The government of Scotland aims to increase the speed with which it wants to implement new renewable energy capcity to the tune of 50% by 2030. This involves overall energy consumption, including heat and transport, so not just electricity.
The government of Scotland aims to increase the speed with which it wants to implement new renewable energy capcity to the tune of 50% by 2030. This involves overall energy consumption, including heat and transport, so not just electricity.
Belgium giving the good example: railway tracks covered with solar panels.
Great-Britain is a mid-sized country with high population density. Not strange then that a study has been started to see if space near railway tracks can be used to place solar panels.
[solarlove.org] – UK Studying Track Side Solar Panels To Power Electric Trains
But following an independent review, which concluded the emissions from the process would be significantly higher than other sources of gas, the UK Government on Thursday ended any remaining hopes, saying it was “minded to not support the development of this technology in the UK”.
Editor: apparently the UK government is confident that their energy needs can be covered from other sources and shy away from potential negative environmental effects. But the coal will remain where it is and other UK governments could change their minds.
[gov.uk] – Underground Coal Gasification – Evidence Statement of Global Warming Potential
[sciencedirect.com] – The analysis of the underground coal gasification in experimental equipment
[telegraph.co.uk] – Government kills off plans to burn coal under the seabed
[fraw.org.uk] – The hell-fires of UCG threaten Tyneside and the North Sea
[scottishconservatives.com] – Now SNP bans underground coal gasification
[foei.org] – Fuelling the fire
[corporatewatch.org] – Underground Coal Gasification scrapped in the UK
When we started this blog in 2012, we were convinced that the very near future would be as predicted by ASPO-2000, Colin Campbell and Richard Heinberg, namely that the world was already at or even passed peak oil and a rapid decrease in available oil would shake the foundations of industrial society.
Meanwhile we’re living in 2017 and nothing of the sort has materialized. Oil price is currently at $54 and the concept of peak oil has gone out of fashion. The direct reason for this (for laymen) unexpected development is the rise of the fracking industry. There is however reason to assume that there is far more fossil fuel in the earth’s crust than previously anticipated:
[deepresource] – Fracking is for Amateurs (Apr 2015)
When US president elect Trump claims that there is for centuries worth of coal reserves, he is probably not exaggerating. The North Sea between Britain and Holland is probably one of the, if not the most explored areas in the world. While hunting for oil, explorers studying the core samples resulting from drilling activities, they noticed the presence of vast quantities of coal. Think trillions of tons of coal, a multiple of what humanity has burned so far in its entire history. Obviously it is not possible to mine these reserves in the conventional way, but meanwhile technology has advanced to the tune that it is no longer necessary to operate in this way.
In short: it is possible to drill holes and burn the coal at the location where it resides, by injecting oxygen and water and retrieving CH4, H2, CO and CO2.
[wikipedia.org] – Underground coal gasification
The conclusion is that there is more than enough fossil fuel around to build the renewable energy base.
There is some Soviet experience with UCG, beginning in the thirties.
Yerostigaz, located in Angren, Uzbekistan, is the only commercial UCG operation in the world. Operational since 1961, Yerostigaz produces UCG synthesis gas to be used for power generation… 1 million m3/day and will continue to do so for the next 50 years.
[scielo.org.co] – Technological Innovations on Underground Coal Gasification and CO2 SEQUESTRATION
The advantages of this technique are related to its high efficiency, because it makes possible to triple or quadrupling the exploitable coal reserves and so offsetting the decline in reserves of other mineral fuels such as oil and gas. This is particularly suitable for low quality coals, such as lignite and bituminous coal, which produce less heat in combustion due to its high ash content and are they more polluting in conventional plants.
[ualberta.ca] – The Push to Coal Gasification in Alberta
This paper will look specifically at coal gasification as this has the largest impact on Canada and Alberta, specifically in developing a higher value and more environmentally acceptable usage of coal when compared to straight combustion. Modern coal gasification also introduces a cost-effective substitute to natural gas in the form of syngas and hydrogen that can replace natural gas usage for larger natural gas users (such as the oil sands) allowing the natural gas to be freed up for other commercial markets. Finally, the hydro-gasification process produces a relatively pure and easily captured CO2 stream that normal coal combustion does not allow (or is highly uneconomical). In Alberta this carbon dioxide stream is an additional product line for the coal gasifier, who can sell the product to the oil industry for enhanced oil recovery.
[cornerstonemag.net] – Underground Coal Gasification: An Overview of an Emerging Coal Conversion Technology
[lincenergy.com] – carousel with pictures from the thirties
[source] Soviet ambassador Iwan Maisky talking to Winston Churchill, August 1941.
According to conventional wisdom, in 1939 ze evil Natzis set out to conquer the entire world, beginning with Poland. Next they conquered entire Europe plus considerable parts of the USSR. It would be only a matter of time, before they would invade America, China, India, South-America and what not else. Not bad for a country with merely 11% of global GDP:
Global GDP distribution 1941 in %:
Thank God, we had the notoriously noble Allies such as the US, USSR, British Empire, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, France, Canada, India, Australia, Morocco, Yugoslavia, Greece, etc., standing by to fight and defeat the menace, end good, all good. This explanation was brought to you free of charge at your doorstep by the victorious Allies during their trial in Nuremberg.
Good, let’s cut the crap.
The problem with trying to get the historic record straight is that most people are afraid of the opinions of others, an attitude also known as political correctness. The average lemming learns from television and other mass media what the party line is and what ideas need to be adopted.
Another problem is that if you try to get the historic record straight, you run the risk of being accused of secretly being a sympathizer of those being reviled most by the official party line.
