WORLD WAR IOrganized Crime?Part 1: Political and Financial Intrigues

By William P. Litynski

From the Grassy Knoll in Sarajevo:Lone Gunman or Patsy?

The Assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo (June 28, 1914)

“I’m just a patsy!”: 19-year-old “lone gunman” Gavrilo Princip (July 25, 1894 – April 28, 1918), a Austro-Hungarian-born Serbian nationalist, assassinates Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife Countess Sophie in Sarajevo (capital of the Austro-Hungarian province of Bosnia) on Sunday morning, June 28, 1914. June 28, 1914 was known to the Serbians as St. Vitus Day, a day in which Serbs commemorate the Battle of Kosovo, a battle that was fought against the Ottoman Empire on June 28, 1389. Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife Countess Sophie, who survived an assassination attempt earlier that day when a 19-year-old student named Nedeljko Čabrinović threw a hand grenade into their car, were traveling to a local hospital in Sarajevo when they were mortally wounded by a “lone gunman”. This assassination would be used as a pretext to start World War I.

“I’m just a patsy!”

Lone Gunman or Patsy? Gavrilo Princip is captured by police officers in Sarajevo after assassinating Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his wife on June 28, 1914. The assassination of the Austrian Archduke and his wife would be used as a pretext by major European powers to initiate a major war in Europe, a war known as “The Great War”, “The War to End All Wars”, and “World War I”. The Bosnian Crisis of 1908-1909, also known as the Annexation Crisis, began when Austria-Hungary announced the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina on October 6, 1908. Bosnia and Herzegovina was previously a province of the Ottoman Empire. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on July 28, 1914 after Austria-Hungary issued the July Ultimatum to the Kingdom of Serbia. (Photo: http://forums.macresource.com/read.php?2,1581169)

Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife prepare to ride in an open motorcade in downtown Sarajevo, Bosnia on June 28, 1914.

The bodies of Archduke Francis Ferdinand, heir to the Austrian throne, and his wife Duchess Sophie lie in state at the Imperial Palace in Vienna, Austria after they were assassinated in Sarajevo. (Photo: Corbis Images)

The site of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife in Sarajevo, Bosnia

The Austro-Hungarian Ultimatum to Serbia (July 23, 1914)[English Translation]

The German original of this ultimatum is also available.The Austro-Hungarian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Berchtold, to the Minister at Belgrade, von Giesl:

Vienna, July 22, 1914

Your Excellency will present the following note to the Royal Government on the afternoon of Thursday, July 23: On the 31st of March, 1909, the Royal Serbian Minister at the Court of Vienna made, in the name of his Government, the following declaration to the Imperial and Royal Government:

Serbia recognizes that her rights were not affected by the state of affairs created in Bosnia, and states that she will accordingly accommodate herself to the decisions to be reached by the Powers in connection with Article 25 of the Treaty of Berlin. Serbia, in accepting the advice of the Great Powers, binds herself to desist from the attitude of protest and opposition which she has assumed with regard to the annexation since October last, and she furthermore binds herself to alter the tendency of her present policy toward Austria-Hungary, and to live on the footing of friendly and neighborly relations with the latter in the future.

Now the history of the past few years, and particularly the painful events of the 28th of June, have proved the existence of a subversive movement in Serbia, whose object it is to separate certain portions of its territory from the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. This movement, which came into being under the very eyes of the Serbian Government, subsequently found expression outside of the territory of the Kingdom in acts of terrorism, in a number of attempts at assassination, and in murders.

Far from fulfilling the formal obligations contained in its declaration of the 31st of March, 1909, the Royal Serbian Government has done nothing to suppress this movement. It has tolerated the criminal activities of the various unions and associations directed against the Monarchy, the unchecked utterances of the press, the glorification of the authors of assassinations, the participation of officers and officials in subversive intrigues; it has tolerated an unhealthy propaganda in its public instruction; and it has tolerated, finally, every manifestation which could betray the people of Serbia into hatred of the Monarchy and contempt for its institutions.

This toleration of which the Royal Serbian Government was guilty, was still in evidence at that moment when the events of the twenty-eighth of June exhibited to the whole world the dreadful consequences of such tolerance.

It is clear from the statements and confessions of the criminal authors of the assassination of the twenty-eighth of June, that the murder at Sarajevo was conceived at Belgrade, that the murderers received the weapons and the bombs with which they were equipped from Serbian officers and officials who belonged to the Narodna Odbrana, and, finally, that the dispatch of the criminals and of their weapons to Bosnia was arranged and effected under the conduct of Serbian frontier authorities.

The results brought out by the inquiry no longer permit the Imperial and Royal Government to maintain the attitude of patient tolerance which it has observed for years toward those agitations which center at Belgrade and are spread thence into the territories of the Monarchy. Instead, these results impose upon the Imperial and Royal Government the obligation to put an end to those intrigues, which constitute a standing menace to the peace of the Monarchy.

In order to attain this end, the Imperial and Royal Government finds itself compelled to demand that the Serbian Government give official assurance that it will condemn the propaganda directed against Austria-Hungary, that is to say, the whole body of the efforts whose ultimate object it is to separate from the Monarchy territories that belong to it; and that it will obligate itself to suppress with all the means at its command this criminal and terroristic propaganda. In order to give these assurances a character of solemnity, the Royal Serbian Government will publish on the first page of its official organ of July 26/13, the following declaration:

"The Royal Serbian Government condemns the propaganda directed against Austria-Hungary, that is to say, the whole body of the efforts whose ultimate object it is to separate from the Austro- Hungarian Monarchy territories that belong to it, and it most sincerely regrets the dreadful consequences of these criminal transactions.

"The Royal Serbian Government regrets that Serbian officers and officials should have taken part in the above-mentioned propaganda and thus have endangered the friendly and neighborly relations, to the cultivation of which the Royal Government had most solemnly pledged itself by its declarations of March 31, 1909.

"The Royal Government, which disapproves and repels every idea and every attempt to interfere in the destinies of the population of whatever portion of Austria-Hungary, regards it as its duty most expressly to call attention of the officers, officials, and the whole population of the kingdom to the fact that for the future it will proceed with the utmost rigor against any persons who shall become guilty of any such activities, activities to prevent and to suppress which, the Government will bend every effort."

This declaration shall be brought to the attention of the Royal army simultaneously by an order of the day from His Majesty the King, and by publication in the official organ of the army.

The Royal Serbian Government will furthermore pledge itself:

1. to suppress every publication which shall incite to hatred and contempt of the Monarchy, and the general tendency of which shall be directed against the territorial integrity of the latter;

2. to proceed at once to the dissolution of the Narodna Odbrana to confiscate all of its means of propaganda, and in the same manner to proceed against the other unions and associations in Serbia which occupy themselves with propaganda against Austria-Hungary; the Royal Government will take such measures as are necessary to make sure that the dissolved associations may not continue their activities under other names or in other forms;

3. to eliminate without delay from public instruction in Serbia, everything, whether connected with the teaching corps or with the methods of teaching, that serves or may serve to nourish the propaganda against Austria-Hungary;

4. to remove from the military and administrative service in general all officers and officials who have been guilty of carrying on the propaganda against Austria-Hungary, whose names the Imperial and Royal Government reserves the right to make known to the Royal Government when communicating the material evidence now in its possession;

5. to agree to the cooperation in Serbia of the organs of the Imperial and Royal Government in the suppression of the subversive movement directed against the integrity of the Monarchy;

6. to institute a judicial inquiry against every participant in the conspiracy of the twenty-eighth of June who may be found in Serbian territory; the organs of the Imperial and Royal Government delegated for this purpose will take part in the proceedings held for this purpose;

7. to undertake with all haste the arrest of Major Voislav Tankosic and of one Milan Ciganovitch, a Serbian official, who have been compromised by the results of the inquiry;

8. by efficient measures to prevent the participation of Serbian authorities in the smuggling of weapons and explosives across the frontier; to dismiss from the service and to punish severely those members of the Frontier Service at Schabats and Losnitza who assisted the authors of the crime of Sarajevo to cross the frontier;

9. to make explanations to the Imperial and Royal Government concerning the unjustifiable utterances of high Serbian functionaries in Serbia and abroad, who, without regard for their official position, have not hesitated to express themselves in a manner hostile toward Austria-Hungary since the assassination of the twenty-eighth of June;

10. to inform the Imperial and Royal Government without delay of the execution of the measures comprised in the foregoing points.

The Imperial and Royal Government awaits the reply of the Royal Government by Saturday, the twenty-fifth instant, at 6 p.m., at the latest.

A reminder of the results of the investigation about Sarajevo, to the extent they relate to the functionaries named in points 7 and 8 [above], is appended to this note.«

Appendix:

«The crime investigation undertaken at court in Sarajevo against Gavrilo Princip and his comrades on account of the assassination committed on the 28th of June this year, along with the guilt of accomplices, has up until now led to the following conclusions:

1. The plan of murdering Archduke Franz Ferdinand during his stay in Sarajevo was concocted in Belgrade by Gavrilo Princip, Nedeljko Cabrinovic, a certain Milan Ciganovic, and Trifko Grabesch with the assistance of Major Voija Takosic.

2. The six bombs and four Browning pistols along with ammunition -- used as tools by the criminals -- were procured and given to Princip, Cabrinovic and Grabesch in Belgrade by a certain Milan Ciganovic and Major Voija Takosic.

3. The bombs are hand grenades originating from the weapons depot of the Serbian army in Kragujevatz.

4. To guarantee the success of the assassination, Ciganovic instructed Princip, Cabrinovic and Grabesch in the use of the grenades and gave lessons on shooting Browning pistols to Princip and Grabesch in a forest next to the shooting range at Topschider.

5. To make possible Princip, Cabrinovic und Grabesch's passage across the Bosnia-Herzegovina border and the smuggling of their weapons, an entire secretive transportation system was organized by Ciganovic. The entry of the criminals and their weapons into Bosnia and Herzegovina was carried out by the main border officials of Shabatz (Rade Popovic) and Losnitza as well as by the customs agent Budivoj Grbic of Losnitza, with the complicity of several others.«

On the occasion of handing over this note, would Your Excellency please also add orally that -- in the event that no unconditionally positive answer of the Royal government might be received in the meantime -- after the course of the 48-hour deadline referred to in this note, as measured from the day and hour of your announcing it, you are commissioned to leave the I. and R. Embassy of Belgrade together with your personnel.

Source: http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Austro-Hungarian_Ultimatum_to_Serbia_(English_translation)

Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany (left) and Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria stand together on board of the “Hohenzollern” in circa 1906. Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany met with Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Bohemia on June 13, 1914.

Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany (left) appears with Franz Ferdinand of Austria (right) in Kiel, Germany in 1913http://www.akg-images.co.uk/_customer/london/mailout/1310/birth-and-death-of-archduke-franz-ferdinand/

On June 13, 1913, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany leaves Konopischt, Bohemia (today the Czech Republic), the hunting lodge and country estate of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary, after a weekend visit. Although Wilhelm had ostensibly come to admire the lavish gardens at Konopischt, the reality was that he and Franz Ferdinand wanted to discuss Austria-Hungary's insecurities about the tenuous balance of power in the tumultuous Balkan region. In 1908, the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary had annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina, formally still a province of the Ottoman Empire, and populated not only by Bosnians but also by Croats and Serbs. Serbia reacted angrily to the annexation, reasoning that if Bosnia were not under Turkish rule, it should be governed by Serbia. After two successful Balkan Wars—and enjoying support from the Russian empire, the other great European power in the region apart from Austria-Hungary—Serbia had emerged as a more powerful and ambitious nation than ever before, thus threatening the position of the Dual Monarchy, already in decline. Historical evidence exists to suggest that Franz Ferdinand, at the behest of Austrian Emperor Franz Josef, was intending to extract a promise from Wilhelm (similar to a pledge the Kaiser had made in November 1912) that Germany would back Austria unconditionally in the case of a confrontation with Serbia. Wilhelm resisted making such a commitment at the time, however, as he disagreed as to the extent of the Serbian threat. Also at the meeting, the two leaders discussed which Balkan nation should be wooed as their main ally in the region.

Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany (left) and Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria (right) ride in a car in 1912. The military airship "Parseval" is on the left, and the Zeppelin on the right. (Photo: German Federal Archives/Bundesarchiv)

The Ochrana Café in Belgrade where members of the secret military society Black Hand (Narodna Ochrana) would meet. Gavrilo Princip was a member of the society. Photograph circa 1914. (Photo: AKG Images)

King George V of Great Britain and Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany pose together in 1912. However, the Kaiser had mixed feelings towards Britain and the First World War broke out two years later. Two of Queen Victoria’s many grandchildren, King George V (front, third from right) and Kaiser Wilhelm II (at his right), pose in 1912 outside the mess of the Prussian Foot Guards in Berlin, surrounded by officers of the regiment. The king is on a visit to his cousin in Germany and, as was the custom, each monarch wears the uniform of one of the other’s regiments: George is in that of the Foot Guards; the Kaiser in that of the British 1st Royal Dragoons. His grandmother had made Wilhelm colonel-in-chief of the regiment in 1894.(Photo: http://www.historytoday.com/roger-hudson/never-again-bosche)

King George V and Kaiser Wilhelm II: Adding to the tensions in pre-World War I Europe were the close familial ties that bound many rulers. England's King George V was the first cousin of both Kaiser Wilhelm II and Nicholas II of Russia and George, Wilhelm and Nicholas' wife, Alexandra were all grandchildren of Queen Victoria.

Czar Nicholas II of Russia (left) and Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany (Prussia) pose for a portrait aboard a ship.

Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany poses for a group portrait during military maneuvers in Württemberg, Baden and Bayern in 1909. (Photo: German Federal Archives)

Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany (right) appears with British army officer Winston Churchill (later Prime Minister of Great Britain) during the imperial German army's autumn maneuvers near Breslau, Germany (Wroclaw, Poland) in 1906.

Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany (left) appears with British army officer Winston Churchill (later Prime Minister of Great Britain) during the imperial German army's autumn maneuvers near Breslau, Germany (Wroclaw, Poland) in 1906.http://rueclementmarot.blogspot.com/p/holding-scotland-fast-3.html

Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom of Great Britain appears with her children and grandchildren during a family visit in Coburg, Germany in 1894. Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, Queen Victoria’s grandson, is pictured at left in the front row. Czar Nicholas II of Russia is pictured at left on the second row. King Edward VII of Great Britain is pictured at left on the fourth row (standing behind a young man). (Source: Wikipedia)

Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany in exile

Lone Gunman or Patsy?The Assassinations of Prominent European andTurkish Political Figures before World War I

King Umberto I of ItalyAssassinated by “lone

gunman” Italian-American mobster Gaetano Bresci

in Monza, Italy on July 29, 1900

King Alexander I of Serbia

(reign, 1889-1903)Assassinated in Belgrade,

Serbia by a group of Serbian army officers on

June 11, 1903

King Carlos I of Portugal

Assassinated in Lisbon, Portugal on February 1,

1908

King George I of GreeceAssassinated by a “lone gunman” in Thessaloniki,

Greece on March 18, 1913

Archduke Franz Ferdinand of AustriaAssassinated by “lone

gunman” Gavrilo Principin Sarejevo on June 28,

1914

Empress Elisabeth of Austria

Assassinated by an Italian mobster in Geneva,

Switzerland on September 10, 1898

Queen Draga of SerbiaAssassinated in Belgrade,

Serbia by a group of Serbian army officers on

June 11, 1903

Czar Alexander II of Russia

Assassinated in St. Petersburg, Russia on

March 13, 1881

Dimitar PetkovPrime Minister of Bulgaria

(November 5, 1906-March 11, 1907)

Assassinated in Sofia, Bulgaria on March 11,

1907

Pyotr StolypinPrime Minister of Russia

(July 21, 1906-September 18, 1911)

Assassinated by a “lone gunman” at the Kiev

Opera House in Kiev, Ukraine (Russia) on September 14, 1911

Antonio Cánovas del Castillo

Prime Minister of Spain(1874-1875, 1875-1879, 1879-1881, 1884-1885, 1890-1892, 1895-1897)Assassinated by “lone

gunman” Italian mobster Michele Angiolillo in

Mondragón, Spain on August 8, 1897

José Canalejas y Méndez

Prime Minister of Spain (1910-1912)

Assassinated by a “lone gunman” in Madrid, Spain

on November 12, 1912

Mahmud Shevket PashaGrand Vizier of the Ottoman EmpireAssassinated in

Constantinople, Turkey on June 11, 1913

Marie François Sadi Carnot

President of France(1887-1894)

Assassinated by an Italian mobster in Lyon, France

on June 25, 1894

Theodoros DeligiannisPrime Minister of Greece(1885-1886, 1890-1892, 1895-1897, 1902-1903,

1904-1905)Assassinated (stabbed)

by a Greek man in Athens, Greece on June

13, 1905

“On 3 March 1911, the seven founding members of Unification or Death, known as the Black Hand, met at an apartment located appropriately on Bosnia Street (since renamed Gavrilo Princip Street) in the centre of Belgrade. The May 1903 conspirators, the murderers of King Aleksandar Obrenovic and Queen Draga, made up the core of the Black Hand. Their organization was treasonable, as its oath contradicted their duty as military officers to serve their king. It was imperative to maintain secrecy, for the May Coup of 1903 had ensured that the authorities were sensitive to the merest whiff of conspiracy inside the army. The reigning Karadjordjevic dynasty enjoyed no special protection from any future regicide. The existence of the Black Hand was revealed within months of its foundation, but by then its influence extended into most branches of the military and into many government departments, notably the Foreign Ministry. So, although its mission was compromised, the Black Hand's leadership was able to exert pressure through its high-placed sympathizers, thereby maintaining a certain mystery about its nature and aims. Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijevic – Apis – had agreed reluctantly to join the Central Executive Committee of the Black Hand, and it was not long before he had become the motor of the whole operation. 'His reasoning was always exhaustive and convincing. He could demonstrate how the most insurmountable task was in reality a small detail, how the most dangerous undertaking was innocent and harmless', explained Stanoje Stanojevic, one of Apis's boldest critics inside the conspiracy. But the key to his mastery of conspiracy and political influence was his ability 'to hold everything in his hands while allowing even his most intimate friends to be informed only of that which affected them directly'. Apis and his friends were either politicians or army commanders. Intellectuals, however, they were not - patriotism for them meant the expansion and consolidation of the Serbian state through the agency of militarism. They relied on one man, Ljubomir Cupa-Jovanovic, an ardent nationalist and co-founder of the Black Hand, to articulate any more literary version of their ideas. Gacinovic, who was usually sparing in his praise of others, held Cupa in the highest esteem. Emphasizing Cupa's exemplary sense of self-sacrifice, he called him 'the Mazzini of Young Serbia. Extremely tall, thin, with a high forehead, he [was] a tireless worker and a resolute ascetic ... Cupa-Jovanovic travelled throughout all Serbian lands, often on foot, to learn more about the regions and their people.' Cupa's most important role was as editor of the Black Hand's Pijemont, whose name underlined the ideological debt the organization owed to Italian nationalism. Another model its members extolled was German militarism. The German army had played the crucial role in the 'regeneration of the German nation', as Pijemont's Berlin correspondent put it. He advised that Serbia follow Germany's example in creating the League of German Youth (Jung Deutschland Bund), founded, ironically, by General von der Goltz, the man who would prepare the Turkish Army for its war against the Balkan Alliance in 1912-13. The correspondent even went so far as to advocate, as Apis's biographer says, 'that Serbia adopt the League's racist and militarist approach, redolent of the later Hitler Youth, to achieve its goal of national unification'. From a practical point of view, however, the Black Hand could hardly woo Germany as a potential ally because of Berlin's relationship with Vienna, the scourge of Belgrade. Since Serbian national interests coincided with Russian imperial interests after 1908, Apis forged close links with Russian consular staff, in particular the military attaches. Although Cupa and GaCinovic together formed a rickety bridge between the Black Hand and Young Bosnia, the motives, methods and members of the two organizations were very different. The Black Hand had the resources and the ability to meddle in high politics. Its nationalism was free from ideological baggage, wedded instead to a militaristic concept of the state. Its members were disciplined, untroubled by questions of morality, and many were ruthless, accomplished soldiers. Its ultimate goal was the creation of a greater Serbia, which would include Macedonia, Bosnia and Croatia and all the Slavs who lived there. Although Young Bosnia's membership was predominantly Serb, it also attracted an important minority of Croats and some Muslims. And while the Young Bosnians regarded Serbia as the pillar which held up their aspirations, they recognized the contribution which Croat students and Muslim sympathizers in Bosnia could make to the movement for national liberation. The Young Bosnians were, however, less successful in specifying what the relationship between Serbia, Serbs and other south Slavs should be if Bosnia and Croatia were able to detach themselves from the Habsburg Empire. Emotionally bound to the peasantry, the Young Bosnians considered social revolution a necessary corollary of national liberation. In 1910, a peasant revolt in a Croat village of the Bosanska Krajina spread throughout most of the Serb villages of the region. An Austrian force confronted the disorganized peasant rebels near the town of Doboj as they fled towards the Serbian border. The army then launched retaliatory raids throughout the region. This short uprising in the Krajina occurred just before the opening of the new Bosnian Sabor in Sarajevo, an institution which for the first time would allow Muslims, Serbs and Croats some influence on the decision-making process in Bosnia. The Austrian authorities under the relatively liberal Finance Minister, von Burian, had observed the growing loyalty of the merchant class and townsfolk towards the Empire. Von Burian regarded modest democratic reform as a way of integrating and embracing the Serb and Muslim elites. General Marijan Vardanin, the Military Governor of Bosnia, was given the honour of opening the new Sabor on 15 June. As he headed across the Kaiser's bridge in Sarajevo on the way back to his official residence, Bogdan Zerajic, a twenty-four-year-old Serb, fired five shots at him (all of them wide of their target) before turning his gun on himself. Zerajic became the cult figure for all Young Bosnians. As a student in Switzerland, he had come under the influence of Russian Social Revolutionaries who had encouraged his obsession with individual terror and martyrdom as political instruments. He too was raised in a Serb peasant family in Eastern Hercegovina and had studied in the Mostar Gymnasium. Gacinovic, who knew him well, wrote a famous obituary of the assassin, Smrt jednog heroja (Death of the Hero). He described Zerajic as 'young, lithe and primitive. He had dreamy eyes which stared far into the distance. His look was fiery, nervous ... but he was quiet and melancholic, alone and free of personal caprice ... He was divorced from us, living contentedly in his own world ... Life haunted him, bringing fog into his warm, sunny soul.' The assassination attempt, Gacinovic concluded ominously, was a harbinger of 'new people, new Serbs who will arise after the great sins of their fathers'. In death, Zerajic inspired would-be assassins in Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia. Gavrilo Princip was a regular visitor at his grave to lay

flowers. He, along with Cabrinovic, Mehmed Mehmedbasic, Danilo Ilic, Gacinovic and others who were involved in the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in 1914, all committed themselves at different times to avenging Zerajic's death. When war broke out between the Balkan Alliance and Turkey in October 1912, the community of Young Bosnians streamed into Serbia to volunteer their services to the Serbian army and cetnik bands. Some like Gacinovic, who participated in the Montenegrin siege of Skutari, saw sustained military action. But most, like Princip, were rejected as being too young or puny. Several came into contact with the Black Hand for the first time and two members of its central executive committee, Vojin Tankosic, the guerrilla leader, and Rade Malobabic, Apis's personal spy in Croatia, Bosnia and Montenegro, cultivated friendships with these enthusiastic revolutionaries from 'the occupied Serbian lands'. These tenuous links were renewed over a year later when Trifko Grabez, a young Serb from Pale near Sarajevo, visited Tankosic and asked him to supply some bombs and guns for a secret operation in the Bosnian capital. After clearing the matter with Apis, Tankosic handed over four Browning revolvers and six bombs to the Young Bosnian conspirators. In the final fourteen years of the nineteenth century, assassins around the world claimed the lives of major public figures at an average rate of one a year. The victims included the President of France, the Mayor of Chicago, the Prime Minister of Bulgaria and the Empress of Austria. At the turn of the century, however, successful political murders suddenly increased, heralding the age of the assassin. From 1900 to 1913, forty heads of state, politicians and diplomats fell victim to the terrorist's bullet or bomb. Among the victims were four kings (two from the Balkans, two from the Latin Mediterranean), six prime ministers, three presidents (all from the American continent, including William McKinley of the United States), and a host of ministers, military governors and senior policemen. Twenty-eight of the killings were carried out in Europe. 'The entire series of assassinations and terrorist acts', reflected one Yugoslav communist during the interwar period, 'formed a part, albeit an inevitable one, of the political reaction to the imperialist policies of great powers in the colonies.' With a mildly exaggerated reputation as the capital of political murder (Russia was in fact the most dangerous place to be a police or government leader), the Balkans recorded eight successful assassinations; including two kings, one queen, two prime ministers and the commander in chief of the Turkish Army. Successful murders were dwarfed by the number of attempted assassinations. In retrospect, each individual act of terrorism seems to take its place in the pattern of political violence leading up to Franz Ferdinand's assassination, a kind of crescendo. No other murder in history is perceived to have triggered such calamitous events – world war, imperial collapse, socialist revolution. In the interwar years alone, one Serbian historian claimed, some 3,000 works were published around the globe debating the issue of war guilt, starting with the assassination. Just under thirty years later, Adolf Hitler and the German government used the events of 28 June 1914 as a justification for the Wehrmacht's attack on Belgrade. Yet, despite all the scholarship and considerable detective work, the words of Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary in 1914, still hold true: “The world will presumably never be told all that was behind the murder of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Probably there is not, and never was, any one person who knew all there was to know.” It is known, however, that the six conspirators [Mehmedbasic, Cubrilovic, Cabrinovic, Cvjetko Popovic, Princip and Grabez, in that order] who were lined up along Sarajevo's Appel Quay by the Miljacka river on 28 June 1914 formed one of the most disorganized and inexperienced squadrons of assassins ever assembled. The most enduring mystery surrounding the assassination is not who did it or why, but how they ever succeeded. The Balkans had registered an astonishing number of assassinations which failed because the perpetrators either lost their nerve, or proved to be poor shots. The morning which culminated in Franz Ferdinand's death was littered with mishaps. The six conspirators were excitable teenagers with no practical experience of handling arms. Four of the assassins were either too scared or too incompetent to use their weapons. One, Cabrinovic, threw a bomb which missed its target, bouncing off the back of Franz Ferdinand's car and wounding a member of the entourage and passers-by. Princip himself had a clear shot at the Archduke only because Franz Ferdinand's Czech chauffeur, who had never been to Sarajevo before, missed the turning from Appel Quay and had to stop and reverse, making the Archduke a sitting target for twenty seconds. That Princip actually succeeded in shooting Franz Ferdinand dead was nothing short of a miracle. After firing that shot, Princip let off a second, which fatally wounded the Archduke's wife. He had been aiming at the Military Governor, General Oskar Potiorek, but a bystander had tried to knock the gun out of his hand and the bullet hit the Duchess instead. Both Cabrinovic and Princip swallowed the cyanide they had been given by Major Tankosic in Belgrade, but the poison had oxidized, causing them both excruciating pain but leaving them alive and fully conscious for the relentless beatings they received at the hands of the soldiers and policemen who arrested them. In 1917, enemies of Apis in Serbia's government in exile in Salonika put him on trial for murder and treason. During the proceedings, he said he had approved the Young Bosnians' plan because he believed Franz Ferdinand to be the moving spirit behind the Military Party in Vienna. Franz Ferdinand's death, Apis argued, would have reduced the risk of Austria declaring war on Serbia. Of course the assassination had precisely the opposite effect from that which Apis intended as 'alive, Franz Ferdinand had acted as a brake upon the pressures [in Austria] for military action; dead, he became the pretext for war. In his absence, Conrad [Hotzendorf], Krobatin [Minister of War], and even Franz Joseph could give full rein to their conservative realism.' By killing Franz Ferdinand, the Young Bosnians signed Serbia's death warrant. Gavrilo Princip was also horrified by the outcome of his deed. The Habsburg Empire did collapse, although Princip did not live to see it…”– The Balkans: Nationalism, War and the Great Powers, 1804-1999 by Misha Glenny, p. 299-305

Skeleton Krewe: Yale University “Diplomats” during the 1880s and 1890s

William Walter PhelpsB.A. Yale 1860

Skull & Bones 1860U.S. Minister to the Austro-Hungarian

Empire (1881-1882)

Alphonso TaftB.A. Yale 1833

Skull & Bones 1833U.S. Minister to the Austro-Hungarian

Empire (1882-1884)

Andrew D. WhiteB.A. Yale 1853

Skull & Bones 1853U.S. Minister to the

German Empire(1879-1881, 1897-1902)

Eugene SchuylerB.A. Yale 1859

Skull & Bones 1859U.S. Minister to Serbia

(1882-1884)

Eben AlexanderB.A. Yale 1873

Skull & Bones 1873U.S. Minister to Serbia

(1894-1897)

Emperor Franz Joseph of the Austro-Hungarian Empire arrives in Bosnia and Herzegovina in October 1908, shortly after the Emperor annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina on October 6, 1908. Bosnia and Herzegovina was a province of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire until 1878, when Austro-Hungarian Empire claimed and occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina, courtesy of a gentlemen’s agreement made at the Congress of Berlin in July 1878.(Photo: Österreichische Nationalbibliothek/Austrian National Library)

