Бесплатный фрагмент - Politics of the Underworld

Politics of the Underworld

Dionis Kaptar

Introduction

Hearing the term «conspiracy theory» many begin to smile condescendingly. Others react differently — they become agitated, use «conspiratorial terms» and thus sometimes amuse those around them. There’s an interesting fact: although conspiracy theories are often considered the delirium of paranoids, the topic itself never fades from the agenda. One way or another, the discussion of such theories, even in the form of mockery, has been ongoing for many years. At one point, Douglas Rushkoff — one of the most famous media analysts — cited the main reason for Ross Perot’s defeat in the 1992 presidential race as his belief in a conspiracy by part of the U.S. elite who found it disadvantageous for someone who belonged neither to the Democratic nor Republican parties to come to power. Having brilliantly started his campaign, Perot suddenly «went underground» at the height of the battle, curtailing his activities, citing fear of his competitors’ machinations. Meanwhile, it’s impossible to call billionaire and seasoned politician Perot a paranoid outsider. When he resumed his campaign, it was too late, and Perot failed to make up for lost time. This event became a subject of intensive discussion in American media, often with a sympathetic tone: this is what happens to those who believe in conspiracies. But did Perot truly believe in a conspiracy? Or, perhaps, did he use it as an excuse, since winning was not his goal? Some said that by participating in the race, he simply wanted to advertise his business. It was claimed that his real goal was to take votes away from Bush so that Clinton would become president, while others saw it as a folly of a satiated rich man. However, in this case, what’s important is that the «conspiracy theory factor» can be used, even as noise cover or an excuse. It seems that if the principles on which conspiracism is built are so absurd that they provoke mocking smiles, why are conspiracy theories so frequently discussed? Why is significant effort spent on ridiculing and caricaturizing such ideas, pushing them to complete and obvious absurdity? When something is either not discussed at all, or, conversely, is too intensively mocked, it’s worth paying close attention to what’s happening. To silence a topic, one must have, first, significant power, and second, a serious motive. And the same is required to launch a large-scale, long-term discussion. The attitude towards conspiracy theories is very telling. When you start analyzing this phenomenon, you immediately encounter typical signs of manipulation of consciousness. Conspiracy theory, you say? Ha-ha-ha. And to the question of what made you laugh, sometimes there’s not even a condescending answer. Just think, such nonsense. That is, the dialogue does not develop, the approach to the problem is so firmly rooted in the mind that it does not even require evidence. However, if you do manage to get an opponent to talk, often no real arguments are provided, but a mocking response is given, such as: «Ah, you’re also going to say that reptilians organized everything». This happens if the acceptance of an idea occurred without its critical understanding and comprehension of its essence. And this is the core of manipulative techniques. Look, if a conspiracy theory is so absurd, then why was manipulation needed to combat it? Tell everything as it is, show why such a theory is incorrect and absurd, and forget about it. But no. Instead of explanations — manipulation, ridicule, and caricature, meaning, in essence, there is no refutation. The lack of clarity on the issue allows manipulators to label a whole spectrum of diverse phenomena. So, let’s first understand what we’re talking about. According to the theory of conspiracy, the subjects of social processes are a relatively narrow group of influential people who have set a specific goal for themselves and achieve it. Tell me, what is absurd and so funny in this interpretation that it almost completely blocks any discussions on the validity of the conspiracy theory? The existence of lobbying activities by certain influential organizations surprises no one. The term «lobbyism» does not provoke skeptical giggles, yet this term clearly corresponds to the essence of the conspiracy theory. No one doubts the fundamental possibility of the existence of financial-industrial or, for example, criminal groups that bring politicians to power who are then obliged to serve their interests. And how many such influential people are there? Of course, not many, precisely because we are talking about individuals who have the ability to promote laws and decisions beneficial to them. Thus, we have another element of the conspiracy theory — the presence of a narrow group of influential people. Moving on. Is it so incredible to assert that a significant part of the economies of various countries is controlled by a few clans? Is the assumption that their representatives are capable of coordinating their activities among themselves, making agreements, conducting a coordinated policy, really that wild? What’s absurd about this assumption? Renowned Western journalist Richard Conniff spent a long time studying the lifestyle of the world’s richest families. He outlined his observations in the book «The Natural History of the Rich». Conniff does not write about the conspiracy theory, but here’s an interesting thing: from his book, it’s clear that representatives of the global business elite know each other well. They dress with the same couturiers, buy the same exclusive cars from the same dealers. For entertainment, they visit the same private clubs, vacation at the same resorts. The global elite consists of representatives of different peoples, yet they share a common system of values. Is it necessary to explain that where there’s economy, there’s politics? Is it necessary to say that the heads of the largest media empires are part of the elite? That is, political, economic, and information issues are decided by a narrow group of influential people whose interests are closely intertwined. Putting the pieces of the puzzle together, we get the «conspiracy theory» in its purest form:

— There are groups of influential people in different countries.

— These individuals have the ability to conduct successful lobbying activities, promoting decisions beneficial to them.

— Influential people are capable of making agreements among themselves, thus conducting a coordinated policy.

Each point is far from comical, and, putting them together, we get a «conspiracy theory». Now, let’s think, is it in the interest of the global elite to publicize their activities? They lead quite a closed lifestyle. Conniff provides a telling example: Kenneth Thomson, at one time one of the richest and most influential people in the world, was only known by face to a few in his hometown. For quite natural reasons, it’s not in the ruling elite’s interest to publicize their activities. There’s no need for them to publicly take responsibility. Presidents are elected every few years, governments change even more frequently, but financial-industrial clans and their interests exist much longer. And the continuity of policy often persists for decades, even though many heads of state have changed during this time. This says something. But simply silencing information about oneself is not an efficient way to remain the grey cardinals. It’s much more reliable to ensure that the activity of the ruling elite, the true, not the public one, does not become the subject of serious discussion. And for this, there is nothing better than to caricature and ridicule any attempts to see in historical events not a blind combination of coincidences, not the action of objective laws that are independent of man, but the will of individual influential people and narrow elite groups. Isn’t that why the conspiracy theory is presented in a ridiculous form? Images of fabricated «conspirators» wearing masks and gathering in gloomy dungeons, indeed evoke distrust. Now, imagine another picture. In a private club, respectable people gather to discuss their affairs. Since business, politics, and PR are closely related, in this club, you can meet businessmen, politicians, and media executives. Absurd? Not at all. The principle of «follow the money» known since ancient times, has not lost its relevance. If something important happens in the world, one should first think about who benefits from it, not attributing processes to some historical laws with which one can «explain» almost anything. Concluding the introduction, I would like to say the following. In physics, the scientific method of the «black box» is successfully applied, but a similar method, when used to analyze historical events, is often declared as conspiracism and ridiculed. The «black box» is a term denoting a system whose mechanism is unknown. Nonetheless, if it’s currently impossible to directly measure its characteristics, this does not mean that such a system is not studied. It is studied precisely by applying the «black box» method. The essence of it is as follows: observe the signal at the entrance to the «black box» then something happens inside the «black box» itself, and then track what comes out of it. That is, the visible part is what happens at the entrance and exit, and based on this data, a hypothesis is made about what happened inside the «black box». Something similar is applied in other areas of life. For example, a poor student writes a test and ends up getting an A. Directly, it was not seen how he managed to perform the tasks flawlessly. However, this does not prevent making the assumption that someone helped the poor student, since it is known that he does not have the preparation sufficient to solve the problems excellently. Such reasoning would hardly be called conspiracism or foolish speculation, and rightly so. If he didn’t manage on his own, then it’s possible to speculate who exactly helped him. A familiar picture, isn’t it? But an attempt to introduce the unknown into the analysis of historical events is often immediately dismissed and declared an unscientific approach. «Show the specific document!», «No document?», «Then, you are just fantasizing and there’s nothing to talk about here» — a familiar reaction? The exact science of physics not only does not shy away from the «black box» method but also applies it, so why not use a similar approach in historical science and political science?

Chapter 1. Is non-publicized policy possible?

Throughout history, the elite have faced the question of how to justify their right to power. Why does this particular person rule and not another? Under monarchy, the answer was obvious: the king inherited his power. You inherit a house from your parents, and he inherits a state. In the modern world, another answer is widespread: «We rule because you chose us». In other words, the principle of democracy is declared on the socio-political scene. Everyone, having reached a certain age, has the right to vote and be elected. Of course, democracy was proclaimed the most progressive, the best system that ever existed. However, the idea of true popular sovereignty, despite its outward attractiveness, does not withstand any criticism.

Consider this. According to the principle of democracy, it is believed that everyone who has reached adulthood can vote and thus indirectly govern the country. But would everyone be allowed to perform surgeries? Of course not. Would a person be allowed to drive a car simply because they have reached adulthood? Again, no. You need to pass a driving test first. So, is managing an entire country simpler than driving a car? Obviously, making the right decisions in politics, economy, defense, and other key areas requires special knowledge. A little reflection on this topic immediately reveals a terrible thing: the very principle of democracy grants the right to engage in the most complex matter to millions who lack the appropriate training. Imagine engineers performing surgeries in hospitals, entomologists designing bridges, and truck drivers at the helm of airplanes? Would you say that’s nonsense and unacceptable? Of course, it is unacceptable, because it’s clear that disaster would ensue.

