The Vatican and the Nazi Escape Networks: The Ratlines

🧵👇

The Vatican was the single most significant institution involved in the postwar smuggling of Nazi war criminals.

According to declassified U.S. intelligence files and investigative research, between 30,000 and 40,000 Nazi and fascist collaborators were assisted in escaping Europe through Vatican-supported ratlines.

This is clearly stated in a 1947 report by Vincent La Vista, officer of the U.S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC), who investigated Vatican ties to Axis networks:

“The Vatican has been directly involved in the illegal evacuation of German and Croatian war criminals… operating through religious institutions, it has become a central hub of what can only be described as a ratline.”

(National Archives, La Vista Report, 1947) Operation “Vatican Corridor” (or “Monastery”)

This covert smuggling operation involved Cardinal Giovanni Battista Montini, then Vatican Undersecretary of State and later Pope Paul VI. He oversaw the use of Catholic infrastructure: monasteries, seminaries, and dioceses - to shelter and move war criminals south toward Genoa, where they were shipped to Latin America under false identities.

Montini personally communicated with U.S. officials and coordinated logistics via trusted Church agents. According to declassified OSS and CIC documents, his office functioned as an “unofficial channel for protected transit” not only for Germans and Italians, but especially for Croatian Ustaša officials, whose Catholic affiliation and ideological alignment with the Church made them a priority for Vatican-sponsored escape routes.

The broader network of ratlines also facilitated the evacuation of Axis collaborators from Austria, Hungary, Romania, France, and even Francoist Spain all under the larger umbrella of anti-communist realignment. The Vatican’s goal was to preserve a transnational conservative Catholic elite that could oppose Soviet influence worldwide.

Main Destinations of Nazi Fugitives via Vatican Ratlines

🔸 Argentina
(the main destination thousands of Nazis and Ustaše officials resettled here)
🔸 Brazil
🔸 Paraguay
🔸 Chile
🔸 Bolivia
🔸 Uruguay
🔸 Venezuela
🔸 Spain
(under Franco both a destination and a key transit hub)
🔸 Portugal
(a neutral country, often used as a temporary safe haven)
🔸 Syria
(sheltered some individuals via French Mandate connections)
🔸 Canada
🔸 United States
(mainly through Operation Paperclip or the Displaced Persons Act, used to import “anti-communist specialists”)

The Vatican and the Nazi Escape Networks

🧵👇

The Vatican was the single most significant institution involved in the postwar smuggling of Nazi war criminals.

The Vatican was the single most significant institution involved in the postwar smuggling of Nazi war criminals.
According to declassified U.S. intelligence files and investigative research, between 30,000 and 40,000 Nazi and fascist collaborators were assisted in escaping Europe through Vatican-supported ratlines.

This is clearly stated in a 1947 report by Vincent La Vista, officer of the U.S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC), who investigated Vatican ties to Axis networks:

“The Vatican has been directly involved in the illegal evacuation of German and Croatian war criminals… operating through religious institutions, it has become a central hub of what can only be described as a ratline.”
(National Archives, La Vista Report, 1947) Operation “Vatican Corridor” (or “Monastery”)

This covert smuggling operation involved Cardinal Giovanni Battista Montini, then Vatican Undersecretary of State and later Pope Paul VI. He oversaw the use of Catholic infrastructure: monasteries, seminaries, and dioceses - to shelter and move war criminals south toward Genoa, where they were shipped to Latin America under false identities.

Montini personally communicated with U.S. officials and coordinated logistics via trusted Church agents. According to declassified OSS and CIC documents, his office functioned as an “unofficial channel for protected transit” not only for Germans and Italians, but especially for Croatian Ustaša officials, whose Catholic affiliation and ideological alignment with the Church made them a priority for Vatican-sponsored escape routes.

The broader network of ratlines also facilitated the evacuation of Axis collaborators from Austria, Hungary, Romania, France, and even Francoist Spain all under the larger umbrella of anti-communist realignment. The Vatican’s goal was to preserve a transnational conservative Catholic elite that could oppose Soviet influence worldwide.

