everywhere – ruling all ‘inferior’ races. Churchill believed exactly the same, and he treated dark skinned people like dirt. On 9 October 2011, Britain’s Independent headlined “Johann Hari: The truth? Our Empire killed millions”, and he opened “We are still a nation locked in denial.” That denial was being led by Britain’s most honored ‘historians’. Perhaps the chief difference between Churchill and Hitler was simply that Churchill was British, while Hitler was German and did even more damage. But, just like FDR and Stalin, Churchill was essential in order to defeat Hitler, which was the greatest single achievement in all of the Twentieth Century.
FDR was absolutely opposed to any sort of imperialism, and he had passionate private arguments against Winston Churchill about it, because Churchill said, “There can be no tampering with the Empire’s economic agreements,” in reply to FDR’s “I can’t believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy.” And, afterwards, FDR said privately to his son Elliott, contemptuously against Churchill, “A real old Tory, isn’t he? A real old Tory, of the old school.” Actually, Churchill was a Tory of the post 1877 school. I argued on 28 April 2020 that until 1877, only a minority of the British aristocracy were insisting upon retaking America. Rhodes was the first British aristocrat to recognize that in order for the British Empire to continue at all, it must re absorb the US Government.
FDR died on 12 April 1945, and his naive VP, Harry Truman, became President. Promptly, Truman was surrounded by Rhodesists and he didn’t understand what was going on. Churchill advised him against accepting the Soviet Union. However, the key person who also did was US General Dwight Eisenhower, who seems to have clinched the case on 26 July 1945 by confirming Churchill’s view and telling the President that either the US would conquer the Soviet Union or else the Soviet Union would conquer the US. In other words: Ike Eisenhower was telling Truman that Joseph Stalin was a Trotskyist, and Truman believed it even if he had no idea of what Stalinism versus Trotskyism were – Truman was tragically naive.
Here, providing a favorable (pro Rhodesist regime, anti Soviet regime) slant upon the same ugly reality that has just been documented about Rhodesism, is from the Rhodesist CIA’s own retired Miles Copeland’s 1969 book, The Game of Nations: The Amorality of Power Politics, the opening of Chapter 2.
Our aboveboard response to the British diplomatic notes of February 21, 1947, was the Truman Doctrine, which was announced, after three weeks of hectic State Department and White House staff work, on March 12. Announcement of the Marshall Plan followed shortly; in July and from then on a flood of editorial, semiofficial and official comment (the latter mainly in the form of college commencement addresses delivered by top Government officials) began to deal openly with the Cold War and our policy of “containing” Soviet expansion.
Whereas on 5 March 1946 Churchill had publicly announced the “Special Relationship” as “the fraternal association of the English speaking peoples” (a phrase that could as well have come from Rhodes himself), 21 February 1947 was when only privately Government to Government the British regime made clear to the US regime that the US regime was now going to be relieving the British regime of portions of its costs of maintaining its Empire – subsidizing UK taxpayers’ subsidization of continuing the overseas Empire of Britain’s aristocracy.
The US did donate many billions of dollars to rebuild Europe. The Marshall Plan, however, excluded the Soviet Union. It excluded Belarus, which had suffered the largest losses of any land in WWII, 25% of its population. It excluded Russia, which lost 13%. It excluded Ukraine, which lost 16%. But those weren’t nations, they were states within the USSR, which lost nearly 14% – and by far the largest number of its residents: nearly 27 million. The only nation which lost a higher percentage of its population than the Soviet Union did was Poland: 17%. And Poland, too, was excluded from The Marshall Plan, because the Soviet Union had conquered Adolf Hitler’s forces in that nation too.
Russia had lost, to Germany’s Nazis, 13,950,000, or exactly 12.7% of its population. Another part of the Soviet Union, Belarus, lost 2.29 million, or exactly 25.3% of its population to Hitler. Another part of the USSR, Ukraine, lost 6.85 million, or 16.3%. The entire Soviet Union lost 26.6 million, exactly 13.7% of its population to Hitler. The US lost only 419,400, or 0.32% of its population.
Germany’s “Operation Barbarossa” to capture the Soviet Union started on 22 June 1941, which was even before the US entered WWII; and from that time till War’s end on 8 May 1945, more than 58% of German divisions (peaking at 86% in late 1942) were engaged in that effort – against that one nation. By War’s end, around 90% of the remaining German divisions were in the Soviet Union. It would be reasonable to say that the Soviet Union won the Allies’ war against Hitler. Certainly the USSR received the brunt of the Nazis’ damages, though Truman excluded it from The Marshall Plan – because that Plan was intended as a powerful weapon against the USSR. The Marshall Plan wasn’t only aimed at rebuilding America’s European allies, but it was – and this was even more important in the eyes of America’s aristocracy – aimed against Russia by excluding all assistance to the nations that had suffered the worst losses from Hitler’s onslaughts: Russia and its Allies. The aim was to make Russia’s Allies envy and want to become part of the ‘capitalist’ nations to their west – the Allies of America.