Soldiers do not choose their commander, the head of a company is not appointed by a general vote of the employees. Imagine deciding when to sow wheat by referendum. And the city dwellers, by a majority vote, decide for the farmer how to manage his farm. And if he does not comply with their decision, the farmer is imprisoned. Incredible? Ridiculous? Indeed, this is true democracy in action, which in practice turns into anarchy, which has happened repeatedly in history and led to very lamentable results. How then to explain that in democratic countries, for example, in the West, there was no collapse of everything? It is reasonable to assume: key decisions there are not made by those who officially hold government positions, having won elections. That is, instead of real democracy, its imitation is in place. Yes, there are different parties, their representatives conduct election campaigns, argue with each other, the media widely cover their activities, and so on. But all this is only tangentially related to real power. Moreover, neocolonialism has not been abolished, where formally independent states are actually controlled by foreign elites. Formal rulers change there as a result of elections or, say, coups, but the management, on the whole, occurs in the interests of other, much stronger states. A fact, in general, obvious and yet officially not recognized by the authorities of countries in neocolonial dependence. Perhaps the reader already demands a transition from reasoning based on general logic to practical examples of non-publicized politics. Indeed, abstractions should be supported by specifics, and now I will try to do that.

On February 7, 1992, the Maastricht Treaty was signed by the countries of the European Communities, becoming an important milestone in the process of creating the European Union. Let’s ask an «extra» question at first glance: which countries were the initiators of this union? It seems everything is clear here. The stages of EU formation are known, and which states were among those signing the corresponding agreements is also known.

It is believed that the first step was the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, signed in 1951 by West Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Belgium. These same states founded the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community in 1957. Subsequent treaties followed, and this chain eventually led to the agreements in Maastricht. Among the initiating states, West Germany was the most economically powerful, and it is widely believed that Germany played the main role in the creation of the European Union in terms of stimulating integration processes. Accordingly, Germany reaped the main benefits from the creation of the European Union. Sounds logical. Indeed, if Germany sought to establish some organization, it should have acted primarily in its interests. However, in my opinion, there are reasons to disagree with such an interpretation. I believe that Germany is not the creator of the European Union, and I will try to prove my assumption by the method of contradiction. According to this approach, the opposite version is considered true. That is, Germany is the creator of the European Union. But if, in the process of proving this version, we encounter a contradiction, we will have to discard it. And what remains? That it was not Germany, not the German elite, that created the European Union.

So, let’s begin. Already in 1912, Kaiser Wilhelm II, in a conversation with industrialist Walter Rathenau, outlined the idea of the continent’s economic union, which could be briefly characterized as «The United States of Europe against America». In turn, Rathenau had a conversation with Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg the same year, where the same issues were raised. Rathenau’s speech mentioned a customs union with Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc., with closer association with them. Agree, it’s very similar to the contours of the later formed European Union, since the EU is, in essence, also a customs union.

This is related to the concept of «Mitteleuropa» envisaging the creation of a community, the core of which should be the German-Austro-Hungarian customs union, to which a whole range of states would join. Bethmann-Hollweg voiced this idea, and he also tasked State Secretary for Internal Affairs Clemens von Delbrück with developing the corresponding project. Delbrück reasoned about the «freedom of activity» over a vast area: from the Pyrenees to Memel (now Klaipėda), from the Black and to the North, from the Mediterranean and to the Baltic Seas. According to his thought, «freedom of activity» (referring to the economy) was to replace the protectionist policy pursued by Germany in relations with other states. A whole range of representatives of the establishment of the German Empire advocated similar ideas. While differing in details, they nevertheless adhered to the same key thought — to establish a union in Western Europe, primarily in the interests of Germany. For Berlin, the realization of the «Mitteleuropa» concept became one of the keys in World War I.

But one thing is cabinet constructions, another — reality. The war did not go according to the German scenario. The plan of the command of the German Empire was based on the ideas of Schlieffen. As head of the German General Staff, he developed a strategy for a two-front war. It was planned to concentrate the maximum number of troops against France and first defeat it with a rapid strike, and then, turning around, unleash the full force on Russia. It was assumed that our army would not be able to take advantage of the fact that the Germans left a relatively insignificant screen in the East. But if Schlieffen’s plan worked, millions of German soldiers would move on Russia. This could not be allowed, and the Russian command tried to thwart the German blitzkrieg. In that situation, the count was literally on days. We needed to act as quickly as possible, could not wait for full mobilization, pull up significant reserves, strengthen the rear, and… face the entire German army alone. Prominent German military leader Max Hoffmann later recalled that the appearance of two Russian armies was expected by the Germans between August 15 and 20, 1914. However, even before August 14, they received information that large Russian forces were advancing south and north of the Rominten Forest (the Kaiser’s hunting residence). By launching an offensive in Prussia, Russia was not acting for France’s sake but fought for its interests and solved its main task. German General Rüdiger von der Goltz directly wrote that «it was precisely the cries at the invasion of the Russians into East Prussia that forced our High Command to immediately send army corps there, which contributed to the loss of the entire war».

The blitzkrieg was thwarted. The Germans failed to press the French army, getting stuck in trench warfare, and thus could not move to the second stage of the plan, that is, to deliver the most energetic blow to Russia. As a result, throughout the war, the main forces of Germany were on the Western Front. Realizing the failure of the planned plan, Chief of the General Staff Erich Falkenhayn understood that Germany now faced the grim prospect of a protracted war on two fronts and spoke in favor of the idea of a separate peace with Russia. The possibility of peace with Britain was also considered. But influential industrial circles objected. Their representatives insisted on the implementation of Germany’s original designs.

It should be said that the annexationist goals that Berlin set during World War I were closely related to the economic sphere. For example, Bethmann-Hollweg planned to sharply increase the role of German exports in France, undermining the positions of English trade there, and including the French ore basin of Longwy-Briey in Germany would hit the French ferrous metallurgy. As for Belgium and Romania, they were prepared for the status of Germany’s actual colonies. Regarding the future of that part of historical Poland that was part of the Russian Empire, there was no consensus in German influential circles. Various options for its political fate were considered. For instance, Kaiser Wilhelm II believed it necessary to transfer Poland to Austria-Hungary. However, Hindenburg and Ludendorff opposed, demanding to ensure maximum German influence in Poland. Ultimately, the discussion turned to integrating Poland with both Austria-Hungary and Germany, that is, in essence, its partition.

The Kaiser also had designs on the Baltic lands that were part of the Russian state. Lithuania and Courland were planned to be annexed to Germany, and Wilhelm II considered a union as the form of such annexation. At the same time, the sphere of German interests would have expanded to Livonia and Estonia. Berlin sought to establish itself in Finland, which was reflected in the unequal trade treaty between these countries. Finland was obliged to import German goods duty-free, but Germany retained the right to levy tariffs on Finnish goods. It is also important that Finland became a kingdom, and its king was elected by the Sejm Friedrich Karl of Hesse, married to Wilhelm II’s sister.

Germany’s expansionist plans extended very far. Despite the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk signed on March 3, 1918, the Germans entered Crimea and Kharkov in April, Taganrog and Rostov-on-Don in May. The Donetsk Basin also fell into the hands of the Germans. Thus, Germany violated the treaty signed with the Bolsheviks in Brest-Litovsk. Berlin and Vienna agreed that the Yekaterinoslav province would go to Austria-Hungary. Ludendorff wanted to turn Sevastopol into the «German Gibraltar». He advocated the idea of creating the state of Crimea-Taurida, where Germans from the entire territory of the former Russian Empire were planned to be invited. Berlin was to provide state support to the «future colonists». The German Foreign Office believed that Crimea should be transferred to Ukraine. Finally, there was also a project to create a South Russian Federation under German control, consisting of Ukraine, Crimea, and Georgia. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk did not actually become a peace treaty. On August 27, 1918, additional agreements were concluded between Germany and Russia. Among other things, they contained the following provisions: «Recognizing the de facto existing situation in Estonia and Livonia, Russia renounces sovereignty over these regions…», also «Russia agrees that Germany recognizes Georgia as an independent state entity», and moreover, Russia was to pay six billion marks in gold, credit notes, and goods deliveries.

Even on the verge of complete military defeat, the German leadership desperately clung to dreams of Mitteleuropa and expansion to the East. Thus, the idea of creating a kind of «European Union» under Germany’s leadership was one of the key policies of Berlin during World War I. It is also clear that Germany’s intentions were in sharp conflict with the interests of many states, and they by no means agreed with the restructuring of Europe according to the patterns developed in the circles of the German establishment. So, even at the height of its economic and military-political power, Germany did not have sufficient opportunities to implement its plans. Let’s be straightforward: the great powers did not allow the creation of a «German-style European Union».

The Kaiser was overthrown, the story of the Weimar Republic began, then Hitler came to power, and what do we see? The Nazis took the same idea of Mitteleuropa as the basis of their foreign policy, not repeating it literally, but preserving the main essence, which was the subjugation of other states to Berlin’s will. The world quite rightly and justifiably resisted Germany’s second attempt to «lead Europe». And again, Germany suffered defeat, this time even more severe than in 1918. As we see, in the first half of the 20th century, Germany grew stronger twice. Both times it tried to «convert» its increased military-political and economic power into hegemony over Europe. And both times — complete failure. Germany, fortunately, could not break the resistance of other states. And suddenly, after the war, defeated Germany turns out to be the main initiator of the creation of the European Union, and this attempt is crowned with success! In my opinion, the contradiction is obvious. How could a defeated country achieve what it could not achieve earlier, being much stronger? I believe, in no way. But the fact remains — the European Union exists. Thus, Germany did not create it.

If the presented version is true, it in itself proves the existence of a non-publicized sphere of global-scale politics, since the fact of the creation of the European Union not by Germany is not publicized. Perhaps, on the contrary, a completely different interpretation of events is widely circulated, while in the hidden sphere, at least some key decisions are made.

Now let’s apply the «black box» method. Let’s assume that the «black box» contains the decision-making process on the creation of the European Union. That is, we assume that we do not know this, we have no information on this account and no way to directly record it, say, by obtaining some documents. But we know that at the input we have Germany’s desire to create such a union, and at the output, we see the existing European Union. We also know that Germany does not have enough influence to implement its aspirations. So, in the «black box» there are decisions not made by Germany.

