Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR#‘s 1294, 1295, 1296 The End and the Beginning, Parts One, Two and Three

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to the com­ments made on pro­grams and posts–an excel­lent source of infor­ma­tion in, and of, itself, HERE.

WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.

Mr. Emory’s entire life’s work is avail­able on a 32GB flash dri­ve, avail­able for a con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more (to KFJC). Click Here to obtain Dav­e’s 40+ years’ work, com­plete through Late Fall of 2021 (through FTR #1215).

“Polit­i­cal language…is designed to make lies sound truth­ful and mur­der respectable, and to give an appear­ance of solid­i­ty to pure wind.”

— George Orwell, 1946



Mr. Emory has launched a new Patre­on site. Vis­it at: Patreon.com/DaveEmory

FTR#1294 This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

FTR#1295 This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

FTR#1296 This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

Klaus Schwab
Phoro Cred­it: Wikipedia

Intro­duc­tion: Tak­ing stock of sev­er­al dynam­ics that threat­en to end our species and civ­i­liza­tion, this  begins series with analy­sis of the back­ground and phi­los­o­phy of Klaus Schwab, his father, his men­tor Hen­ry Kissinger and transna­tion­al cor­po­rate influ­ences on the deci­sive­ly impor­tant World Eco­nom­ic Forum.

Key Points of Analy­sis and Dis­cus­sion Include: The Esch­er-Wyss firm of Switzer­land; Its employ­ment of Klaus Schwab and his father; The com­pa­ny’s col­lab­o­ra­tion with Nazi Ger­man; The com­pa­ny’s role in pro­duc­ing tech­nol­o­gy for the Third Reich’s atom­ic bomb pro­gram; Klaus Schwab’s aca­d­e­m­ic men­tor­ing by Hen­ry Kissinger, Kissinger’s col­lab­o­ra­tion with the Nazi intel­li­gence milieu import­ed into the U.S. after WWII; The Esch­er-Wyss fir­m’s col­lab­o­ra­tion with the Apartheid South African nuclear pro­gram; The deci­sive influ­ence of the Club of Rome on the World Eco­nom­ic Forum; the WEF’s qua­si-eugen­ics poli­cies.

We then note that Peter Thiel’s father also worked on the Apartheid South African atom­ic bomb.

The series then chron­i­cles analy­sis by elite Pen­ta­gon-con­nect­ed sci­en­tists that CO2 could be used as a weapon of mass-destruc­tion.

Next, we high­light the [belat­ed] alarm that AI’s could pro­duce the enslave­ment and/or destruc­tion of soci­ety.

Over the decades, Mr. Emory’s analy­sis has focused on the enor­mous impor­tance of Pres­i­dent Kennedy’s assas­si­na­tion. The series next high­lights some of the Nazi con­nec­tions to that promi­nent event.

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: The Joint Chiefs’ meet­ing with their Ger­man coun­ter­parts [all WWII vet­er­ans] in the Pen­ta­gon on the after­noon of 11/22/1963; The pri­ma­ry role of Gen­er­al Ger­hard Wes­sel in the Gehlen orga­ni­za­tion, from WWII to his suc­ceed­ing of Rein­hard Gehlen as head of the BND; Lud­wig Erhard’s sched­uled state din­ner on 11/25/1963–the day of JFK’s funer­al; Lud­wig Erhard’s net­work­ing with the SS and plan­ning for the post WWII eco­nom­ic revival of the Third Reich; Nazi Gen­er­al Adolf Heusinger’s ascent to the top NATO mil­i­tary posi­tion, a role that gave him an office in the Pen­ta­gon.

We con­clude with brief dis­cus­sion of the use of Agent Orange in Viet­nam, a sub­ject to which we will return in our next pro­gram in the series.

1a. “Schwab Fam­i­ly Val­ues” by John­ny Ved­more; Unlim­it­ed Hang­out; 2/20/2021.

Is the real Klaus Schwab a kind­ly old uncle fig­ure wish­ing to do good for human­i­ty, or is he real­ly the son of a Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tor who used slave labour and aid­ed Nazi efforts to obtain the first atom­ic bomb? John­ny Ved­more inves­ti­gates.

On the morn­ing of 11 Sep­tem­ber 2001, Klaus Schwab sat hav­ing break­fast in the Park East Syn­a­gogue in New York City with Rab­bi Arthur Schneier, for­mer Vice Pres­i­dent for the World Jew­ish Con­gress and close asso­ciate of the Bronf­man and Laud­er fam­i­lies. Togeth­er, the two men watched one of the most impact­ful events of the next twen­ty years unfold as planes struck the World Trade Cen­ter build­ings. Now, two decades on, Klaus Schwab again sits in a front row seat of yet anoth­er gen­er­a­tion-defin­ing moment in mod­ern human his­to­ry.

Always seem­ing to have a front row seat when tragedy approach­es, Schwab’s prox­im­i­ty to world-alter­ing events like­ly owes to his being one of the most well-con­nect­ed men on Earth. As the dri­ving force behind the World Eco­nom­ic Forum, “the inter­na­tion­al orga­ni­za­tion for pub­lic-pri­vate coop­er­a­tion,” Schwab has court­ed heads of state, lead­ing busi­ness exec­u­tives, and the elite of aca­d­e­m­ic and sci­en­tif­ic cir­cles into the Davos fold for over 50 years. More recent­ly, he has also court­ed the ire of many due to his more recent role as the front­man of the Great Reset, a sweep­ing effort to remake civ­i­liza­tion glob­al­ly for the express ben­e­fit of the elite of the World Eco­nom­ic Forum and their allies.

Schwab, dur­ing the Forum’s annu­al meet­ing in Jan­u­ary 2021, stressed that the build­ing of trust would be inte­gral to the suc­cess of the Great Reset, sig­nalling a sub­se­quent expan­sion of the initiative’s already mas­sive pub­lic rela­tions cam­paign. Though Schwab called for the build­ing of trust through unspec­i­fied “progress,” trust is nor­mal­ly facil­i­tat­ed through trans­paren­cy. Per­haps that is why so many have declined to trust Mr. Schwab and his motives, as so lit­tle is known about the man’s his­to­ry and back­ground pri­or to his found­ing of the World Eco­nom­ic Forum in the ear­ly 1970s.

Like many promi­nent front­men for elite-spon­sored agen­das, the online record of Schwab has been well-san­i­tized, mak­ing it dif­fi­cult to come across infor­ma­tion on his ear­ly his­to­ry as well as infor­ma­tion on his fam­i­ly. Yet, hav­ing been born in Ravens­burg, Ger­many in 1938, many have spec­u­lat­ed in recent months that Schwab’s fam­i­ly may have had some tie to Axis war efforts, ties that, if exposed, could threat­en the rep­u­ta­tion of the World Eco­nom­ic Forum and bring unwant­ed scruti­ny to its pro­fessed mis­sions and motives.

In this Unlim­it­ed Hang­out inves­ti­ga­tion, the past that Klaus Schwab has worked to hide is explored in detail, reveal­ing the involve­ment of the Schwab fam­i­ly, not only in the Nazi quest for an atom­ic bomb, but apartheid South Africa’s ille­gal nuclear pro­gramme. Espe­cial­ly reveal­ing is the his­to­ry of Klaus’ father, Eugen Schwab, who led the Nazi-sup­port­ed Ger­man branch of a Swiss engi­neer­ing firm into the war as a promi­nent mil­i­tary con­trac­tor. That com­pa­ny, Esch­er-Wyss, would use slave labor to pro­duce machin­ery crit­i­cal to the Nazi war effort as well as the Nazi’s effort to pro­duce heavy water for its nuclear pro­gram. Years lat­er, at the same com­pa­ny, a young Klaus Schwab served on the board of direc­tors when the deci­sion was made to fur­nish the racist apartheid regime of South Africa with the nec­es­sary equip­ment to fur­ther its quest to become a nuclear pow­er.

With the World Eco­nom­ic Forum now a promi­nent advo­cate for nuclear non-pro­lif­er­a­tion and “clean” nuclear ener­gy, Klaus Schwab’s past makes him a poor spokesper­son for his pro­fessed agen­da for the present and the future. Yet, dig­ging even deep­er into his activ­i­ties, it becomes clear that Schwab’s real role has long been to “shape glob­al, region­al and indus­try agen­das” of the present in order to ensure the con­ti­nu­ity of larg­er, much old­er agen­das that came into dis­re­pute after World War II, not just nuclear tech­nol­o­gy, but also eugen­ics-influ­enced pop­u­la­tion con­trol poli­cies.  . . .              

A Swabi­an Sto­ry

 . . . . By 1920, Esch­er-Wyss found them­selves embroiled in seri­ous finan­cial dif­fi­cul­ties. The treaty of Ver­sailles had restrict­ed the mil­i­tary and eco­nom­ic growth of Ger­many fol­low­ing the Great War, and the Swiss Com­pa­ny found the down­turn in neigh­bour­ing nation­al civ­il engi­neer­ing projects too much to bear. The par­ent branch of Esch­er-Wyss was locat­ed in Zurich and dat­ed back to 1805 and the com­pa­ny, which still ben­e­fit­ed from a good rep­u­ta­tion and a his­to­ry last­ing more than a cen­tu­ry, was deemed too impor­tant to lose. In Decem­ber 1920, a reor­ga­ni­za­tion was car­ried out by writ­ing down the share cap­i­tal from 11.5 to 4.015 mil­lion French Francs and which was lat­er increased again to 5.515 mil­lion Swiss Francs. By the end of the finan­cial year of 1931, Esch­er-Wyss was still los­ing mon­ey.