“Although it lay outside the two main theatres of war, the struggle for Albania during the First Balkan War illuminated the intricate web of relationships between the great powers, the emerging states, the haphazard development of national consciousness and, even, personal ambition. It demonstrated how fearfully difficult the transition from an archaic, multinational Empire to modern nation states would be, given the extreme complexity of the Ottoman demographic and social heritage. After declaring war against Turkey in October 1912, the Montenegrins headed for Skutari in northern Albania- this was to be the great prize for Nikola, King of Montenegro. The Serbs later joined up with Montenegrin forces on their march westwards to the port of Durres. Serbia and Montenegro wanted to acquire Albanian territory to secure an outlet to the sea. Their actions were dictated by the logic of nascent regional imperialism. At one point during the Albanian campaign, Nikola offered the great powers the limp excuse that he coveted Skutari because one of his ancestors was buried there. Beyond this, however, the Serbs and Montenegrins made little attempt to justify the occupation of the Albanian-inhabited territories. The Serbs had a case to argue with regard to Kosovo, if the validity of ancient 'historical' rights were accepted. But because borders in the Balkans were drawn either according to the arbitrary dictates of the great powers or during war, this meant that the relative merits of historical, demographic or strategic claims to a region were never properly defined. Italy and Austria-Hungary also aimed to extend their influence in Albania. On 12 November 1912, the two great powers issued Belgrade and Cetinje (the old Montenegrin capital) with demarches insisting on a withdrawal from Albania and an end to Montenegro's siege of Skutari. Vienna and Rome both argued quite reasonably that Serbia and Montenegro had no business in the region because it was inhabited almost exclusively by Albanians. Belgrade and Cetinje asked why, since this principle applied neither in Bosnia nor in Tripolitania, territories annexed by Austria-Hungary and Italy respectively, it should apply in Albania. States or nationalist ideologues could conjure up a territorial claim in an instant. But the key to realizing these claims lay in a mixture of astute politics and naked force. The most effective political weapon the Balkan states could employ was that of divide and rule. Both Serbia and Montenegro incited the Albanians of Kosovo and northern Albania to rebel against the Turks on the eve of the Balkan Wars, thus setting current and future enemies against each other. When Montenegro invaded northern Albania, its armies were initially supported by the Mallasori, a tribe of Albanian Catholics. King Nikola had persuaded the Mallasori that their rights and traditions would be better protected under the wing of a Christian, albeit Orthodox and Slav, ruler than under Muslim Albanians, but it did not take the Mallasori too long to realize they had made a mistake. As the Balkan states grew in confidence, they began to use the same strategy in their relations with the great powers. During the Albanian events, the Serbs and Montenegrins could emit veiled threats that Russia might be prepared to offer them military guarantees if Austria-Hungary or Italy were to intervene. Translated, this message read: 'Do not interfere with our occupation of Albania as it might spark a European war.' This not only affected Vienna and Rome, it was a matter of the greatest concern to Paris, London and Berlin as well, because Europe was now clearly divided into two hostile camps, the Triple Alliance and the Entente. Of course, for Serbia or Montenegro to toy with the idea of using naked force against a great power involved serious risks for them, because of the awesome disparity of forces. The Balkan states were also vulnerable to more insidious internal enemies. The extraordinary social mobilization against the Ottoman Empire, fired by a spirit of intense nationalism, could only be sustained: for a short period of time. After a few months of war in atrocious conditions, the thoughts of idle soldiers would return to the fields and livestock as spring drew closer, especially after the troops had exhausted the possibilities for plunder. The ferocious version of nationalism considered by many westerners to be endemic in the Balkans has only ever been sustainable for brief periods by governments before it begins to soften, then fragment and finally decay. Its life span is even shorter in times of military defeat, as Bulgaria was to find out to its cost in the summer of 1913. When Serbia and Montenegro raised the stakes in their Skutari stratagem, they were aware that failure or stalemate could have serious consequences. King Nikola, by no means loved by all his subjects, had invested much of his political capital into taking Skutari. His popularity began to be eroded in the early spring of 1913 when the Montenegrin forces sustained enormous losses in failed assaults on the fortress. And as international pressure on Montenegro to withdraw grew, the mood of the besiegers, a quarter of whom had already fallen, became distinctly mutinous. The King was prepared to risk a much bigger conflagration to consolidate his position among the Montenegrins, as he had nothing to lose. Just before the demarches of 12 November, St Petersburg had warned Belgrade that Russia would not go to war for the sake of Durres. Nonetheless, Russia began mobilizing. When Vienna issued the demarches, Austria matched Russia's military preparations receiving German backing for its move while France supported Russia. The clouds of European war thickened quickly. Were it not for a deft, conciliatory intervention by the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, Durres and Skutari would now enjoy the historical notoriety which belongs to Sarajevo. On 20 December 1912, following the Ambassadors' Conference which Grey convened in London to cool tempers, all six powers agreed on the establishment of an autonomous (effectively an independent) Albania and on a guarantee for Serbian access to the Adriatic. The ambassadors at the London Conference could wipe their brows and celebrate Christmas with a clean conscience. Or so they thought. The Conference deferred the arbitration of the borders of the new Albanian state to a commission. This confounded Austria-Hungary's central aim of ending the Montenegrin siege of Skutari so that Vienna might turn the largely Catholic city into a strategic outpost of Habsburg power in the southern Balkans. The Montenegrins hung on as Russia and Austria-Hungary squabbled diplomatically about borders, and on 23 April 1913, Essad Pasha, the commander of the Turkish garrison defending the city, handed over the keys of Skutari to King Nikola in a shoddy little ceremony on the Neptune, a rickety wooden ship on Lake Skutari. It is widely believed, but never conclusively proven, that Essad pocketed a substantial sum from the Montenegrins. If he did take the money, then he might reasonably have argued that in the absence of aid from the great powers, he was wise to profit from his hopeless situation and facilitate the evacuation of the beleaguered Skutari garrison to fight

another day. He left the town with 20,000 men and their light arms in order to link up with another Ottoman army adrift in central Albania. Skutari was a corpse when the Montenegrins entered it. Civilians were starving and the six months of bombardment had rendered much of the town uninhabitable. This did not prevent Nikola's troops from indulging in the usual spree of violent pillaging. Once Skutari had fallen to Montenegro, the great powers were faced with another serious headache; for there was a widespread fear that Russia would not be able to agree to the ejection of the Montenegrins from the city which the Austrians would certainly demand. The British ambassador in St Petersburg thought war inevitable.' A clash between Russia and Austria was again narrowly avoided after mediators succeeded in paying off King Nikola with a loan of 6 million francs, which he used to quell the growing dissatisfaction with his regime. In early May, King Nikola withdrew his bewildered troops from Skutari. The crisis was over. But it was a close call – Germany and Britain had signally failed to cooperate over the second Skutari crisis, preferring instead to stand by their allies in the Triple Alliance and the Entente. The two episodes had demonstrated alarmingly how the idiosyncratic behaviour of the shrewd, if unappealing ruler of the least significant country in the Balkans could lock the great powers on to a course leading to general European war. The great powers seemed to have all but lost their ability to cajole the Balkan states into serving external interests on the peninsula. The Balkans were not the powder keg, as is so often believed: the metaphor is inaccurate. They were merely the powder trail that the great powers themselves had laid. The powder keg was Europe.”– The Balkans: Nationalism, War and the Great Powers, 1804-1999 by Misha Glenny, p. 240-243

“Bosnia had a reputation for violence. 'It was always our Spain', lamented Jovan Skerlic, Serbia's leading turn-of-the-century literary critic and a significant influence on the Young Bosnians, 'the Spain which was torn apart by Moors, Jews and papists.' Yet this pessimistic vision of a province traumatized by relentless, irrational violence was as inaccurate at the beginning of the twentieth century as it would be at the end. It assumed the three Bosnian faiths were engaged in a Hobbesian struggle with one another. There were in fact two distinct causes of violence in Bosnia from the mid-nineteenth century onwards - the peasant revolt, and the resistance of the elite to imperial centralization, Ottoman or Habsburg. In 1908, neither the peasantry nor the landowners and the merchants of Bosnia were sufficiently disadvantaged by the annexation (very little was changed by it inside the provinces) to risk their livelihoods for a futile adventure. Indeed, among the strongest backers of annexation was the increasingly influential elite of Serbian traders in the towns, especially in Sarajevo, but also in Banja Luka and Mostar. Evgenije Letica, the Metropolitan of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Sarajevo, even held a special service to celebrate the event, and asked 'all the worshippers to kneel down and pray for divine blessings for the Emperor Franz Josef and the Habsburg dynasty. All went down except a group of boys from the high school. They stood firmly upright among their kneeling elders.' This was the first public protest of the young intellectuals, although the event was equally striking as a manifestation of support for the annexation among the Serb elite. The Young Bosnians denounced their elders as collaborators bought off by the colonial power. One student, Nedeljko Cabrinovic, was in a peculiarly awkward position as his father was a professional spy for theAustro-Hungarian police. Cabrinovic's need to cleanse the stain of his compromised father was his primary motive for participating in the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. During his interrogation after the assassination, Cabrinovic revealed that his group had not intended to stop with the murders of Franz Ferdinand and General Oskar Potiorek, the military governor of Bosnia. The conspiracy had also sentenced to death Metropolitan Letica and three leading Serb businessmen and politicians from Sarajevo.” – The Balkans: Nationalism, War and the Great Powers, 1804-1999 by Misha Glenny, p. 297

World War I: Organized Crime?

Wilhelm II (left), the Kaiser of Germany and King of Prussia, wears the uniform of the “Death’s Head Hussars,” a German cavalry regiment. William Huntington Russell (right) studied in Germany for a year before establishing Skull & Bones, a secret society at Yale University. The skull and crossbone emblem of Skull & Bones (center) is a replica of the “Death’s Head” symbol that appears on the Kaiser’s hat. Kaiser Wilhelm II was the Kaiser of Germany and King of Prussia during World War I; he abdicated the throne on November 9, 1918, two days before Germany (Weimar Republic) announced an armistice on November 11, 1918. Kaiser Wilhelm II was the grandson of Queen Victoria, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland and Empress of India. Kaiser Wilhelm II’s great-granddaughter is Queen Sofia of Spain.

The Tomb, official headquarters of The Order of Skull & Bones, is located at Yale University on High Street in New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.

The Order of Skull & Bones is a secret society at Yale University. The Order of Skull & Bones is also known as the “Brotherhood of Death.” The number “322” is a mysterious number known only to members of The Order of Skull & Bones. Skull & Bones initiation rituals allegedly include individuals resting naked in a coffin and revealing their sex life to 14 fellow Bonesmen. (Source: Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League, and the Hidden Paths of Power by Alexandra Robbins)

Q: “We War Der Thor, Wer Weiser, Wer Bettler Oder Kaiser?”A: “Ob Arm, Ob Beich, im Tode gleich.”

Q: “Who was the fool, who the wise man, beggar or king?”A: “Whether poor or rich, all’s the same in death.”

“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt

German soldiers march past the Brandenburg Gate in downtown Berlin in 1914.

Germany declared war against Russia on August 1, 1914; Germany declared war against France on August 3, 1914. Germany declared war against Belgium on August 4, 1914, and Great Britain declared war against Germany on August 4, 1914

Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany (far left) appears with his six sons during a military parade in Berlin in August 1914, shortly after the outbreak of World War I. From left to right: Kaiser Wilhelm II, Crown Prince Wilhelm, Prince Eitel Friedrich, Prince Adalbert, Prince August Wilhelm, Prince Oskar, and Prince Joachim. (Photo: Library of Congress)

The Reichstag in Berlin

Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany (far left) appears with his six sons during a military parade in Berlin in August 1914, shortly after Germany declared war on France and Russia.

Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany addresses a crowd from the balcony, after the outbreak of war, at the Stadtschloss in Berlin on August 1, 1914.

Berlin City Palace (Stadtschloss)

The capture of Russian troops in Berlin, Kingdom of Prussia during “The Raid on Berlin” during the ongoing during the Seven Years’ War in October 1760 (Phototype of the original A. Kotzebue. 1849, http://cultureru.com/category/xviii-century/page/3/)

Yale University Graduates & World War I/Bolshevik Revolution

Eugene MeyerB.A. Yale 1895

Director of War Finance Corporation (1918-1920)

Russell C. Leffingwell B.A. Yale 1899

Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (1917-1920)

Frank L. PolkB.A. Yale 1894

Counselor of the State Dept. (1915-1919)

Allen WardwellB.A. Yale 1895

Member of Davis, Polk, Wardwell (1909-1953)

Alfred L. AikenB.A. Yale 1891

President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston

(1914-1917)

George E. VincentB.A. Yale 1885

President of University of Minnesota (1911-1917);President of Rockefeller Foundation (1917-1929)

Joseph Medill Patterson B.A. Yale 1901

Co-Editor and Publisher of The Chicago Tribune

(1914-1925)

Fairfax HarrisonB.A. Yale 1890

President of Southern Railway Co. (1913-1937)

Schuyler MerrittB.A. Yale 1873

U.S. Congressman(R-Connecticut, 1917-

1931, 1933-1937)

Richard Steere Aldrich B.A. Yale 1906

Rhode Island State Senator (1916-1918); son

of former U.S. Senator Nelson W. Aldrich

Frederic C. WalcottB.A. Yale 1891

Member of the staff, U.S. Food Administration

(1917-1918)

William KentB.A. Yale 1887

Member of U.S. Tariff Commission (1917-1920)

W. Averell HarrimanB.A. Yale 1913

Chairman of the board of Merchant Shipbuilding

Corp. (1917-1925)

Henry S. GravesB.A. Yale 1892

Chief of the U.S. Forest Service (1910-1920)

Francis Burton HarrisonB.A. Yale 1895

Governor General of the Philippines (1913-1921)

Hugh Robert WilsonB.A. Yale 1906

Second Secretary of American Legation at

Berlin, Germany(1916-1917)

Gifford PinchotB.A. Yale 1889

Member, Commission for Relief in Belgium (1914-1915); Member of U.S.

Food Administration (1917-1919)

Samuel O. PrenticeB.A. Yale 1873

Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme

Court of Errors(1913-1920)

Irving FisherB.A. Yale 1888

Founder of American Eugenics Society;

Professor of Political Economy at Yale

University (1898-1935)

William H. WelchB.A. Yale 1870

President of the board of directors of Rockefeller

Institute for Medical Research (1901-1934)

Yale University Alumni and Members of The Order of Skull & Bones

Andrew D. WhiteB.A. Yale 1853; Ph.D.

Jena 1889Trustee of Carnegie

Endowment for International Peace

(1910-1918)

Arthur Twining HadleyB.A. Yale 1876; Ph.D. Univ. of Berlin 1910

President of Yale University (1899-1921)

William Howard TaftB.A. Yale 1878

Chairman of American Red Cross (1915-1919); Kent Professor of Law at Yale Univ. (1913-1921)

John PerrinB.A. Yale 1879

Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of San

Francisco (1914-1925)

Pierre JayB.A. Yale 1892

Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New

York (1914-1926)

John W. SterlingB.A. Yale 1864

Co-Founder and Member of Shearman & Sterling

(1873-1918)

Thomas D. ThacherB.A. Yale 1904

Partner of Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett (1914-

1925, 1933-1943)

Henry Waters TaftB.A. Yale 1880

Partner of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft

[law firm in New York City] (1899-1945)

Henry L. StimsonB.A. Yale 1888

Counsel of Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts; U.S. Army Colonel during WWI

Amos PinchotB.A. Yale 1897

Co-Founder and Director (1917-1930) of ACLU

Thomas CochranB.A. Yale 1894

Partner of J.P. Morgan & Co. (1917-1936)

Samuel R. BertronB.A. Yale 1885

President of Bertron, Griscom & Company,

Inc., international financiers [New York City]

(1912-1938)

Harry Payne WhitneyB.A. Yale 1894

Member of the board of directors of Guaranty Trust Co. of New York

(1899-1930)

Percy A. RockefellerB.A. Yale 1900

Member of the board of directors of National City Bank of New York and American International

Corporation

Otto T. BannardB.A. Yale 1876

Chairman of the board of New York Trust Company

(1916-1921)

LeBaron Bradford Colt B.A. Yale 1868

U.S. Senator (R-Rhode Island, 1913-1924)

Frank B. BrandegeeB.A. Yale 1885U.S. Senator

(R-Conn., 1905-1924)

James W. Wadsworth Jr.B.A. Yale 1898U.S. Senator

(R-New York, 1915-1927)

Rep. James W. HustedB.A. Yale 1892

U.S. Congressman(R-New York, 1915-1923)

Edwin F. SweetB.A. Yale 1871

Assistant Secretary of Commerce (1913-1921)