Based on this, let’s now try to build a hypothesis about the functioning of the «black box». If not Germany, then which state (states) could do it? It is logical to assume that not the losing side, but the winning side is the real initiator of European integration. It hardly needs to be proven that the USSR is not the creator of the European Union. Obviously, not the USSR. Then, perhaps, the USA? But America would rather benefit from a «divide and rule» policy. Why strengthen competition for oneself? The question is rhetorical.

France is one of the victors of World War II, but during the war, it was occupied, its influence on the course of historical processes clearly diminished. That leaves Britain, which was in sharp competition with the USA, and indeed, it would have benefited from the creation of a union of European countries. In 1960, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, and Portugal founded the European Free Trade Association. And in relations with the European Economic Community, London kept its distance. It joined quite late, only in 1973, retained its currency, not switching to the euro, and then declared Brexit altogether. Apparently, Britain benefited from European integration for a long time while striving to minimize its dependence on the decisions of European organizations.

Of course, I cannot exclude that the capabilities of the British state were used by a hypothetical international elite. That is, the creation of the European Union was not a decision of the British ruling elite specifically, and we are talking about influential global structures? Possibly. But now I would like to say something else. If there is a real, yet hidden power, it means there are those who possess such power. Who are they? It’s difficult to answer this question precisely because these people officially do not possess power, and if they do hold any state post, their authority is far greater than what is openly granted to them. However, I believe that there is an analytical tool that can name, at least, some people closely related to such power, and possibly even part of it. Essentially, an approach similar to what was used in the analysis of the creation of the European Union. Studying the biographies of some people, I sometimes encountered such facts that, in my opinion, do not fit into the widely publicized, so to speak, «official» picture of what is happening. The arising contradictions can be explained if we assume that these people were close to the real ruling elite, not publicizing its influence.

Chapter 2. “The Devil’s advocate” gains fame

«The Devil’s Advocate» was the nickname the press gave to Jacques Vergès. Among his clients were the Nazi criminal Klaus Barbie, known as «The Butcher of Lyon» Jamila Bouhired, sentenced to death for terrorist activities, international terrorist Ilich Ramírez Sánchez (known as «Carlos the Jackal»), and Khieu Samphan, one of the leaders of the Khmer Rouge movement. Vergès was acquainted with Mao Zedong, his friend (Roland Dumas) held the position of Minister of Foreign Affairs of France, a widely known documentary film «Terror’s Advocate» was made about Vergès, and publications about him are numerous.

According to official data, Jacques Vergès was born on March 5, 1925, in Ubon Ratchathani, a city in eastern Thailand, at that time known as Siam. However, a writer specializing in biographies, Bernard Violet, claimed that Vergès was actually born on April 20, 1924, not in Siam, but in Laos. If the first date is correct, then he had a twin brother, Paul Vergès. If Violet is right, then Paul is his younger brother. Jacques’ father, Raymond Vergès, was the French consul at the time, and his mother, Pham Thi Khang, was a Vietnamese language teacher.

Raymond Vergès was involved in the activities of the «Human Rights League» and also the Masonic lodge «L’Amitié». He was elected mayor of Saint-Denis (Reunion) and was part of the communist group in the French Constituent Assembly of 1945. An incident on May 25, 1946, seemed to have jeopardized Raymond’s political career. That day, a Gaullist, the mayor of Saint-Benoît Alexis de Villeneuve, took part in a rally. His opponents organized a counter-demonstration. Leading the charge were three men, one of them — Paul Vergès. A fight broke out among the protesters, during which de Villeneuve was fatally wounded by several bullets. The police arrested someone named Orre, on whom they found a pistol registered to Raymond Vergès. A trial ensued, with Paul also standing trial. He was found guilty of deliberately inflicting blows and wounding de Villeneuve but without the intention to kill. Paul Vergès received a five-year suspended sentence. The governor of Reunion dissolved the municipal council of Saint-Denis, Raymond Vergès lost his position as mayor but continued in politics and in 1951 became mayor of Saint-André, and in 1955 was elected a member of the General Council of Reunion. He died in 1957.

Jacques Vergès’ mother died in 1928, and before Raymond Vergès and his children moved to Reunion in 1932, Jacques was raised by his paternal aunt. In 1942, Jacques Vergès went to Liverpool to join the forces of the French anti-Nazi Resistance. In 1943, he joined the armed forces of the «Fighting France» movement led by Charles de Gaulle. In 1945, Jacques joined the French Communist Party, and in 1950, he went to Prague and entered the leadership structures of the International Union of Students. Returning to Paris in 1954, Vergès became a lawyer, registered in the Paris Bar Association, and met former French Prime Minister Edgar Faure. Faure also participated in the Resistance, acted as a prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials on behalf of France, and subsequently held a number of ministerial positions. From 1973 to 1978, Faure was the president of the lower house of parliament (the National Assembly of the Fifth French Republic). The first truly high-profile case that brought Vergès fame was the trial of a terrorist from the «National Liberation Front» an organization advocating for Algeria’s independence from France.

Algeria was occupied by France in 1830, and for many years Paris pursued a policy of Frenchification of the country. As a result, by the 1950s, a huge Franco-Algerian community lived in Algeria. At that time, out of 9.5 million inhabitants of Algeria, about 1 million were Europeans and their descendants. Algeria had a special status: it was not considered a colony but rather seen as an extension of continental France. However, Algerians were not politically equal to French citizens, and in the early 20th century, the movement of young Algerians emerged, demanding political equality. Some of them advocated for the creation of an independent state. The seeds of anti-colonial ideology gradually sprouted, and the events of World War II sharply accelerated this process. In 1940, France suffered defeat, a significant part of its territory was occupied by German troops, Southern France and all French colonies were governed by the collaborationist Vichy regime headed by Marshal Henri Pétain. In November 1942, Anglo-American forces, with the support of the French Resistance, captured Algeria, and the city of Algiers became the de facto capital of «Fighting France». General Georges Catroux became the head of the new French authorities.

During those years, the leaders of the struggle for the expansion of Algerians’ rights were Ferhat Abbas and Ahmed Messali, who had created the Algerian People’s Party in 1937. It was this organization that prepared the document «Algeria in the face of the world conflict. The Manifesto of the Algerian People», condemning the regime established by France in Algeria. Abbas and his associates handed Catroux a draft of political changes that implied granting Algeria autonomous status. The project was rejected, and then Abbas created the association «Friends of the Manifesto and Freedom», which soon became very popular. The Algerian People’s Party joined the association. Initially, the «Friends of the Manifesto and Freedom» organization advocated for autonomy, but by 1945, the question of independence was on the agenda. The Algerian People’s Party had weapons, squads of fighters, and took the course of armed struggle. It should be noted that many Algerians participated in the war against Germany, and they had combat experience. The Algerian People’s Party began preparing for an armed uprising, but the French authorities learned about it and delivered a preemptive strike: they conducted a series of arrests of the party’s leaders. Nevertheless, on May 1, 1945, demonstrations organized by the Algerian People’s Party took place in Algeria. In some cases, the police opened fire, leading to casualties among the demonstrators.

On May 8, 1945, several thousand Algerians took to the streets. The administration allowed the march only under the French flag, but in the city of Sétif, the Algerian flag was raised, and moreover, some participants in the march carried anti-colonial banners. A scuffle began between the police and the protesters, shots were fired from both sides. A demonstrator, Bouzid Saâl, refused to lower the flag when ordered by a policeman and was shot dead. The demonstrators began attacking members of the European community and killed several dozen people. Killings of colonists also occurred in several villages north of Sétif and some farms near the city of Guelma. The French administration responded harshly. Even a cruiser, destroyer, and aircraft were involved in suppressing the riots. Such actions led to huge casualties among Algerian Muslims. All this happened when Charles de Gaulle was the Chairman of the Provisional Government of the French Republic.

General Duval, who restored order with drastic measures, stated that he had given the French administration peace for ten years, and his forecast was highly accurate. The Algerian War began on November 1, 1954. The National Liberation Front of Algeria (FLN), created on the same day, carried out a series of attacks on police, military, and civilian members of the European community in Algeria. The FLN used overtly terrorist methods and began recruiting young Algerians to carry out terrorist acts from the early days of its existence. Many years later, in the documentary «Terror’s Advocate» Yacef Saadi recounted: «We needed beautiful young girls, beautiful young men, to penetrate this society and plant bombs, so we recruited people. The first was Jamila Bouhired, who lived in the Old City. I recruited her by asking «Are you willing to plant bombs?» — «Absolutely’, and then she herself started recruiting, and I did too. Thus, I assembled a team of girls and I alone decided where to plant the bombs». People who were children in 1945 had grown up, they had not forgotten the massacre that the French authority had inflicted on their parents. A child, whose father and mother were killed, hates the murderers regardless of who is right and who is wrong. Clearly, conducting propaganda based on the idea of revenge is not difficult. Of course, this in no way justifies terror, but it makes it easier for its organizers to recruit executors. It’s hard to believe that the French authority didn’t understand this, but why then did it act in such a way that it itself created the prerequisites for a future explosion of violence and pushed the Algerians towards the idea of an independent state? Jamila Bouhired joined the FLN in the early years of its existence. On September 30, 1956, the FLN carried out a terrorist attack in an ice cream cafe in the city of Algiers. This place was very popular, and children often came there. There were many victims. To counter the terrorists and establish order, France sent military forces to Algeria under the command of General Jacques Massu, who energetically took on the task. In April 1957, Jamila Bouhired was arrested. Describing the circumstances of the event, Yacef Saadi reported that on the day they decided to change their hideout, he was with Jamila Bouhired, Zohra Drif, «in general, the whole group». On their way to the new place, they were stopped by a patrol, Saadi began shooting from a machine gun and wounded… his own accomplice, Bouhired. She was captured, then tried by a military tribunal, and during the trial, Jacques Vergès was Bouhired’s lawyer. Jamila Bouhired was sentenced to death, and then Vergès initiated a campaign in support of Bouhired.