Main Destinations of Nazi Fugitives via Vatican Ratlines

🔸 Argentina
(the main destination thousands of Nazis and Ustaše officials resettled here)
🔸 Brazil
🔸 Paraguay
🔸 Chile
🔸 Bolivia
🔸 Uruguay
🔸 Venezuela
🔸 Spain
(under Franco both a destination and a key transit hub)
🔸 Portugal
(a neutral country, often used as a temporary safe haven)
🔸 Syria
(sheltered some individuals via French Mandate connections)
🔸 Canada
🔸 United States
(mainly through Operation Paperclip or the Displaced Persons Act, used to import “anti-communist specialists”)

Three Strikes Against Rus’: Poland, Rome, and the Jewish Middlemen

In Poland, they love to say they are the “civilized Slavs,” while Rus’, so they claim, were the barbarians. Well then, let’s take a closer look.

🧵👇

Poland and Russia are both Slavic, but they took very different paths. Back in 966, Poland chose to take Christianity from Rome, meaning it immediately tied itself to the Pope and the Western Catholic system. Rus’, on the other hand, adopted Christianity from Byzantium in 988 - voluntarily, not under pressure.

Why does that matter? Because even before the East–West church split in 1054, Constantinople was already the real center of Christian power: rich, influential, and the source of theology, law, and art. The Byzantine emperor wasn’t just a ruler: he was seen as the Christian “Tsar.”

In the West, Christianity was a mess of popes, bishops, and feudal lords all fighting for power. In the East, the Church and State worked together in harmony. No foreign popes telling you what to do. That’s the model Rus’ followed—strong, centralized, and rooted in its own sacred tradition. The West? More like a tangle of spiritual bureaucracy and foreign dependence. The Polish Model of Governance: Element One

So why did Mieszko I get baptized through Rome? Easy - self-preservation. Germany was pushing east under the banner of “Christianization,” but really it meant swords and fire. Mieszko figured it was better to convert on his own terms than be forced. So he got baptized via Bohemia, dodged invasion and put Poland under the Pope’s authority.

Poles like to say they were “first” to become Christian. Sure🤪 but by 988, Rus’ was already a strong, organized state. When Russian Vladimir chose Byzantium, Rus’ kept its sovereignty, ran its own church, and didn’t need Rome’s permission for anything. Unlike Polish or Hungarian rulers, Yaroslav’s daughters married into European royalty without papal blessing. That’s real independence.

Rome hated that. An Orthodox Rus’ outside papal control? Unacceptable. That’s why the West kept trying to break it: with crusades, Polish wars, Church unions, Jesuits…you name it.

Poland wasn’t just non-Orthodox. It stood against Orthodoxy, aligning with Rome, Vienna, Paris - whoever was in charge. It built a habit of needing outside validation. Meanwhile, Rus’ built from within. How very barbaric of them.

Why did Hitler invade the USSR specifically on June 22, 1941?

Several theories exist.

🧵👇

1. One of the most practical explanations is that Hitler chose June 22 because it is the day of the summer solstice, with the shortest night of the year. Since the plan was to conquer the USSR quickly, longer daylight hours were seen as an advantage for conducting rapid military operations. 2. Hitler was fascinated by occult ideas, and for him, this date had special meaning. The summer solstice is an ancient Aryan holiday. Its main symbol, the Sunwheel (swastika) stands for the power of the sun.

In occult traditions, the summer solstice is seen as the time of strongest energy: the longest day and the shortest night of the year. It was believed to be the best moment to start something big, to show strength, and to take control of fate.

The Crimean War: The First Western Plan to Break Russia and How Persia Was Used in Britain’s Geopolitical Game

The Crimean War (1853–1856) is often portrayed in Western textbooks as a limited conflict over Christian holy sites or a simple case of Russian imperial overreach. In reality, it was the first major hybrid war waged by the collective West against Russia aimed not at Crimea alone, but at surrounding, weakening, and fragmenting the Russian Empire through both military and ideological means.

🧵👇 Part 1: Why the West Wanted to Cripple and Break Russia in the 1850s

After the defeat of Napoleon in 1812–1814, Russia emerged as a dominant power in Europe:

🔸 Russia controlled Poland, Finland, and the Caucasus
🔸 It was pushing into the Balkans and gaining influence over the weakening Ottoman Empire
🔸 It was seen as the protector of Orthodox Christians across Eastern Europe and the Middle East
🔸 It possessed a massive land army, strategic fleets, and vast manpower resources

This alarmed both Britain and France, especially due to:

🔸 Britain’s fear for its colonial route to India
🔸 France’s ambition to regain prestige after the Napoleonic wars
🔸 Shared concerns about Russia’s growing access to the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, and possibly the Bosporus and Dardanelles

Zhirinovsky’s quotes:

In 2024, there will be no elections. There will be no country called Ukraine. You’re not taking into account what’s happening in the Middle East. Events are unfolding there so rapidly that everyone will forget Ukraine even existed.