Everybody understands that history is written by the victors and invariably to their own advantage. But now that the USSR no longer exists and the US is on the way out, it could pay off to see if this conventional view, as promoted by the Nuremberg trial, could be amended. Obviously we would not be writing these rhetorical words if we weren’t convinced that the Allies did indeed turn the truth upside down. Well, perhaps not 180 degrees, but at least 170 degrees.
Where to begin?
Stalin used Nazi Germany as an “icebreaker” to start a war in Europe which would allow for the Soviet Union to come in, clean up, and take control of all of Europe. Suvorov claims that, just as Stalin eliminated his political enemies by pitting them against one another, so too was the plan when he gave Hitler the support to attack Poland, knowing that the act would trigger a war between Germany and the United Kingdom and its allies. The principal argument is based on an analysis of Soviet military investments, diplomatic maneuvers, Politburo speeches and other data.
Recently, Viktor Svorov has considerably sharpened his arguments made in Icebreaker in a follow-up book:
[amazon.com] – The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II
Here Viktor Suvorov explaining his theories, invited by C-Span, a US TV-channel not entirely in line with the aspirations of the the true US elite.
This book sold very well in Russia, but the western court historians never paid attention to it, as the AngloZionist-led West is not interested in revising history. Russia underwent a transformation, which paved the way to critically examine the Soviet past; Anglosphere has not undergone a transformation yet and is still interested in maintaining the Nuremberg status quo.
But we continental-Europeans are no AngloZionists and not interested to stay much longer in their multiculti bankster empire and as such have a different perspective and realize full well that well-founded historic revisionism could function as a torpedo, hitting our multicultural tormentors mid-ship. We are less interested in rehabilitation of the Nazis, but rather in attacking our overlord by eliminating the lies that keep him in a position of power. Our purpose is ‘saving European civilization’ from the US & other western oligarchs from multicultural destruction, not advocating the reintroduction of a system that perhaps once was necessary to attempt to stave off communism. But since communism is no longer around, Nazism is no longer useful, if it ever was.
The point however is that Suvorov is not radical enough. He only understands the politics of the USSR, concentrates on the relation Hitler-Stalin, but completely overlooks that secretly Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin had already decided on a detailed plan to destroy Germany and the rest of continental Europe by the Spring of 1939. At least, if we are to believe a Finnish writer named Erkki Hautamaki. In reality these three had already prepared for WW2 as early as 1933, when two Jewish diplomats, the American ambassador to Paris William Bullitt and Soviet ambassador to Washington Maxim Litvinoff managed to get the USSR diplomatically recognized by the US, which was the beginning of what was to culminate in the combined effort to destroy the European planetary domination and replace it with theirs:
Details of the theory of Hautamaki can be found here (scroll downwards):
[deepresource] – Greece Wants WW2 Reparations From Germany
The question now is: how to verify the hypothesis of Erkki Hautamaki? His theory is based on the so-called Mannerheim-files, a number of documents in the possession of the Finnish leader, who decided to become an ally of Germany, for the simple reason that the Germans were the only ones willing to come to the rescue of the Finns against the Soviets during the Winter War. But these documents went missing, but not the gist. How to verify? In other words: if Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill were already ‘in bed’ together, how did the necessary process of communication went about?
Our answer to that question is to concentrate on:
London, Spring and Summer 1939.
Four locations played a very prominent role in bringing WW2 about, c.q. attempts to sabotage the coming war:
1. Pied-a-terre Churchill until 1939 – 11 Morpeth Mansions
2. US Embassy – 1 Grosvenor Square
3. Soviet Embassy – 6/7 Kensington Palace Gardens
4. Flat Tyler Kent – 47 Gloucester Place
There are only two candidates for Churchill to manage to communicate with Roosevelt and Stalin: the US and the Soviet embassy in London.
And as it turns out, Churchill used both communication channels to coordinate the Anglo-Soviet master plan to destroy Europe.
First the US embassy. How do we know that Churchill used the US embassy illegally, behind the back of his superior PM Chamberlain?
Easy: from the embassy clerk Tyler Kent, who had to type & decipher all the messages between the two conspirators Roosevelt and Churchill. Watching the following video (2 parts), nota bene made by the BBC, are probably the best spent 25 minutes to understand WW2:
[ihr.org] – The Roosevelt Legacy and The Kent Case
[youtube.com] – [21:48] David Irving, transatlantic communications Churchill-Roosevelt and at [24:18] refers to communications between Churchill’s son and Maisky, the Soviet ambassador.
It is a well-known fact that Churchill had been
warning beating the war drums against Germany since the mid thirties and there is reason for that, because he was used as a tool by financial circles we will elaborate on in a different context when reviewing this book.
But now the Soviet link. That’s a more difficult nut to crack.
This post was triggered by the publication of a new book by Israeli historian Gorodetsky: The Maisky Diaries: Red Ambassador to the Court of St James’s, 1932-1943.
Gorodetsky discusses the diaries of the Soviet ambassador Ivan Maisky to London. Maisky is the man we need to focus on if we want to verify that there was indeed a secret communication channel between Churchill and Stalin.
Here is a video of a presentation by Gorodetsky of his new book:
At [57:00] briefly Gorodetsky touches the Suvorov theory, mentioned above, namely that Stalin embarked on the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-agression agreement in order to bring Germany into war ainst Britain and France, a theory we support. Predictably Gorodetsky rejects that possibility.