Here are a few press reports from those times: «89 French women beg the President of the Republic: ’pardon Jamila Bouhired’», «Switzerland: 6000 postcards for the pardon of Jamila», «Soviet press: Jamila Bouhired — the Algerian Joan of Arc», «The Jordanian parliament asks for Jamila Bouhired’s pardon», «Nehru’s poignant call against execution in Algeria», «76 British MPs ask Mr. Coty for Jamila Bouhired’s pardon», «President Ho Chi Minh asks to pardon Jamila», «President Voroshilov asks to pardon Jamila Bouhired», «Germans ask to pardon Jamila».

The question arises, where did a young, essentially beginning lawyer have such wide possibilities to generate international-scale events? Naturally, the following explanation comes to mind: his initiative was just a reason, a convenient pretext to start a campaign, actually organized and conducted not by him. Be that as it may, Jamila Bouhired’s death sentence was replaced with life imprisonment.

Chapter 3. De Gaulle: “a strong hand” but whose?

The movement for Algerian independence was gaining momentum, while the French leadership became increasingly bewildered. Short-lived cabinets of ministers succeeded each other, the war dragged on, consuming human lives and vast resources. The government’s actions increasingly irritated the army, which came to believe that victory was unattainable with such leadership and under such a political system. Not endless parliamentary chattering, not weak ministers, but only a strong personality endowed with significant powers could lead to success. This idea gained more and more supporters.

Gaullists, among whom was the former Minister-Resident (Governor-General) of Algeria, Jacques Soustelle, launched a broad propaganda campaign for de Gaulle’s return to power. It is believed that de Gaulle himself was rather indifferent to all this. Yes, he lived away from Paris most of the time, wrote memoirs, and recovered his shaken health. However, he did not forget to visit the capital and there continued to communicate with his supporters. It’s hard to believe that such an ambitious politician suddenly fell into apathy. Rather, his demonstrative disinterest was a subtle game. He was simply waiting for «the people to ask him to take the throne». And then de Gaulle would triumphantly sit in the presidential chair «to fulfill the will of the people». The true intentions of the elderly general can be judged by a very telling phrase he said in 1958 to his associate Michel Debré: «What about this treaty, we’ll just rip it up when we return to power». He was referring to the agreements on the creation of the Common Market.

Let’s note two important points. First: the Minister of Defense at that time was de Gaulle’s old comrade, a participant in the anti-fascist Resistance, Jacques Chaban-Delmas. It was on his initiative that two Gaullists — Léon Delbecque and Lucien Neuwirth — were appointed as official representatives of the Ministry of Defense in Algeria. The second point: the most combat-capable parts of the French army were then in Algeria, not in Europe. Delbecque shuttled between Algiers and Paris, reporting to his comrades on the results of his activities, and he engaged in, frankly, bustling activity. Upon arriving in Algeria, Delbecque quickly established contact with key organizations advocating for the unity of Algeria and France. He did not shy away from communicating with the leaders of ultra-right radicals, dreaming of a leader at the head of France. And of course, he was interested in propaganda among the senior military leadership of the French contingent in Algeria. Local generals remained consistent advocates of a decisive fight against «separatists».

Not only Delbecque, but other Gaullists also acted very actively. They launched a powerful propaganda campaign, and the slogans of their campaign became increasingly radical. Phrases typical of a revolutionary situation about a «government of salvation» and even calls for an uprising appeared. De Gaulle was in the loop. He was especially interested in how the «processing» of generals was going, and in a narrow circle of allies, he no longer hid that he was ready to return to power if the people and the army called him. In the spring of 1958, France began a governmental crisis. The old cabinet of ministers resigned, and a new one could not be formed. Parties were pulling the blanket each to their side, the coalition did not come together, and in these circumstances, Delbecque met with the Supreme Commander of the Army, Paul Ely. The conversation turned to de Gaulle’s return to power, and it became clear that Ely had nothing against it. Note: at that moment, de Gaulle held no official post. He did not have a large faction in parliament, he had lost the elections, but his candidacy was discussed in the upper echelons as one of the most likely and acceptable. Is there any basis to claim that his return to power was the fulfillment of the people’s will? At least such grounds are very dubious.

After lengthy negotiations, the list of cabinet members was finally formed on May 12, 1958, and it remained to be approved in parliament. That same day, Delbecque rushed to Algeria on a plane. He was in a hurry to act, for on May 13, the deputies would vote for the new Prime Minister. The results of Delbecque’s activity can be judged by what happened next. On May 13, a crowd of supporters of «French Algeria» stormed the local administration building. The rallying cry of the protesters was «To the assault, against the rotten regime!» Using a truck the rioters broke down the gates, burst into the building, and began to smash everything in sight. Remember the bulldozer from «Maidan»? Mass unrest on Independence Square (Maidan Nezalezhnosti), when President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown. For this events and similar ones I use a short figurative term «Maidan».

The commander of the parachute division, General Massu, asked the protesters, «What do you want?» — «A Committee of Public Safety» replied Laguillard, the crowd’s leader, head of the Association of French Students of Algeria. «Write down the list» said the general. Admittedly, he very easily accepted the demands of the protesters.

Massu — a combat officer, unafraid of bullets and death, suddenly scared of a crowd? What threat did the rioters pose? None. They would have caused a fuss, made some noise, and dispersed without much consequence. But no, the general of the parachute division quickly joins them. The fact that it’s a parachute division is a very important detail. It’s a mobile unit capable of quickly appearing in Paris and landing where needed. Massu, having received the list of candidates, wrote himself as the leader of the Committee of Salvation and, moreover, included three colonels, his subordinates, in the committee’s leadership. Then, as the head of the rebels, Massu sent a telegram to the president, demanding the creation of a government of public salvation, not forgetting to inform the authorities about the creation of a military-civilian committee in Algeria. When parliament learned about this, the factions immediately quarreled. The right joyously celebrated, while the left loudly called them fascists. It is characteristic that the parliament was just approving the Prime Minister’s candidacy and his cabinet. In an extremely tense atmosphere, deputies supported Pflimlin’s candidacy. It would seem that Pflimlin would energetically oppose the rebels, but that was not the case. He went to sleep and asked not to be woken under any circumstances. That is, he abstained from active actions. It should be added that the Supreme Commander of the French army, Paul Ely, prohibited shooting at the protesters in Algiers. Meanwhile, Delbecque entered the Committee of Salvation as Massu’s deputy.

It is considered that upon hearing of the new prime minister’s appointment, the committee members were at a loss and did not know what to do. It was only at this moment that Delbecque suggested to Massu to call de Gaulle «to the throne». This is hard to believe. When planning a rebellion, roles are distributed in advance. One might believe in the spontaneous actions of an unorganized crowd, and even then, only if it concerns disorder. However, it is impossible to imagine that combat generals, cold-blooded professionals, would simply limit themselves to a telegram to Paris and not consider possible scenarios in advance. I am convinced that the rebels planned to bet on de Gaulle from the very beginning. Be that as it may, the committee issued a call for de Gaulle to convene a government of public salvation. And the commander of all French forces in Algeria, General Raoul Salan, sent a telegram to the president of the country, stating the «necessity to turn to the national arbitrator to form a government of public salvation».

On May 14th in Algiers, a press conference was held by Massu and Delbecque, where it was announced that the committee does not recognize the government in Paris. On May 15th, General Salan, in front of the crowd gathered at the administration building, announced his full support for the committee’s actions and added: «Long live de Gaulle!» And what about the cause of the celebration himself? He had been hiding behind the scenes for a long time, but now it was time to step into the limelight. Now, with the necessary camouflage created, when he was already «asked to save beloved France» de Gaulle «graciously agrees» to take the helm of the state.

On May 19th, at a press conference, he positively assessed the actions of the military in Algeria and announced his desire to receive extraordinary powers to form his cabinet. Nothing more, nothing less! However, the Pflimlin government was still in power at the time, and de Gaulle, however one might spin it, was a private individual. To help de Gaulle, Delbecque and his comrades staged another uprising, this time in Corsica, capturing all the cities on the island on May 25th. Moreover, the Algerian military devised a plan for parachutists to land near Paris with the goal of forcefully seizing power. The French establishment increasingly leaned towards the idea that the future belonged to de Gaulle. Various political movements turned to him, and on May 28th, Pflimlin resigned. François Mitterrand and a number of other left-wing leaders attempted to resist. They rallied under the slogan «Fascism shall not pass» but it was too late. Soon, President René Coty stated that he proposed de Gaulle to form a government. On May 30th, all key parties of the country, except the communist party, supported de Gaulle. And on June 2nd, in a conversation with Delbecque, de Gaulle said something very important: «You played beautifully, but admit it, so did I». Apparently, the old fox had been pulling the strings from the very beginning, controlling the process. And one must give de Gaulle credit: he managed to disguise a banal coup with a brilliant wrapper.

In 1959, General Maurice Challe intensified the actions of the French troops to crush the FLN and achieved significant success. However, de Gaulle took a course towards granting independence to Algeria. It’s strange, during the period when the FLN was comparatively strong, France held onto Algeria, but when the FLN suffered severe military defeats, on the contrary, de Gaulle made very significant concessions. Note, in 1945 de Gaulle was in power, and the French administration conducted a repressive policy in Algeria in such a way that it provoked hatred among Algerians. Then the same de Gaulle, having returned to power, managed affairs in such a way that Algeria gained independence. In whose interests was he acting? It doesn’t seem to be in the interests of France.