Yet, the plucky com­pa­ny con­tin­ued to deliv­er large scale civ­il engi­neer­ing con­tracts through­out the 1920s as not­ed in the offi­cial cor­re­spon­dence writ­ten in 1924 from Wil­helm III Prince of Urach to the com­pa­ny Esch­er-Wyss and to the asset man­ag­er of the House of Urach, accoun­tant Julius Heller. This doc­u­ment dis­cuss­es the “Gen­er­al Terms and Con­di­tions of the Asso­ci­a­tion of Ger­man Water Tur­bine Man­u­fac­tur­ers for the Deliv­ery of Machines and Oth­er Equip­ment for Hydropow­er Plants”. This is also con­firmed in a brochure on the “Con­di­tions of the Asso­ci­a­tion of Ger­man Water Tur­bine Man­u­fac­tur­ers for the Instal­la­tion of Tur­bines and Machine Parts with­in the Ger­man Reich”, print­ed on March 20, 1923 in an adver­tis­ing brochure from Esch­er-Wyss for a uni­ver­sal oil pres­sure reg­u­la­tor.

After the Great Depres­sion in the ear­ly 1930s had laid waste to the glob­al econ­o­my, Esch­er-Wyss announced, “as the cat­a­stroph­ic devel­op­ment of the eco­nom­ic sit­u­a­tion in con­nec­tion with the cur­ren­cy declines; The com­pa­ny [Esch­er-Wyss] is tem­porar­i­ly unable to con­tin­ue its cur­rent lia­bil­i­ties in var­i­ous cus­tomer coun­tries.” The com­pa­ny also revealed that they would apply for a court defer­ral to the Swiss news­pa­per Neue Zürcher Nachricht­en, which reported on 1 Decem­ber 1931 that, “the com­pa­ny Esch­er-Wyss has been grant­ed a stay of bank­rupt­cy until the end of March 1932 and, act­ing as cura­tor in Switzer­land, a trust com­pa­ny has been appoint­ed.” The arti­cle stat­ed opti­misti­cal­ly that, “there should be a prospect of con­tin­u­ing oper­a­tions.” In 1931, Esch­er-Wyss employed around 1,300 non-con­tract­ed work­ers and 550 salaried employ­ees.

By the mid-1930s, Esch­er-Wyss had again found itself in finan­cial trou­ble. In order to res­cue the com­pa­ny this time, a con­sor­tium was brought on board to save the ail­ing engi­neer­ing firm. The con­sor­tium was part­ly formed by the Fed­er­al Bank of Switzer­land (which was coin­ci­dent­ly head­ed by a Max Schwab, who is of no rela­tion to Klaus Schwab) and fur­ther restruc­tur­ing took place. In 1938, it was announced that an engi­neer at the firm, Colonel Jacob Schmid­heiny would become the new Pres­i­dent of the Board of Direc­tors at Esch­er-Wyss. Soon after the out­break of war in 1939, Schmid­heiny was quot­ed as say­ing, “The out­break of war does not nec­es­sar­i­ly mean unem­ploy­ment for the machine indus­try in a neu­tral coun­try, on the con­trary.” Esch­er-Wyss, and its new man­age­ment, were appar­ent­ly look­ing for­ward to prof­it­ing off the war, paving the way for their trans­for­ma­tion into a major Nazi mil­i­tary con­trac­tor.

A Brief His­to­ry of Jew­ish Per­se­cu­tion in Ravens­burg

. . . . . By the start of the 1930s, there were sev­en main Jew­ish fam­i­lies liv­ing in Ravens­burg, includ­ing the Adler, Erlanger, Har­burg­er, Her­rmann, Lan­dauer, Rose and Son­der­mann fam­i­lies. After the Nation­al Social­ists seized pow­er, some of the Ravens­burg Jews were ini­tial­ly forced to emi­grate, while oth­ers would lat­er be mur­dered in Nazi con­cen­tra­tion camps. Lead­ing up to World War II, there were many pub­lic dis­plays of hatred towards the small com­mu­ni­ty of Jews in and around Ravens­burg.

As ear­ly as March 13, 1933, about three weeks before the nation­wide Nazi boy­cott of all Jew­ish shops in Ger­many, SA guards post­ed them­selves in front of two of the five Jew­ish shops in Ravens­burg and tried to pre­vent poten­tial buy­ers from enter­ing, putting up signs on one shop stat­ing “Wohlw­ert closed until Aryaniza­tion”. Wohlwert’s would soon become “Aryanised” and would be the only Jew­ish-owned shop to sur­vive the Nazi pogrom. The oth­er own­ers of the four large Jew­ish depart­ment stores in Ravens­burg; Knopf; Merkur; Lan­dauer and Waller­stein­er were all forced to sell their prop­er­ties to non-Jew­ish mer­chants between 1935 and 1938. Dur­ing this peri­od, many of the Ravens­burg Jews were able to flee abroad before the worst of the Nation­al Social­ist per­se­cu­tion began. While at least eight died vio­lent­ly, it was report­ed that three Jew­ish cit­i­zens who lived in Ravens­burg sur­vived because of their “Aryan” spous­es. Some of the Jews who were arrest­ed in Ravens­burg dur­ing Kristall­nacht were forced to march through the streets of Baden-Baden under SS guard super­vi­sion the fol­low­ing day and were lat­er deport­ed to Sach­sen­hausen con­cen­tra­tion camp.

Hor­rif­ic Nazi crimes against human­i­ty took place in Ravens­burg. On 1 Jan­u­ary 1934, the “Law for the Pre­ven­tion of Hered­i­tary Dis­eases” came into force in Nazi Ger­many, mean­ing peo­ple with diag­nosed ill­ness­es such as demen­tia, schiz­o­phre­nia, epilep­sy, hered­i­tary deaf­ness, and var­i­ous oth­er men­tal dis­or­ders, could be legal­ly forcibly ster­ilised. In the Ravens­burg City Hos­pi­tal, today called Heilig-Geist Hos­pi­tal, forced ster­il­i­sa­tions were car­ried out begin­ning in April 1934. By 1936, ster­il­i­sa­tion was the most per­formed med­ical pro­ce­dure in the munic­i­pal hos­pi­tal.

In the pre-war years of the 1930s lead­ing up to the Ger­man annex­a­tion of Poland, Ravensburg’s Esch­er-Wyss fac­to­ry, now man­aged direct­ly by Klaus Schwab’s father, Eugen Schwab, con­tin­ued to be the biggest employ­er in Ravens­burg. Not only was the fac­to­ry a major employ­er in the town, but Hitler’s own Nazi par­ty award­ed the Esch­er-Wyss Ravens­burg branch the title of “Nation­al Social­ist Mod­el Com­pa­ny” while Schwab was at the helm. The Nazis were poten­tial­ly woo­ing the Swiss com­pa­ny for coop­er­a­tion in the com­ing war, and their advances were even­tu­al­ly rec­i­p­ro­cat­ed.

Esch­er-Wyss Ravens­burg and the War

Ravens­burg was an anom­aly in wartime Ger­many, as it was nev­er tar­get­ed by any Allied airstrikes. The pres­ence of the Red Cross, and a rumoured agree­ment with var­i­ous com­pa­nies includ­ing Esch­er-Wyss, saw the allied forces pub­licly agree to not tar­get the South­ern Ger­man town. It was not clas­si­fied as a sig­nif­i­cant mil­i­tary tar­get through­out the war and, for that rea­son, the town still main­tains many of its orig­i­nal fea­tures. How­ev­er, much dark­er things were afoot in Ravens­burg once the war began.

Eugen Schwab con­tin­ued to man­age the “Nation­al Social­ist Mod­el Com­pa­ny” for Esch­er-Wyss, and the Swiss com­pa­ny would aid the Nazi Wer­ma­cht pro­duce sig­nif­i­cant weapons of war as well as more basic arma­ments. The Esch­er-Wyss com­pa­ny was a leader in large tur­bine tech­nol­o­gy for hydro­elec­tric dams and pow­er plants, but they also man­u­fac­tured parts for Ger­man fight­er planes. They were also inti­mate­ly involved in much more sin­is­ter projects hap­pen­ing behind the scenes which, if com­plet­ed, could have changed the out­come of World War II.

West­ern mil­i­tary intel­li­gence were already aware of Esch­er-Wyss’ com­plic­i­ty and col­lab­o­ra­tion with the Nazis. There are records avail­able from west­ern mil­i­tary intel­li­gence at the time, specif­i­cal­ly Record Group 226 (RG 226) from the data com­piled by the Office of Strate­gic Ser­vices (OSS), which shows the Allied forces were aware of some of the Esch­er-Wyss’ busi­ness deal­ings with the Nazis.

With­in RG 226, there are three spe­cif­ic men­tions of Esch­er-Wyss includ­ing:

File num­ber 47178 which reads: Esch­er-Wyss of Switzer­land is work­ing on a large order for Ger­many. Flame-throw­ers are despatched from Switzer­land under the name Brennstoff­be­hael­ter. Dat­ed Sept. 1944.

File num­ber 41589 showed that the Swiss were allow­ing Ger­man exports to be stored in their coun­try, a sup­pos­ed­ly neu­tral nation dur­ing World War II. The entry reads: Busi­ness rela­tions between Empre­sa Nacional Cal­vo Sote­lo (ENCASO), Esch­er Wyss, and Min­er­al Cel­bau Gesellschaft. 1 p. July 1944; see also L 42627 Report on col­lab­o­ra­tion between the Span­ish Empre­sa Nacional Cal­vo Sote­lo and the Ger­man Rhein­metall Bor­sig, on Ger­man exports stored in Switzer­land. 1 p. August 1944.

File num­ber 72654 claimed that: Hungary’s baux­ite was for­mer­ly sent to Ger­many and Switzer­land for refin­ing. Then a gov­ern­ment syn­di­cate built an alu­mini­um plant at Dunaal­mas on the bor­ders of Hun­gary. Elec­tric pow­er was pro­vid­ed; Hun­gary con­tributed coal mines, and equip­ment was ordered from the Swiss firm Esch­er-Wyss. Pro­duc­tion began in 1941. 2 pp. May 1944.