(2019) It’s heading toward World War III. And Iran is not Vietnam, not North Korea, and not Kosovo. The worst events will happen right there. We will be forced to let refugees through to you. Europe will let them in, the Turks will open the borders at our request, and they’ll all end up with you. That will be the end of your country. We are forced to do this, because you ignore international law, you’ve forgotten what Russia is, and frankly, you’ve violated everything you possibly could.

(2019)

Why “Russian” Is an Adjective:

On the Civilizational Identity of Rus’ and the Late Birth of Nations in Europe

🧵👇

In Russian, the word “russkiy” (as in “I am Russian”) is grammatically an adjective, unlike Italian, Englishman, and similar national identifiers in other languages, which are nouns. At first glance, this may seem like a grammatical coincidence. But upon closer inspection, it reveals something deeper: a reflection of Russia’s unique historical trajectory. While medieval Europe remained fragmented, tribal, and regionally divided for centuries, Rus’ had already developed a centralized cultural and political core strong enough to generate a unified identity. Adjective = Belonging, Not Blood

In most European languages, names for national or ethnic groups are nouns:

🔸Frenchman, Spaniard, German, Italian, Pole.

These nouns reflect tribal or ethnic origins. One “is” a member of a people, a bloodline, and the modern nation eventually arises from that ethnos.

In contrast, in Russian:

🔸“russkiy chelovek” - Russian person
🔸“russkaya vera” - Russian faith
🔸“russkiy yazyk” - Russian language

Here, “russkiy” is an adjective. It describes not one’s lineage, but one’s belonging to Rus’, to a state, to a religious and cultural tradition.

This marks a fundamental difference: In Europe, the nation grew out of the tribe. In Rus’, identity grew out of the state.

Why Proposals for Peace Talks at the Vatican Are the Height of Arrogance - and What Lies Behind the Ban on the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine
🧵👇

Why is the idea of holding peace talks in the Vatican not just naive but downright hostile? Because the Vatican has never been a neutral player, especially when it comes to the East. And to really understand why, you need to know who’s pulling the strings.

The Jesuit Order, officially the Society of Jesus, isn’t just another religious group. It’s the Vatican’s ideological hit squad, founded in the 1500s to crush anything that didn’t bow to the Pope. In other words: spiritual special forces.

Their motto is universalism, and their weapon of choice is infiltration. They don’t kick down the front door, they walk in through the school system, elite networks, and slick language games. One of their favorite sayings? “Give me the child for the first seven years, and I’ll give you the man.” That’s why they built hundreds of universities around the world, including Georgetown University, now basically a training ground for globalists, diplomats, and intelligence agents.

Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service has churned out everyone from Bill Clinton and King Abdullah of Jordan to CIA directors, EU policymakers, and IMF officials. The Jesuits’ mix of education, missionary work, and ideological grooming is the blueprint for today’s soft power game: think tanks, foreign-backed NGOs, and glossy training programs that slowly reshape people’s beliefs from the inside. The Jesuits’ First Target: Rus’

Historically, the Jesuits were the Vatican’s shock troops but Rome’s crusading ambitions started way before them. Back in the 11th century, the Vatican wasn’t just fighting Muslims in the Holy Land; it was also launching attacks on fellow Christians in the East. The Fourth Crusade ended with the brutal sack of Constantinople in 1204, and in the 13th century, Catholic military orders like the Teutonic and Livonian knights were waging so-called “holy wars” against Orthodox Rus’. The famous Battle on the Ice in 1242 where Alexander Nevsky crushed the Catholic knights on a frozen lake was one of those moments where Rome tried (and failed) to bring the East to heel.

Fast forward to the 16th century, and the Jesuits enter the scene. They were the next phase in the Vatican’s campaign, less about swords, more about strategy. But just as ruthless. In 1572, they were involved in the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre – a coordinated bloodbath that wiped out tens of thousands of Protestants in France. Once the Vatican had brought Western Europe to its knees, it turned its sights back East. Rus’ wasn’t seen as a different tradition, it was labeled a 'schism.' A threat. The war was no longer just fought on battlefields. It moved into classrooms, churches, and diplomatic backrooms.