Prominent Yale University Alumni and their occupation during World War I:Pierre Jay (B.A. 1892, S&B 1892) – Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (1914-1926)John Perrin (B.A. 1879, S&B 1879) – Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (1914-1925)Alfred L. Aiken (B.A. 1891) – Governor [President] of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (1914-1917)Otto T. Bannard (B.A. 1876, S&B 1876, LL.B. Columbia 1878) – Chairman of the board of New York Trust Company (1916-1921)Thomas Cochran (B.A. 1894, S&B 1894) – Partner of J.P. Morgan & Co. (1917-1936)Harry Payne Whitney (B.A. 1894, S&B 1894) – Member of the board of directors of Guaranty Trust Co. of New York (1899-1930)William Howard Taft (B.A. 1878, S&B 1878) – Chairman of the American Red Cross (1915-1919)George E. Vincent (B.A. 1885, S&K 1885) – President of The Rockefeller Foundation (1917-1929); President of Univ. of Minnesota (1911-17)Arthur Twining Hadley (B.A. 1876, S&B 1876, Ph.D. University of Berlin (Germany) 1910) – President of Yale University (1899-1921)LeBaron Bradford Colt (B.A. 1868, S&B 1868, LL.B. Columbia 1870) – U.S. Senator (Republican Party-Rhode Island, 1913-1924)Frank Bosworth Brandegee (B.A. 1885, S&B 1885) – U.S. Senator (Republican Party-Connecticut, 1905-1924)James Wolcott Wadsworth Jr. (B.A. 1898, S&B 1898) – U.S. Senator (Republican Party-New York, 1915-1927)James W. Husted (B.A. 1892, S&B 1892, LL.B. New York Law School 1894) – U.S. Congressman (Republican Party-New York, 1915-1923)Frank L. Polk (B.A. 1894, S&K 1894, LL.B. Columbia 1897) – Counselor of the State Dept. (1915-1919); Under Sec. of State (1919-1920)Russell C. Leffingwell (B.A. 1899, LL.B. Columbia 1902) – Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (1917-1920)William Kent (B.A. 1887, S&B 1887) – Member of U.S. Tariff Commission (1917-1920)Samuel R. Bertron (B.A. 1885, S&B 1885) – Member of the Special Diplomatic Mission to Russia [The Root Mission] (May 1917)Henry L. Stimson (B.A. 1888, S&B 1888) – commissioned U.S. Army officer (Colonel) during World War I; U.S. Secretary of War (1911-1913)John William Sterling (B.A. 1864, S&B 1864, LL.B. Columbia 1867) – Co-Founder of Shearman & Sterling [law firm in NYC] (1873-1918)Thomas Thacher (B.A. 1871, S&B 1871, LL.B. Columbia 1875) – Co-Founder of Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett [law firm in NYC] (1875-1919)Frederick Kingsbury Curtis (B.A. 1884) – Member of Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle [law firm in New York City] (1889-1926)Allen Wardwell (B.A. 1895, S&K 1895, LL.B. Harvard 1898) – Member of Davis, Polk & Wardwell [law firm in New York City] (1909-1953); Member of the 1917 American Red Cross Mission to RussiaThomas D. Thacher (B.A. 1904, S&B 1904) – Partner of Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett [law firm in New York City] (1914-1925, 1933-1943); Member of the 1917 American Red Cross Mission to RussiaEugene Meyer (B.A. 1895) – Member of the War Industries Board (1917); Director of War Finance Corporation (1918-1920)Joseph Medill Patterson (B.A. 1901, S&K 1901) – Co-Editor and Publisher of The Chicago Tribune (1914-1925)Richard Steere Aldrich (B.A. 1906, LL.B. Harvard 1909) – Member of the Rhode Island House of Representatives (1914-1916); Rhode Island State Senator (1916-1918); son of former U.S. Senator Nelson W. Aldrich

Note: S&B = Skull & Bones (secret society at Yale University); S&K = Scroll & Key (secret society at Yale University)

Left to right: James Rowland Angell (incoming President of Yale University), Arthur Twining Hadley (outgoing President of Yale University), Anson Phelps Stokes (Secretary of Yale University), Williston Walker (Provost of Yale University), Everett Lake (Governor of Connecticut), and George Parmly Day (Treasurer of Yale University) walk together at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A. in 1921. Arthur T. Hadley was the President of Yale University during World War I. Arthur Twining Hadley and Anson Phelps Stokes were members of Skull & Bones, a secret society at Yale University. (Photo: Manuscripts & Archives, Yale University Library)

Yale University Graduates and Their Occupation during World War I (1914-1918) and Bolshevik Revolution (1917-1919)

Government Officials:Frank L. Polk (B.A. 1894, S&K 1894) – Counselor of U.S. State Department (1915-1919); Corporation Counsel of New York City (1914-1915)Russell C. Leffingwell (B.A. 1899) – Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (1917-1920)Edwin F. Sweet (B.A. 1871, S&B 1871) – Assistant Secretary of Commerce (1913-1921)Henry S. Graves (B.A. 1892, S&B 1892) – Chief of the U.S. Forest Service (1910-1920)William Kent (B.A. 1887, S&B 1887) – Member of U.S. Tariff Commission (1917-1920); U.S. Congressman (R-California, 1911-1917)Gifford Pinchot (B.A. 1889, S&B 1889) – Member, Commission for Relief in Belgium (1914-15); Member of U.S. Food Administration (1917-19)Frederic C. Walcott (B.A. 1891, S&B 1891) – Member of the staff, United States Food Administration (1917-1918)Francis Burton Harrison (B.A. 1895, S&B 1895) – Governor General of the Philippines (1913-1921)William Harrison Bradley (B.A. 1872, S&K 1872) – U.S. Consul-General in Montreal (1907-1917)William Holt Gale (Ph.B. 1885) – U.S. Consul-General in Athens (1910-1914), Munich (1915-1917), and Copenhagen, Denmark (1917)Irwin B. Laughlin (B.A. 1893, S&K 1893) – Secretary (1912-1917) and Counselor (1916-1919) of the U.S. Embassy in LondonE. Sheldon Whitehouse (B.A. 1905, S&B 1905) – First Secretary of the American Embassy in Petrograd, Russia (1916-1917)Hugh R. Wilson (B.A. 1906, S&B 1906) – Second Secretary of American Legation at Berlin, Germany (1916-1917)Albert Billings Ruddock (B.A. 1907) – Secretary of American Legation at Berlin, Germany (1912-1916) and Brussels, Belgium (1917)Gardner Richardson (B.A. 1905, S&B 1905) – U.S. Army officer (Captain) assigned to Intelligence Section, General Headquarters, U.S. Army (1917-1918); Member, Commission for Relief in Belgium, in charge of Province of Antwerp and District of Valenciennes, France (1915-1917)Bert Hanson (B.A. 1890) – Assistant U.S Attorney General in charge of customs cases (1914-1921)Ernest Knaebel (B.A. 1894, LL.B. 1896) – Assistant U.S. Attorney General (May 9, 1911-October 31, 1916); U.S. Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions (1916-1944)John Fuller Appleton Merrill (B.A. 1889) – United States Attorney for the District of Maine (1915-1922)

LeBaron Bradford Colt (B.A. 1868, S&B 1868) – U.S. Senator (R-Rhode Island, 1913-1924)Frank Bosworth Brandegee (B.A. 1885, S&B 1885) – U.S. Senator (R-Connecticut, 1905-1924)James Wolcott Wadsworth Jr. (B.A. 1898, S&B 1898) – U.S. Senator (R-New York, 1915-1927)Selden Palmer Spencer (B.A. 1884) – U.S. Senator (R-Missouri, November 6, 1918-May 16, 1925); captain in the Missouri Home Guard and chairman of the draft board (1917-1918)John Q. Tilson (B.A. 1891) – U.S. Congressman (R-Connecticut, 1909-1913, 1915-1932)Ira Clifton Copley (B.A. 1887) – U.S. Congressman (R-Illinois, 1911-1923)James William Husted (B.A. 1892, S&B 1892) – U.S. Congressman (R-New York, 1915-1923)Merrill Moores (B.A. 1878) – U.S. Congressman (R-Indiana, 1915-1925)Frederick Reimold Lehlbach (B.A. 1897) – U.S. Congressman (R-New Jersey, 1915-1937)Thomas Woodnutt Miller (Ph.B. 1908) – U.S. Congressman (R-Delaware, 1915-1917); Secretary of State of Delaware (1913-1915)Joseph Medill McCormick (B.A. 1900, S&K 1900) – U.S. Congressman (R-Illinois, 1917-1919); U.S. Senator (R-Illinois, 1919-1925)Schuyler Merritt (B.A. 1873, S&K 1873) – U.S. Congressman (R-Connecticut, 1917-1931, 1933-1937)Edward G. Bradford II (B.A. 1868) – Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (1897-1918)Howard C. Hollister (B.A. 1878, S&K 1878) – Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (1910-1919)William Irwin Grubb (B.A. 1883) – Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (1909-1935)Wilbur Franklin Booth (B.A. 1884, LL.B. 1888, S&B 1884) – Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (1914-1925)Henry Clay McDowell (B.A. 1884, S&K 1884) – Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia (1901-1931)Thomas Chatfield (B.A. 1893) – Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (1907-1922)

Eugene Lamb Richards (B.A. 1885, S&B 1885) – Superintendent of Banks of the State of New York (1914-1917)Almet Francis Jenks (B.A. 1875, S&B 1875) – Justice of the Supreme Court of New York (1898-1924)John Proctor Clarke (B.A. 1878) – Justice of the Supreme Court of New York (1901-1926)John Albert Matthewman (B.A. 1894) – Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Hawaii (1904-1919)Samuel Oscar Prentice (B.A. 1873, S&B 1873) – Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors (1913-1920)George Wakeman Wheeler (B.A. 1881, LL.B. 1883) – Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors (1910-1920)Lucien F. Burpee (B.A. 1879; S&B 1879) – Judge of the Superior Court of Connecticut (1909-1921)Gardiner Greene (B.A. 1873) – Judge of the Superior Court of Connecticut (1910-1921)Howard Junior Curtis (B.A. 1881, LL.B. 1883) – Judge of the Superior Court of Connecticut (1907-1920)Joseph Parsons Tuttle (B.A. 1889) – Judge of the Superior Court of Connecticut (1913-1917)Charles Daniel Hine (B.A. 1871, S&B 1871) – Secretary of Connecticut State Board of Education (1883-1920)Edwards Denmore Robbins (B.A. 1874, S&B 1874) – Member of Connecticut State Board of Education (1884-1919)Howell Cheney (B.A. 1892, S&B 1892) – Member of the Connecticut State Board of Education (1909-1919)John Wesley Wescott (B.A. 1872, LL.B. 1876) – Attorney General of New Jersey (1914-1919)William Nelson Runyon (B.A. 1892, S&K 1892) – Member of New Jersey State Senate (1918-1922) and New Jersey House of Rep. (1915-17)George Augustus Sanderson (B.A. 1885) – Justice of Superior Court of Massachusetts (1907-1924)Franklin Atkins Lord (B.A. 1898, S&B 1898) – Deputy Police Commissioner of New York City (1915-1918)Frederic Kernochan (B.A. 1898, S&B 1898) – Chief Justice of Court of Special Sessions of New York City (1916-1937)Henry Hastings Curran (B.A. 1898) – Alderman of New York City (1911-1917)Francis Patrick Garvan (B.A. 1897) – Manager of New York City office of Alien Property Custodian (November 1917-March 1919)Mansfield Ferry (B.A. 1903) – General Counsel of the Alien Property Custodian in Washington, D.C. (January 1, 1919-September 15, 1919)Frank Lincoln Woodward (B.A. 1888, LL.B. 1890, S&K 1888) – Deputy Food Administrator for Colorado (October 1917-March 1919)Richard Steere Aldrich (B.A. 1906) – Member of Rhode Island House of Representatives (1914-1916); Rhode Island State Senator (1916-18)George Cromwell (B.A. 1883) – New York State Senator (1915-1918)Arthur Lehman Goodhart (B.A. 1912) – Assistant Corporation Counsel of New York City (1915-1917); Captain, Ordnance, U.S. Army (1917-19)Henry Smith Mathewson (B.A. 1890) – Surgeon in U.S. Public Health Service stationed at Portland, Maine (1913-1917) and Boston (1917-19)James Avery Draper (B.A. 1895) – Member of Delaware State Board of Health (1915-1920); director of Equitable Trust Company of Wilmington (1907-1925)

Clifford Butler Allen (B.A. 1885, S&K 1885) – Member of board of examiners of Supreme Court of Missouri (1912-1924)Charles Morehead Walker (B.A. 1884) – Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois [Chicago] (1903-1920)John William Beckwith (B.A. 1889) – Corporation Counsel of Chicago (1914-1915)George Sturges Buck (B.A. 1896) – Mayor of Buffalo, New York (1917-1921)

Bankers:Pierre Jay (B.A. 1892, S&B 1892) – Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (1914-1926)John Perrin (B.A. 1879, S&B 1879) – Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (1914-1925)Alfred L. Aiken (B.A. 1891) – President [Governor] of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (1914-1917)Otto T. Bannard (B.A. 1876, S&B 1876) – Chairman of the board of New York Trust Company (1916-1921)Mortimer Norton Buckner (B.A. 1895, S&B 1895) – President of New York Trust Company (1916-1921)Thomas Cochran (B.A. 1894, S&B 1894) – Partner of J.P. Morgan & Co. (1917-1936); President, Liberty National Bank of New York (1914-16)Alfred Lawrence Ripley (B.A. 1878, S&K 1878) – President of Merchants National Bank of Boston (1917-1929)Harry Payne Whitney (B.A. 1894, S&B 1894) – Member of the board of directors of Guaranty Trust Co. of New York (1899-1930)Marshall Jewell Dodge (B.A. 1898, S&K 1898) – Partner of Bertron, Griscom & Company, Inc., international financiers (1907-1930)Samuel R. Bertron (B.A. 1885, S&B 1885) – President of Bertron, Griscom & Company, Inc., international financiers [New York City] (1912-1938); Member of the Special Diplomatic Mission to Russia [The Root Mission] (May 1917)Elbridge Clinton Cooke (B.A. 1877; S&B 1877) – President of Minneapolis Trust Company (1903-1920)Frank Altschul (B.A. 1908) – Partner of Lazard Freres & Co. (1916-1945)

Businessmen:Fairfax Harrison (B.A. 1890, S&B 1890) – President of Southern Railway Co. (1913-1937)Ashbel Barney Newell (B.A. 1890, S&K 1890) – President of Toledo Terminal Railroad Company (1914-1950)Arthur Lawrence Greer (B.A. 1893, S&K 1893) – President of Western Maryland Railway Company (April 3, 1918-January 15, 1919)Louis Warren Hill (Ph.B. 1893) – Chairman of the board of Great Northern Railway [St. Paul, Minnesota] (1912-1929)Robert W. Huntington Jr. (B.A. 1889, S&K 1889) – President of Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. (1901-1936)W. Averell Harriman (B.A. 1913, S&B 1913) – Chairman of the board of Merchant Shipbuilding Corp. (1917-1925)Edwin M. Herr (Ph.B. 1884) – President of Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. (1911-1929)Charles Davies Jones (B.A. 1893, S&K 1893) – President of Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company (1915-1928)Charles Hopkins Clark (B.A. 1871, S&B 1871) – President and Editor-in-Chief of Hartford Courant (1890-1926)William H. Cowles (B.A. 1887, S&B 1887) – Publisher of Spokane Spokesman-Review (1893-1946)Joseph Medill Patterson (B.A. 1901, S&K 1901) – Co-Editor and Publisher of The Chicago Tribune (1914-1925)Henry Fletcher (B.A. 1898) – Chairman of the board of Swan & Finch Co. (Standard Oil subsidiary) (1915-1922)Gilbert Colgate (B.A. 1883) – First Vice President of Colgate & Company (1908-1920)Solomon Albert Smith (B.A. 1899) – President of Northern Trust Co. of Chicago (1914-1957)Charles Marshall Brown (B.A. 1891) – Secretary and Treasurer of Colonial Steel Company [Pittsburgh] (1901-1917)Clarence Clifford Harmstad (B.A. 1893) – Treasurer of Title, Guarantee & Trust Company [business firm in New York City] (1916-1924)George Arthur Hurd (B.A. 1890) – President of The Mortgage-Bond Company of New York [business firm in New York City] (1910-1929)