Yet, Esch­er-Wyss were lead­ers in one blos­som­ing field in par­tic­u­lar, the cre­ation of new tur­bine tech­nol­o­gy. The com­pa­ny had engi­neered a 14,500 HP tur­bine for the Norsk Hydro indus­tri­al facility’s strate­gi­cal­ly impor­tant hydro­elec­tric plant at Vemork, near Rjukan in Nor­way. The Norsk Hydro plant, part pow­ered by Esch­er Wyss, was the only indus­tri­al plant under Nazi con­trol capa­ble of pro­duc­ing heavy water, an ingre­di­ent essen­tial for mak­ing plu­to­ni­um for the Nazi atom­ic bomb pro­gram. The Ger­mans had put all pos­si­ble resources behind the pro­duc­tion of heavy water, but the Allied forces were aware of the poten­tial­ly game-chang­ing tech advances by the increas­ing­ly des­per­ate Nazis.

Dur­ing 1942 and 1943, the hydro plant was the tar­get of par­tial­ly suc­cess­ful British Com­man­do and Nor­we­gian Resis­tance raids, although heavy water pro­duc­tion con­tin­ued. The Allied forces would drop more than 400 bombs on the plant, which bare­ly affect­ed the oper­a­tions at the sprawl­ing facil­i­ty. In 1944, Ger­man ships attempt­ed to trans­port heavy water back to Ger­many, but the Nor­we­gian Resis­tance were able to sink the ship car­ry­ing the pay­load. With help from Esch­er-Wyss, the Nazis were almost able to change the tides of war and bring about an Axis vic­to­ry.

Back in the Esch­er-Wyss fac­to­ry in Ravens­burg, Eugen Schwab had been busy putting forced labour­ers to work at his mod­el Nazi com­pa­ny. Dur­ing the years of World War II, near­ly 3,600 forced labour­ers worked in Ravens­burg, includ­ing at Esch­er Wyss. Accord­ing to the city archivist in Ravens­burg, Andrea Schmud­er, the Esch­er-Wyss machine fac­to­ry in Ravens­burg employed between 198 and 203 civ­il work­ers and POWs dur­ing the war. Karl Schweiz­er, a local Lin­dau his­to­ri­an, states that Esch­er-Wyss main­tained a small spe­cial camp for forced labour­ers on the fac­to­ry premis­es.

The use of mass­es of forced labour­ers in Ravens­burg made it nec­es­sary to set­up one of the largest record­ed Nazi forced labour camps in the work­shop of a for­mer carpenter’s at Ziegel­strasse 16. At one time, the camp in ques­tion accom­mo­dat­ed 125 French pris­on­ers of war who were lat­er redis­trib­uted to oth­er camps in 1942. The French work­ers were replaced by 150 Russ­ian pris­on­ers of war who, it was rumoured, were treat­ed the worst out of all the POWs. One such pris­on­er was Zina Jakuschewa, whose work card and work book are held by the Unit­ed States Holo­caust Memo­r­i­al Muse­um. Those doc­u­ments iden­ti­fy her as a non-Jew­ish forced labour­er assigned to Ravens­burg, Ger­many, dur­ing 1943 and 1944.

Eugen Schwab would duti­ful­ly main­tain the sta­tus quo dur­ing the war years. After all, with young Klaus Mar­tin Schwab hav­ing been born in 1938 and his broth­er Urs Rein­er Schwab born a few years lat­er, Eugen would have want­ed to keep his chil­dren out of harm’s way.

Klaus Mar­tin Schwab – Inter­na­tion­al Man of Mys­tery

Born on 30 March 1938 in Ravens­burg, Ger­many, Klaus Schwab was the eldest child in a nor­mal nuclear fam­i­ly. Between 1945 and 1947, Klaus attend­ed pri­ma­ry school in Au, Ger­many. Klaus Schwab recalls in a 2006 inter­view with the Irish Times that:”After the war, I chaired the Fran­co-Ger­man region­al youth asso­ci­a­tion. My heroes were Ade­nauer, De Gasperi and De Gaulle.”

Klaus Schwab and his younger broth­er, Urs Rein­er Schwab, were both to fol­low in the foot­steps of their grand­fa­ther, Got­tfried, and their father, Eugen, and would both ini­tial­ly train as machine engi­neers. Klaus’s father had told the young Schwab that, if he want­ed to make an impact on the world, then he should train as a Machine Engi­neer. This would only be the begin­ning of Schwab’s Uni­ver­si­ty cre­den­tials.

Klaus would begin study­ing his pletho­ra of degrees at Spohn-Gym­na­si­um Ravens­burg between 1949 and 1957, even­tu­al­ly grad­u­at­ing from the Human­is­tis­ches Gym­na­si­um in Ravens­burg. Between 1958 and 1962, Klaus began work­ing with var­i­ous engi­neer­ing com­pa­nies and, in 1962, Klaus com­plet­ed his mechan­i­cal engi­neer­ing stud­ies at the Swiss Fed­er­al Insti­tute of Tech­nol­o­gy (ETH) in Zurich with an engi­neer­ing diplo­ma. The fol­low­ing year, he also com­plet­ed an eco­nom­ics course at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Fri­bourg, Switzer­land. From 1963 until 1966, Klaus worked as Assis­tant to the Direc­tor-Gen­er­al of the Ger­man Machine-build­ing Asso­ci­a­tion (VDMA), Frank­furt.

In 1965, Klaus was also work­ing on his doc­tor­ate from the ETH Zurich, writ­ing his dis­ser­ta­tion on: “The longer-term export cred­it as a busi­ness prob­lem in mechan­i­cal engi­neer­ing”. Then, in 1966, he received his Doc­tor­ate in Engi­neer­ing from the Swiss Fed­er­al Insti­tute of Tech­nol­o­gy (ETH), Zurich. At this time, Klaus’s father, Eugen Schwab, was swim­ming in big­ger cir­cles than he had pre­vi­ous­ly swam. After being a well known per­son­al­i­ty in Ravens­burg as the Man­ag­ing Direc­tor of the Esch­er-Wyss fac­to­ry from before the war, Eugen would even­tu­al­ly be elect­ed as Pres­i­dent of the Ravens­burg Cham­ber of Com­merce. In 1966, dur­ing the found­ing of the Ger­man com­mit­tee for Splü­gen rail­way tun­nel, Eugen Schwab defined the found­ing of the Ger­man com­mit­tee as a project “that cre­ates a bet­ter and faster con­nec­tion for large cir­cles in our increas­ing­ly con­verg­ing Europe and thus offers new oppor­tu­ni­ties for cul­tur­al, eco­nom­ic and social devel­op­ment”.

In 1967, Klaus Schwab gained a Doc­tor­ate in Eco­nom­ics from the Uni­ver­si­ty of Fri­bourg, Switzer­land as well as a Mas­ter of Pub­lic Admin­is­tra­tion qual­i­fi­ca­tion from the John F. Kennedy School of Gov­ern­ment at Har­vard in the Unit­ed States. While at Har­vard, Schwab was taught by Hen­ry Kissinger, who he would lat­er say were among the top 3–4 fig­ures who had most influ­enced his think­ing over the course of his entire life.

In the pre­vi­ous­ly men­tioned Irish Times arti­cle of 2006, Klaus talks about that peri­od as being very impor­tant to the for­ma­tion of his present ide­alog­i­cal think­ing, stat­ing: “Years lat­er, when I came back from the US after my stud­ies at Har­vard, there were two events that had a deci­sive trig­ger­ing event on me. The first was a book by Jean-Jacques Ser­van-Schreiber, The Amer­i­can Chal­lenge – which said Europe would lose out against the US because of Europe’s infe­ri­or man­age­ment meth­ods. The oth­er event was – and this is rel­e­vant to Ire­land – the Europe of the six became the Europe of the nine.” These two events would help shape Klaus Schwab into a man who want­ed to change the way peo­ple went about their busi­ness.

That same year, Klaus’s younger broth­er Urs Rein­er Schwab grad­u­at­ed from ETH Zurich as a mechan­i­cal engi­neer, and Klaus Schwab went to work for his father’s old com­pa­ny, Esch­er-Wyss, soon to become Sulz­er Esch­er-Wyss AG, Zurich, as Assis­tant to the Chair­man to aid in the reor­gan­i­sa­tion of the merg­ing com­pa­nies. This leads us towards Klaus’s nuclear con­nec­tions.

The rise of a tech­no­crat

Sulz­er, a Swiss com­pa­ny whose ori­gins date back to 1834, had first risen to promi­nence after start­ing to build com­pres­sors in 1906. By 1914, the fam­i­ly-run firm had become part of “three joint-stock com­pa­nies,” one of which was the offi­cial hold­ing com­pa­ny. In the 1930s, Sulzer’s prof­its would suf­fer dur­ing the Great Depres­sion and, like many busi­ness­es at the time, faced dis­rup­tion and indus­tri­al actions from their work­ers.

World War II may not have affect­ed Switzer­land as much as her neigh­bours, but the eco­nom­ic boom that was to fol­low led to Sulz­er grow­ing in pow­er and mar­ket dom­i­nance. In 1966, just before the arrival of Klaus Schwab at Esch­er-Wyss, the Swiss tur­bine man­u­fac­tur­ers signed a coop­er­a­tion agree­ment with the Sulz­er broth­ers in Win­terthur. Sulz­er and Esch­er-Wyss would begin to merge in 1966, when Sulz­er pur­chased 53% of the com­pa­ny shares. Esch­er-Wyss would offi­cial­ly become Sulz­er Esch­er-Wyss AG in 1969 when the last of the shares were acquired by the Sulz­er broth­ers.

Once the merg­er had start­ed, Esch­er-Wyss would begin to be restruc­tured and two of the exist­ing Board Mem­bers would be the first to find their ser­vice to Esch­er-Wyss com­ing to an end. Dr. H. Schindler and W. Stof­fel would resign from the Board of Direc­tors now head­ed by Georg Sulz­er and Alfred Schaffn­er. Dr. Schindler had been a mem­ber of the Esch­er-Wyss Board of Direc­tors for 28 years and had worked along­side Eugen Schwab through­out much of his ser­vice. Peter Schmid­heiny would lat­er take over as Chair­man of the Board of Direc­tors of Esch­er-Wyss, con­tin­u­ing the Schmid­heiny fam­i­ly rule over the company’s exec­u­tives.