Youtube text: tuesday, February 26th, 2013 – “The Dramatis Personae behind the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact” Gabriel Gorodetsky: Quondam Fellow, All Souls College, Oxford, and Incumbent of the Rubin Chair for Russian Studies, Tel Aviv University.
Gabriel Gorodetsky will re-examine the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact in the light of the personal diary of Ivan Maisky, Soviet ambassador in London from 1934-1943. Rather than focus on the traditional controversy concerning the role of ideology in the formulation of Stalin’s foreign policy an emphasis will be put on the role of the personalities involved in the process, as well as the political culture in which they performed. The impact of the purges on the execution of foreign policy, in enhancing preconceived ideas and mutual suspicions, would emerge as a key to understanding Stalin’s fateful decision to side with Nazi Germany, paving the way to the outbreak of World War II.
It is obvious that Maisky would not publicly admit in his diaries that he played a part in a conspiracy between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin to get WW2 started. And equally, court historian Gorodetsky has no intentions of lifting the veil either and damage his own tribal interests.
So neither Maisky nor Gorodetsky will hand us a smoking gun. However a clue can be found in another book by Maisky that can be found online:
p55 – I do not know who was responsible for the meeting between Churchill and myself, Churchill or Vansittart: but it is a fact that on that warm July evening in 1934 the six of us were seated at table talking about various current topics. When after coffee the ladies, according to British custom, withdrew to the drawing-room, and only the three men remained at table, a more serious conversation began. During this conversation Churchill frankly explained his position to me:
‘The British Empire/ said Churchill, ‘is my be-all and end-all. What is good for the British Empire is good for me too; what is bad for the British Empire is had for me… In 1919 I considered that the greatest danger to the British Empire was your country, and therefore I was an enemy of your country. Now I consider that the greatest danger for the British Empire is Germany, and therefore now I am an enemy of Germany. At the same time I consider that Hitler is making ready to expand not only against us but also to the east, against you. Why should we not join forces to combat our common enemy? I have been an adversary of Communism, and remain its adversary, but for the sake of the integrity of the British Empire I am ready to cooperate with the Soviets.
[pdf] – Ivan Maisky, “Who helped Hitler”
There you have it! Churchill confided to Maisky (and thus indirectly to Stalin) during his ‘wilderness years’ 1930-1939 that he was ready for an alliance with Stalin in order to destroy Germany… as early as 1934. That attitude would not change until 1945. And Churchill early on had powerful Zionist financial backers that wanted him to bring about war in Europe in order to get the US global empire started. And before 1938, both the US and USSR were under firm control of said interests. The years 1937-1939 were a struggle between the British war party with Churchill as its leader and PM Neville Chamberlain. The latter understood perfectly well the game that was being played and he managed to avoid any personal meeting with Roosevelt, despite repeated invitations. Chamberlain was a decent man, who really defended the interests of the British Empire, unlike the corrupt war monger Churchill. Chamberlain understood that the post-Versailles order could not be maintained and that the existence of Germany needed to be accepted. But when Hitler handed the Czech crisis clumsily (Germans are great engineers but not great diplomats), the war party in Britain finally got the upper hand and PM Chamberlain was forced to issue the fatal war guarantee for Poland under heavy pressure of the Americans and British war party. That was precisely the mechanism with which the Americans could get the war started in Europe, by encouraging the Poles to dump any prudence at all and provoke a war with Germany under the false assumption that the Allies would help them regardless. That was a lie, the Poles were just being used as the useful idiot to get the war started and after the war were handed over to the loving care of Stalin.
Summary: Viktor Suvorov claims that Stalin tricked Hitler into invading Poland by giving Hitler a false sense of security via the Non-agression Treaty and Suvorov is correct. What Suvorov fails to see is that in the Spring of 1939, when Hitler tried to solve the Danzig crisis peacefully, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill were already in agreement that a European war was desirable in the interest of the US and USSR, which meant carving up Europe and add them to the US and Soviet sphere of influence. The way to achieve war was for America to push Britain and France into giving the Poles a carte blanche with this reckless Polish war guarantee…
…and once that was in place, the Americans only needed to incite the Poles for maximum demands (including persecuting the Germans forced to live in Versailles Poland and preying on Eastern Prussia) to ensure that Germany was forced to invade Poland (to come to the aid of their persecuted countrymen) and the European scale war was a fact and thanks to Churchill would be escalated into a world war.
It was btw exactly the same game the Americans played in 2014 in Ukraine: inciting Ukrainian nationalists to ethnically cleanse Donbass from ‘Moskals’, in an attempt to lure Russia into military intervening in the Ukraine and as such trapping Russia in a major military confrontation, just like happened to Germany in 1939. But Vladimir the Great knows his history and didn’t bite, much to the chagrin of the neocohns in Washington.
In 1939 Poland, Britain and France were used by the US and USSR and they couldn’t have done so if not for the traitor Winston Churchill, who had been beating the drums of war for years… in the interest of his mainly Zionist financial backers (much more on that later).
Independent conformation of the narrative as presented above can be acquired from this:
On 25 April 1939, four months before the outbreak of war, the American ambassador to France William Bullitt called American newspaper columnist Karl von Wiegand, chief European correspondent of the International News Service, to the U.S. embassy in Paris and told him:
Just like in WW1, in WW2 Germany was the hunted and the US, Russia/USSR, Britain and France were the hunters. In Nuremberg they told the world that it was precisely the other way around.
But with the internet around nobody can stop the truth anymore.