Why “Peace Talks” at the Vatican Are a Joke and Dangerous

Some people think the Vatican is the right place to talk about peace in Ukraine. But this idea isn’t just naive - it’s dangerous. Why? Because the Vatican is not a neutral side. It never was. Especially when it comes to Russia.

To understand this, you need to know who’s really behind these “peace” offers. Who Are the Jesuits?

The Jesuits, also called the Society of Jesus, are not just regular priests. They were created in the 1500s by the Catholic Church to destroy other types of Christianity that didn’t follow the Pope. You can think of them as the Vatican’s special forces: smart, strategic, and loyal only to Rome.

In Russia, they tried many times to break the Orthodox Church. One of their main tools was the idea of “Eastern Catholicism”, churches that look Orthodox on the outside, but follow the Pope on the inside.

Lenin’s Letter to Ganetsky: Proof of a Revolution for Germany’s Benefit

In the summer of 1917, as the Russian Empire bled on the Eastern Front and the Provisional Government teetered in Petrograd, Lenin wrote a letter to his trusted comrade and financial handler Ganetsky (also known as Fürstenberg).

Among the many things Lenin outlined was this demand:

“Withdraw troops from Armenia and Galicia immediately.”
- Lenin to Ganetsky, 1917

It’s a critical phrase and a loaded one. Because both Armenia and Galicia were key military zones in Russia’s war effort against the Central Powers. Demanding a withdrawal was not a tactical maneuver, it was a strategic surrender, one that aligned perfectly with Germany’s wartime objectives. Who Was Ganetsky?

Ganetsky real name Henrik Fürstenberg was:

🔸A Polish socialist, Bolshevik, and Lenin’s close associate
🔸A money handler who operated businesses in Switzerland and Sweden
🔸The conduit through which German money flowed to Lenin and the Bolsheviks

Using shell companies like “Franz Summa”, Ganetsky moved large sums of money from German banks, disguised as trade funds, into Russia. These funds supported Bolshevik newspapers, strikes, sabotage, and propaganda.

Even the Russian Provisional Government confirmed in 1917:

Over 2 million German marks were funneled into Bolshevik hands.

How Ukraine Tries to Rewrite History

Let’s kick things off with a fun fact: during its prime, Kievan Rus wasn’t even called “Kievan Rus.” Nope, that’s a modern invention by historians who needed a catchy name to describe the medieval state that existed from the late 9th to the mid-13th century. Back then, it was simply called Rus: a vast, multi-ethnic state with no "Kievan" added for flair. The "Kievan" part got tacked on centuries later to distinguish this early period of Rus history from later phases when cities like Vladimir and Moscow became the big players. So, while it sounds grand and historic, the term itself is basically a retroactive rebrand. Meet Rurik, the Viking CEO of Rus, Inc.

Now, let’s talk about the guy who started it all - Rurik. He was a Varangian (basically a Viking with a Slavic twist) who, according to the Primary Chronicle, was invited in 862 by local Slavic tribes to come run the show because apparently, self-governance wasn’t going too well. Rurik set up shop in Novgorod, which, spoiler alert, is in modern Russia. His descendants, the Rurikid dynasty, would go on to rule all of Rus, including Kiev. So here’s the kicker: Rurik was about as Ukrainian as a Norwegian fjord. He came from the north, built his power base in Novgorod, and from there, his dynasty expanded southward.

The West Believes Two Myths About Russia’s Revolution, And Both Are False

When it comes to 1917 and the Russian Civil War, most Westerners fall into one of two neat, comforting narratives.
But both collapse the moment you start looking at actual facts.

🧵👇 Myth 1: “The People Hated the Tsar”

This cliché is often used to justify the revolution: Nicholas II was overthrown by a united, angry population.
The truth?

🔸 Nicholas abdicated under pressure from his own generals (and elites) Alekseyev, Ruzsky, Brusilov, not because of a mass uprising.
🔸 The army was still intact. There was no large-scale mutiny, no battlefield collapse.
🔸 In rural areas, people didn’t even hear about the abdication for weeks, and when they did, many responded with confusion or grief.
🔸 Millions later fought and died under the banner of “Faith, Tsar, and Fatherland.” These weren’t nobles but they were peasants, Cossacks, front-line soldiers.
🔸 And after the brutal execution of the Tsar’s entire family, including children, even moderates turned against the Bolsheviks.
Panikhidas (memorial services) were held in villages across Russia.