Dur­ing the restruc­tur­ing process, it was decid­ed that Esch­er-Wyss and Sulz­er would con­cen­trate on sep­a­rate areas of machine engi­neer­ing with the Esch­er-Wyss fac­to­ries pri­mar­i­ly work on hydraulic pow­er plant con­struc­tion, includ­ing tur­bines, stor­age pumps, revers­ing machines, clos­ing devices and pipelines, as well as steam tur­bines, tur­bo com­pres­sors, evap­o­ra­tion sys­tems, cen­trifuges and machines for the paper and pulp indus­try. Sulz­er would con­cen­trate on the refrig­er­a­tion indus­try as well as steam boil­er con­struc­tion and gas tur­bines.

On 1 Jan­u­ary 1968, the fresh­ly reor­gan­ised Sulz­er Esch­er-Wyss AG was rolled out pub­licly and the com­pa­ny had become stream­lined, a move deemed nec­es­sary because of sev­er­al large acqui­si­tions. This includ­ed a close col­lab­o­ra­tion with Brown Boveri, a group of Swiss elec­tric engi­neer­ing com­pa­nies who had also worked for the Nazis, sup­ply­ing the Ger­mans with some of their U‑boat tech­nol­o­gy used dur­ing World War II. Brown Boveri was also described as “defence-relat­ed elec­tri­cal con­trac­tors” and would find the con­di­tions of the Cold War arms race to be ben­e­fi­cial to their busi­ness.

The merg­er and reor­gan­i­sa­tion of these Swiss mechan­i­cal engi­neer­ing giants saw their col­lab­o­ra­tion pay off in unique ways. Dur­ing the 1968 Win­ter Olympics in Greno­ble, Sulz­er and Esch­er-Wyss used 8 refrig­er­a­tion com­pres­sors to cre­ate tonnes of arti­fi­cial ice. In 1969, the two firms com­bined to help in the build­ing of a new pas­sen­ger ship named “Ham­burg”, the first ship in the world to be ful­ly air-con­di­tioned thanks to the Sulz­er Esch­er-Wyss com­bi­na­tion.

In 1967, Klaus Schwab offi­cial­ly burst onto the scene of the Swiss busi­ness com­mu­ni­ty and took a lead in the merg­er between Sulz­er and Esch­er-Wyss, as well as form­ing prof­itable alliances with Brown Boveri and oth­ers. In Decem­ber 1967, Klaus would speak at a Zurich event to the top Swiss machine engi­neer­ing organ­i­sa­tions; the Employ­ers Asso­ci­a­tion of Swiss Machine and Met­al Man­u­fac­tur­ers and the Asso­ci­a­tion of Swiss Machine Man­u­fac­tur­ers.

In his talk, he would cor­rect­ly pre­dict the impor­tance of incor­po­rat­ing com­put­ers into mod­ern Swiss machine engi­neer­ing, stat­ing that:

“In 1971, prod­ucts that are not even on the mar­ket today are like­ly to account for up to a quar­ter of sales. This requires com­pa­nies to sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly research pos­si­ble devel­op­ments and iden­ti­fy gaps in the mar­ket. Today, 18 of the 20 largest com­pa­nies in our machine indus­try have plan­ning depart­ments that are entrust­ed with such tasks. Of course, every­one has to make use of the lat­est tech­no­log­i­cal advances, and the com­put­er is one of them. The many small and medi­um-sized com­pa­nies in our machine indus­try take the path of coop­er­a­tion or use the ser­vices of spe­cial data pro­cess­ing ser­vice providers.”

Com­put­ers and data were obvi­ous­ly seen as impor­tant to the future, accord­ing to Schwab, and this was fur­ther pro­ject­ed in the reor­gan­i­sa­tion of Sulz­er Esch­er-Wyss dur­ing their merg­er. Sulzer’s mod­ern web­site reflects this note­wor­thy change in direc­tion, stat­ing that, in 1968: “Mate­r­i­al tech­nol­o­gy activ­i­ties are inten­si­fied [by Sulz­er] and form the basis for med­ical tech­nol­o­gy prod­ucts. The fun­da­men­tal change from a machine-build­ing com­pa­ny to a tech­nol­o­gy cor­po­ra­tion starts to become appar­ent.”

Klaus Schwab was help­ing to turn Sulz­er Esch­er-Wyss into some­thing more than just a machine build­ing giant, he was trans­form­ing them into a tech­nol­o­gy cor­po­ra­tion dri­ving at high speed into a hi-tech future. It should also be not­ed that Sulz­er Esch­er-Wyss changed anoth­er focus of their busi­ness to help them “form the basis for med­ical tech­nol­o­gy prod­ucts,” an area not pre­vi­ous­ly men­tioned as a tar­get indus­try for Sulz­er and/or Esch­er-Wyss.

But tech­no­log­i­cal advance­ment wasn’t the only upgrade Klaus Schwab want­ed to intro­duce at Sulz­er Esch­er-Wyss, he also want­ed to change how the com­pa­ny thought about their busi­ness man­age­r­i­al style. Schwab and his close asso­ciates were push­ing an entire­ly new busi­ness phi­los­o­phy which would allow “all employ­ees to accept the imper­a­tives of moti­va­tion and to ensure at home a sense of flex­i­bil­i­ty and manoeu­vra­bil­i­ty.”

It is here in the late 1960s where we see Klaus begin to emerge as a more pub­lic fig­ure. At this time, the Sulz­er Esch­er-Wyss com­pa­ny also became more inter­est­ed in engag­ing with the press than ever before. In Jan­u­ary 1969, the Swiss giants set­up a pub­lic advi­so­ry ses­sion enti­tled the “Press Day of the Machine Indus­try“, which main­ly con­cerned ques­tions on com­pa­ny man­age­ment. Dur­ing the event, Schwab would state that com­pa­nies using author­i­tar­i­an styles of busi­ness man­age­ment are “unable to ful­ly acti­vate the ‘human cap­i­tal’”, an argu­ment he would use on many sep­a­rate occa­sions dur­ing the late 1960s.

Plu­to­ni­um and Pre­to­ria

Esch­er-Wyss were pio­neers in some of the most impor­tant tech in pow­er gen­er­a­tion. As the US Depart­ment of Ener­gy points out in their paper on Super­crit­i­cal CO2 Bray­ton Cycle Devel­op­ment (CBC), a device used in hydro and nuclear pow­er plants, “Esch­er-Wyss was the first com­pa­ny known to devel­op the tur­bo­ma­chin­ery for CBC sys­tems start­ing in 1939.” Going on to state that 24 sys­tems were built, “with Esch­er-Wyss design­ing the pow­er con­ver­sion cycles and build­ing the tur­bo­ma­chin­ery for all but 3”. By 1966, just before the entrance of Schwab into Esch­er-Wyss and the start of the Sulz­er merg­er, the Esch­er-Wyss heli­um com­pres­sor was designed for the La Fleur Cor­po­ra­tion and con­tin­ued the evo­lu­tion of the Bray­ton Cycle Devel­op­ment. This tech­nol­o­gy was still of impor­tance to the arms indus­try by 1986, with nuclear pow­ered drones being equipped with a heli­um-cooled Bray­ton cycle nuclear reac­tor.

Esch­er-Wyss had been involved with man­u­fac­tur­ing and installing nuclear tech­nol­o­gy at least as ear­ly as 1962, as shown by this patent for a “heat exchange arrange­ment for a nuclear pow­er plant” and this patent from 1966 for a “nuclear reac­tor gas-tur­bine plant with emer­gency cool­ing”. After Schwab left Sulz­er Esch­er-Wyss, Sulz­er would also help to devel­op spe­cial tur­bo­com­pres­sors for ura­ni­um enrich­ment to yield reac­tor fuels.

When Klaus Schwab joined Sulz­er Esch­er-Wyss in 1967 and start­ed the reor­gan­i­sa­tion of the com­pa­ny to be a tech­nol­o­gy cor­po­ra­tion, the involve­ment of Sulz­er Esch­er-Wyss in the dark­er aspects of the glob­al nuclear arms race became imme­di­ate­ly more pro­nounced. Before Klaus became involved, Esch­er-Wyss had often con­cen­trat­ed on help­ing design and build parts for civil­ian uses of nuclear tech­nol­o­gy, e.g. nuclear pow­er gen­er­a­tion. Yet, with the arrival of the eager Mr. Schwab also came the company’s par­tic­i­pa­tion in the ille­gal pro­lif­er­a­tion of nuclear weapons tech­nol­o­gy. By 1969, the incor­po­ra­tion of Esch­er Wyss into Sulz­er was ful­ly com­plet­ed and they would be rebrand­ed into Sulz­er AG, drop­ping the his­toric name Esch­er-Wyss from their name.

It was even­tu­al­ly revealed, thanks to a review and report car­ried out by the Swiss author­i­ties and a man named Peter Hug, that Sulz­er Esch­er-Wyss began secret­ly procur­ing and build­ing key parts for nuclear weapons dur­ing the 1960s. The com­pa­ny, while Schwab was on the board, also began play­ing a crit­i­cal key role in the devel­op­ment of South Africa’s ille­gal nuclear weapons pro­gramme dur­ing the dark­est years of the apartheid regime. Klaus Schwab was a lead­ing fig­ure in the found­ing of a com­pa­ny cul­ture which helped Pre­to­ria build six nuclear weapons and par­tial­ly assem­ble a sev­enth.