Lawyers:John William Sterling (B.A. 1864, S&B 1864) – Co-Founder and Member of Shearman & Sterling (1873-1918)John Anson Garver (B.A. 1875, S&K 1875) – Partner (1884-1918) and Senior Partner (1918-1936) of Shearman & SterlingChauncey Brewster Garver (B.A. 1908, S&K 1908) – Partner of Shearman & Sterling (1917-1973)Henry Waters Taft (B.A. 1880, S&B 1880) – Partner of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft (1899-1945)Philip G. Bartlett (B.A. 1881, S&B 1881) – Partner of Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett (1890-1931)Charles Brown Eddy (B.A. 1893) – Partner of Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett (1905-1918); Asst. General Counsel of U.S. Railroad Adm. (1918)Graham Sumner (B.A. 1897, S&B 1897) – Member of Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett (1904-1946)Thomas D. Thacher (B.A. 1904, S&B 1904) – Partner of Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett (1914-1925, 1933-1943)Alfred Beaumont Thacher (B.A. 1874) – Member of Simpson, Thacher & BartlettHoward Mansfield (B.A. 1871, S&B 1871) – Senior Partner of Lord, Day & Lord (1908-1938)Henry DeForest Baldwin (B.A. 1885, S&B 1885) – Member of Lord, Day & Lord (1900-1947)Allen Wardwell (B.A. 1895, S&K 1895) – Member of Davis, Polk & Wardwell (1909-1953)Lansing P. Reed (B.A. 1904, S&B 1904) – Member of Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Gardiner & Reed (1915-1937)Henry L. Stimson (B.A. 1888, S&B 1888) – Counsel of Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts; U.S. Army Colonel during World War IGeorge Roberts (B.A. 1905, LL.B. Harvard 1908) – Partner of Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts (1914-1968)Douglas Maxwell Moffat (B.A. 1903, LL.B. Harvard 1907) – Partner of Cravath, Swaine & Moore [law firm in New York City] (1913-1956)Charles Wheeler Pierson (B.A. 1886, S&B 1886) – Member of Alexander & Green [law firm in New York City] (1900-1929)Henry Wheeler de Forest (B.A. 1876, S&K 1876) – Member of deForest Brothers [law firm in New York City] (1893-1932)Howard Thayer Kingsbury (B.A. 1891) – Member of Coudert Brothers [law firm in New York City]Frederick Kingsbury Curtis (B.A. 1884) – Member of Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle [law firm in New York City] (1889-1926)Harris Dunscomb Colt (B.A. 1884, LL.B. Columbia 1886) – Member of Curtis, Mallet-Prevost & Colt [law firm in New York City]; died in 1959Allen Wardner Evarts (B.A. 1869) – Member of Evarts, Choate & Sherman [and predecessor firms] (1874-1939)Thomas Townsend Sherman (B.A. 1874, LL.B. Columbia 1876) – Member of Evarts, Choate & Sherman [and predecessor firms] (1875-1931); great-grandson of Roger ShermanHenry Burrall Anderson (B.A. 1885, S&K 1885) – Partner of Anderson & Anderson [law firm in New York City] (1898-1928)James Rockwell Sheffield (B.A. 1887, S&K 1887) – Senior Partner of Sheffield and Betts [law firm in New York City] (1911-1938)Herbert Parsons (B.A. 1890, S&K 1890) – Member of Parsons, Closson & Mcllvaine [law firm in New York City] (1895-1925)Charles P. Howland (B.A. 1891) – Member of Murray, Prentice & Howland [law firm in New York City] (1900-1921)Henry Burr Barnes, Jr. (B.A. 1893, S&K 1893) – Partner of Moen & Dwight [law firm in New York City] (1911-1928)Henry Fletcher (B.A. 1898) – Member of Fletcher, Sillcocks & Leahy [law firm in New York City] (1902-1920)Benjamin Robbins Curtis Low (B.A. 1902) – Partner of Low, Miller & Low [law firm in New York City] (1909-1923)Henry S. Hooker (B.A. 1902, S&K 1902) – Member of Marvin, Hooker & [Franklin Delano] Roosevelt [law firm in New York City] (1910-1918)

John Rogers Halsey, Jr. (B.A. 1884, S&K 1884) – Member of Halsey, Kiernan & O’Keeffe [law firm in New York City] (1914-1928)Nicholas Minor Goodlett (B.A. 1886) – Member of Redding, Greeley & Goodlett [law firm in New York City] (1913-1919)Ashbel Parmelee Fitch (B.A. 1898) – Member of Fitch, Mott & Grant [law firm in New York City] (1904-1926)Walter Frederick Carter (B.A. 1895, S&B 1895) – Member of Hughes, Schurman & Dwight [law firm in New York City] (1898-1936)John Loomer Hall (B.A. 1894, LL.B. 1896, S&B 1894) – Member of Choate, Hall & Stewart [law firm in Boston] (1904-1960)William Frederick Poole (B.A. 1891, S&B 1891) – Partner of Curtin, Poole & Allen [law firm in Boston] (1915-1926) Edward Brooks, Jr. (B.A. 1890, S&K 1890) – Partner of Geiger & Brooks [law firm in Philadelphia] (1898-1918)Charles Humphrey Hamill (B.A. 1890, S&K 1890) – Member of Rosenthal, Hamill & Wormser [law firm in Chicago] (1906-1941)Nathaniel Taylor Guernsey (B.A. 1881, LL.B 1883) – General Counsel of American Telegraph & Telephone Co. [New York City] (1914-1926)Chester Mitchell Dawes (B.A. 1876, S&B 1876) – General Counsel of Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company (1909-1917)Robert Weeks de Forest (B.A. 1870, S&K 1870) – General Counsel of Central Railroad of New Jersey (1874-1924)Louis Hood (B.A. 1878) – General Counsel of Fidelity Mutual Trust Company [Newark, New Jersey] (1914-1932)George L. Harrison (B.A. 1910, S&B 1910) – Assistant General Counsel of the Federal Reserve Board (1914-1918)Charles Cook Paulding (B.A. 1889) – Solicitor of New York Central Railroad Co. (1908-1921)

Organization Executives:Andrew D. White (B.A. 1853, S&B 1853) – Trustee of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1910-1918)William Howard Taft (B.A. 1878, S&B 1878) – Chairman of American Red Cross (1915-1919); President of the U.S. (1909-1913)George E. Vincent (B.A. 1885, S&K 1885) – President of The Rockefeller Foundation (1917-1929); President of Univ. of Minnesota (1911-17)Edwin R. Embree (B.A. 1906) – Secretary of The Rockefeller Foundation (1917-1923)Harvey Williams Cushing (B.A. 1891, S&K 1891) – Surgeon-in-Chief of Peter Bent Brigham Hospital [Boston] (1912-1932)Gifford Pinchot (B.A. 1889, S&B 1889) – President of National Conservation Association (1910-1925)William H. Welch (B.A. 1870, S&B 1870) – President of the board of directors of Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (1901-1934)Franklin Augustus Gaylord (B.A. 1876) – General Secretary of the Russian YMCA in St. Petersburg, Russia (1899-1917)Frederick Wells Williams (B.A. 1879) – Chairman of the board of trustees of Yale-in-China (1917-1928)James Bronson Reynolds (B.A. 1884) – Counsel of American Social Hygiene Association (1913-1916)Howard Chandler Robbins (B.A.1899) – Dean of Cathedral of St. John the Divine [New York City] (1917-1929)Harry Sargeant Scarborough (B.A. 1895) – Pastor of South Park Church in Hartford, Connecticut (1914-1919)Wolff Willner (B.A. 1885, M.A. 1887) – Rabbi of Adath Yeshurun Congregation in Houston, Texas (1907-1923)Chauncey B. Brewster (B.A. 1868, S&B 1868) – Protestant Episcopal Bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut (1899-1928) Frederic W. Keator (B.A. 1880, LL.B. 1882, S&K 1880) – Protestant Episcopal Bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Olympia, Wa. (1902-1924)Sidney C. Partridge (B.A. 1880, S&B 1880) – Protestant Episcopal Bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Western Missouri (1911-1930)Thomas F. Davies (B.A. 1894, S&B 1894) – Protestant Episcopal Bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Western Massachusetts (1911-1936)Benjamin Brewster (B.A. 1882, S&B 1882) – Protestant Episcopal Bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Maine (1916-1941)Boyd Vincent (B.A. 1867, S&K 1867) – Protestant Episcopal Bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio (1904-1929)Edwin Stevens Lines (B.A. 1872, S&K 1872) – Protestant Episcopal Bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Newark, New Jersey (1903-1927)Cortlandt Whitehead (B.A. 1863) – Protestant Episcopal Bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (1882-1922); Grand Chaplain of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania Free and Accepted Masons (1883-1921)Daniel Trumbull Huntington (B.A. 1892) – Protestant Episcopal Bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Anking, China (1912-1940)David James Burrell (B.A. 1867, S&K 1867) – Pastor of Marble Collegiate Church in New York City (1891-1926)George Redington Montgomery (B.A. 1892, LL.B. 1894, Ph.D. 1901) – Assistant Minister of Madison Square Presbyrtarian Church in New York City (1905-1916); Special Assistant to the American ambassador at Constantinople [Turkey] (1916)

College Administrators and Professors:Arthur Twining Hadley (B.A. 1876, S&B 1876) – President of Yale University (1899-1921)Thomas Walter Swan (B.A. 1900) – Dean of Yale Law School (1916-1927)George Parmly Day (B.A. 1897, S&K 1897) – Treasurer of Yale University (1910-1942)Edward Twichell Ware (B.A. 1897) – President of Atlanta University (1907-1922)George Chase (B.A. 1870, valedictorian) – Dean of New York Law School (1891-1924)David Kinley (B.A. 1884) – Dean of the Graduate School at University of Illinois (1906-1919); Vice President of Univ. of Illinois (1914-1919)Herbert Cushing Tolman (B.A. 1888, Ph.D. 1890) – Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Vanderbilt University (1914-1923)Nathan Davis Abbott (B.A. 1877, S&K 1877) – Professor of Law at Columbia University (1907-1922)Irving Fisher (B.A. 1888, Ph.D. 1891, S&B 1888) – Professor of Political Economy at Yale University (1893-1935)Gustav Gruener (B.A. 1884, S&B 1884) – Professor of German at Yale University (1892-1928)Robert Nelson Corwin (B.A. 1887, S&B 1887) – Professor of German at Yale University (1899-1933)Charlton M. Lewis (B.A. 1886, S&B 1886) – Emily Sanford Professor of English at Yale University (1899-1923)Henry Hallam Tweedy (B.A. 1891, S&B 1891) – Professor of Practical Theology at Yale Divinity School (1909-1937)James W. Ingersoll (B.A. 1892, S&B 1892) – Professor of Latin at Yale University (1897-1921)Horatio McLeod Reynolds (B.A. 1880) – Talcott Professor of the Greek Language and Literature at Yale University (1893-1922)Charles Foster Kent (B.A. 1889, Ph.D. 1891) – Woolsey Professor of Biblical Literature at Yale University (1901-1925)Warren Austin Adams (B.A. 1886, Ph.D. 1895) – Professor of German at Dartmouth College (1904-1944)John Seymour Thacher (B.A. 1877, S&B 1877) – Professor of Clinical Medicine at Columbia University (1903-1918)Walter Belknap James (B.A. 1879, S&B 1879) – Professor of Clinical Medicine at Columbia University (1909-1918)Alfred Newton Richards (B.A. 1897, Ph.D. Columbia 1901) – Professor of Pharmacology at University of Pennsylvania (1910-1946)Charles Cheney Hyde (B.A. 1895) – Professor of Law at Northwestern University Law School (1907-1925)George Washington Patterson III (B.A. 1884) – Professor of Engineering Mechanics at University of Michigan (1915-1930)Lucius Hudson Holt (B.A. 1902, M.A. 1904, Ph.D. 1905) – Professor of English and History at U.S. Military Academy [West Point] (1910-1919); Professor of Economics, Government, and History at U.S. Military Academy (1919-1930) [taught with rank of lieutenant colonel and colonel]

Miscellaneous:Elisha Francis Riggs (B.A. 1909, S&K 1909) – Military Attaché at American Embassy in Petrograd, Russia (1916-1918)Gordon Auchincloss (B.A. 1908, S&K 1908) – Secretary to “Colonel” Edward M. House during the Paris Peace Conference

Eugene Meyer (B.A. 1895) – Member of the War Industries Board (1917); Member of the National Committee for War Savings (1917); Director of War Finance Corporation (1918-1920)Charles Seymour (B.A. 1908, Ph.D. 1911, S&B 1908) – Professor of History at Yale University (1918-1937); Chief of Austro-Hungarian Division, American Commission to Negotiate Peace, Paris Peace Conference (1918-1919)Clive Day (B.A. 1892, Ph.D. 1899, S&B 1892) – Professor of Economic History at Yale University (1907-1936); Chief of the Balkan Division, American Commission to Negotiate Peace at the Paris Peace Conference (1918-1919)Brig. Gen. Preston Brown (B.A. 1892) – Chief of Staff, 2nd Division, U.S. Army near Verdun at Chateau Thierry and St. Mihiel (April-Sept. 1918); Commanding General of 3rd Division, U.S. Army at Battle of the Meuse-Argonne (Oct. 1918)Paul Dwight Moody (B.A. 1901) – Chaplain of the 103rd U.S. Infantry (1917-1918); General Headquarters (GHQ) chaplain of the Allied Expeditionary Forces (AEF) (1918-1919)Thomas Wells Farnam (B.A. 1899, S&K 1899) – Class A Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (1917-1919); Assistant U.S. Food Administrator for Connecticut (October 1917-September 1918); American Red Cross Commissioner to Serbia (1918-1919)John Franklin Crowell (B.A. 1883) – Member of the editorial staff of The Wall Street Journal (1906-1915); executive officer of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York (1915-1917); economist and financial statistician, Internal Revenue Office in Washington, D.C. (1918)Edward Anthony Bradford (B.A. 1873, S&K 1873) – Member of the staff of The New York Times (1874-1928)Daniel Davenport (B.A. 1873, S&K 1873) – General Counsel of American Anti-Boycott Association [League for Industrial Rights] (1908-1930)George Marsh Judd (B.A. 1881) – Secretary and Assistant General Counsel for American Brake Shoe & Foundry Company (1914-1932)Ralph Ernest Rogers (B.A. 1901) – Secretary, Treasurer, and General Counsel of Witherbee, Sherman & Company [iron ore and pig iron, New York City] (1917-1926)Morton Starr Cressy (B A. 1900) – Assistant Corporation Counsel of Chicago (1916-1917, 1919-1920)Gustaf Birger Carlson (B.A. 1895) – Corporation Counsel of Middletown, Connecticut (1908-1922)James Earnest Cooper (B.A. 1895) – Corporation Counsel of New Britain, Connecticut (1909-1921)James Norman Hill (B.A. 1893) – Director of Northern Pacific Railway Company (1904-1922); Director of Chase National Bank of New York [later Chase Manhattan Bank] (1916-1932), director of The Texas Company [Texaco] (1913-1932)William Williams (B.A. 1884; LL.B. Harvard 1888) – Commissioner of the New York City Department of Water Supply, Gas, and Electricity (1914-1917)Albert Lee (B.A. 1891) – Managing Editor of Vanity Fair magazine (1915-1919); Manager of foreign editions of Vogue magazine (1919-1933)