Furthermore, as Strategic Culture pointed out on 6 June 2020 (entirely accurately), “The Battle of Moscow [2 October 1941 to 7 January 1942] was the first strategic defeat of the German Army on the ground during World War II. Moscow became the first capital city in continental Europe not to be captured as a result of German offensive. (…) The main reason for the Soviet victory [the first decisive victory in WWII, the second one being the 5 July 1943 to 23 August 1943 Battle of Kursk, which actually doomed Hitler] was the valiance and sacrifice of the Red Army, which lost 937,000 [soldiers] defending Moscow.” Near the beginning of FDR’s lengthy fireside chat to the nation on 28 April 1942, he said: “On the European front the most important development of the past year has been without question the crushing counteroffensive on the part of the great Armies of Russia against the powerful German Army. These Russian forces have destroyed and are destroying more armed power of our enemies – troops, planes, tanks, and guns – than all the other United Nations put together.”
NOTE He was already using the phrase “United Nations” with the objective in mind for all of the world’s nations to view themselves as having been saved by the UN that FDR was intending ultimately to replace all Empires and to be the sole source of international laws.
Near the War’s end, Churchill telegrammed to Stalin “that it is the Russian Army that tore the guts out of the German Military machine and is at the present moment holding by far the larger portion of the enemy on its front.” However, on 8 May 2020, US President Donald Trump tweeted “On May 8, 1945, America and Great Britain had victory over the Nazis! America’s spirit will always win. In the end, that’s what happens.” So goes the myth, but certainly not the history.
Moreover, immediately after FDR died and Harry S Truman became President, the US CIA (then as its predecessor organization the OSS) provided protection and employment in Germany for top members of Hitler’s equivalent to the CIA, the Reinhard Gehlen Organization. (America’s CIA continues flagrantly to violate the law and hide from Congress and the American people crucial details of its relationship with the Gehlen Organization.) By contrast, the Soviet Union was unremitting in killing Nazis whom it captured. So while the USSR was killing any ‘ex’ Nazis it could find, the USA was hiring them either in West Germany or else into the US itself. It brought them to America whenever the US regime needed the person’s assistance in designing weapons to use against the Soviet Union. Right away, the US was looking for ‘ex’ Nazis who could help the US conquer the Soviets. The Cold War secretly started in the US as soon as WWII was over (the OSS CIA’s “Operation Paperclip”). There was no equivalent to “Operation Paperclip” in the USSR.
Journalist Eric S Margolis headlined on 9 June 2018, “Thank The Red Army For D Day Victory” and well encapsulated the reality.
Of Germany’s 10 million casualties in WWII, 75% were inflicted by the Red Army.
On 9 May 2018, Michael Jabara Carley bannered “The Russian V Day Story (Or the History of World War II Not Often Heard in the West)” and he wrote
The everyman in Europe and the United States knew very well who had carried the load against the Wehrmacht.
No sooner was the war over than Britain and the United States started to think about another war, this time against the Soviet Union. In May 1945 the British high command produced Operation “Unthinkable”, a top secret plan for an offensive, reinforced by German POWs, against the Red Army. What bastards, what ingrates. In September 1945, the Americans contemplated use of 204 atomic bombs to destroy the Soviet Union. The godfather, President Roosevelt, had died in April, and within weeks American Sovietophobes were reversing his policy.
On 8 June 2014, the French blogger Olivier Berruyer posted the files of a prominent French polling firm (IFOP – French Institute of Public Opinion) that had scientifically sampled French public opinion in May 1945, May 1994, and June 2004, on “Which nation contributed the most to the defeat of Germany” in WWII? In 1945, by nearly 3 to 1, the Soviet Union was named more often than US; UK even less than that. By 1994, US was named twice as much as the Soviet Union. By 2004, US was named nearly three times as often as Soviet Union. Clearly, the US regime’s propaganda has enormously warped the ‘reality’ that its, and its vassals’, publics see. History has become ‘history’, within the US run world.
The Soviets defeated Germany and Japan, but FDR had just died, and so Truman and Churchill (in the ensuing myths) handed the ‘victory’ to US and UK.
The Soviet Union suffered vastly the brunt of the Allies’ losses from WWII, but the post FDR US, which had suffered the least from the war, refused to help them out, and instead the US regime protected most of the ‘ex’ Nazis that were within its own area of control. Without nasty Joseph Stalin’s help, America would today be ruled by the Nazi regime, instead of by America’s domestic aristocracy, as it now is. And this is the way that our aristocracy thanked the Soviet people, for the immense sacrifices that they had made, really, on behalf of the entire future world. This happened right after WWII was over, and the US regime was already determined, right away, not to help those people, but instead to conquer them – to treat them as being the new enemy, so as to stoke the weapons trade after the war (and after the need for more weapons) ended. How ‘good’ was this behavior by the US rulers – the “Military Industrial Complex” or MIC – actually?
The MIC took over as soon as FDR died and Truman replaced him.
The period from the end of WWII to the present has been the flowering of the seed that became implanted in the mind of Cecil Rhodes in 1877. Apparently, UN agencies are starting to terminate Rhodes’s monster – perhaps to bring it down. MI6, CIA, etcetera, will have a hard time dealing with that.
What percentage of the populations of either the US or the UK have been informed about any of this? How can democracy exist under such circumstances? Does democracy actually exist in either of these countries?
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic versus Republican Economic Records, 1910 – 2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.