In the report, Peter Hug out­lined how Sulz­er Esch­er Wyss AG (referred to post-merg­er as just Sulz­er AG) had sup­plied vital com­po­nents to the South African gov­ern­ment and found evi­dence of Germany’s role in sup­port­ing the racist regime, also reveal­ing that the Swiss gov­ern­ment “was aware of ille­gal deals but ‘tol­er­at­ed them in silence’ while sup­port­ing some of them active­ly or crit­i­cised them only half-heart­ed­ly”. Hug’s report was even­tu­al­ly finalised in a work enti­tled: “Switzer­land and South Africa 1948–1994 – Final Report of the NFP 42+ com­mis­sioned by the Swiss Fed­er­al Coun­cil” which was com­piled and writ­ten by Georg Kreis and pub­lished in 2007.

By 1967, South Africa had con­struct­ed a reac­tor as part of a plan to pro­duce plu­to­ni­um, the SAFARI‑2 locat­ed at Pelind­a­ba. SAFARI‑2 was part of a project to devel­op a reac­tor mod­er­at­ed by heavy water which would be fuelled by nat­ur­al ura­ni­um and cooled using sodi­um. This link to devel­op­ing heavy water for the cre­ation of ura­ni­um, the same tech­nol­o­gy which had been utilised by the Nazis also with the help of Esch­er-Wyss, may explain why South Africans ini­tial­ly got Esch­er-Wyss involved. But by 1969, South Africa aban­doned the heavy water reac­tor project at Pelind­a­ba because it was drain­ing resources from their ura­ni­um enrich­ment pro­gram that had first begun in 1967.

A South African nuke in stor­age

In 1970, Esch­er-Wyss were def­i­nite­ly deeply involved with nuclear tech­nol­o­gy, as seen in a record avail­able in the Lan­desarchivs Baden-Würt­tem­berg. The record shows details of a pub­lic pro­cure­ment process and con­tains infor­ma­tion about award talks with spe­cif­ic com­pa­nies involved in the pro­cure­ment of nuclear tech­nol­o­gy and mate­ri­als. The com­pa­nies cit­ed include: NUKEM; Uhde; Krantz; Preussag; Esch­er-Wyss; Siemens; Rhein­tal; Ley­bold; Lur­gi; and the infa­mous Transnuk­lear.

The Swiss and South Africans had a close rela­tion­ship through this peri­od of his­to­ry, when it was hard­ly easy for the bru­tal South African regime to find close allies. By 4 Novem­ber 1977, the Unit­ed Nations Secu­ri­ty Coun­cil had enact­ed res­o­lu­tion 418 which imposed a manda­to­ry arms embar­go against South Africa, an embar­go that wouldn’t be ful­ly lift­ed until 1994.

Georg Kreis point­ed out the fol­low­ing in his detailed assess­ment of the Hug report:

“The fact that the author­i­ties assumed a laisse-faire atti­tude even after May 1978 comes to the fore in an exchange of let­ters between the Anti-Apartheid Move­ment and the DFMA in October/December 1978. As the study by Hug expli­cates, the Anti-Apartheid Move­ment of Switzer­land point­ed to Ger­man reports accord­ing to which Sulz­er Esch­er-Wyss and a com­pa­ny called BBC had sup­plied parts for the South African ura­ni­um enrich­ment plant, and to repeat­ed cred­its to ESCOM, which also includ­ed con­sid­er­able con­tri­bu­tions by Swiss banks. These asser­tions led to ques­tions of whether the Fed­er­al Coun­cil – in light of fun­da­men­tal sup­port of the UN embar­go, ought not to insti­gate the Nation­al Bank to stop autho­ris­ing cred­its for ESCOM in the future.”

Swiss banks would help to fund the South African race to nukes and, by 1986, Sulz­er Esch­er-Wyss were suc­cess­ful­ly pro­duc­ing spe­cial com­pres­sors for ura­ni­um enrich­ment.

The Found­ing of the World Eco­nom­ic Forum

In 1970, the young upstart, Klaus Schwab wrote to the Euro­pean Com­mis­sion and asked for help in set­ting up a “non-com­mer­cial think tank for Euro­pean busi­ness lead­ers”. The Euro­pean Com­mis­sion would spon­sor the event as well, send­ing French politi­cian Ray­mond Barre to act as the forum’s “intel­lec­tu­al men­tor”. Ray­mond Barre, who was at that time Euro­pean Com­mis­sion­er for Eco­nom­ic and Finan­cial Affairs, would lat­er go on to become French PM and would be accused of mak­ing anti-Semit­ic com­ments while in office.

So, in 1970, Schwab left Esch­er Wyss to organ­ise a two-week busi­ness man­age­r­i­al con­fer­ence. In 1971, the first meet­ing of the World Eco­nom­ic Forum – then called the Euro­pean Man­age­ment Sym­po­sium – con­vened in Davos, Switzer­land. Around 450 par­tic­i­pants from 31 coun­tries would take part in Schwab’s first Euro­pean Man­age­ment Sym­po­sium, most­ly made up of man­agers from var­i­ous Euro­pean com­pa­nies, politi­cians, and US aca­d­e­mics. The project was record­ed as organ­ised by Klaus Schwab and his sec­re­tary Hilde Stoll who, lat­er the same year, would become Klaus Schwab’s wife.

Klaus’s Euro­pean sym­po­sium was not an orig­i­nal idea. As writer Gan­ga Jey Arat­nam stated quite coher­ent­ly in 2018:

“Klaus Schwab’s “Spir­it of Davos” was also the “Spir­it of Har­vard.” Not only had the busi­ness school advo­cat­ed the idea of a sym­po­sium, but promi­nent Har­vard econ­o­mist John Ken­neth Gal­braith cham­pi­oned the afflu­ent soci­ety as well as capitalism’s plan­ning needs and the rap­proche­ment of East and West.”

It was also true that, as Arat­nam also point­ed out, this was not the first time Davos had host­ed such events. Between 1928 and 1931, the Davos Uni­ver­si­ty Con­fer­ences took place at the Hotel Belvédère, events which were co-found­ed by Albert Ein­stein and were only halt­ed by the Great Depres­sion and the threat of loom­ing war.

The Club of Rome and the WEF

The most influ­en­tial group that spurred the cre­ation of Klaus Schwab’s sym­po­sium was the Club of Rome, an influ­en­tial think tank of the sci­en­tif­ic and monied elite that mir­rors the World Eco­nom­ic Forum in many ways, includ­ing in its pro­mo­tion of a glob­al gov­er­nance mod­el led by a tech­no­crat­ic elite. The Club had been found­ed in 1968 by Ital­ian indus­tri­al­ist Aure­lio Pec­cei and Scot­tish chemist Alexan­der King dur­ing a pri­vate meet­ing at a res­i­dence owned by the Rock­e­feller fam­i­ly in Bel­la­gio, Italy.

Among its first accom­plish­ments was a 1972 book enti­tled “The Lim­its to Growth” that large­ly focused on glob­al over­pop­u­la­tion, warn­ing that “if the world’s con­sump­tion pat­terns and pop­u­la­tion growth con­tin­ued at the same high rates of the time, the earth would strike its lim­its with­in a cen­tu­ry.” At the third meet­ing of the World Eco­nom­ic Forum in 1973, Pec­cei deliv­ered a speech sum­ma­riz­ing the book, which the World Eco­nom­ic Forum web­site remem­bers as hav­ing been the dis­tin­guish­ing event of this his­tor­i­cal meet­ing. That same year, the Club of Rome would pub­lish a report detail­ing an “adap­tive” mod­el for glob­al gov­er­nance that would divide the world into ten, inter-con­nect­ed economic/political regions.

The Club of Rome was long con­tro­ver­sial for its obses­sion with reduc­ing the glob­al pop­u­la­tion and many of its ear­li­er poli­cies, which crit­ics described as influ­enced by eugen­ics and neo-Malthu­sian. How­ev­er, in the Club’s infa­mous 1991 Book, The First Glob­al Rev­o­lu­tion, it was argued that such poli­cies could gain pop­u­lar sup­port if the mass­es were able to link them with an exis­ten­tial fight against a com­mon ene­my.

To that effect, The First Glob­al Rev­o­lu­tion con­tains a pas­sage enti­tled “The com­mon ene­my of human­i­ty is Man”, which states the fol­low­ing:

“In search­ing for a com­mon ene­my against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pol­lu­tion, the threat of glob­al warm­ing, water short­ages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their total­i­ty and their inter­ac­tions these phe­nom­e­na do con­sti­tute a com­mon threat which must be con­front­ed by every­one togeth­er. But in des­ig­nat­ing these dan­gers as the ene­my, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned read­ers about, name­ly mis­tak­ing symp­toms for caus­es. All these dan­gers are caused by human inter­ven­tion in nat­ur­al process­es, and it is only through changed atti­tudes and behav­iour that they can be over­come. The real ene­my then is human­i­ty itself.”

In the years since, the elite that pop­u­late the Club of Rome and the World Eco­nom­ic Forum have fre­quent­ly argued that pop­u­la­tion con­trol meth­ods are essen­tial to pro­tect­ing the envi­ron­ment. It is thus unsur­pris­ing that the World Eco­nom­ic Forum would sim­i­lar­ly use the issues of cli­mate and envi­ron­ment as a way to mar­ket oth­er­wise unpop­u­lar poli­cies, such as those of the Great Reset, as nec­es­sary.

The Past is Pro­logue

Since the found­ing of the World Eco­nom­ic Forum, Klaus Schwab has become one of the most pow­er­ful peo­ple in the world and his Great Reset has made it more impor­tant than ever to scru­ti­nize the man sit­ting on the glob­al­ist throne.

Giv­en his promi­nent role in the far-reach­ing effort to trans­form every aspect of the exist­ing order, Klaus Schwab’s his­to­ry was dif­fi­cult to research. When you start to dig into the his­to­ry of a man like Schwab, who sits aloft oth­er shad­owy elite movers and shak­ers, you soon find lots of infor­ma­tion has been hid­den or removed. Klaus is some­body who wants to stay hid­den in the shad­owy cor­ners of soci­ety and who will only allow the aver­age per­son to see a well-pre­sent­ed con­struct of their cho­sen per­sona.