Members of Skull & Bones and Their Occupation during World War I and Bolshevik Revolution

Government Officials:LeBaron Bradford Colt (S&B 1868) – U.S. Senator (Republican Party-Rhode Island, 1913-1924)Frank Bosworth Brandegee (S&B 1885) – U.S. Senator (Republican Party-Connecticut, 1905-1924)James Wolcott Wadsworth Jr. (S&B 1898) – U.S. Senator (Republican Party-New York, 1915-1927)James William Husted (S&B 1892) – U.S. Congressman (Republican Party-New York, 1915-1923)Edwin F. Sweet (S&B 1871) – Assistant Secretary of Commerce (1913-1921)Henry S. Graves (S&B 1892) – Chief of the U.S. Forest Service (1910-1920)Francis Burton Harrison (S&B 1895) – Governor General of the Philippines (1913-1921)William Kent (S&B 1887) – Member of U.S. Tariff Commission (1917-1920)Gifford Pinchot (S&B 1889) – Member of the Commission for Relief in Belgium (1914-1915); Member of U.S. Food Administration (1917-1919)Frederic C. Walcott (S&B 1891) – Member of the staff, United States Food Administration (1917-1918)Harvey H. Bundy (S&B 1909) – Assistant Counsel of the United States Food Administration (1917-1919)E. Sheldon Whitehouse (S&B 1905) – First Secretary of the American Embassy in Petrograd, Russia (1916-1917)Hugh R. Wilson (S&B 1906) – Second Secretary of American Legation at Berlin, Germany (1916-1917)Wilbur Franklin Booth (S&B 1884) – Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (1914-1925)Eugene Lamb Richards (S&B 1885) – Superintendent of Banks of the State of New York (1914-1917)Almet Francis Jenks (S&B 1875) – Presiding Justice of the Supreme Court of New York (1911-1921)Samuel O. Prentice (S&B 1873) – Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors (1913-1920)Lucien F. Burpee (S&B 1879) – Judge of the Superior Court of Connecticut (1909-1921)William Herbert Corbin (S&B 1889) – Tax Commissioner of Connecticut (1907-1920)Charles Daniel Hine (S&B 1871) – Secretary of Connecticut State Board of Education (1883-1920)Edwards Denmore Robbins (S&B 1874) – Member of Connecticut State Board of Education (1884-1919)Howell Cheney (S&B 1892) – Member of Connecticut State Board of Education (1909-1919)Franklin Atkins Lord (S&B 1898) – Deputy Police Commissioner of New York City (1915-1918)Frederic Kernochan (S&B 1898) – Chief Justice of Court of Special Sessions of New York City (1916-1937)Gardner Richardson (S&B 1905) – U.S. Army officer (Captain) assigned to Intelligence Section, General Headquarters, U.S. Army (1917-1918)

Bankers:Pierre Jay (S&B 1892) – Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (1914-1926)John Perrin (S&B 1879) – Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (1914-1925)Otto T. Bannard (S&B 1876) – Chairman of the board of New York Trust Company (1916-1921)Mortimer Norton Buckner (S&B 1895) – President of New York Trust Company (1916-1921)Thomas Cochran (S&B 1894) – Partner of J.P. Morgan & Co. (1917-1936); President of Liberty National Bank of New York (1914-1916)Arthur Douglas Bissell (S&B 1867) – President of People’s Bank of Buffalo [Buffalo, New York] (1903-1920)Harry Payne Whitney (S&B 1894) – Member of the board of directors of Guaranty Trust Co. of New York (1899-1930)Percy A. Rockefeller (S&B 1900) – Member of the board of directors of National City Bank of New York and American International CorporationElbridge Clinton Cooke (S&B 1877) – President of Minneapolis Trust Company (1903-1920)

Lawyers:George L. Harrison (S&B 1910) – Assistant General Counsel of the Federal Reserve Board (1914-1918)Chester Mitchell Dawes (S&B 1876) – General Counsel of Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company (1909-1917)Morison Remich Waite (S&B 1888) – General Solicitor of Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railway Co. (1909-1917)John William Sterling (S&B 1864) – Co-Founder and Member of Shearman & Sterling (1873-1918)Henry Waters Taft (S&B 1880) – Partner of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft (1899-1945)Thomas Thacher (S&B 1871) – Co-Founder and Member of Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett (1875-1919)Philip G. Bartlett (S&B 1881) – Partner of Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett (1890-1931)Thomas Mills Day (S&B 1886) – Member of Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett (1898-1917)Graham Sumner (S&B 1897) – Member of Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett (1904-1946)Thomas D. Thacher (S&B 1904) – Partner of Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett (1914-1925, 1933-1943)Howard Mansfield (S&B 1871) – Senior Partner of Lord, Day & Lord (1908-1938)Henry DeForest Baldwin (S&B 1885) – Member of Lord, Day & Lord (1900-1947)Lansing P. Reed (S&B 1904) – Member of Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Gardiner & Reed (1915-1937)Charles Wheeler Pierson (S&B 1886) – Member of Alexander & Green [law firm in New York City] (1900-1929)Payson Merrill (S&B 1865) – Member of Merrill, Rogers, Gifford & Woody [and predecessors] [law firm in New York City] (1883-1924)John Sammis Seymour (S&B 1875) – Member of Seymour, Seymour & Harmon [and successors] [law firm in New York City] (1895-1921)Edwin Dean Worcester (S&B 1876) – Member of Worcester, Williams & Saxe [law firm in New York City] (1909-1929)Charles Buxton Hobbs (S&B 1885) – Member of Gifford, Hobbs & Beard [law firm in New York City] (1904-1923)Anson McCook Beard (S&B 1895) – Member of Gifford, Hobbs & Beard [law firm in New York City] (1903-1923)Walter Frederick Carter (S&B 1895) – Member of Hughes, Schurman & Dwight [law firm in New York City] (1898-1936)Winthrop Edwards Dwight (S&B 1893) – Partner of Dwight & Scoville [law firm in New York City] (1911-1944)Dean Sage (S&B 1897) – Member of Sage, Gray, Todd & Sims [law firm in New York City] (1905-1943)Lee James Perrin (S&B 1906) – Partner of Appleton, Perrin & Hoyt [law firm in New York City] (1916-1946)Henry L. Stimson (S&B 1888) – Counsel of Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts; U.S. Army Colonel during World War IArthur Leffingwell Shipman (S&B 1886) – Partner of Gross, Hyde & Shipman [law firm in Hartford, Connecticut] (1894-1919)John Trumbull Robinson (S&B 1893) – Member of Robinson, Robinson & Cole [law firm in Hartford, Connecticut] (1896-1937)William Frederick Poole (S&B 1891) – Partner of Curtin, Poole & Allen [law firm in Boston] (1915-1926)John Loomer Hall (S&B 1894) – Member of Choate, Hall & Stewart [law firm in Boston] (1904-1960)

Businessmen:Fairfax Harrison (S&B 1890) – President of Southern Railway Co. (1913-1937)Walter Jennings (S&B 1880) – President of National Fuel Gas Co. (1908-1919)Charles Hopkins Clark (S&B 1871) – President and Editor-in-Chief of Hartford Courant (1890-1926)William H. Cowles (S&B 1887) – Publisher of Spokane Spokesman-Review (1893-1946)W. Averell Harriman (S&B 1913) – Chairman of the board of Merchant Shipbuilding Corp. (1917-1925)Richard M. Hurd (S&B 1888) – President of Lawyers Mortgage Corporation [company in New York City] (1903-1933)Frederic Augustus Stevenson (S&B 1888) – General Superintendent for the New York City district, AT&T (1908-1918)Percy A. Rockefeller (S&B 1900) – Member of the board of directors of National City Bank of New York and American International CorporationSamuel R. Bertron (S&B 1885) – President of Bertron, Griscom & Company, Inc., international financiers [New York City] (1912-1938)

Organizations:Andrew D. White (S&B 1853) – Trustee of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1910-1918)William Howard Taft (S&B 1878) – Chairman of American Red Cross (1915-1919); Kent Professor of Law at Yale University (1913-1921)William H. Welch (S&B 1870) – President of the board of directors of Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (1901-1934)Irving Fisher (S&B 1888) – Founder of American Eugenics Society; Professor of Political Economy at Yale University (1898-1935)Amos Pinchot (S&B 1897) – Co-Founder and Director (1917-1930) of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)Amos Parker Wilder (S&B 1884) – Executive Secretary and Treasurer of Yale-in-China in New Haven, Connecticut (1914-1920)Chauncey B. Brewster (S&B 1868) – Protestant Episcopal Bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut (1899-1928) Sidney C. Partridge (S&B 1880) – Protestant Episcopal Bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Western Missouri (1911-1930)Benjamin Brewster (S&B 1882) – Protestant Episcopal Bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Maine (1916-1941)Thomas F. Davies (S&B 1894) – Protestant Episcopal Bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Western Massachusetts (1911-1936)Doremus Scudder (S&B 1880) – Pastor of Tokyo Union Church (1916-1919)

Colleges Professors:Arthur Twining Hadley (S&B 1876) – President of Yale University (1899-1921)Anson Phelps Stokes (S&B 1896) – Secretary of Yale University (1899-1921)Frederick S. Jones (S&B 1884) – Dean of Yale University (1909-1927)Charles Seymour (S&B 1908) – Professor of History at Yale University (1918-1937); Chief of Austro-Hungarian Division, American Commission to Negotiate Peace, Paris Peace Conference (1918-1919)Clive Day (S&B 1892) – Professor of Economic History at Yale University (1907-1936); Chief of the Balkan Division, American Commission to Negotiate Peace at the Paris Peace Conference (1918-1919)Charlton M. Lewis (S&B 1886) – Emily Sanford Professor of English at Yale University (1899-1923)Gustav Gruener (S&B 1884) – Professor of German at Yale University (1897-1924)Robert Nelson Corwin (S&B 1887) – Professor of German at Yale University (1899-1933)Henry Hallam Tweedy (S&B 1891) – Professor of Practical Theology at Yale Divinity School (1909-1937)James W. Ingersoll (S&B 1892) – Professor of Latin at Yale University (1897-1921)John Seymour Thacher (S&B 1877) – Professor of Clinical Medicine at Columbia University (1903-1918)Walter Belknap James (S&B 1879) – Professor of Clinical Medicine at Columbia University (1909-1918)Henry McMahon Painter (S&B 1884) – Professor of Clinical Obstetrics at Columbia University (1905-1920)Alexander Lambert (S&B 1884) – Professor of Clinical Medicine at Cornell University (1898-1931)John Rogers (S&B 1887) – Professor of Clinical Surgery at Cornell University Medical College (1909-1926)

Prescott & Friends at Yale: The Whiffenpoofs (a Yale chorus group) of 1917 pose for a group portrait. Prescott Sheldon Bush (third from right), the “Big Man on Campus” and a member of Skull & Bones who graduated from Yale University in 1917, served in the U.S. Army as a captain of Field Artillery in American [Allied] Expeditionary Forces from 1917 to 1919. Prescott Sheldon Bush was a U.S. Senator from 1952 to 1963, the father of former U.S. President George H.W. Bush and grandfather of former U.S. President George W. Bush.

Left to Right: “Eck” Markle, Oliver B. Cunningham, Lawrence Newbold Murray, “Woody” Ward, Kenneth O’Brien, Prescott S. Bush, Richard Bentley, and Stuart Holmes Clement. Oliver B. Cunningham and Prescott S. Bush were members of Skull & Bones. Lawrence Newbold Murray, Kenneth O’Brien, Richard Bentley, and Stuart Holmes Clement were members of Scroll & Key.(Photo: Yale University Manuscripts and Archives)

Prelude to World War I, Part 1: Wall Street & Federal Reserve

Paul Warburg & Friends: Federal Reserve bankers pose for a group portrait in 1914. Front row, left to right: Paul Warburg, John Skelton Williams, Charles Hamlin, and Frederic A. Delano. In the rear is a large group of Governors and Members of the various branches of the Federal Reserve banks. (Photo: Harris & Ewing Collection/Library of Congress)

Wall Street Bankers during World War I

Left to right: J.P. Morgan Jr., Henry P. Davison, Thomas W. Lamont, Jacob H. Schiff, Felix M. Warburg, and Otto H. Kahn

J.P. Morgan Jr., Henry P. Davison, and Thomas W. Lamont were partners of J.P. Morgan & Company, a banking firm in New York City. Jacob H. Schiff, Felix M. Warburg, and Otto H. Kahn were partners of Kuhn, Loeb & Company, a banking firm in New York City. Frank A. Vanderlip was the President of National City Bank in New York City from 1909 to 1919. Benjamin Strong was the Governor [President] of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 1914 to 1928.

A group portrait of the Chairmen of the Federal Reserve Districts in circa November 1914: Front row: FREDERICK H. CURTISS, Boston, District 1; PIERRE JAY, New York City, District 2; RICHARD L. AUSTIN, Philadelphia, District 3; D.C. WILLS, Bellevue, Pennsylvania, District 4; WILLIAM INGLE, Baltimore, District 5; M.B. WILLBORN, Anniston, Alabama, District 6; Back row: C.H. BOSWORTH, Chicago, District 7; A.E. RAMSEY, Muskogee, Oklahoma, District 10; E.O. TENNISON, Dallas, District 11; JOHN PERRIN, San Francisco, District 12. Pierre Jay and John Perrin were members of Skull & Bones, a secret society at Yale University. (Photo: Library of Congress)

“Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international moneylenders. The bankers want it that way. We recognize in a hazy sort of way that the Rothschilds and the Warburgs of Europe and the houses of J. P. Morgan, Kuhn, Loeb and Company, Schiff, Lehman, and Rockefeller possess and control vast wealth. How they acquired this vast financial power and employ it is a mystery to most of us. International bankers make money by extending credit to governments. The greater the debt of the political state, the larger the interest returned to the lenders. The national banks of Europe are actually owned and controlled by private interests. In the early years of the Republic the United States experimented with a central banking system. Jefferson opposed Alexander Hamilton‘s scheme for the First Bank of the United States, and Andrew Jackson abolished Nicholas Biddle’s Second Bank of the United States. The Wall Street banks contributed the financial muscle to elect Woodrow Wilson President in 1912. Their agent, Colonel E. M. House, became the most powerful figure in the Wilson administration. Paul Moritz Warburg, scion of the M. M. Warburg Company of Hamburg and Amsterdam, came to the U.S. in 1902. Eight years later he was a partner in the banking house of Kuhn, Loeb of New York. Warburg was the architect of our Federal Reserve System, creating a privately owned mechanism to control the currency and credit of the United States. The Federal Reserve is a bank of monetary issue. It is empowered to establish a national discount rate and to authorize the printing of the currency of the United States. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and through its Board of Governors manipulates the credit of the United States. Under Franklin D. Roosevelt the original term of office for governors was extended from seven to fourteen years – putting the board beyond the reach of any President. The powerful European banker Anselm Rothschild once said, “Give me the power to issue a nation’s money, then I do not care who makes the laws.”– U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater, With No Apologies, page 281-282 (written in 1979)

A group portrait of the District Governors of the Federal Reserve in circa November 1914: E. R. FRANCHER, Cleveland, District 4; GEORGE J. SEAY, Richmond, District 5; JOSEPH A. McCORD, Atlanta, District 6; THEODORE WOLD, Minneapolis, District 9; CHARLES M. SAWYER, Topeka, District 10. BACK ROW: CHARLES J. RHOADS, Philadelphia, District 3; OSCAR WELLS, Houston, District 11; ALFRED L. AIKEN, Boston, District 1; BENJAMIN STRONG, New York, District 2; ARCHIBALD KAINS, San Francisco, District 12. (Photo: Library of Congress)

Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York during World War I:Robert H. Treman – Class A Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (August 10, 1914-1929)William Woodward – Class A Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (August 10, 1914-1919)Franklin D. Locke – Class A Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (1914-1918)Leslie R. Palmer – Class B Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (August 10, 1914-1921)Henry R. Towne – Class B Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (August 10, 1914-1919)William B. Thompson – Class B Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (August 10, 1914-December 22, 1919)George F. Peabody – Class C Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Sept. 30, 1914-1921)Pierre Jay – Chairman and Class C Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Sept. 30, 1914-Dec. 31, 1926)Charles Starek – Class C Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (1914-1917)William L. Saunders – Class C Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (February 9, 1917-December 31, 1926)

New York City banker George Foster Peabody (wearing a hat) appears at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S.A. in 1914. George Foster Peabody was a Class C Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 1914 to 1921. The Federal Reserve began operating on August 10, 1914; the Panama Canal began operating on August 15, 1914.(Photo: Harris & Ewing Collection/Library of Congress)

A portrait of New York City businessman William Lawrence Saunders (Photo: Library of Congress)

“Dear Mr. President: I am in sympathy with the Soviet form of government as that best suited for the Russian people...”– Letter to U.S. President Woodrow Wilson (October 17, 1918) from William Lawrence Saunders, Chairman of the board of Ingersoll-Rand Corp., director of American International Corp., and Deputy Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Source: Wall Street and The Bolshevik Revolution By Antony C. Sutton)

Numerous pedestrians walk past the office of J.P. Morgan & Company in the Lower Manhattan area of New York City in the early 1900s. (Photo: Library of Congress)

A crowd forms on Wall Street in New York City during the Bankers’ Panic of 1907 in October 1907.(Photo: New York Public Library Digital Gallery, Irma and Paul Milstein Division of United States History, Local History and Genealogy)

A Manhattan Yankee in King Edward’s Court: American banker John Pierpont Morgan Sr., the head of J.P. Morgan & Co. banking firm in New York City, and His Britannic Majesty King Edward VII of the United Kingdom of Great Britain attend a house party at the Harcourts’ Nuneham Park estate in Great Britain in 1907. The Panic of 1907 occurred in New York City in October 1907.