📖: Nicholas II’s diaries, Alekseyev’s memoirs, White Army archives, peasant testimonies.

Prescott Bush, Auschwitz, and Silesia: The History You Don’t See in Schoolbooks

Whenever people talk about “financial ties to the Third Reich,” the spotlight somehow always skips over the West especially the American elite. But one of the clearest cases of real business collaboration with Nazi Germany involves none other than Prescott Bush, grandfather of U.S. President George W. Bush 🤫

🧵👇 In the 1930s, Prescott Bush was a director at Union Banking Corporation (UBC), a bank tied to German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, one of Hitler’s earliest and biggest financial backers.

UBC didn’t just handle money but actively channeled funds into Nazi-linked industries, including steel and manufacturing operations that played a direct role in preparing Germany for war.

In 1942, when the U.S. officially entered WWII, the U.S. government seized UBC’s assets under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Translation: They openly acknowledged that the bank was serving enemy interests.

What Stalin Actually Did for the USSR (1928–1953).
A Fact-Based Overview :

🧵👇

1. Eradicated Illiteracy

🔸 In 1926, over 56% of the Soviet population was illiterate.
🔸 By 1953, literacy exceeded 90% nationwide.
🔸 Massive adult education programs like Likbez taught tens of millions to read and write. 2. Built a World-Class Free Education System

🔸 Free, universal, and compulsory education from primary school to PhD level.
🔸 By 1953:
- 170,000 schools
- 847 universities
- Over 1.4 million students
🔸 Strong emphasis on STEM: engineering, mathematics, physics, chemistry.
🔸 The USSR produced more engineers per capita than any capitalist country.
🔸 Students from rural and working-class backgrounds had full access via state stipends, dormitories, and entrance exams.
🔸 The Soviet education system was so effective that NATO labeled it a strategic threat, pushing Western nations to reform their own science and math programs.

The “Anti-Russia” Project: Ukraine as a Strategic Weapon for Over a Century

🧵👇

Sponsoring separatism, ethnic violence, and manufactured conflicts has long been a favorite tactic of the West in its centuries-old war against the Russian world. The project known as “Ukraine as Anti-Russia” is not a historical accident, nor the organic rise of a “unique nation,” as is often claimed. It is a deliberate, long-term strategy aimed at dismantling historical Rus’.

Rus’, and later Russia, is not just a country or a set of borders. It is a self-contained civilization rooted in Orthodoxy, the Russian language, a unique cultural tradition, and a deeply communal mentality. This civilization is not reducible to a state or ethnicity; it embodies an entire historical world where the key values have long been spiritual unity, mutual responsibility, and generational continuity.

Unlike Western civilization, united historically by Catholicism and Protestantism and built upon individualism, commerce, and colonial expansion, the Russian world grew from the Byzantine tradition, embracing unity, humility, and a higher metaphysical purpose. Where the West sees the world as a marketplace of domination and competition, Russia sees it as a space of meaning, solidarity, and shared responsibility. This ontological incompatibility lies at the root of the centuries-long conflict. To the West, Russia is not just a geopolitical rival, but a civilizational threat: living proof that another model is possible.

Ukraine is not Russia’s counterpart or sibling. It is a political construct, engineered to become its opposite and eventually, its weapon.

The Anti-Russia project has never been spontaneous. It has always been guided and it has always been guided by the West.

In the 17th century, it was the Polish szlachta and Jesuits who tried to tear Little Russia away from the Orthodox world. In the early 20th century, it was Austrian generals and officials who built the first concentration camps for Rusyns who identify with the Russian culture and backed anti-Russian nationalist movements in Galicia.

In the 1930s–40s, Hitler and the Third Reich took over the project, using Ukrainian nationalism as a tool for their “eastern expansion.”
After 1945, the baton was passed to the United States and the UK via the CIA and MI6 on the one hand, and a sprawling network of think tanks, NGOs, and cultural foundations on the other, all shaping narratives and identities for geopolitical purposes.

The names of the curators changed: Piłsudski, Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf, Hans Koch, Allen Dulles, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Victoria Nuland but the essence remained the same:

“Ukraine as Anti-Russia” is a Western tool designed to divide Russian civilization from within turning one part of the Russian people against the other.