Is the real Klaus Schwab a kind­ly old uncle fig­ure wish­ing to do good for human­i­ty, or is he real­ly the son of a Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tor who used slave labour and helped the Nazi efforts to obtain the first atom­ic bomb? Is Klaus the hon­est busi­ness man­ag­er who we should trust to cre­ate a fair­er soci­ety and work­place for the com­mon man, or is he the per­son who helped push Sulz­er Esch­er-Wyss into a tech­no­log­i­cal rev­o­lu­tion that led to its role in the ille­gal cre­ation of nuclear weapons for South Africa’s racist apartheid regime? The evi­dence I have looked at does not sug­gest a kind­ly man, but rather a mem­ber of a wealthy, well-con­nect­ed fam­i­ly that has a his­to­ry of help­ing cre­ate weapons of mass destruc­tion for aggres­sive, racist gov­ern­ments.

As Klaus Schwab said in 2006 “Knowl­edge will soon be avail­able every­where – I call it the ‘googli­sa­tion’ of glob­al­i­sa­tion. It’s not what you know any more, it’s how you use it. You have to be a pace set­ter.” Klaus Schwab con­sid­ers him­self to be a pace set­ter and a top table play­er, and it must be said that his qual­i­fi­ca­tions and expe­ri­ence are impres­sive. Yet, when it comes to prac­tis­ing what you preach, Klaus has been found out. One of the three biggest chal­lenges on the pri­or­i­ty list for the World Eco­nom­ic Forum is the non-pro­lif­er­a­tion of nuclear weapons, yet nei­ther Klaus Schwab nor his father Eugen lived up to those same prin­ci­ples when they were in busi­ness. Quite the oppo­site.

In Jan­u­ary, Klaus Schwab announced that 2021 is the year that the World Eco­nom­ic Forum and its allies must “rebuild trust” with the mass­es. How­ev­er, if Schwab con­tin­ues to hide his his­to­ry and that of his father’s con­nec­tions to the “Nation­al Social­ist Mod­el Com­pa­ny” that was Esch­er-Wyss dur­ing the 1930s and 1940s, then peo­ple will have good rea­son to dis­trust the under­ly­ing moti­va­tions of his over­reach­ing, unde­mo­c­ra­t­ic Great Reset agen­da.

In the case of the Schwabs, the evi­dence doesn’t point at sim­ply poor busi­ness prac­tices or some sort of mis­un­der­stand­ing. The sto­ry of the Schwab fam­i­ly instead reveals a habit of work­ing with geno­ci­dal dic­ta­tors for the base motives of prof­it and pow­er. The Nazis and the South African apartheid regime are two of the worst exam­ples of lead­er­ship in mod­ern pol­i­tics, yet the Schwabs obvi­ous­ly couldn’t or wouldn’t see that at the time.

In the case of Klaus Schwab him­self, it appears that he has helped to laun­der relics of the Nazi era, i.e. its nuclear ambi­tions and its pop­u­la­tion con­trol ambi­tions, so as to ensure the con­ti­nu­ity of a deep­er agen­da. While serv­ing in a lead­er­ship capac­i­ty at Sulz­er Esch­er Wyss, the com­pa­ny sought to aid the nuclear ambi­tions of the South African regime, then the most Nazi adja­cent gov­ern­ment in the world, pre­serv­ing Esch­er Wyss’ own Nazi era lega­cy. Then, through the World Eco­nom­ic Forum, Schwab has helped to reha­bil­i­tate eugen­ics-influ­enced pop­u­la­tion con­trol poli­cies dur­ing the post-World War II era, a time when the rev­e­la­tions of Nazi atroc­i­ties Schwab, as he exists today, has changed in any­way? Or is he still the pub­lic face of a decades-long effort to ensure the sur­vival of a very old agen­da?

The last ques­tion that should be asked about the real moti­va­tions behind the actions of Herr Schwab, may be the most impor­tant for the future of human­i­ty: Is Klaus Schwab try­ing to cre­ate the Fourth Indus­tri­al Rev­o­lu­tion, or is he try­ing to cre­ate the Fourth Reich?

1b. The Con­trar­i­an by Max Chafkin; Pen­guin Press [HC]; Copy­right 2021 by Max Chafkin; ISBN 9781984878533; p. 5.

. . . . The work that Klaus [Peter Thiel’s father—D.E.] had been hired to do was sen­si­tive. South Africa, which admin­is­tered Namib­ia as a client state called South West Africa, was already com­ing under pres­sure over the apartheid sys­tem and had been attempt­ing to cre­ate a clan­des­tine nuclear weapons pro­gram. The Ross­ing Mine, which Klaus was build­ing was a cru­cial part of that plan . . . .

2. “Los­ing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Cli­mate Change. A Tragedy in Two Acts” by Nathaniel Rich; New York Times Mag­a­zine; 8/1/2018; P.11.

. . . . [Bet­sy] Agle point­ed to an arti­cle by a promi­nent geo­physi­cist named Gor­don Mac­Don­ald, who was con­duct­ing a study on cli­mate change with the Jasons, the mys­te­ri­ous coterie of sci­en­tists to which he belonged. . . . They had been brought togeth­er by fed­er­al agen­cies, includ­ing the C.I.A., to devise sci­en­tif­ic solu­tions to nation­al-secu­ri­ty prob­lems: how to detect an incom­ing mis­sile; how to pre­dict fall­out from a nuclear bomb; how to devel­op uncon­ven­tion­al weapons, like plague-infest­ed rats. . . .

. . . . In “How to Wreck the Envi­ron­ment,” a 1968 essay pub­lished while he was a sci­ence advis­er to Lyn­don John­son, Mac­Don­ald pre­dict­ed a near future in which “nuclear weapons were effec­tive­ly banned and the weapons of mass destruc­tion were those of envi­ron­men­tal cat­a­stro­phe.” One of the most poten­tial­ly dev­as­tat­ing weapons, he believed, was the gas that we exhaled with every breath: car­bon diox­ide. By vast­ly increas­ing car­bon emis­sions the world’s most advanced mil­i­taries could alter weath­er pat­terns and wreak famine, drought and eco­nom­ic dam­age. . . .

2b. “Poor Nations Lose as Plan­et Warms, Study Finds” by Somi­ni Sen­gup­ta; The New York Times; 4/23/2019; P. B3 [West­ern Print Edi­tion].

3a. “Tech Lead­ers Urge a Pause in A.I., Cit­ing ‘Pro­found Risks to Soci­ety’” by Cade Metz and Gre­go­ry Schmidt; The New York Times; 3/30/2023.

. . . . Oth­ers who signed the let­ter [in addi­tion to Elon Musk—D.E.] include Steve Woz­ni­ak, a co-founder of Apple, Andrew Yang, an entre­pre­neur and a 2020 pres­i­den­tial can­di­date, and Rachel Bron­son, the pres­i­dent of the Bul­letin of the Atom­ic Sci­en­tists, which sets the Dooms­day Clock. . . .

3b. “If We Don’t Mas­ter A.I., It Will Mas­ter Us” by Yuval Noah Harari, Tris­tan Har­ris and Aza Raskin; The New York Times; 3/27/2023; p. A18.

. . . . A.I. could rapid­ly eat the whole of human culture—everything we have pro­duced over thou­sands of years—digest it and begin to gush out a flood of new cul­tur­al arti­facts. Not just speech­es, ide­o­log­i­cal man­i­festos, holy books for new cults. By 2028, the U.S. pres­i­den­tial race might be no longer be run by humans. . . .

. . . . How­ev­er, sim­ply by gain­ing mas­tery of lan­guage, A.I., would have all it needs to con­tain us in a Matrix-like world of illu­sions, with­out shoot­ing any­one or implant­i­ng any chips in our brains. If any shoot­ing is nec­es­sary, A.I. could make humans pull the trig­ger, just by telling us the right sto­ry. . . .

. . . . While very prim­i­tive, the A.I. behind social media was suf­fi­cient to cre­ate a cur­tain of illu­sions that increased soci­etal polar­iza­tion, under­mined our men­tal health and unrav­eled democ­ra­cy. Mil­lions of peo­ple have con­fused these illu­sions with real­i­ty. The Unit­ed has the best infor­ma­tion tech­nol­o­gy in his­to­ry, yet U.S. cit­i­zens can no longer agree on who won elec­tions. . . .

3c. “ Con­nor Leahy reverse-engi­neered GPT‑2 in his bed­room — and what he found scared him. Now, his start­up Con­jec­ture is try­ing to make AI safe”

‘We are super, super fucked’: Meet the man try­ing to stop an AI apoc­a­lypse

Some­times it takes a mav­er­ick to stand up to the pow­er of big cor­po­ra­tions. In the case of then-24-year-old self-taught coder Con­nor Leahy it took “a bunch of Rital­in” and two weeks of forced seclu­sion in a dorm room. 

His goal? To reverse-engi­neer OpenAI’s lat­est large lan­guage mod­el (LLM) in 2019 to work out what was going on under the hood.

This boot­leg exper­i­ment marked the begin­ning of a jour­ney that’s led him to launch­ing his own start­up, Con­jec­ture, which is backed by some of the world’s most influ­en­tial tech­nol­o­gists. He’s focus­ing on AI align­ment, or the task of mak­ing machine learn­ing mod­els con­trol­lable, and he makes no bones about the risks.

“If they [AI mod­els] just get more and more pow­er­ful, with­out get­ting more con­trol­lable, we are super, super fucked. I will be very clear here. And be ‘we’ I mean all of us,” he says.

If Leahy’s to be believed, we’re cur­rent­ly all pas­sen­gers on a Sam Alt­man-dri­ven loco­mo­tive that’s accel­er­at­ing into the black­ness. Some­where ahead lies a precipice — the point where machine can out­smart human — that we won’t see until we’ve careered over it. Con­jec­ture is fran­ti­cal­ly work­ing to reroute the rails.