Prominent Heads of Wall Street Banks during World War I

Frank A. Vanderlip was the President of National City Bank in New York City (1909-1919), Chairman of the board of American International Corporation, and Chairman of the Economic Club of New York (1916-1918).

Albert H. Wiggin was the President (1911-1917, 1921-1926) and Chairman of the board (1918-1930) of Chase National Bank in New York City and U.S. Fuel Administrator for the State of New York (1917-1918).

Charles H. Sabin was the President of Guaranty Trust Company of New York (1915-1921).

American National Debt Before and During World War I:July 1, 1899 - $1,991,927,306.92July 1, 1900 - $2,136,961,091.67July 1, 1901 - $2,143,326,933.89 July 1, 1902 - $2,158,610,445.89 July 1, 1903 - $2,202,464,781.89 July 1, 1904 - $2,264,003,585.14 July 1, 1905 - $2,274,615,063.84

July 1, 1906 - $2,337,161,839.04 July 1, 1907 - $2,457,188,061.54July 1, 1908 - $2,626,806,271.54July 1, 1909 - $2,639,546,241.04July 1, 1910 - $2,652,665,838.04July 1, 1911 - $2,765,600,606.69July 1, 1912 - $2,868,373,874.16

July 1, 1913 - $2,916,204,913.66July 1, 1914 - $2,912,499,269.16July 1, 1915 - $3,058,136,873.16July 1, 1916 - $3,609,244,262.16July 1, 1917 - $5,717,770,279.52July 1, 1918 - $14,592,161,414.00July 1, 1919 - $27,390,970,113.12

Source: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo3.htm

“In July [1915] a deranged German sympathizer, angry at J.P. Morgan’s support for the Allies, attempted to murder Morgan. He broke into the Morgan home at Glen Cove, Long Island, and fired two shots form his pistol at the banker before Morgan was able to throw himself on the man and subdue him. Morgan’s servants rushed to his aid and held the intruder for the police. Morgan was struck by two bullets in the groin, but his wounds were not serious, and he was able to return to his office in a few weeks…The outbreak of war in Europe during the first week of August 1914 plunged the commercial and financial markets into uncertainty and confusion. The foreign exchange market was chaotic. The London Stock Exchange was closed, and the governors of the New York Stock Exchange, with the support of J.P. Morgan, followed suit. It was feared that billions of dollars of European-owned American securities might be dumped on the New York market and cause its collapse. The city of New York was afraid that it would be forced to default on its loans from Europe. Difficult new problems, spawned by the conflict, appeared daily for the Morgan partners…Lamont rushed back to New York when J.P. Morgan was shot and wounded, rejoining his family later when the Senior’s recovery was assured. ..On July 23, 1915, the Morgan firm had established a $50 million line of credit for the Bank of England, to be used to stabilize the pound in the foreign exchange market. As the summer progressed there was growing concern on Wall Street that Great Britain’s declining gold and dollars reserves would prove inadequate to pay for the large orders from America, and the pound went into a slide on the international exchanges, reaching a low of $4.53 on September 1. France faced the same dilemma. Businessmen, including the Morgan partners, feared that the Allies would sharply curtail their U.S. purchases, a cutback that would be a severe blow to the economy. Gradually, President Wilson was won over to the view s of Lansing, who had become Secretary of State following Bryan’s resignation in June, and Secretary of the Treasury William G. McAdoo. The two cabinet members argued persuasively that permitting public loans to the Allies would avoid a serious contraction in American exports, which had brought a new prosperity to the nation. On August 26, 1915, President Wilson agreed that belligerents could now float bond issues in the U.S., and the Allies moved swiftly to arrange the vitally needed financing. On September 2, 1915, the British and French governments announced that they would send a mission to the U.S. to negotiate a large loan to finance their American purchases, a statement that quickly buoyed the sagging pound on foreign exchange markets. The Joint High Loan Commission headed by Lord Reading, Lord Chief Justice of England, sailed for New York and met with Morgan, Davison, and Lamont on September 13 at the Hotel Biltmore, where the commissioners were staying. The commissioners seemed to have little understanding of the American securities market and apparently believed that American investors would lend enormous sums at an interest rate in the 3 percent range, which was common in Europe. But the American investing public was accustomed to high-grade railroad and corporate issues earning 5 percent interest. Furthermore, the commissioners did not realize how much time and hard work it would take to bring off the huge and extraordinary transaction, by far the largest loan the American public had ever been asked to make, and to foreign borrowers at that. Long days of tough negotiations followed, conferences with the commissioners interspersed with meetings with the officers of leading New York banks and investment houses. These firms would take the biggest underwriting commitments, and they had strong opinions on the terms that would be attractive to American investors. On September 25 the Morgan partners reached an agreement with the commissioners to form a syndicate to underwrite the purchase of a $500 million bond issue, which would be the joint obligation of the British and French governments. The interest rate would be 5 percent; the bonds would mature in five years and be convertible into long-term bonds at 4½ percent. The managing underwriters, sixty-one banks, trust companies, and investment houses in New York City, for whom J.P. Morgan & Co. was the agent, would forgo their management fee in view of the purpose of the loan. Now began the intensive effort to educate American investors, unaccustomed to buying foreign bonds, as to why the proposed loan was critical to the prosperity of American agriculture and industry and why it was a perfectly sound undertaking. At the same time the Morgan firm was organizing the huge underwriting syndicate, mainly from east coast cities. The Boston and Philadelphia bankers were solidly behind their New York confreres...”– The Ambassador from Wall Street: The Story of Thomas W. Lamont, J. P. Morgan’s Chief Executive by Edward M. Lamont, p. 72-75

“The American government’s official policy, announced by the State Department on August 15, 1914, was that “loans by American bankers to any foreign nation which is at war are inconsistent with the true spirit of neutrality.” Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, who had expressed a keen distrust of bankers and their power throughout his long and populist political career, said at the time: “The powerful financial interests which would be connected with these loans would be tempted to use their influence through the newspapers to support the interest of the government to which they had loaned, because the value of the security would be directly affected by the result of the war. All this influence would make it all the more difficult for us to maintain neutrality.” This position, which the Morgan partners found exasperating, softened before long. Lamont and the other bankers soon found that their plans to extend credit to the Allies received a far more sympathetic hearing from Robert M. Lansing, counselor to the State Department. Lansing, an able international lawyer with friends on Wall Street, was urbane, ambitious, and married to the daughter of former Secretary of State John Watson Foster. He opposed Secretary Bryan’s policy of strict neutrality and wanted to assist the Allies, even if he had to undercut his superior to achieve this end. On October 15 he told the bankers that the State Department would not object to the extension of bank credit to belligerent nations, and on October 29, J.P. Morgan & Co. joined National City Bank in a one-year $10 million bank credit to the French government.”– The Ambassador from Wall Street: The Story of Thomas W. Lamont, J. P. Morgan’s Chief Executive by Edward M. Lamont, p. 70

Prominent American Corporate Executives, Corporate Lawyers,& Organization Executives during World War I

James A. Farrell – President of United States Steel Corporation (1911-1932)

Guy E. Tripp – Chairman of the board of Westinghouse Electric Corporation (1912-1927)

Charles A. Coffin – Chairman of the board of General Electric Company (1913-1922)

Thomas J. Watson Sr. – President of International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) (1914-1949)

Theodore N. Vail – President of American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1907-1919)

Julius Rosenwald – President of Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1910-1925)

Daniel Willard – President of Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. (1910 -1941)

Eugene G. Grace – President of Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1916-1945)

Walter C. Teagle – President of Standard Oil of New Jersey (1917-1937)

Alanson B. Houghton – President of Corning Glass Works (1910-1918)

Amos L. Beaty – General Counsel of Texaco (November 25, 1913- March 23, 1920)

Owen D. Young – General Counsel of General Electric Co. (1913-1922)

Pierre S. DuPont – President of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. (1915-1919) and Chairman of General Motors Corp. (Nov. 16, 1915 - Feb. 7, 1929 )

George W. Wickersham – President of the New York City Bar Association (1914-1916)

Elihu Root – President of Carnegie Endowment for

International Peace (1910-1925) and President of The American

Society of International Law (1907-1924)

John D. Rockefeller Jr. (1874-1960) – President (1913- 1917)

and Chairman of the board (1917-1940) of The Rockefeller

Foundation

Note: Everyone except for Theodore N. Vail, Walter C. Teagle, Pierre S. DuPont, and John D. Rockefeller Jr. were members of the Council on Foreign Relations, a private organization in New York City, during the 1920s and 1930s.

American International Corporation during World War I and Bolshevik RevolutionExcerpts from Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution by Antony C. Sutton, Chapter 8

The American International Corporation (AIC) was organized in New York on November 22, 1915, by the J.P. Morgan interests, with major participation by Stillman's National City Bank and the Rockefeller interests. The general office of AIC was at 120 Broadway. The company's charter authorized it to engage in any kind of business, except banking and public utilities, in any country in the world. The stated purpose of the corporation was to develop domestic and foreign enterprises, to extend American activities abroad, and to promote the interests of American and foreign bankers, business and engineering.

Frank A. Vanderlip has described in his memoirs how American International was formed and the excitement created on Wall Street over its business potential. The original idea was generated by a discussion between Stone & Webster — the international railroad contractors who "were convinced there was not much more railroad building to be done in the United States" — and Jim Perkins and Frank A. Vanderlip of National City Bank (NCB).5 The original capital authorization was $50 million and the board of directors represented the leading lights of the New York financial world. Vanderlip records that he wrote as follows to NCB president Stillman, enthusing over the enormous potential for American International Corporation:

James A. Farrell and Albert Wiggin have been invited [to be on the board] but had to consult their committees before accepting. I also have in mind asking Henry Walters and Myron T. Herrick. Mr. Herrick is objected to by Mr. Rockefeller quite strongly but Mr. Stone wants him and I feel strongly that he would be particularly desirable in France. The whole thing has gone along with a smoothness that has been gratifying and the reception of it has been marked by an enthusiasm which has been surprising to me even though I was so strongly convinced we were on the right track.

I saw James J. Hill today, for example. He said at first that he could not possibly think of extending his responsibilities, but after I had finished telling him what we expected to do, he said he would be glad to go on the board, would take a large amount of stock and particularly wanted a substantial interest in the City Bank and commissioned me to buy him the stock at the market.

I talked with Ogden Armour about the matter today for the first time. He sat in perfect silence while I went through the story, and, without asking a single question, he said he would go on the board and wanted $500,000 stock.

Mr. Coffin [of General Electric] is another man who is retiring from everything, but has 'become so enthusiastic over this that he was willing to go on the board, and offers the most active cooperation.

I felt very good over getting Sabin. The Guaranty Trust is altogether the most active competitor we have in the field and it is of great value to get them into the fold in this way. They have been particularly enthusiastic at Kuhn, Loeb's. They want to take up to $2,500,000. There was really quite a little competition to see who should get on the board, but as I had happened to talk with Kahn and had invited him first, it was decided he should go on. He is perhaps the most enthusiastic of any one. They want half a million stock for Sir Ernest Castle to whom they have cabled the plan and they have back from him approval of it.

I explained the whole matter to the Board [of the City Bank] Tuesday and got nothing but favorable comments.6

Everybody coveted the AIC stock. Joe Grace (of W. R. Grace & Co.) wanted $600,000 in addition to his interest in National City Bank. Ambrose Monell wanted $500,000. George Baker wanted $250,000. And "William Rockefeller tried, vainly, to get me to put him down for $5,000,000 of the common."

By 1916 AIC investments overseas amounted to more than $23 million and in 1917 to more than $27 million. The company established representation in London, Paris, Buenos Aires, and Peking as well as in Petrograd, Russia. Less than two years after its formation AIC was operating on a substantial scale in Australia, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Colombia, Brazil, Chile, China, Japan, India, Ceylon, Italy, Switzerland, France, Spain, Cuba, Mexico, and other countries in Central America.

American International owned several subsidiary companies outright, had substantial interests in yet other companies, and operated still other firms in the United States and abroad. The Allied Machinery Company of America was founded in February 1916 and the entire share capital taken up by American International Corporation. The vice president of American International Corporation was Frederick Holbrook, an engineer and formerly head of the Holbrook Cabot & Rollins Corporation. In January 1917 the Grace Russian Company was formed, the joint owners being W. R. Grace & Co. and the San Galli Trading Company of Petrograd. American International Corporation had a substantial investment in the Grace Russian Company and through Holbrook an interlocking directorship.

AIC also invested in United Fruit Company, which was involved in Central American revolutions in the 1920s. The American International Shipbuilding Corporation was wholly owned by AIC and signed substantial contracts for war vessels with the Emergency Fleet Corporation: one contract called for fifty vessels, followed by another contract for forty vessels, followed by yet another contract for sixty cargo vessels. American International Shipbuilding was the largest single recipient of contracts awarded by the U.S.

government Emergency Fleet Corporation. Another company operated by AIC was G. Amsinck & Co., Inc. of New York; control of the company was acquired in November 1917. Amsinck was the source of financing for German espionage in the United States (see page 66). In November 1917 the American International Corporation formed and wholly owned the Symington Forge Corporation, a major government contractor for shell forgings. Consequently, American International Corporation had significant interest in war contracts within the United States and overseas. It had, in a word, a vested interest in the continuance of World War I.

The directors of American International and some of their associations were (in 1917):

J. OGDEN ARMOUR Meatpacker, of Armour & Company, Chicago; director of the National City Bank of New York; and mentioned by A. A. Heller in connection with the Soviet Bureau.