Facts from de Gaulle’s biography speak of his connections with Britain. During the war with Germany, he went to London to negotiate the government’s evacuation to Africa. Then he returned to France but soon arrived in London again, from where he began to broadcast on the radio to the French, calling for resistance. There, in Britain, de Gaulle created the «Free France» organization. His main competitor was Henri Giraud, who enjoyed the support of the USA, but in the end, when the «French Committee of National Liberation» was formed on June 3, 1943, its co-chairmen were de Gaulle and Giraud. If Giraud had the USA on his side, thanks to the support of which state did de Gaulle become the co-chairman? I think, Britain.

In 1960, a whole range of colonies (most of them French) gained independence, and soon France lost Algeria. De Gaulle was the president at that time. Many saw him as «a strong hand» but he did not meet the expectations of those who helped him return to power. On January 8, 1961, a referendum was held on the bill according to which the political future of Algeria was to be determined by the Algerian people. The majority supported the bill. It became clear that Algeria’s independence was a matter of the near future, but part of the French establishment disagreed. Additionally, the question arose: what would be the status of Franco-Algerians if the FLN came to power?

Chapter 4. The terror continues

In April 1961, Algeria experienced the «Generals’ Putsch» led by retired generals Maurice Challe, Edmond Jouhaud, Raoul Salan, André Zeller, and Paul Gardy. Initially, the rebels were successful, but the coup did not gain support in France, and soon, military units loyal to the government prevailed.

Before the coup, in February 1961, the far-right, terror-practicing «Secret Armed Organization» (OAS) was established in Madrid. Its formal founders were Jean-Jacques Susini and Pierre Lagaillarde, who could not be considered major politicians or influential military figures. However, OAS included Raoul Salan, Edmond Jouhaud, Paul Gardy, and was supported by the very famous politician, one of de Gaulle’s closest comrades from the Resistance and the former governor-general of Algeria, Jacques Soustelle. OAS attempted to prevent the separation of Algeria and unleashed widespread terror, including attempts to assassinate de Gaulle. However, the French authorities did not succumb to pressure, and in March 1962, they signed the Evian Accords with the Provisional Government of the Algerian Republic. On July 3, 1962, Algeria became an independent state. The safety of Franco-Algerians was guaranteed by the Evian Accords, but from July 5—7, mass murders of Europeans of Algerian descent occurred in Oran, Algeria.

On July 5, demonstrations commenced in Oran to celebrate Algeria’s independence. A ceremony to raise the Algerian flag over the local town hall was also planned. The FLN units were monitoring the order of the demonstration. Suddenly, shots were fired, panic ensued, and shortly after, riots began in the European quarters. Franco-Algerians were killed, tortured, and mutilated. The estimates of the number of victims vary greatly, but in any case, it was a monstrous crime. The French army did not intervene in time, and according to some sources, there was an order from Paris not to interfere. This is contested, however, and the responsibility for the inaction of the French military units is often attributed to their commander, General Joseph Katz. Nevertheless, it must be said that General Katz firmly opposed OAS, and it is unlikely that anyone could accuse him of indecisiveness. Yet, regarding the protection of Franco-Algerians, he seemed lost and scared, among other things. By the way, the general was later awarded an order for his ability to restore and maintain public order. Perhaps there was indeed an order from Paris.

As for OAS, by 1963 it was practically dismantled. Its leaders, Salan and Jouhaud, were arrested in 1962, sentenced to death, which was later commuted to life imprisonment. Pierre Lagaillarde was arrested in late 1961 in Spain along with the Italian neo-fascist Guido Giannettini. Gardy and Soustelle fled abroad. Soustelle lived in Belgium, Austria, Portugal, and Italy for several years. He returned to his homeland after the general amnesty law in 1968. He became a legal politician again, entered the French National Assembly, accompanied the country’s president d’Estaing on his trip to Mexico, and supported the law allowing abortions.

Before World War II, Soustelle was a Marxist internationalist, then a close comrade of de Gaulle in London, and later his staunch opponent. Soustelle called himself a republican and a democrat, which did not prevent him from praising the figure who established the regime of the harshest dictatorship in Paraguay, known for his radically anti-communist, far-right views. I am talking about Alfredo Stroessner. Moreover, Soustelle was not limited to praising the dictator but, in essence, was a lobbyist for the Paraguayan authorities in matters related to France.

And what about our «old acquaintance» Jacques Vergès? After the proclamation of Algeria’s independence, he moved to this country and obtained Algerian citizenship. For some time, he headed the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, co-founded the magazine Révolution africaine («African Revolution»), traveled to China, met with Mao Zedong, and started publishing the Maoist magazine Révolution («Revolution») in France. He met François Genoud, a well-known Swiss banker who adhered to pro-Nazi views until his death in 1996.

Before World War II, Genoud joined the far-right organization «National Front». In 1940, on behalf of the Abwehr, he participated in creating the «Oasis» nightclub in Lausanne, was well acquainted with Heinrich Himmler’s close associate, SS-Obergruppenführer Karl Wolff. He knew former SS officer Paul Dickopf, who became president of Interpol a few years later. Among Genoud’s friends were World War II saboteur Otto Skorzeny and Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie. After the war, Genoud founded the Arab Commercial Bank. He was an associate of George Habash, one of the founders of the «Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine». This is a left-radical organization that carried out several terrorist attacks.

As we can see, Vergès developed connections, gained significant albeit scandalous fame, and then suddenly disappeared from public view for several years in 1970, leaving behind Bouhired, whom he had married earlier. Various theories were proposed regarding his whereabouts and activities during those years. Cambodia, China, Cuba, but Vergès himself claimed he lived incognito in Paris.

Meanwhile, a wave of terrorism was rising around the world. For example, in 1970, the «Red Army Faction» (Germany) openly declared itself. That same year, the «Black September» organization emerged. In 1971, the «Japanese Red Army» was created, and they contacted the «Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine». In Italy, the «October 22 Group» and «Red Brigades» were active.

Here are a few examples of the terrorist activities of these organizations. From September 6 to 13, 1970, militants from the «Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine» hijacked four airliners. On December 21, 1975, in Vienna, at the OPEC headquarters, terrorist Carlos and his accomplices took hostages, including several ministers from OPEC countries. During the attack, three people were killed. The next day, the criminals flew to Algeria with the hostages. Eventually, after receiving a huge ransom, the terrorists released the hostages. Many years later, in 1997, Carlos stood trial, and Jacques Vergès represented him.

On September 5, 1972, during the Munich Olympics, «Black September» militants attacked the Israeli team, killed two athletes, and took nine hostages. Later, all hostages were killed. One police officer died from a fatal wound. According to the research of historians Anna Geitnner, Dominik Aufleger, and Robert Wolff, the terrorists demanded the release of several hundred people, including Ulrike Meinhof («Red Army Faction») and Kozo Okamoto («Japanese Red Army»).

On April 24, 1975, «Red Army Faction» militants took over the German embassy in Stockholm. The «Japanese Red Army» proclaimed its goals to overthrow the government, the monarchy, and start a world revolution. On May 30, 1972, the «Japanese Red Army» attacked Lod Airport in Israel. Several dozen people died, many were injured.

On July 20, 1973, terrorists hijacked a Japan Airlines plane. On January 31, 1974, a group of militants, consisting of members of the «Japanese Red Army» and the «Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine» committed a terrorist act on Pulau Bukom Island (Singapore), attacking an oil refining complex. When trying to escape, the terrorists hijacked a ferry.

On April 18, 1974, «Red Brigades» kidnapped Mario Sossi and demanded the release of detained members of the «October 22 Group» (an informal name for the organization, in particular, responsible for the explosion at an oil refinery). Sossi was the prosecutor in the trial of the «October 22 Group».

On May 16, 1978, in Rome, «Red Brigades» kidnapped and later killed the former Prime Minister of Italy, influential politician Aldo Moro.

For a long period, Italy faced terrorist attacks and street violence. This context even led to the term «Years of Lead» although the timeframe is somewhat broader. In early 1968, the government announced a university reform project aimed at strengthening discipline. On February 2, 1968, students, in protest, seized several buildings of the University of Rome. Far-right activists were the organizers. Ultra-left forces also participated, thus neo-fascists united with Trotskyists, Maoists, and anarchists.

On February 29, the police restored order. However, the next day, several thousand students, including far-right militants, gathered at Piazza di Spagna in Rome. The students began throwing stones at the authorities, and riots spread to the Valle Giulia area. Stefano Delle Chiaie, the head of the neo-fascist organization «National Vanguard» led the attack on the police. The melee lasted several hours, with ultra-left and far-right again acting together. Over six hundred people were injured.

On December 12, 1969, a bomb exploded in the Banca Nazionale dell’Agricoltura building in Milan. Thirteen people died instantly, and 87 were injured. Later, four more people died. In another bank building (Banca Commerciale Italiana), an unexploded bomb was found. That same day, three explosions occurred in different places in Rome, injuring 16 people.

On May 31, 1972, the Carabinieri received an anonymous call about a suspicious car near Peteano. Several Carabinieri went to check and indeed found the car. The car exploded when they tried to open it. Three died, two were wounded. Later, it was revealed that the crime was committed by far-right militants from the neo-fascist organization Ordine Nuovo («New Order»).

On May 17, 1972, the Chief Commissioner from the Political Directorate of Milan’s Police Headquarters, Luigi Calabresi, was shot dead on his way to work. Many years later, it was found that a group of individuals, formerly part of the ultra-left organization Lotta Continua («Struggle Continues»), were responsible for the crime.

A year later, on May 17, 1973, during a ceremony in front of the Milan police headquarters in memory of Calabresi, Gianfranco Bertoli threw a hand grenade at the crowd. Four died, 62 were injured. He was arrested, tried, and sentenced to life imprisonment.