The align­ment prob­lem

Leahy isn’t alone in his con­cerns. Con­jec­ture — which he found­ed in 2022 — has back­ing from investors includ­ing GitHub’s for­mer CEO Nat Fried­man, a for­mer machine learn­ing direc­tor at Apple, Daniel Gross, Tesla’s for­mer head of AI Andrej Karpa­thy (who also worked as a researcher at Deep­Mind and Ope­nAI) and Stripe founders Patrick and John Col­li­son.

While Leahy doesn’t believe it’s like­ly that GPT‑4 rep­re­sents an exis­ten­tial threat to human­i­ty, he does say we could be deal­ing with “god­like-lev­el AI” with­in five years and, per­haps most scar­i­ly, we won’t see it until it’s too late.

“These are black-box neur­al net­works. Who knows what’s inside of them? We don’t know what they’re think­ing and we do not know how they work,” he explains. “If you keep build­ing smarter sys­tems, at some point you will have a sys­tem that can and will break out.”

Leahy spec­u­lates that, were a super-intel­li­gent AI sys­tem to break out, it could then start secret­ly run­ning on its own servers and improv­ing itself and amass­ing its own finan­cial resources.

“Once we have sys­tems that are as smart as humans, that also means they can do research. That means they can improve them­selves,” he says. “So the thing can just run on a serv­er some­where, write some code, maybe gath­er some bit­coin and then it could buy some more servers.”

At this point, Leahy says an AI could poten­tial­ly do any­thing from try­ing to build an army of killer drones to con­vinc­ing dif­fer­ent coun­tries to go to war with each oth­er. 

In short, the risk is essen­tial­ly unfath­omable.

How to stop super-human AI

Leahy says that Con­jec­ture is cur­rent­ly work­ing on some­thing called AI “bound­ed­ness”. This avenue of research focus­es on build­ing AI mod­els that humans know for cer­tain what they can and can’t do ahead of time.

But he says that he has no cer­tain­ty that it will work, and explains that it’s near­ly impos­si­ble to code a non-math­e­mat­i­cal idea like “benev­o­lence” into an AI sys­tem. Fur­ther­more, it’s not as sim­ple as train­ing a sys­tem about what are good and bad actions.

“Let’s say your mod­el threat­ens the user, so you give it a thumbs down. This sends the mod­el at least two sig­nals. Sig­nal num­ber one: stop threat­en­ing users. Sig­nal num­ber two: don’t get caught threat­en­ing users.”

As well as work­ing on this very dif­fi­cult research prob­lem, Con­jec­ture is build­ing com­mer­cial­is­able tools — such as an AI tran­scrip­tion soft­ware — to help gen­er­ate cash. Even­tu­al­ly though, Leahy believes that con­trol­lable AI will be a big mon­ey mak­er.

“Let’s say I can offer you a GPT‑4 that guar­an­teed nev­er does any­thing bad — that would be the best prod­uct,” he says.

Leahy adds that while Ope­nAI says it does care about AI align­ment, the pace at which it’s releas­ing stronger mod­els isn’t allow­ing time for researchers to under­stand them and make them safe.

“GPT‑4 should nev­er have been released when it was,” he says. 

Sift­ed reached out to Ope­nAI for com­ment and the com­pa­ny shared links to pages out­lin­ing its approach to align­ment and safe­ty.

Where it all began

For Leahy, the writ­ing has been on the wall ever since he first got his hands on OpenAI’s GPT‑2 in 2019 (“Usu­al­ly it made no sense, but there was some­thing grow­ing, some­thing emer­gent,” he says).

Leahy says he quick­ly saw that as these LLMs became big­ger, they would become more pow­er­ful — for the first time he could draw a line to a future where AI could be super­hu­man.

Leahy and his friends instant­ly start­ed play­ing around with the mod­el; they had a hackathon, they cre­at­ed a “cult” and “queried it as [their god]”. 

Soon, Leahy became frus­trat­ed that he only had access to a small ver­sion of the mod­el — as the full ver­sion hadn’t been pub­licly released. He took mat­ters into his own hands — hence the Rital­in and the two weeks shut inside. 


His attempt to reverse-engi­neer GPT‑2 sowed the seed for what would lat­er become EleutherAI — the open source com­mu­ni­ty behind some of the most-down­loaded GPT-3-style mod­els on AI plat­form Hug­ging Face.

He describes how dur­ing the Covid sum­mer of 2020, “bored to tears and depressed” while stuck at his par­ents’ place, he start­ed plot­ting on a machine learn­ing Dis­cord serv­er.

“GPT‑3 was released and it was mind-blow­ing,” he says, “On a whim, I was like, ‘Hey, guys, let’s give this a shot like the good old times.’ So me and two oth­er guys, Leo (Gao) and Sid (Black) start­ed work­ing on our own GPT‑3, and the rest is his­to­ry.”

Leahy says that the EleutherAI com­mu­ni­ty was only able to achieve what it did thanks to “a small num­ber of peo­ple work­ing them­selves to the bone”, and that the moti­va­tion was always to allow peo­ple to research and under­stand pow­er­ful LLMs.

“We said, ‘The risks are man­age­able at this moment, but under­stand­ing them is super impor­tant because in the future we expect this tech­nol­o­gy to scale to very dan­ger­ous tech­nol­o­gy,’” he explains.

Today, he says that the rapid accel­er­a­tion of AI mod­els that have led to GPT‑4 high­lights the big dis­bal­ance in the num­ber of peo­ple work­ing on pow­er­ful AI, ver­sus those work­ing on safe AI.

“Cur­rent­ly things are real­ly bad — there are thou­sands of peo­ple and bil­lions of dol­lars work­ing on mak­ing these things stronger. There are less than 100 peo­ple in the entire world work­ing on the con­trol prob­lem. Which is insane,” he says.

“The actions that peo­ple such as Sam Alt­man take are obvi­ous­ly accel­er­a­tionist in nature, based on jus­ti­fi­ca­tions that speed­ing ahead on AI at the cur­rent pace is accept­able and even desir­able. I dis­agree with this.” 

Tim Smith is a senior reporter at Sift­ed. He cov­ers deeptech and all things taboo, and pro­duces Start­up Europe — The Sift­ed Pod­cast. Fol­low him on Twit­ter and LinkedIn

4a.The Death of a Pres­i­dent by William Man­ches­ter; Gala­had Books [HC]; Copy­right 1967 by William Man­ches­ter; ISBN 0–88365-956–5; p. 144.

. . . . Tight secu­ri­ty was also enforced in the Pentagon’s Gold Room, down the hall from McNa­ma­ra, where the Joint Chiefs were in ses­sion with the com­man­ders of the West Ger­man Bun­deswehr. Gen­er­al Maxwell Tay­lor, the Chiefs’ ele­gant, schol­ar­ly Chair­man, dom­i­natd one side of the table; oppo­site him was Gen­er­al Friedrich A. Foertsch, Inspec­tor Gen­er­al of Bonn’s armed forces. . . .

4b. The Death of a Pres­i­dent by William Man­ches­ter; Gala­had Books [HC]; Copy­right 1967 by William Man­ches­ter; ISBN 0–88365-956–5; p. 253.

. . . . Gen­er­al Friedrich Foertsch replied for his com­rades that they hoped the injury was not too seri­ous. The Chiefs did not reply, and for the next two hours they put on a sin­gu­lar per­for­mance. Aware that the shad­ow of a new war might fall across them at any time, they con­tin­ued the talks about dull mil­i­tary details, com­ment­ing on pro­pos­als by Gen­er­als [Ger­hard] Wes­sel and Huekel­heim and shuf­fling papers with steady hands. . . .

4c. The Death of a Pres­i­dent by William Man­ches­ter; Gala­had Books [HC]; Copy­right 1967 by William Man­ches­ter; ISBN 0–88365-956–5; pp. 12, 15.

 . . . . “Who’s Going to han­dle Chan­cel­lor Erhard’s vis­it here?” Kennedy inquired. The West Ger­man Chan­cel­lor was to arrive Mon­day, and Salinger wouldn’t return until Wednes­day. . . .

. . . . Jacque­line Kennedy . . . . expect­ed to resume her offi­cial duties in the man­sion on Mon­day, Novem­ber 25, at the state din­ner for Chan­cel­lor Erhard. . . .

5a. Gehlen: Spy of the Cen­tu­ry by E.H. Cookridge; Ran­dom House [HC]; Euro­pean Copy­right Com­pa­ny Lim­it­ed; ISBN 0–394-47313–2; pp. 59–60.

. . . . The new heads of groups and sec­tions were young men whom Gehlen had noticed dur­ing his time in the Oper­a­tions Depart­ment. One was twen­ty-sev­en-year-old Cap­tain Ger­hard Wes­sel, the son of a Hol­stein par­son, who had joined the Reich­swehr, a year before Hitler came to pow­er and who, like Gehlen had been trained as a gun­ner. He had fought in 1940 in France as an offi­cer of the Artillery Reg­i­ment No. 5 and Gehlen brought him to FHO fresh from the War Acad­e­my. Wes­sel became head of Group Sovi­et Union, whose offi­cers sift­ed and eval­u­at­ed the dai­ly reports from the front. Soon after the war under the aegis of the CIA, even­tu­al­ly suc­ceed­ing him as the head of the Fed­er­al Ger­man Intel­li­gence. . . .

5b. “How a Net­work of Nazi Pro­pa­gan­dists Helped Lay the Ground­work for the War in Ukraine” by Evan Reif; Covert Action Mag­a­zine; 2/3/2023.