[deepresource] – The Winter War Finland-USSR 1939-1940
[deepresource] – 1941
[deepresource] – William Bullitt, the Architect of World War 2
[deepresource] – The Soviet Story
[deepresource] – The American Century
[deepresource] – Stalingrad
[deepresource] – US Dissidents Embrace Historic Revisionism
[deepresource] – The Chief Culprit
[deepresource] – 1941 – Iwan Maisky, Soviet Ambassador to London
[deepresource] – Why We Fight: The Battle of Russia
[deepresource] – The Truth About Pearl Harbor
[deepresource] – Hiroshima and Nagasaki
[deepresource] – The Battle for Norway – Hitler’s Pre-emptive War
[deepresource] – 74 Years Ago: Operation Barbarossa
82 homes, zero carbon emission. Built in 2000-2002. Cars are discouraged, good rail and bus links available. All energy needed is generated on site. Triple glazing. Rain water is reused. Building materials transported over 35 miles max. Waste is recycled.
[amazon.com] – Henrik O. Lunde, Hitler’s pre-emptive war, the battle for Norway, 1940 (2009)
In the beginning of April 1940, Germany and the Allies Great-Britain and France invaded Norway at the same time. Why was it that the outpost Norway became the first war theater between the Allies and Germany? The standard popular Hollywood explanation is that Hitler wanted to grab Norwegian territory as a first step of conquering Europe from the Atlantic to the Ural mountains. Lunde shows that this view is untenable. Hitler wanted Scandinavia to remain neutral in a war that was forced upon him by the British and the French. The Norwegian campaign was an escalation of the war initiated by Churchill. Germany had two major vulnerabilities: dependence on oil from Rumania and iron ore supply from Sweden. The Russians knew it, the British and French knew it. After Britain and France had declared war on Germany on september 3, 1939, after the conflict between Germany and Poland over Danzig had escalated, they were reluctant to act upon the war declaration. Germany never wanted war with Britain and France in the first place and Britain and France had too much respect for the German military to attack Germany directly in an all out war. They remembered all too well what had happened in World War 1, namely a Germany at war with Britain, France and Russia at the same time and nevertheless gradually gaining the upper hand in 1917. It was only the American war entry that brought down Germany in the end. In 1940 Germany had a non-agression pact with Russia and America was not yet in the war. So Churchill came up with the idea of attacking Germany indirectly by attempting to interrupt the supply of Swedish iron ore from Narvik/Norway. If this plan had succeeded, Germany would have lost the war even before it had started. Germany had no options other then intervening in Norway. In this review we only consider the decision taking process that lead to war, as described in the first two chapters of the book. The rest of the book deals with the details of the battles and is not considered here. We are only interested in the big picture and diplomatic maneuvering that lead to the invasion.
Editor: It is important to understand that there is no difference in the way the British and French behaved in Norway and in the Low Countries. Small countries Norway, Holland and Belgium were put under great pressure from the Allies to abandon neutrality and reluctantly cooperate in the Allied war effort against Germany. And in both cases it was Churchill who was the driving force behind all the operations.
The author Henrik Lunde is a Norwegian-American, who spent his career as an officer in the U.S. Army, including multiple combat tours as a highly decorated Airborne Ranger. Later, he served as Director, National and International Security Studies, U.S. Army War College. In other words, Lunde is a westerner, but to his astonishment has to admit that the war in Norway was forced upon Hitler by Churchill, the latter being anxious to finally get the war started and escalated. Lunde understands that the ‘wish to help the Finns against the Soviets’ was merely a pretext for the Allies to invade Norway and cut of iron ore supplies to Germany.
Everything about the official WW2 narrative is a lie, carefully concocted by the Allies in Nuremberg to their own advantage:
WW2 was the premeditated destruction of Europe by the globalist powers USA and USSR in an alliance that originated from 1933.
The USSR is dead.
Anglosphere is still at large, trying to ram every country into their planned global empire, a pipe dream, it won’t happen, as the China + Russia + Caliphate are too strong, resistance in Europe is growing and even a large number of European-Americans are unhappy with the way their society is developing.
Let’s restore centuries of European Greatness and liberate ourselves from those who aim for our (multicultural) destruction, if necessary in a unspoken alliance with post-globalist Russia, China and Islam.
Paris-Berlin-Moscow is the winning formula, plus those North-Americans who want to end the empire and lead a European life.
Now back to Lunde’s book:
1. The Allied Perspective
In the beginning of April 1940, both Germany and the Allies Great-Britain and France invaded Norway. Why was it that the outpost Norway became a war theatre?
Rough estimates of the potential of fracking, as practiced in North-America, are that it can postpone the end of the oil age with perhaps a decade or so.
However, there never has been any doubt that the remaining quantity of fossil fuel, stored in the earth’s crust, is many times larger than the cumulative amount of fossil fuel consumed so far in the entire history. The problem has always been: can we access that fuel in an economic way and the concept of EROEI is the leading indicator to decide if a fuel can be exploited economically. The decisive factor is technology, a very dynamic factor. There are for instance enormous quantities of frozen methane lying around on the ocean floor and now it is beginning to dawn that unbelievable large quantities of coal are waiting to be exploited beneath the North-Sea floor, that could be harvested in gas form:
Scientists have discovered vast deposits of coal lying under the North Sea, which could provide enough energy to power Britain for centuries.
Experts believe there is between 3 and 23 trillion tonnes of coal buried in the seabed starting from the northeast coast and stretching far out under the sea.
Data from seismic tests and boreholes shows that the seabed holds up to 20 layers of coal – much of which could be reached with the technology already used to extract oil and gas.