On May 28, 1974, a demonstration organized by unions and the anti-fascist committee was held in Brescia’s square in protest against neo-fascist terrorism. A bomb exploded. Eight died, 102 were injured. Three investigations into this crime were conducted, suspecting Ordine Nuovo and suggesting the involvement of special services. Eventually, in 2017, the Court of Cassation finally confirmed the life sentence for two former activists of «New Order».

In 1974, a series of terrorist attacks occurred, followed by leaflets claiming responsibility by the secret neo-fascist organization Ordine nero («Black Order»). The terrorist activities of Ordine nero, in particular, include explosions in Milan, Savona, Bologna, the bombing of a railway line in Vayano, and others. The attack on the «Italicus» express on August 4, 1974, was also accompanied by a corresponding message. A bomb containing explosive and incendiary mixtures exploded in an «Italicus» car. The explosion and fire resulted in 12 deaths and 48 injuries. The next day, a leaflet was found in a phone booth in Bologna, indicating that the attack was carried out by the organization Ordine nero. Subsequently, some connection between the attack and the Masonic lodge Propaganda Due («P2» «P-2») was established.

On August 2, 1980, a terrorist attack occurred at the Bologna railway station, killing 85 people and injuring 200. The neo-fascist trail theory emerged quickly, but it took many years before several individuals, part of the neo-fascist organization «Revolutionary Armed Squads» were found guilty of the crime. In 2020, the General Prosecutor of Bologna mentioned Licio Gelli, the head of the «P2» lodge in 1980, among the organizers and financiers of the attack. Gelli could not confirm or deny this statement, as he died in 2015. We will return to «P2» and its head Licio Gelli in the next chapter, but now I would like to draw attention to the following.

The information provided above shows the existence of a kind of cooperation between different terrorist structures. This is evidenced by attempts by some organizations to achieve the release of members of other organizations.

It is also apparent that ultra-left and ultra-right «activists» sometimes find common ground, with the concept of Nazi-Maoism merging far-left and far-right ideas. Would it not be logical to assume the presence of some force managing both sides?

Chapter 5. Licio Gelli and the scandals

In 1981, the Italian government led by Prime Minister Arnaldo Forlani resigned due to a massive scandal associated with the activities of the Masonic lodge Propaganda Due (P2).

The history of P2 dates back to 1877, when the Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy founded the lodge Propaganda Massonica. In 1925, Freemasonry was banned in Italy, but it regained legal status after World War II, and Propaganda Massonica was renamed Propaganda Due. In 1975, businessman Licio Gelli took over the lodge.

Let me list a few facts from his biography. Gelli participated in the Spanish Civil War, fighting on the side of Francisco Franco in the Blackshirts battalion. In 1942, as an inspector of the National Fascist Party, he was involved in transporting treasures of King Peter II of Yugoslavia to Italy. He was a liaison officer between the fascist government and Germany, but towards the end of the war, he began collaborating with Italian partisans and later with British and American intelligence services. Gelli spent three post-war years hiding in Argentina.

It’s known that many Nazis fled justice to Latin America. Gelli was involved in creating the «ratline» and helped Klaus Barbie, the «Butcher of Lyon», escape. Many years later, in 1987, Barbie finally stood trial, and his lawyer, as I remind you, was Jacques Vergès.

Gelli never held any significant government positions. He spent several years as a driver and secretary to an Italian parliament deputy. On his recommendation, Gelli became the head of a company within the «Permaflex» firm, then worked as a personnel manager at the «Lebole» factory, and soon, together with Mario and Giovanni Lebole, founded the «Jole» company.

As for his Masonic career, Gelli was doing exceptionally well. In 1963, he applied to join Freemasonry, entered lodge No. 182, became an apprentice in the P2 lodge in 1966, and in 1971, the Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy, Lino Salvini, signed a circular appointing Gelli as the high-ranking secretary for organizational matters of the P2 lodge.

«Gelli’s connections expanded. He maintained friendships with old acquaintances, including Stefano Delle Chiaie, Pierluigi Pagliai, and Joachim Fiebelkorn — commanders of a private army created in Bolivia by the former head of the Lyon Gestapo, Klaus Barbie, which received the name „Death’s suitors“».

The number of people wanting to join the lodge surged, and according to Gelli, the lodge was a center of international political mediation. However, the day was approaching when Gelli’s star would rapidly fade. The scandal that cost Arnaldo Forlani his prime ministerial seat also ruined Gelli’s career. Before getting to the essence of the matter, it’s necessary to delve into the biography of banker Michele Sindona, as investigating his activities led to the scandal in question.

Sindona was born in Sicily in 1920. In 1942, he graduated from the University of Messina with a degree in law. In 1943, the Allies landed in Sicily. A military government was established there, including the former Governor of New York, Charles Poletti. An Italian-American of the first generation, he knew the Italian language and culture, which facilitated Poletti’s inclusion in the government. It was claimed that during those years, he was acquainted with mafia boss Vito Genovese, who was involved in black market trading. Attempts were made to link him with mafia boss Lucky Luciano, but Poletti denied everything.

It’s known that at the time, Sindona established contact with the new Sicilian authorities, sold wheat on the black market, and was known to Luciano, but these facts themselves do not prove Poletti’s involvement in shady dealings. As for Sindona, his «career» took off precisely thanks to Luciano, who started laundering mafia money and involved Sindona for this purpose. At first glance, it may seem strange that a mafia boss would entrust such an important task to Sindona, but several facts need to be considered. Sindona belonged to two «worlds»; on one hand, he was a well-educated person, a lawyer, and on the other, a dealer involved in the black market. Such a combination is rare. By the way, both were born in Sicily, which, considering local traditions, played a certain role.

In 1946, Sindona moved to Milan, opened a firm specializing in tax consulting, became a high-class accounting specialist, knowledgeable in capital export and offshore operations. Sindona was the tax consultant for major mafia boss Joe Adonis, connected with Luciano and the Genovese family. He met Cardinal Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Pope Paul VI.

Sindona’s scope of activities grew. He controlled several banks and companies in various economic sectors, including the hotel business, construction, chocolate, and porcelain manufacturing. Sindona was involved in international currency trading, bought a controlling stake in one of the largest American banks at the time (Franklin National Bank).

However, Sindona’s affairs were somewhat odd. Several companies were on the brink of bankruptcy and were sold. In 1971, a financial inspection conducted by the Bank of Italy inspectors revealed violations of the law in the operations of two of Sindona’s banks. In 1974, one of them was declared insolvent. Sindona was suspected of fraudulent bankruptcy. That same year, Franklin National Bank also became insolvent. Sindona was under investigation in the USA, and in 1980, he received a 25-year prison sentence. He was convicted on several dozen charges, including perjury, fraud, and embezzlement of bank funds. In 1981, during a search at «Villa Wanda» owned by Sindona’s friend, authorities were looking for documents on illegal currency export. During the search, they found P2 lodge lists, as well as government documents marked «classified» and confidential dossiers on prominent political figures compiled by Italian intelligence services. And here we come back to Licio Gelli, as he owned the villa.

The list included many influential people: army generals, fleet admirals, financial guard generals, carabinieri generals, directors of intelligence services, parliamentarians, businessmen, professors. The son of the last King of Italy, Victor Emmanuel of Savoy, and Silvio Berlusconi, who was not yet involved in big politics but was already a major businessman, were also on the list.

«P2 had its people among the largest publishers, directors of television and radio programs, among journalists, sociologists, leading cultural figures. For example, the lodge had control over the influential publishing house „Rizzoli“ and Italy’s largest newspaper „Corriere della Sera“, the Milanese magazine „Settimanale“ and the pro-fascist weekly „Borghese“».

Soon, the list became public, and on May 26, 1981, the government, including Prime Minister Forlani, resigned, and «the next day, the Attorney General of Rome, Domenico Sica, issued a warrant for the arrest of Licio Gelli on charges of „political espionage“ and creating a „criminal organization“».

Gelli long evaded Italian justice. He was arrested in Switzerland, but he escaped from prison and, according to some reports, spent some time in South America. By the way, the lodge’s list included several very famous Argentinians who had held significant positions in the state at different times. In 1987, Gelli settled in… Switzerland, which is strange: why live in a country where he had already been arrested once? In 1988, Switzerland agreed to extradite Gelli to Italy, where he stood trial and was sentenced to 18 years in prison. The case was related to the collapse of a bank (Banco Ambrosiano). The main shareholder of Banco Ambrosiano was the «Institute for Religious Works» a dicastery of the Roman Curia (i.e., the main administrative body of the Holy See and the Vatican), which performs banking functions. The appeals court reduced the sentence to 12 years, and in 1998, the Court of Cassation confirmed the verdict, and then Gelli fled house arrest. He was detained in France, and from 2001 until his death in 2015, he was under house arrest at his «Villa Wanda».

Gelli was also suspected of involvement in the death of banker Roberto Calvi. In 1982, his body was found in London. A piece of paper was found on him with the names of several people, including those on the P2 list, among them some very famous individuals. Gelli was formally charged, but he did not appear in the final indictment.

The parliamentary commission investigating the P2 lodge activities, in particular, examined some events related to the 1970 coup attempt. Gelli’s name came up here too. This refers to the so-called «Borghese Coup» named after its leader, a member of the aristocratic family, Prince Junio Borghese.

During the Spanish Civil War, he fought on Franco’s side, commanding the submarine. In World War II, Borghese initially commanded the submarines Vettor Pisani and Sciré, and in 1943, he headed The Decima Flottiglia MAS (10th Assault Vehicle Flotilla) a marine infantry unit of the Italian Social Republic. After the war, he stood trial. He was suspected of involvement in the execution of Italian partisans.