Lenin and Stalin: One Ideology - Two Opposing Practices

Formally, both Lenin and Stalin adhered to Marxism. But in practice, their policies diverged sharply across key areas. The most well-known split was on the question of world revolution:
🔸 Lenin viewed it as essential for the survival of Soviet power,
🔸 Stalin rejected it in favor of building socialism in a single country.

But the differences did not end there.

Stalin did not continue Lenin’s line, despite preserving the ideological language. In many key areas, he effectively dismantled Lenin’s legacy, replacing the destructive revolutionary impulse with a constructive logic of state power.

And most importantly:
🔸 None of Lenin’s controversial measures were essential to Marxist theory.

They were improvisations, cloaked in ideological justification.
🧵👇 1. World Revolution

Lenin
🔸 Believed that world revolution was essential for the survival of Soviet power.
🔸 Founded the Comintern (international communism) as a tool for exporting revolution beyond Russia’s borders.
🔸Openly viewed Russia primarily as a launching pad - a resource base to support uprisings in Germany, Hungary, Poland, Turkey, and elsewhere.

Stalin
🔸 Abandoned the idea of world revolution,
🔸 Declared a new course: socialism in one country, focusing on internal development.
🔸 By the 1930s, he sharply limited Comintern activity, and in 1943, disbanded it entirely - emphasizing that the USSR was no longer exporting revolution, but defending itself as a sovereign state.

Here is what Marxist theory is for those who don’t know ⤵️

The 1936 Soviet Constitution (aka “Stalin’s Constitution”) is often considered one of the most progressive of its time. Not in the “liberal” sense, but because of how far it went in declaring rights and social guarantees, way ahead of what Western democracies were offering back then.

Here’s why 🧵👇 1. Universal, equal, direct voting rights with no class restrictions

🔸 Before 1936, some people in the USSR, like former nobles, priests, and “kulaks”, couldn’t vote.
🔸 The 1936 constitution gave full voting rights to everyone, including the right to be elected.

Meanwhile:
🔸 In the U.S., African Americans in the South were still blocked from voting using literacy tests, poll taxes, and violence.
🔸 In Switzerland, women didn’t get voting rights until 1971.
🔸 In Britain, full adult suffrage only came in 1928, and political power was still heavily influenced by class.

I seriously can’t with these Americans (or other English-speaking influencers) who’ve never opened a history book, yet run around screaming about “60 million Christians killed by the USSR/the Bolsheviks”.

Meanwhile, you Christians spilled more Christian blood than any atheist regime ever could - and somehow you’re completely unaware of it. That’s what makes these claims so jaw-droppingly stupid to anyone even mildly educated.

Let’s take a little tour through your “Christian love”:

The Crusades (1096–1291): launched by the Pope, ended in oceans of blood - not just Muslims, but Eastern Orthodox Christians were slaughtered in the Fourth Crusade when Catholics sacked Constantinople. The Albigensian Crusade (13th century): entire towns in southern France annihilated - tens of thousands murdered by Papal armies for being the “wrong kind” of Christians.

If you still think the war in Ukraine wasn’t premeditated - read this: a U.S. blueprint to drag Russia into a costly war, published by RAND Corporation in April 2019.

RAND isn’t a blog or a fringe group, it’s an official, state-funded think tank that advises the Pentagon, CIA, State Department, and NATO.
It designs wars, regime change and psychological warfare. RAND turns U.S. power into global control.

Let’s unpack 🧵👇

What the document says (verbatim):

“The steps we examine would not have either defense or deterrence as their prime purpose… Rather, they are conceived of as elements in a campaign designed to unbalance the adversary, causing Russia to compete in domains or regions where the United States has a competitive advantage.”

Translation: how to push Russia into costly traps. 1. Fueling war in Ukraine:

“Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability.”

Translation: Arm Ukraine to provoke a Russian military response - and trap Moscow in a costly, prolonged conflict.

The Hidden War: How the West Funded Japan to Break the Russian Empire

Most people see the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905) as a distant clash between two empires. Japan on the rise, Russia in decline. Simple enough, right?
Not quite.

Behind the scenes, Western elites: bankers, politicians, ideologues - weren’t just watching. They were investing.

They supported both the outside attack and the internal revolt. All with one goal: take Russia down.