In comparison: so far the world extracted ‘merely’ 0.135 trillion ton of oil, a small fraction of the coal reserves located beneath the North-Sea. In other words: peak conventional oil may have happened in 2005, but in hindsight it was a completely irrelevant event.
If it is wise to exploit these vast reserves is a different matter altogether. But one thing is certain: the original idea we had when we started this blog over three years ago, namely that fossil fuel could become scarce on relatively short notice, that idea needs to be abandoned. Limiting factors will more likely be: finance, geopolitics, war, environment, climate change; not lack of combustible material. It is likely that there is far more fossil fuel around than the atmosphere can ever handle.
Obviously we do not advocate the grand-scale exploitation of coal underneath the North-Sea, although it is nice to know that we in Europe are perhaps not as dependent on the Middle-East for the duration of the transition. What we do advocate is the exploitation of a limited amount to enable the renewable energy transition to occur, meaning a large wind-turbine next to every village and solar panels on every available roof, combined with large scale hydro-storage in mountain areas. The EU should stick to its original goal of 100% renewable energy by 2050. Again: there is no serious energy problem in the long term. There is an awareness problem.
[dailymail.co.uk] – Vast deposits totalling up to 23 trillion tonnes found under the North Sea
[wikipedia.org] – Coal gasification
[theecologist.org] – ‘Underground coal gasification’ hell-fires threaten Tyneside and the North Sea
[thegwpf.com] – Coal is the new black gold under the North Sea
[resilience.org] – 3000 Billion tons of coals off Norway’s coastline
[thejournal.co.uk] – Drilling date set for North Sea’s vast coal reserves
[walesonline.co.uk] – An estimated trillion tonnes of coal found off Wales’ coast
[heraldscotland.com] – North Sea is the place to be in crude price slump declares entrepreneur
[source] – North Sea is the place to be in crude price slump declares entrepreneur
Since 2011, French Company Ciel & Terre has been developing large-scale floating solar solutions. Their innovative Hydrelio Floating PV system allows standard PV panels to be installed on large bodies of water such as: drinking water reservoirs, quarry lakes, irrigation canals, remediation and tailing ponds, and hydro electric dam reservoirs. This simple and affordable alternative to ground-mounted systems is particularly suitable for water-intensive industries who cannot afford to waste either land or water.
[alternative-energy-news] – Floating solar panels: a viable solution?
As was the case with earlier cable NorNed, the idea is to use Norway as ‘Europe’s battery pack‘: if there is too much renewable energy generated in the UK, for instance wind energy after 24:00, send it to Norway through the interconnector cable and use the energy to pump up water into mountain basins. When energy is required in Britain, let the water flow back to lower altitudes and generate electricity, that can be send back through the same cable. Overall efficiency still ca. 80%.
Completion date: 2021
Length cable: 730 km
Capacity: 730,000 homes or 1,400 MW (both ways)
Investment: 2 billion euro
[guardian.com] – UK and Norway to build world’s longest undersea energy interconnector
We reported earlier that Scotland is doing fine in renewable energy matters. Here some new data to confirm that image: renewable energy is the prime source of electricity in Scotland (32%) over the first half of 2014. And there is still a lot of potential for an even bigger role to play for renewables.
‘First salute’ by the Dutch-Caribbean port of St. Eustatius on November 16, 1776 in response to a salute given by the American vessel Andrew Doria. It was the first formal recognition of the United States as an independent nation, in casu by the Dutch Republic.
[amazon.com] – The First Salute: A View of the American Revolution
Although we greatly admire Mel Gibson as an actor, historian and wine connoisseur, he clearly was pushing it a little when Hollywood myth factory attempted to portray the events of the ‘American Revolution’ in a most favorable heroic light, for the Americans that is. Here an implausible scene where ‘Patriot‘ Mel Gibson and his two toddlers are taking on a gang of twenty or so British professional killers and finish them off in less than three minutes. Note how the English soldiers patiently wait until it is their turn to be slaughtered:
Well, well, well. The Jewish-American historian Barbara Tuchman has shown that in reality European colonialists aka ‘Americans’, merely played a supporting role in the ‘American revolution’ (rebellion is a better word) and the otherwise brilliant actions of George Washington were hardly more than a side-show in a drama that essentially was a continuation of a European power struggle on North-American soil, in casu between the French and the Dutch versus the British and their German-Hessian mercenaries.
Let’s first collect a few statistics to put everything in perspective:
Population 1776 (million):
Conclusion: the Europeans had a vastly larger population base than the European colonialists in North America, not to mention taxation, professional armies, world wide empires, navies and commercial fleets. On top of that, not all colonialists supported the drive for independence, particularly not those of British descent.
Killed in action:
That’s quite a revealing statistic: up to three times more French died during the ‘American revolution’ than Americans! We guess it is yet another example of foreigners doing work Americans refuse to do.
So why were the Europeans heavily involved in the American revolution in the first place? Not because the Dutch and most certainly not the French couldn’t wait to get their first Hamburger served. No, it was because the British were getting a little too powerful in the world to the taste of the French and the Dutch. Depriving Britain of a large colony was a rational strategy, to give the British a ‘haircut’, so to speak, after the British had won huge territorial gains in North-America a few years earlier, during the Seven Years War (1756-1763), although first world war would have been a more suitable name (as proposed by Winston Churchill), considering the extent of the globally dispersed battle arenas:
Seven Years War Arena: a true world war with Britain and France as two major opponents.
Results of the Seven Years War (before & after):
Before Seven Years War
The upshot of the Seven Years War was that Britain was the winner and France the loser, with the French losing huge North-American territories to the British. The British now controlled all of North America east of the Mississippi up to the Arctic. The French were not amused and did not forget.