. . . . Halder’s job was to reha­bil­i­tate Nazism for the ben­e­fit of his new Amer­i­can patrons. If the Nazis could be ide­o­log­i­cal­ly sep­a­rat­ed from the Ger­man peo­ple and the Ger­man Army, Amer­i­ca could use the most use­ful of Hitler’s sol­diers in their war against the Sovi­et Union with­out rais­ing sus­pi­cion. Halder over­saw a team of 700 for­mer Wehrma­cht offi­cers and inten­tion­al­ly set about rewrit­ing his­to­ry to present the image of a clean Wehrma­cht and a Ger­man peo­ple igno­rant of Nazi bru­tal­i­ty. His deputy was CIA agent Adolf Heusinger, a Nazi war crim­i­nal who was large­ly respon­si­ble for plan­ning the end­less mas­sacres of “secu­ri­ty war­fare,” and was lat­er a com­man­der of both the Ger­man Army and NATO.

Through manip­u­la­tion, fab­ri­ca­tion and wide­spread cen­sor­ship, Halder and Heusinger cre­at­ed a com­plete nar­ra­tive of them­selves and the Wehrma­cht as bril­liant, noble, and hon­or­able vic­tims of the mad­man Hitler rather than the mon­sters who butchered a con­ti­nent.

Halder and Heusinger pub­lished reams of fan­tas­ti­cal lies with the CMH, say­ing that the Wehrma­cht com­mit­ted no crimes on the East­ern Front. Accord­ing to Halder and Heusinger, the Nazis set up mar­kets and cul­tur­al cen­ters to buy food from local farm­ers and hold dances and social events for grate­ful peo­ple. Halder and Heusinger only briefly men­tion prob­lems in the East, say­ing they were car­ried out by “Judeo-Bol­she­vik” NKVD infil­tra­tors instead of the noble Wehrma­cht. . . .

5c. Amer­i­can Swasti­ka by Charles High­am; Dou­ble­day & Co. [HC]; Copy­right 1985 by Charles High­am; ISBN 0–385-17874–3; pp. 269–270.

. . . . By World War II, Heusinger was at the high­est lev­el of the Ger­man Gen­er­al Staff. By 1944, he was very much in unof­fi­cial charge of the extra­or­di­nary Gehlen oper­a­tion. At the end of the war, he skill­ful­ly turned coat and emerged unscathed from the ear­ly inter­roga­to­ry staffs of the Nurem­berg war crimes tri­als. He pro­voked the con­tempt of Gor­ing, among oth­ers, when he pro­vid­ed the state­ments need­ed to add a weight of evi­dence against the accused. He was cleared as a war crim­i­nal and went around call­ing him­self “an Amer­i­can con­sul­tant,” a term lat­er echoed by the State Depart­ment in import­ing him to the Unit­ed States.

Although he was fre­quent­ly list­ed as one of those who planned the abortive assas­si­na­tion of Hitler in 1944, he was in fact one of the few who stood by the Fuhrer in his hour of need. He knew of Hitler’s lust for pow­er, and it is esti­mat­ed that he was respon­si­ble for liq­ui­dat­ing some eight hun­dred thou­sand Jews on the East­ern Front under Hitler’s per­son­al instruc­tion. Colonel Gen­er­al Jodl, his imme­di­ate supe­ri­or, was hanged for those crimes on Octo­ber 16, 1946, and Heusinger went free. He was lucky that, like Schel­len­berg, he was on the sec­ond rung of pow­er and vir­tu­al­ly unknown.

When Heusinger was released, in 1948, he was part of the Bureau Gehlen, his old sub­or­di­nate had giv­en him a job even when he was still in prison. Dur­ing a mere two years in Jail, he was able to be a use­ful Nazi con­tact, like Sko­rzeny in Dachau. Gehlen, fol­low­ing thir­teen months of brief­ing at the War Depart­ment, was the first to give Heusinger a real taste of what pow­er in the Unit­ed States hier­ar­chy might mean. And because Heusinger had a spe­cial knowl­edge of the Russ­ian region, liais­ing with [SD for­eign intel­li­gence spe­cial­ist Wal­ter] Schel­len­berg and using Schellenberg’s ITT oper­a­tion, he would undoubt­ed­ly be use­ful to the Amer­i­cans.

Heusinger spent three years with the Bureau Gehlen. He helped Gehlen recon­sti­tute the Gestapo under Amer­i­can cov­er. He also helped cre­ate a new Ger­man Gen­er­al Staff and encour­aged Gehlen in set­ting up the spe­cial bureau when Ger­many became a repub­lic under Ade­nauer in 1955.

Heusinger accept­ed Adenauer’s invi­ta­tion to plan the new West Ger­man Army at the same time that Gehlen set up his own net­work.

Heusinger reached his apoth­e­o­sis on April Fool’s Day 1961, when he appeared, resplen­dent in uni­form, as the cen­tral fix­ture of a gala occa­sion. He became the chair­man of the Per­ma­nent Mil­i­tary Com­mit­tee of the North Atlantic Treaty Orga­ni­za­tion at an elab­o­rate cer­e­mo­ny in Washington’s State Depart­ment build­ing. Pres­i­dent John F. Kennedy, accom­pa­nied by Gen­er­al Lyman Lem­nitzer, chair­man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff . . . . opened the meet­ing. It was the first con­vo­ca­tion of NATO’s Per­ma­nent Mil­i­tary Com­mit­tee. The Pres­i­dent warm­ly wel­comed the Nazi chair­man and announced that NATO would now be allowed con­tri­bu­tions of nuclear arms as a fourth pow­er.

Thus was achieved the ful­fill­ment of the dreams of those mid­dle-lev­el Ger­man Gestapo, SS, SD, and mil­i­tary com­man­ders who were per­fect­ly hap­py to see their incon­ve­nient­ly famous lead­ers per­ish from cyanide cap­sule or the hangman’s noose. For those the pub­lic did not know, and there­fore could not iden­ti­fy, the future was unas­sail­ably bright. . . .

6. The Splen­did Blond Beast: Mon­ey, Law and Geno­cide in the Twen­ti­eth Cen­tu­ry by Christo­pher Simp­son; Grove Press [HC]; Copy­right 1993 by Christo­pher Simp­son; ISBN 0–8021-1362–1; pp. 155–166.

 . . . . But as the war turned against the Third Reich, a num­ber of busi­ness lead­ers in the Himm­lerkreis began to coop­er­ate in clan­des­tine and semi­clan­des­tine con­tin­gency plan­ning for the post­war peri­od. Two of the best known of these groups, the Arbeit­skreis fur aussen­wirtschaftliche Fra­gen (Work­ing Group for For­eign Eco­nom­ic Ques­tions) and the Kleine Arbeit­skreis (Small Work­ing Group), were nom­i­nal­ly spon­sored by the Reichs­gruppe Indus­trie asso­ci­a­tion of major indus­tri­al and finan­cial com­pa­nies. They brought togeth­er Blessig, Rasche, Kurt von Shroed­er, Lin­de­man­nm and oth­ers from the Himm­lerkreis with oth­er busi­ness peo­ple such as Her­mann Abs (Deutsche Bank), Lud­wig Erhard (then an econ­o­mist with the Reichs­gruppe Indus­trie and lat­er Kon­rad Adenauer’s most impor­tant eco­nom­ic advi­sor), Ludger Westrick (RKG, alu­minum indus­try, non­fer­rous met­als), and Philipp Reeemts­ma (tobac­co, ship­ping, bank­ing) and with Nazi busi­ness spe­cial­ists such as Otto Ohlen­dorf (the for­mer com­man­der of the Ein­satz­gruppe D mur­der troops and Hans Kehrl (SS busi­ness spe­cial­ist). . . .

7a. “The Things They Left Behind” by Eliz­a­beth D. Samet” [Review of The Long Reck­on­ing: A Sto­ry of War, Peace, and Redemp­tion in Viet­nam by George Black]; The New York Times Book Review; 4/09/2023; p. 16.

. . . . Black focus­es his atten­tion large­ly on Vietnam’s Quang Tri and Thua Tien provinces along the Laot­ian bor­der . . . . “All the worst lega­cies of the war were con­cen­trat­ed here,” he writes, “an area small­er than the State of Con­necti­cut. . . . The nation also unleashed more bombs on Quang Tri alone than had been dropped on Ger­many dur­ing World War II. . . .

. . . . A mas­sive defo­li­a­tion cam­paign to reduce cov­er for Viet­namese ambush­es, known as Oper­a­tion Ranch Hand, began in 1961. Soon, the U.S. gov­ern­ment began to autho­rize crop destruc­tion as well. Black describes Ranch hand as “with­out prece­dent in his­to­ry, using all the tools of sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy and air pow­er to lay waste to a country’s nat­ur­al envi­ron­ment.” By con­trast, when the destruc­tion of Japan’s rice crop had been pro­posed in 1944, Adm. William Leahy, Pres­i­dent Franklin D. Roosevelt’s chief of staff, “vetoed the idea, say­ing it would vio­late every Chris­t­ian eth­ic I have ever heard of an all known laws of war.”

Black offers var­i­ous mea­sures of the result­ing dev­as­ta­tion to the Viet­nam-Laos bor­der­lands. Per­haps none is more sug­ges­tive of the mag­ni­tude than this sta­tis­tic: “Between 1964 and 1973, U.S. air­craft flew 580,344 sor­ties over Laos, which aver­aged out to one every eight min­utes, 24 hours a day for nine years.”. . .



One comment for “FTR#‘s 1294, 1295, 1296 The End and the Beginning, Parts One, Two and Three”

  1. Con­sid­er­ing a fac­tion of US gov­ern­ment is now con­tra­ven­ing FDR’s WWII goal of UNCONDITIONAL sur­ren­der so Naz­i’s just like the Ukraine kind nev­er ever rise to pow­er and rearm again at least this report chal­lenges that the­sis of dan­ger. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-most-lethal-threat-to-america-revealed-militarised-nazis-more-dangerous-than-china-or-putin-new-intelligence-report-says/ar-AA19EoP5?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=f4993ada39124b338503cfcb37b25a61&ei=78

    Posted by Michael Keenan | April 26, 2023, 9:44 am

Post a comment