Borghese was sentenced to 12 years in prison, but he was amnestied in 1949. In 1951, he became president of the neo-fascist organization «Italian Social Movement», founded the neo-fascist «National Front» in 1968, and in 1969 began preparing a military coup.

The coup started on the night of December 7—8, 1970. Militants led by Stefano Delle Chiaie entered the Ministry of the Interior. «Blackshirts broke into the arsenal and began transferring machine guns to the approaching truck, setting up heavy machine guns on the stairs. The seasoned fascists Stefano Delle Chiaie and Sandro Saccucci hurried their men: „Faster! Faster! It’s about to start!“».

The conspirators began their action in Venice, Verona, Lombardy, Umbria, and Tuscany. And then Borghese issued an order that halted the execution of the coup. Only on March 17, 1971, did society learn that there had been an attempt at a coup, and only on March 18 did the Deputy Prosecutor of Rome issue arrest warrants for several people, including Borghese. They failed to arrest him as he fled to Spain.

Borghese died in 1974, never revealing, at least publicly, the secret of the coup’s cancellation. The «Parliamentary Commission for the Investigation of Terrorism in Italy and the Causes of the Failure to Identify Those Responsible for Massacres» established in 1988, put forward several hypotheses about this. But these were just hypotheses, meaning the commission did not officially state that the reasons for Borghese’s halting the coup were definitively established.

The commission’s report vaguely suggests that the corresponding order came from Licio Gelli. It should be noted that several people, whose names were linked to the coup, were part of P2: «...not only Saccucci, but also Remo Orlandini, Borghese’s right-hand man, and police captain Salvatore Drago, who opened the doors of the Ministry of the Interior to the coup plotters, and SID chief General Vito Miceli — all were Masons. And not just any Masons, but members of the secret lodge P2». SID was an intelligence service that existed in Italy from 1966 to 1977. Miceli headed it in 1970 and remained in that position for several more years.

In 1990, another scandal erupted, this time around the organization «Gladio» and the operation of the same name. Gelli and P2 were recalled again.

«The US-funded anti-communist „parallel“ government of Italy, P2, and the secret „Gladio“ units closely cooperated during the First Republic. Licio Gelli, who escaped arrest and fled to South America after the exposure of P2, gladly confirmed after the end of the Cold War that the secret army was formed from committed anti-communists», — writes renowned historian Daniele Ganser in his book.

What exactly is «Gladio»? The name comes from gladius, the sword of ancient Roman legionaries. The story of the organization in question dates back to the 1950s. In the West, considering the scenario of a hypothetical war with the Soviet Union, it was assumed that the Soviet army could capture vast territories. In this case, it was planned to carry out sabotage against Soviet troops. To implement this idea, caches with weapons were created, recruitment and training of operatives were conducted. In several Western bloc countries, corresponding networks of militarized cells appeared. In Italy, such a structure was named «Gladio», in other countries, they were called differently, but the term «Gladio» informally acquired a collective meaning for all such networks. Information indicates that similar organizations were created in at least France, Belgium, Denmark, West Germany, Greece, and Switzerland.

All this was kept secret, known only to a narrow circle of individuals. Francesco Cossiga, President of Italy from 1985 to 1992, once stated: «…I am proud that we were able to keep everything secret for 45 years». In 1990, Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti officially acknowledged the existence of «Gladio». Italy is a parliamentary republic, but until that moment, the Italian parliament did not know that the state had long been part of an agreement to create a network of saboteurs on its territory.

How much did the declared goal — carrying out sabotage operations in the event of a hypothetical war with the Soviet Union — correspond to the real plans of the creators of «Gladio»? What if from the very beginning it was just a cover for other tasks? I do not exclude that in the 1950s, the West was indeed preparing to carry out sabotage against Soviet troops. I do not exclude that later, during the long confrontation between the West and the Soviet Union, such a task was not removed from the agenda. But it is hard to argue that «Gladio» had the potential for strong pressure on the official authority of the states where such networks existed. NATO played an important role in managing «Gladio», i.e., an alliance in which the USA occupied and still occupies leading positions; as well as intelligence services, especially the CIA, meaning again the USA. Suppose a certain state in Western Europe tried to free itself from American influence and pursue a policy sharply contrary to Washington’s interests. What if the USA, using sabotage networks, in response, began subversive actions? Who can guarantee that such a scenario is unreal? The potential possibility of such developments is already a lever of pressure.

I also pose another question. What if such networks were de-facto controlled by what I call the unadvertised or unofficial authority? Considering the scandal around the Masonic lodge P2, it would hardly be categorical to assert that such authority never existed, does not exist, and will not exist. By the way, according to some data, Gelli headed not only P2 but also two more lodges, more secret ones. Finally, a third question: what if the organization «Gladio» not only potentially threatened but also directly influenced the situation in a particular country through actual actions? For many years, it was believed that the Peteano attack (May 31, 1972) was carried out by the «Red Brigades». According to the police report, the explosives used by the criminals were the same as those used by the «Red Brigades». However, judge Felice Casson established that «fake test results were provided by Marco Morin, an explosives expert from the Italian police. He was a member of the neo-fascist group «New Order».

It turned out that the terrorists had rigged the car with C4 explosive, which NATO, in particular, used. In early 1972, that is, before the Peteano attack, police near Trieste discovered a cache containing C4, weapons, and ammunition. Investigating the events in Trieste and Peteano, Casson established that the perpetrator of the attack was «New Order» member Vincenzo Vinciguerra.

Vinciguerra made several statements, including about a certain structure: «This extremely powerful organization, in the absence of a Soviet occupation that might never have occurred, took it upon itself on behalf of NATO to prevent the political situation in the country from shifting to the left. It was engaged in this in collaboration with the official secret services, political and military authorities». Andreotti assured that candidates for «Gladio» underwent thorough screening and were not supposed to belong to any extremist organizations. However, if Vinciguerra’s words referred to «Gladio», then where did he know about this structure? Wouldn’t it be logical to assume that he was a member?

When the topic of «Gladio»’s activities is raised, Stefano Delle Chiaie’s name often comes up. So, his name, in particular, surfaced in connection with the Bologna bombing.

«If you believe a disillusioned follower of Gelli, the neo-fascist Elio Ciolini, this mass murder was planned and detailed at a P2 meeting in Monte Carlo on April 11, 1980, with the participation of Licio Gelli. The same Ciolini testified under oath that the operational management was entrusted to the „bloody trio“ already mentioned: Stefano Delle Chiaie, Pierluigi Pagliai, and Joachim Fiebelkorn».

Delle Chiaie is also mentioned in the context of the Milan bombing, the Borghese coup, the series of train bombings in 1972, and the «Italicus» express attack, but neither for these cases nor for the Bologna bombing case was Chiaie found guilty of committing a crime by the court. For this and a number of other reasons, I do not claim that the «Gladio» organization was indeed involved in terrorism.

As for unadvertised politics, the fact that a militarized structure’s existence was kept secret for decades. And if it was possible to create such an organization once, why couldn’t it be done again?

Chapter 6. Eloquent names

Pay attention to a series of events related to the «Borghese Coup». Initially, the fact of the coup attempt was not disclosed to the public for several months. Then, in 1971, the relevant information was leaked to the press, an investigation finally began, but in the same year, the Rome prosecutor’s office closed it. In 1972, a new investigation followed, during which SID managed to gather a lot of materials. Italian Defense Minister Giulio Andreotti sent a report on the investigation to the Rome prosecutor’s office, but it omitted some important information. For example, Admiral Giovanni Torrisi and Licio Gelli were not mentioned. Gelli again! In 1977, the trial of the accused in the coup began. In 1978, several dozen sentences were issued, but the story did not end there. In 1984, a judicial decision acquitted 46 people previously convicted of political conspiracy. And in 1986, the Court of Cassation confirmed the absence of a political conspiracy.

Let’s take another case. The case of the terrorist attack carried out on December 12, 1969, in Milan at the Banca Nazionale dell’Agricoltura. On the same day, the police began to interrogate the anarchist Giuseppe Pinelli. On December 15, he died after falling from the fourth floor of the police building. On December 16, anarchist Pietro Valpreda was arrested, interrogated by Vittorio Occorsio, who was the deputy prosecutor at the time, and accused him of killing and injuring several people. In 1972, the trial began, and in 1974, three accused were sentenced to life imprisonment: Guido Giannettini, Franco Freda, and Giovanni Ventura. However, the appellate court acquitted all defendants of the main charge. Note, we’ve already encountered Giannettini, and Freda was an ideologue of Nazi-Maoism, a concept mentioned above.

The acquittal of Giannettini was confirmed by the Court of Cassation and ordered a new trial for four defendants. In 1985, the appellate court acquitted them. There was another investigation, involving neo-fascists Stefano Delle Chiaie and Massimiliano Fachini, both of whom were acquitted. In 2000, another trial began, three people were sentenced to life imprisonment, one to three years of imprisonment. In 2004, the life sentences were overturned, and the three-year sentence was reduced to one year. Valpreda was imprisoned for several years, released in 1972, and in 1979 was sentenced to 4 years and 6 months of imprisonment. Subsequent trials took place, and in 1987 Valpreda was acquitted. Occorsio was killed in 1976 by the neo-fascist Pierluigi Concutelli. I think it should be noted that Occorsio was the first judge to investigate the activities of the Masonic lodge P2, having previously investigated the «Borghese Coup».

Moving on. The first investigation of the terrorist attack carried out on May 28, 1974, in Brescia led to the conviction of several people. One of them, Ermanno Buzzi, was strangled in prison by neo-fascists Pierluigi Concutelli and Mario Tuti. In 1982, the court of second instance overturned the guilty verdicts. In 1984, a second investigation began concerning other individuals. The case went to trial, and the defendants were acquitted. In 2008, charges were brought against six individuals, three of whom were once members of Ordine Nuovo. In 2010, all defendants were acquitted. Subsequently, in 2015, two people were sentenced to life imprisonment.