European support for the colonialist’ uprising in the early seventies began with the Dutch though, who were instrumental in delivering weapons to the colonialists via the Caribbean island of Sint Eustatius, to get the uprising started.
America at the time was never seen as a competitor by the Europeans, America at the time was a European play-thingy. It would take one and a half century before the Europeans started to realize that America could not longer be ignored, but instead had become the home of the largest number of Europeans within the confinement of a single tax farm and hence as the largest economy on earth by the end of the 19th century:
Extremely rich source of information: 2000 years of history expressed in terms of GDP. From this picture it can be easily distilled that at the time of the American Revolution, the weight of the US dwarfed in comparison to the Europeans. As a little aside, this graph also reveals that the GDP of Germany in 1939 in its turn was dwarfed by the combined GDP of USA, USSR, UK and France, making short shrift with the self-serving allied Nuremberg lie that ‘Germany wanted to conquer the world’, where in reality the US and USSR wanted to conquer the world, conspired together since 1933 and finally did conquer the world, but we digress.
American Revolution Timeline
1758-xx-xx – George Washington elected to Virginia House of Burgesses
1763-02-10 – End Seven Years’ War
1767-07-02 – Townshends Acts
1769-05-11 – Thomas Jefferson elected to Virginia House of Burgesses
1770-03-05 – Boston Massacre
1773-12-16 – Boston Tea Party
1774-09-05 – First Continental Congress meets
1775-04-19 – Battles of Lexington and Concord
1775-06-14 – Creation of the Continental Army
1775-06-22 – Congress issues continental currency
1776-07-04 – Declaration of Independence
1776-11-16 – First Salute St. Eustatius: Dutch recognition of the US
1777-10-17 – Battle of Saratoga, first American victory and turning point of the war
1778-02-06 – The United States and France sign the Treaty of Alliance
1779-04-12 – Anti-British Treaty of Aranjuez between Spain and France
1779-06-21 – Spain declares war on Britain
1780-12-xx – Beginning 4th Anglo-Dutch War
1781-02-03 – British capture St. Eustatius
1781-10-19 – Surrender of Yorktown
1783-09-03 – Treaty of Paris
1784-xx-xx – End 4th Anglo-Dutch War. Holland abdicates as a great power
A selection from Amazon.com comments/review section, probably mostly written by American readers:
1. Despite what Disney would have us believe, the Americans didn’t rally to fighting or winning this war. Congress was as slow, and often made as little sense then as it seems to do from time to time now – Washington was a miracle worker for somehow keeping an army on the field at all. The American Revolution was won by French and Dutch money, and mainly the French military (yes it was fought by many brave Americans too, but there was too much apathy, too much self-interest, and there were too few in number to ever WIN it). Through the story of Rodney, the reader is given a unique perspective from which to witness the incredible mismanagement of the war by the British, insight into those self-destructive practices and entrenched egos that characterized monarchy, and just how close this war was to being lost and how easily it could have turned out differently… All in all, another treasure from Barbara Tuchman.
2. There are five outstanding strengths to this work:
- Tuchman documents the incredible fragility of the American troops and leadership,held together by the personality and determination and true cunning of George Washington. Many times the revolution was almost lost except for Washington’s efforts to retreat and frustrate the British armies until he was able to strike on his own terms.
- the role of the Dutch in assisting the American colonies is fully documented and appreciated. The Dutch supplied the colonies with weapons, traded through the Carribean. Tuchman makes the case that the revolution would have been lost without Dutch efforts on our behalf.
- the tremendous role of the French in the success of the American revolution is further documented.
- Tuchman carefully and strategically places the story of the American revolution within the context of world affairs at the time, giving more meaning to the actions of the British and the colonist as well as their allies.
A wonderful product, great scholarship, very readable, this is a total historic winner.
3. I’ve read all of Ms. Tuchman’s books, and this might be her best. Certainly as good as “The Proud Tower.” Many Americans don’t care much about the history of the Revolutionary War, and I had never thought before reading this book about aid to the Rebellion from Holland, of all places. We tend not to remember that Holland was one of the foremost mercantile nations, with an enormous empire. We tend not to think about questions like, “Where did Americans get the weapons and ammunition they needed for the Revolution?”
4. Tuchman explains French intervention in the war rather prosaically. Rather than suffering a monarchical affinity to liberty, equality, and democracy, France intervened because of a centuries old, deep seated hostility to Britain, to disrupt the sugar trade and, more immediately, to redress losses suffered in the Seven Years’ War.
As an American it was at first disorienting, and then refreshing, to view the American Revolution from a European perspective.
5. So was the American a true Revolution? Probably not. Better to be described as the American Rebellion, its successful outcome was decisive in spreading the great hopes of change nurtured by the European Enlightenment, but in the end – like the Dutch – it contented with the reaffirmation of offended rights never proposing officially a brave new man like the French, Russian and Chinese Revolutions.
Very interesting is also the glance cast on the parallel history of the two rebellions: the likeness of William the Silent with Washington, the nature of defensive war, the uneven weight of the forces (both Dutch and Colonies were forced to fight against the strongest superpower of their age), the intestine war (Flanders vs. Holland, American Tories vs. Rebels), the resemblance of the Dutch Act of Rejection and the Declaration of Independence, the actual outcome in the model of federal government.
6. The key to understanding the American Revolution is that of an early national liberation struggle that like all such struggles was desperately in need of arms. And like all such struggles the rebels were not particular about where they got them. This, in the final analysis, is the importance of the first salute- that is the recognition of the colonials to belligerent status by the Dutch in the West Indies where the American rebels could get arms and ammunition.