Back then, Russia had just completed the Trans-Siberian Railway which was a massive infrastructure project linking Europe to the Pacific. Think Nord Stream, but for land. Suddenly, Russia had a direct line to China, Korea, and Asian markets, and it didn’t need British or American naval routes anymore.

🔸 This scared the hell out of the West.
🔸 A self-reliant, land-connected Russian superpower? No thanks.
🔸 So they moved to stop it: financially, politically, and ideologically. Enter Jacob Schiff.

A powerful banker from New York’s Kuhn, Loeb & Co., Schiff didn’t just support Japan but he bankrolled them.

He openly gave Japan (which, btw, had invaded Russia) loans totaling what would now be over $200 million, letting them arm up and hold their own against the Russian Empire.
His public reason? Russia’s persecution of Jews.
But that was just one piece of the puzzle.

🔸 Real motive? Cripple Russia’s reach into Asia.
🔸 Keep them boxed into Europe.
🔸 Stop them from becoming a serious global player.

📖: Dictionary of American Biography, Vol. XVI, p. 431
archive.org/details/dictio…

What Really Caused World War I? The Battle of Banks, Railways, and Empires

At the start of the 20th century, the world became multipolar, for the first time in modern history, three distinct financial and economic systems were competing on the global stage.

Each had its own ideology, banks, currency, industrial logic, and foreign policy ambitions.

1. The Anglo-American System

Capitalist, banking-based, global in reach

🔸 Power centers: London and New York
🔸 Based on private banks, the stock market, free trade, and capital expansion (colonies, offshore banking, loans)
🔸 Key institutions: Bank of England, U.S. Federal Reserve (est. 1913), London Stock Exchange
🔸 Main goal: global control through debt, investment, and monopolies
🔸 Backed by major financial families: Rothschilds, Morgans, Rockefellers

2. The German System

National-industrial, corporatist, tech-driven

🔸 Power center: Berlin
🔸 Built on public-private partnerships, focused on heavy industry, infrastructure, and science
🔸 Banks like Deutsche Bank were tightly linked with industrial giants like Krupp and Siemens
🔸 Less financial speculation, more long-term funding of tech and military
🔸 Later copied in part by Japan

3. The Russian System

State-led, centrally controlled model

🔸 Power center: St. Petersburg / Moscow
🔸 In the early 1900s: Witte’s reforms, rapid railroad construction, and foreign capital brought under state control
🔸 Creation of a State Bank, national monopolies (like Prodamet, Prodvagon), and a system of concessions
🔸 Unique feature: a mix of tight top-down control with Western capital (especially from France and Belgium) Here’s solid evidence that these three systems were in direct competition:

1. Germany vs Britain: The Baghdad Railway

🔸 Deutsche Bank financed a railway from Berlin to Baghdad through the Ottoman Empire: Britain and France’s backyard
🔸 Britain feared this would give Germany:
- Access to Mesopotamian oil
- A route to the Persian Gulf (threat to India)
- Economic and military power in the region

📖
🔸 The Berlin–Baghdad Express by Sean McMeekin
🔸 British Foreign Office archives (1903–1914)

2. Russia vs Germany: The Balkans and Southeastern Europe

🔸 Russia saw the Balkans as its natural sphere of influence
🔸 Germany backed Austria-Hungary’s 1908 annexation of Bosnia, sparking a diplomatic crisis with Russia
🔸 German banks started financing Balkan infrastructure (railways, ports), pushing out Russian interests

🔸 Russian Foreign Ministry Archives
🔸 Reports from the 1908 “Bosnian Crisis”
🔸 Memoirs of Alexander Izvolsky (Russian FM)

3. Britain vs Russia: Persia (Iran)

🔸 In 1907, Britain and Russia divided Persia into spheres of influence (north for Russia, south for Britain) to avoid direct conflict
🔸 Before that, they were in open competition for oil rights, trade routes, and military bases

📖
🔸 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention
🔸 India Office Records – British Library

4. France and Britain vs Russia, then alliance through loans

🔸 In the 1800s, France and Britain feared Russian expansion, especially in Asia.
🔸 Russia built a railroad that connected western and eastern Russia, strengthening its position in Asia.
🔸 But in the late 19th century, France became Russia’s biggest lender, trying to build an anti-German bloc
🔸 Britain joined the alliance in 1907, forming the Triple Entente to counter Germany and Austria-Hungary

📖
🔸 Russo-French loan archives (BNF)
🔸 British Cabinet papers (1904–1907)