In 1982, banker Roberto Calvi was found hanged under a bridge in London. Let me tell you more about him. He was born in 1920 in Milan. His father was a bank employee (Banca Commerciale Italiana), and Roberto also decided to work in this field. During World War II, he fought on the Eastern Front. When the war ended, Calvi got a position at Banca Commerciale Italiana, then at Banco Ambrosiano, whose activities were associated with the Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR). That is, a Vatican structure functioning as a bank. Calvi climbed the career ladder and in the 1960s already had sufficient authority to handle large financial deals. In 1968, he met Michele Sindona, and through him, Licio Gelli, and became a member of the lodge P2. David Yallop, the author of the widely known book «In God’s Name» writes that «gradually Sindona and Calvi mastered the art of major scams». In 1986, while in prison, Sindona drank coffee laced with cyanide and soon died. Calvi passed away earlier. In both cases, there were doubts about suicide, and, by the way, shortly before his death, Sindona told American journalist Nick Tosches in an interview that Calvi was murdered.

Former mafioso Francesco Marino Mannoia stated that Calvi was strangled by the mafioso Francesco Di Carlo. According to Mannoia, Calvi had taken a large sum of money belonging to Gelli and mafioso Giuseppe Calò, who subsequently ordered Calvi’s murder. Di Carlo admitted he had received such an order but did not carry it out. Former judge Carlo Palermo stated that Calvi was killed by British intelligence services. According to him, in 1980, Banco Ambrosiano financed the purchase of a batch of missiles for Argentina. Interestingly, the bridge under which Calvi’s body was found was painted in white and blue. The colors of the Argentine flag are white and blue.

I find it appropriate to quote Yallop again: «In January 1980, the South American branch of Banco Ambrosiano opened in Buenos Aires. It did not actually conduct any banking operations in the usual sense. The purpose of its creation, according to Calvi’s plan, was quite different: to finance the purchase of Exocet missiles by the Argentine regime, as well as to open credit to Latin American reactionary juntas for arms purchases». On May 4, 1982, during the conflict with Britain, an Argentine aircraft attacked the British destroyer «Sheffield» with Exocet missiles. One of them hit the destroyer, a fire broke out, 20 crew members died, many were injured, and the ship soon sank. «...In the midst of the Falklands crisis, Gelli, who was hiding at the time, went to Europe to help his Argentine friends. The Exocet missiles he had purchased for the Argentine military regime were well received, and Gelli decided to place a repeat order in France». Gelli, again and again, the narrative leads to him. The investigation of Calvi’s death was undertaken by British judicial authorities, and the prosecutors of Milan and Rome. In 2007, the prosecutor demanded life imprisonment for four people. That same year, all defendants in the «Calvi case» were acquitted by a jury in Rome.

Sindona. Received a life sentence, and two days later drank coffee with cyanide. Broke down? Despaired? Decided that his connections with very influential people wouldn’t help, and preferred to die? There was a theory that Sindona did not plan to commit suicide but decided to poison himself relatively safely and achieve extradition to the USA. He did not die instantly but two days later in the hospital. But how did he get cyanide in prison? And did Sindona become the victim of a deception, that is, was he given a lethal dose, thinking he would only fall ill?

Exploring the course of investigations and judicial decisions in Italy, I repeatedly caught myself thinking that some powerful force was putting serious obstacles in the way of justice. Of course, I do not consider my subjective feelings as proof. But note the official name of the commission: «The Parliamentary Commission for the Investigation of Terrorism in Italy and the reasons for not identifying those responsible for mass murders». The formulation itself contains an acknowledgment that in some cases the state could not even identify who was guilty of mass murders. Not to arrest and try, but even to identify. Another commission operated in Italy with an equally eloquent name: «Parliamentary Commission for the investigation of the reasons for concealing documents related to nazi-fascist crimes». The scale and frequency of terrorist attacks that hit Italy allow us to speak of a terrorist war against this state. The same can be said about France.

«Much in Rome changed under the terrible pressure of terror. Police started wearing bulletproof vests, replaced rusty World War I rifles with automatic guns. Armored towers with machine gun slots were installed near the parliament building. „Romans are changing their way of life“ wrote the weekly „Epoch“ publishing photos of heavily armed police and streets that became deserted in the evenings. Even in places where politics is scorned and only entertainment is considered, such as Via Veneto, the citadel of „sweet life“ regulars moved behind the thick doors of private clubs set up in the basements of night bars. „It’s like there’s no nuclear war, but we’ve already moved into the bunker“ one of Rome’s newspapers joked at the time».

Who led the terrorist wars? This question does not concern the direct perpetrators of the attacks but the organizational structures that carried out the overall management. It’s clear that they must possess very large resources, not limited to money alone. Classic wars are waged by states. I am convinced that terrorist wars are waged by forces comparable in power to states. So, perhaps it’s worth looking for states that hypothetically stood behind the terrorists? Indeed, there are certain grounds that allow posing such a question. This version will be tested for strength below. I will also consider another hypothesis, which I will formulate now. What if there exists a powerful non-state organization of international scale in the world, which, using the resources of different states, pursues its own policy, aiming for its own goals? Suppose, in specific, including important cases, the implementation of such tasks may be beneficial to the ruling elites of various countries, but strategically leads to the loss of their status by these elites.

Chapter 7. A very strange war

England and France were bitter enemies for hundreds of years. They competed both in Europe and many other regions of the world. Britain took away France’s possessions in Canada, but during the American War of Independence, Paris supported the seceding territories. At that time, French military aid played a significant role in defeating Britain. England and France fought each other during the Napoleonic Wars. They clashed during the colonial division of Africa. In short, there are many examples.

They were also allies, such as in the Crimean War, when both countries stood against Russia, but much more often, the interests of London and Paris did not align. In the mid-20th century, Britain and France still possessed vast colonial holdings, and their rivalry hardly belonged to the past. So, the National Liberation Front of Algeria received significant support from Egypt. But Egypt was under British control for a very long period. England occupied it in 1882, Egypt became formally independent in 1922, but only in 1954 was an agreement made to withdraw British troops from the country.

It’s known that metropoles, when «leaving» their colonies or protectorates, strive to maintain their influence in a new, neo-colonial form. It’s unlikely that Britain completely left, at least in the 1950s. Connections between de Gaulle and London have already been mentioned. So, did Britain ignite Algeria? Did London stand behind the terrorist war against France, and did de Gaulle, associated with it, formalize the independence of Algeria? But what made Britain grant independence to Ireland itself? And who then, for many decades, waged a terrorist war demanding London to leave Northern Ireland? Before approaching these questions, I’ll make a brief excursion into the history of Ireland.

In 1791, the «Society of United Irishmen» emerged in Belfast, soon setting the goal of creating a state independent of Britain. The organization’s leader, Wolfe Tone, secured the support of France, and preparations for an uprising began. In 1798, along with a detachment of the French army led by Jean Humbert, Tone arrived in Ireland. Humbert’s detachment joined forces with the rebels and defeated the British at Castlebar. However, in another battle, the British won a complete victory. Jean Humbert was captured, Wolfe Tone was sentenced to death, which he didn’t live to see, presumably committing suicide.

In 1800, the parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland simultaneously passed two acts proclaiming the creation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. However, a movement for the repeal of the union soon emerged, and in the first half of the 19th century, some Masonic lodges became centers of the republican movement. The executive power in Ireland was exercised by the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary, appointed by the British government. The «beneficial» nature of British rule was well illustrated by the events of the famine in Ireland from 1845—1852. About one million people died, and another million left the country. During this time, a wave of armed uprisings swept through Europe: in France, Sicily, Lombardy, Venice, the Papal States, the German Confederation, Schleswig and Holstein, Moldavia, and Wallachia. A series of riots took place in Stockholm, leading to human casualties. In 1848, the uprising was raised by «Young Ireland» founded in 1842. This attempt to secede was suppressed, but the movement for independence continued. One of the uprising participants, John O’Mahony, having avoided arrest, went to Paris, then to the USA. There, he became a co-founder of the «Fenian Brotherhood» closely associated with the secret «Irish Republican Brotherhood» (IRB) operating in Ireland. In 1867, the IRB raised an uprising, which again failed almost before it began. Yet, by 1870, Irish politician Isaac Butt created the «Home Government Association» which transformed into the «Home Rule League» party, and in turn, into the Irish Parliamentary Party. In 1905, the «Sinn Féin» party («ourselves») appeared, followed by the «Irish Volunteers» military organization in 1913.

Historically, proponents of Irish independence repeatedly sought support abroad. Logically, they hoped to receive it from those states that competed with Britain. In the second half of the 19th century, that country was Germany. At the beginning of the 20th century, London and Berlin were already in stiff confrontation, and a world war was brewing. Consequently, Berlin benefited from troubles in England. On this basis, there was a rapprochement between Irish nationalist circles and German authorities.

«Pro-German propaganda in the pre-war period was conducted in three influential nationalist publications: «United Irishman’ «Sinn Féin’ which started after the «United Irishman’ was banned in 1906, and «Irish Freedom’ — the official mouthpiece of the IRB, appearing in Ireland in 1910».

The war started in 1914, and contacts between Irish nationalists and the German embassy in the USA occurred in its early period. Berlin counted on a blitzkrieg, but it soon became clear that this plan had failed and the war was becoming protracted. Germany’s economic and military potential significantly lagged behind the Entente, so warfare of attrition meant inevitable defeat for Berlin. Germany desperately sought asymmetric ways to counter the Entente and eventually decided to support an Irish uprising, should one occur. In turn, the Irish counted on a German troop landing in Limerick.