Answer: because what happened during the American Revolution could very well serve as a template for events in a not too distant future, namely the return of continental Europeans to North-American soil, to once again liberate Americans from an oppressive regime.
American troops have been active on European soil twice in the 20th century. There is absolutely no reason why European troops could not be active on north-American soil in the beginning of the 21st century. Once the Paris-Berlin-Moscow confederation/military alliance of 700 million or so is in place, Europe gets unprecedented options for these kind of operations.
And we Europeans should not forget about our own interest in this. If we do nothing, this is going to be the world of the future:
The mortal danger exists of a potential Anglo-Chinese alliance, which would leave Euro-Siberia surrounded and we would have more or less the situation of 1941 back, with continental Europe surrounded by an Anglo-Soviet alliance, with known disastrous consequences (for Europe).
From a European perpective it is much better to draw at least a constitutionalist part of the US to our side and as such ‘neutralize America’. Here is a recent map of potential secessionist movements within the US:
American states with secession movements, with a staggering 25% support, with considerable upward potential when the situation in the US deteriorates. Texas could be the first to secede and provide a convenient landing place for European logistical support and eventually troops.
American states with the highest public desire to secede from Washington. Again Texas scores highest. It is obvious that Europe should concentrate on Middle-America aka ‘fly-over country’ and stay clear from the coastal cities.
The map shows that potential for a ‘liberated constitutionalist strip’ exists between the Gulf of Mexico and Canada, effectively splitting the US in the middle. With the Latino majority states, like California, New Mexico and Arizona returning to Mexico…
Mexico 1821. Could reemerge when the buck from Washington will stop after the end of the dollar era and the subsequent USSR/Yugoslav/Iraq/Syria-style ethnic Great Divorce.
…leaving only NYC and DC to the neocons to play ‘benevolent empire’ with, good luck with that. Game, set and match European civilization. A European Commonwealth of ca. 800 million (Paris-Berlin-Moscow, Canada and US constitutionalists) is more than enough to balance a rising China of 1300 million and provide for a very stable security architecture for the rest of the 21st century.
In this scenario, Euro-Americans will get a choice: 1) do you want to live in a totalitarian third world USA, threatening the rest of the world or 2) do you define yourself as Europeans after all and as such soldier on as a secessionist sovereign state within a ‘European commonwealth’, together with Canada and protected/guaranteed by Europe (now including Russia).
So when could this scenario being played out? Answer: when the world dumps the dollar at the latest and the US government will be broke.
The US is a financial house of cards about to implode
That’s when the massive social unrest and looting will begin on a continental scale. Large parts of the US one big Ferguson.
Ferguson during the past 24 hours.
That’s when the Euro’s decide to have enough, grab for their guns and attempt to secede, which DC and its third world proletariat will try to prevent. That will be the moment for Europe to side with the secessionists and begin to support them, exactly like how Russia supported the Donbass insurgency with material support and freelance fighters and perhaps eventually with regular troops.
The John Adams of the future second American Revolution (Alex Jones?) should establish diplomatic relations with European nationalist parties now, as well as Putin-Russia. He should ask for talks with Marine le Pen first and make sure he gets a handshake captured on camera. Next he should try to do the same with a high-ranking Russian officials of Putin’s United Russia party.
[lewrockwell.com] – The Second American Revolution. Very serious topic hidden in a humorist message.
Pictures from the 1984 winter olympics in Sarajewo, Yugoslavia. On the stand lots of Yugoslavs, proudly and harmoniously celebrating the opening ceremony of their Olympics. Seven years later Yugoslavs no longer existed, just Serbs, Croats, Slovenians, Bosnians, etc. nota bene all ethnic Slavs, inhabiting the Former Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). Won’t be different with America after the fall. By 2030 at the latest, Americans will have seized to exist and what will remain after the Great Divorce will be just Europeans, Africans, Latino’s, Asians and native Americans in a balkanized territory known as the Former Republic of America (FRA).
Cruachan power station
As reported earlier, renewable energy is doing well in Scotland. But with the increase of that segment of energy generation, the need for storage becomes ever more prominent, considering the intermittent nature of renewable energy supply. The best remedy to date is pumped hydro storage, meaning: if you have too much supply of renewable energy, use that energy to pump water high up into a mountain reservoir and release that potential energy when energy demand is larger than the existing renewable energy system is able to supply.
With increased exploitation of renewable energy, more facilities need to become available to even out intermittent supply. Two options:
1. Connection to the European Supergrid
2. New local hydro-pumped storage facilities
Two new facilities re planned for the Great Glen area with a combined capacity of 900 MW.
It has been calculated that if Scotland wants to keep storage matters entirely in its own hands, it would need 7 GW total pumped hydro storage capacity, ten times as much as is available now.
Strong opposition from environmentalists against more mountain hydro reservoirs exists, but it remains to be seen how much of that resistance remains, once push comes to shove and an average Scot is forced to stay in bed in a dark home, thinking about how he would like to have his environmentalist best: medium or well done.
Another option would be to combine large scale pumped hydro storage with battery storage at home, where matters are developing fast, with $100/kwh a possibility in the long term. Under these circumstances, for ca. $1,000 a family could store electricity for two days or more.
In 1932 a shabby group of Arabian camel-driver-look-alikes paid a visit to the British Foreign Office with the request to invest in drilling for oil in Arabia. The Arabs had strong preference for the British, the super power at the time (until they committed suicide when they obeyed the Americans to declare war on Germany, that was in dispute with Poland over the German town of Danzig, so the Americans and Soviets could take over Europe, but we digress). The British however concentrated on recent oil finds in Persia and Mesopotamia and the serving mandarin sir Lancelot Oliphant said ‘no’.
Oliphant chose to slam an open door. He replied that “British firms might hesitate to accept a report not drawn up by a British expert”, and expressed doubt “as to the readiness of British firms to sink capital in a little-known country at the present time”.
Two weeks after the British rejection, the Americans discovered oil in Bahrain, off the Saudi coast. Saudi-Arabia, the future largest oil producer of the planet, would be firm in the American pocket, until today.
[bbc.com] – The diplomat who said ‘No’ to Saudi oil
Editor: without this fatal decision it is unlikely that the Americans could have pumped as many (petro) dollars into the world’s financial system as they managed to do, until the inevitable moment will arrive when the world’s factory China will decide that they have enough dollars and decide to dump the dollar by sending them back to sender and the dollars will rain over America like in a giant ticker tape parade.
Scotland is generally associated with melancholic landscapes, rain, cold and grayness (exactly as a serious country needs to be, but then again we are Dutch), not exactly a country you would expect renewable energy to thrive. Think again. In October, Scotland’s combined renewable energy sources generated enough electricity to cover all residential needs. OK, Scots are favored by a relative large homeland (1/3 of the UK) for merely 3 million homes and 5.3 million people. But nevertheless, here some very impressive figures:
Wind: covered 126% of the electricity needs of every home in Scotland!
Solar electricity: 46% of an average home’s electricity energy needs in Edinburgh, 38% in Inverness, 37% in Glasgow, and 33% in Aberdeen.
Solar hot water: 41% of the hot water needs of an average home in Edinburgh, 31% in Inverness, 30% in Glasgow, and 27% in Aberdeen.
Scotland has the clear intention to continue on the path of strong growth.
[cleantechnica.com] – Scotland’s Renewable Sector Generated Over 100% of Residential Electricity Needs In October
Now we’re off to watch Braveheart for the third time.
This is not a history site, but the interpretation of the past has great repercussions for the geopolitical present, as any educated German can confirm. The past two centuries have been the centuries of the dominance of Anglosphere, first the British empire and now the American empire. This is reflected in this overview of subsequent reserve currencies over the past six centuries, showing that every century has a new ‘top dog’ (Portugal, Spain, Holland, France, Britain, USA)…
Another indicator for the might of a political entity is the GDP, showing that China is well on its way to become the top dog of the 21st century and could replace the US, that in its turn began to replace the British Empire in the twenties:
But China is not of interest here, it is The Great War or First World War as it became known after World War Two. Most people, who are not professional historians paid by a government, will accept that history is written by the victors. Or that victors can enforce that the defeated party, in casu Germany, signs war guilt clauses, like happened in Versailles and Nuremberg.
So if the historical truth is generally distorted by the victor(s), what can be said now, one century later, about who was really responsible for the outbreak of World War One?
On the night of 30-31st of July, 1914, feeling entrapped by a seemingly inevitable march of events, the German Kaiser Wilhelm mused to himself doomily:
‘Frivolity and weakness are going to plunge the world into the most frightful war of which the ultimate object is the overthrow of Germany. For I no longer have any doubt that England, Russia and France have agreed among themselves – knowing that our treaty obligations compel us to support Austria – to use the Austro-Serb conflict as a pretext for waging a war of annihilation against us… In this way the stupidity and clumsiness of our ally [Austria] is turned into a noose. So the celebrated encirclement of Germany has finally become an accepted fact… The net has suddenly been closed over our heads, and the purely anti-German policy which England has been scornfully pursuing all over the world has won the most spectacular victory which we have proved ourselves powerless to prevent while they, having got us despite our struggles all alone into the net through our loyalty to Austria, proceed to throttle our political and economic existence. A magnificent achievement, which even those for whom it means disaster are bound to admire.’
The Kaiser was entirely correct.
Earlier this year we commemorated that 100 years ago World War One (WW1) broke out. Today no serious continental European historian will accept the victor’s verdict of Versailles: “Germany is guilty”. Instead the consensus is that the Great Powers ‘stumbled into war‘, ‘it was a chain reaction’ really, a mutual suicide, an ‘accumulation of misjudgments & shortsightedness’ that led to the disaster.
The Scottish authors Gerry Docherty and James MacGregor in their new book have meticulously shown that WW1 was long planned in advance by Great-Britain. They debunk that Germany was to be blamed for the war. It was Great-Britain that managed to draw France and Russia into a coalition against Germany, with the sole purpose of conserving the preeminent position of the British empire, by destroying the rising power Germany. That truth can easily be distilled from the war aims of the parties involved:
Mastermind of World War One Britain managed to unite the ambitions mentioned above into a single coalition with the aim to destroy Germany. In the end they prevailed, because they could make a Balfour deal with the US ‘Zionist Lobby’ du jour: “we British give you Palestine, if you bring your Americans on our side into the war”. And not even that was enough to bring the Germans down. In the end they trusted the Americans (Wilson’s peace plan) and prematurely disarmed and that broke their backs.
The interpretation of history, the guardianship of history is presently owned by Anglosphere, because they have the power to do so, at the cost of continental Europe. But many, including us, foresee a rapid decline of US power in the coming years, offering the opportunity to correct the self-serving historic lies that define western culture of today and lay the foundation for a renaissance of European civilization, centered around the coming Paris-Berlin-Moscow confederation that will replace the dying West.