GEORGE JOHNSON BALDWIN Of Stone & Webster, 120 Broadway. During World War I Baldwin was chairman of the board of American International Shipbuilding, senior vice president of American International Corporation, director of G. Amsinck (Von Pavenstedt of Amsinck was a German espionage paymaster in the U.S.), and a trustee of the Carnegie Foundation, which financed the Marburg Plan for international socialism to be controlled behind the scenes by world finance.

C. A. COFFIN Chairman of General Electric (executive office: 120 Broadway), chairman of cooperation committee of the American Red Cross.

W. E. COREY (14 Wall Street) Director of American Bank Note Company, Mechanics and Metals Bank, Midvale Steel and Ordnance, and International Nickel Company; later director of National City Bank.

ROBERT DOLLAR San Francisco shipping magnate, who attempted in behalf of the Soviets to import tsarist gold rubles into U.S. in 1920, in contravention of U.S. regulations.

PIERRE S. DU PONT Of the du Pont family.

PHILIP A. S. FRANKLIN Director of National City Bank.

J.P. GRACE Director of National City Bank.

R. F. HERRICK Director, New York Life Insurance; former president of the American Bankers Association; trustee of Carnegie Foundation.

OTTO H. KAHN Partner in Kuhn, Loeb. Kahn's father came to America in 1948, “having taken part in the unsuccessful German revolution of that year.” According to J. H. Thomas (British socialist, financed by the Soviets), "Otto Kahn's face is towards the light." 

H. W. PRITCHETT Trustee of Carnegie Foundation.

PERCY A. ROCKEFELLER Son of John D. Rockefeller; married to Isabel, daughter of J. A. Stillman of National City Bank.

JOHN D. RYAN Director of copper-mining companies, National City Bank, and Mechanics and Metals Bank.

W. L. SAUNDERS Director the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 120 Broadway, and chairman of Ingersoll-Rand. According to the National Cyclopaedia (26:81): "Throughout the war he was one of the President's most trusted advisers."

J. A. STILLMAN President of National City Bank, after his father (J. Stillman, chairman of NCB) died in March 1918.

C. A. STONE Director (1920-22) of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 120 Broadway; chairman of Stone & Webster, 120 Broadway; president (1916-23) of American International Corporation, 120 Broadway.

T. N. VAIL President of National City Bank of Troy, New York [and President of AT&T]

F. A. VANDERLIP President of National City Bank.

E. S. WEBSTER Of Stone & Webster, 120 Broadway.

A. H. WIGGIN [President of Chase National Bank and] Director of Federal Reserve Bank of New York in the early 1930s.

BEEKMAN WINTHROP Director of National City Bank.

WILLIAM WOODWARD Director of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 120 Broadway, and Hanover National Bank.

The interlock of the twenty-two directors of American International Corporation with other institutions is significant. The National City Bank had no fewer than ten directors on the board of AIC; Stillman of NCB was at that time an intermediary between the Rockefeller and Morgan interests, and both the Morgan and the Rockefeller interests were represented directly on AIC. Kuhn, Loeb and the du Ponts each had one director. Stone & Webster had three directors. No fewer than four directors of AIC (Saunders, Stone, Wiggin, Woodward) either were directors of or were later to join the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. We have noted in an earlier chapter that William Boyce Thompson, who contributed funds and his considerable prestige to the Bolshevik Revolution, was also a director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York — the directorate of the FRB of New York comprised only nine members.

Firms located at or near 120 Broadway during World War I and Bolshevik Revolution:American International Corp., 120 BroadwayNational City Bank, 55 Wall StreetBankers Trust Co. Building, 14 Wall StreetNew York Stock Exchange, 13 Wall Street/12 BroadMorgan Building corner, Wall & BroadFederal Reserve Bank of New York, 120 BroadwayEquitable Building, 120 BroadwayBankers Club, 120 BroadwaySimpson, Thather & Bartlett [law firm], 62 Cedar StreetWilliam Boyce Thompson, 14 Wall StreetHazen, Whipple & Fuller, 42nd Street BuildingChase National Bank, 57 BroadwayMcCann Co., 61 BroadwayStetson, Jennings & Russell, 15 Broad StreetGuggenheim Exploration, 120 BroadwayWeinberg & Posner, 120 BroadwaySoviet Bureau, 110 West 40th StreetJohn MacGregor Grant Co., 120 BroadwayStone & Webster, 120 BroadwayGeneral Electric Co., 120 BroadwayMorris Plan of New York, 120 BroadwaySinclair Gulf Corp., 120 BroadwayGuaranty Securities, 120 BroadwayGuaranty Trust, 140 Broadway

Map of Wall Street area in Lower Manhattan in New York City, including 120 Broadway, showing office locations

DIRECTORS OF MAJOR BANKS, FIRMS, AND INSTITUTIONS IN NEW YORK CITY (1917-1918)American International CorporationAddress: 120 BroadwayJ. Ogden ArmourG. J. BaldwinC. A. CoffinW. E. CoreyRobert DollarPierre S. du PontPhilip A. S. FranklinJ. P. GraceR. F. HerrickOtto H. KahnH. W. PritchettPercy A. RockefellerJohn D. RyanW.L. SaundersJames A. StillmanC.A. StoneTheodore N. VailFrank A. VanderlipE.S. WebsterAlbert H. WigginBeckman WinthropWilliam Woodward

Chase National Bank (57 Broadway)H. BendicottNewcomb CarltonA. Berton HepburnJ. N. HillD.C. JacklingS. H. Miller John J. MitchellC. M. SchwabE.R. TinkerGuy E. TrippAlbert H. Wiggin

Guaranty Trust CompanyAddress: 140 BroadwayAlexander J. Hemphill (Chairman)Charles H. AllenA. C. BedfordEdward J. Berwind W. Murray CraneT. de Witt Cuyler James B. DukeCaleb C. DulaRobert W. GoeletDaniel Guggenheim W. Averell HarrimanAlbert H. HarrisWalter D. HinesAugustus D. JulliardThomas W. Lamont William C. LaneEdgar L. MarstonGrayson M-P MurphyCharles A. PeabodyWilliam C. PotterJohn S. RunnellsThomas F. RyanCharles H. SabinJohn W. SpoorAlbert StrausHarry P. WhitneyThomas E. Wilson

London Committee: Arthur J. Fraser (Chairman)Cecil F. ParrRobert Callander

Equitable Trust CompanyAddress: 37-43 Wall StreetCharles B. AlexanderAlbert B. BoardmanRobert.C. ClowryHoward E. ColeHenry E. CooperPaul D. CravathFranklin Wm. CutcheonBertram CutlerThomas de Witt CuylerFrederick W. FullerRobert GoeletCarl R. GrayCharles HaydenHenry E. HuntingtonEdward T. JeffreyOtto H. KahnAlvin W. KrechJames W. LaneHunter S. MarstonCharles G. MeyerGeorge Welwood MurrayHenry H. PierceWinslow S. PierceLyman RhoadesWalter C. TeagleHenry Rogers WinthropBertram G. Work

National City Bank [of New York]P. A. S. FranklinJ.P. GraceC. H. DodgeH. A. C. TaylorRobert S. LovettFrank A. VanderlipG. H. MinikenE. P. SwensonFrank TrumbullEdgar PalmerPercy A. RockefellerJames StillmanW. RockefellerJ. O. ArmourJ.W. SterlingJ.A. StillmanM.T. PyneE.D. BapstJ.H. PostW.C. Procter

Nationalbank Fur Deutschland(Note: As in 1914, Hjalmar Schacht joined board in 1918)Emil WittenbergHjalmar SchachtMartin Schiff Hans WinterfeldtTh MarbaPaul KochFranz Rintelen

Sinclair Consolidated Oil CorporationAddress: 120 BroadwayHarry F. SinclairH. P. WhitneyWm. E. CoreyWilliam B. ThompsonJames N. WallaceEdward H. ClarkDaniel C. JacklingAlbert H. Wiggin

Federal Advisory Council (1916) Daniel G. Wing, Boston, District No. 1 J. P. Morgan Jr., New York, District No. 2 Levi L. Rue, Philadelphia, District No. 3 W. S. Rowe, Cincinnati, District No. 4 J. W. Norwood, Greenville, S.C., District No. 5 C. A. Lyerly, Chattanooga, District No. 6 J. B. Forgan, Chicago, Pres., District No. 7 Frank O. Watts, St. Louis, District No. 8 C. T. Jaffray, Minneapolis, District No. 9 E. F. Swinney, Kansas City, District No. 10 T. J. Record, Paris, District No. 11 Herbert Fleishhacker, San Francisco, District No. 12

Source: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution by Antony C. Sutton

The signing of the Federal Reserve Act by President Woodrow Wilson, December 23, 1913, is depicted in this painting by Wilbur G. Kurtz, Sr. Commissioned by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta in 1923. The painting is presently on loan to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington, D.C. from the Woodrow Wilson Birthplace Foundation in Virginia. While more people were present at the actual signing of the Act, Mr. Kurtz chose to picture the following men. Left to right: Lindley M. Garrison, Secretary of War; Josephus Daniels, Secretary of the Navy; Franklin K. Lane, Secretary of the Interior; A.S. Burleson, Postmaster General; Senator Robert Owen, Chairman of the Senate’s Banking and Currency Committee; Champ Clark, Speaker of the House; William G. McAdoo, Secretary of the Treasury; Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States; Representative Carter Glass, Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency; Representative Oscar W. Underwood; and William B. Wilson, Secretary of Labor.(Courtesy, Woodrow Wilson Birthplace Foundation)

“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” – Matthew 6:24, KJV

U.S. President Woodrow Wilson on Corporate Monopoly,In His Own Words

“However it has come about, it is more important still that the control of credit also has become dangerously centralized. It is the mere truth to say that the financial resources of the country are not at the command of those who do not submit to the direction and domination of small groups of capitalists who wish to keep the economic development of the country under their own eye and guidance. The great monopoly in this country is the monopoly of big credits. So long as that exists, our old variety and freedom and individual energy of development are out of the question. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom. This is the greatest question of all, and to this statesmen must address themselves with an earnest determination to serve the long future and the true liberties of men. This money trust, or, as it should be more properly called, this credit trust, of which Congress has begun an investigation, is no myth; it is no imaginary thing. It is not an ordinary trust like another. It doesn’t do business every day. It does business only when there is occasion to do business. You can sometimes do something large when it isn't watching, but when it is watching, you can't do much. And I have seen men squeezed by it; I have seen men who, as they themselves expressed it, were put out of business by Wall Street, because Wall Street found them inconvenient and didn’t want their competition.” – U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913), Chapter 8 (Monopoly, or Opportunity?)

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it. They know that America is not a place of which it can be said, as it used to be, that a man may choose his own calling and pursue it just as far as his abilities enable him to pursue it; because to-day, if he enters certain fields, there are organizations which will use means against him that will prevent his building up a business which they do not want to have built up; organizations that will see to it that the ground is cut from under him and the markets shut against him. For if he begins to sell to certain retail dealers, to any retail dealers, the monopoly will refuse to sell to those dealers, and those dealers, afraid, will not buy the new man’s wares.” – U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913), Chapter 1 (The Old Order Changeth)

“Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused.”– Woodrow Wilson, unpublished paper, 1907, quoted in “The Rising American Empire,” by Richard Warner Van Alstyne, 1960

“The real reason that the war that we have just finished took place was that Germany was afraid her commercial rivals were going to get the better of her, and the reason why some nations went into the war against Germany was that they thought Germany would get the commercial advantage of them. The seed of the jealousy, the seed of the deep-seated hatred was hot, successful commercial and industrial rivalry.”– U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, in a speech he delivered in St. Louis on September 5, 1919, about the Treaty of Versailles (peace treaty end World War I)

President-elect Woodrow Wilson (left), member of the Democratic Party, and outgoing President William Howard Taft (right), member of the Republican Party and a member of Skull & Bones at Yale University, laugh together outside the White House prior to Wilson’s inauguration on March 4, 1913. Kuhn, Loeb & Co. partner Felix Warburg supported William Howard Taft while Felix Warburg’s brother Paul Warburg supported Woodrow Wilson during the 1912 presidential election. (Photo: Library of Congress)

Significant Historical Events in 1913

The Rockefeller Foundation was founded in 1913. The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith was founded in 1913. The 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution establishing the federal income tax was ratified on February 3, 1913. The 17th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution recognizing popular election of U.S. Senators was ratified on April 8, 1913. The U.S. Department of Labor was established on March 4, 1913. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law on December 23, 1913. Francisco I. Madero, former President of Mexico, was assassinated in Mexico on February 22, 1913. Woodrow Wilson was inaugurated President of the United States on March 4, 1913. King George I of Greece was assassinated in Thessaloniki, Greece on March 18, 1913 American international banker John Pierpont Morgan Sr. died in Rome, Italy on March 31, 1913. The Treaty of London ending the First Balkan War was signed on May 30, 1913. The Treaty of Bucharest ending the Second Balkan War was signed on August 10, 1913.

Prominent Members of The Pilgrims of the United States before and during World War I

August Belmont Jr., Jacob H. Schiff, Grover Cleveland, Frank A. Vanderlip, Joseph Hodges Choate

Samuel R. Bertron, Charles A. Coffin, Paul D. Cravath, Chauncey M. Depew, Myron T. Herrick

Charlemagne Tower, Levi P. Morton, Lyman J. Gage, John W. Griggs, Arthur P. Gorman

Prominent Members of The Pilgrims of the United States before and during World War I:August Belmont Jr. – Head of August Belmont & Co., banking firm in New York City (1890-1924)Jacob H. Schiff – Partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Company, banking firm in New York CityGrover Cleveland – President of the United States (1885-1889, 1893-1897); died on June 24, 1908Frank A. Vanderlip – President of National City Bank, banking firm in New York City (1909-1919)Joseph Hodges Choate – U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain (1899-1905)Samuel R. Bertron – President of Bertron, Griscom & Company, Inc., international financiers [New York City] (1912-1938)Charles A. Coffin – Chairman of the board of General Electric Co. (1913-1922)Paul D. Cravath – Member of Cravath, de Gersdorff, Swaine and Wood law firm in New York CityChauncey M. Depew – U.S. Senator (Republican-New York, 1899-1911)Myron T. Herrick – Governor of Ohio (1904-1906); U.S. Ambassador to France (1912-1914, 1921-1929)Charlemagne Tower – U.S. Ambassador to Russia (1899-1902); U.S. Ambassador to Germany (1902-1908)Levi P. Morton – Vice President of the United States (1889-1893); Governor of New York (1895-1896)Lyman J. Gage – U.S. Secretary of the Treasury (1897-1902); President of the United States Trust Company (1902-1906)John W. Griggs – U.S. Attorney General (1898-1901); Governor of New Jersey (1896-1898)Sen. Arthur P. Gorman – U.S. Senator (Democrat-Maryland; 1881-1899, 1903-1906)

Note: The London chapter of the Pilgrims Society was established on July 11, 1902, and the New York City chapter of the Pilgrims Society was established on January 13, 1903. A member of the Royal family usually attends the London dinners.

Founder and Trustees of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace during World War I

Elihu RootAndrew Carnegie

(Founder) Nicholas Murray Butler

James Brown Scott Joseph Hodges Choate Charlemagne Tower Charles W. Eliot Andrew D. White

Robert Bacon George W. Perkins Oscar S. Straus John W. Foster Luke E. Wright

Sen. John Sharp Williams Rep. Andrew J. Montague Rep. James L. Slayden William Marcellus Howard George Gray

Henry S. Pritchett Robert Simpson Woodward Robert S. Brookings Thomas Burke Jacob G. Schmidlapp

Trustees of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace during World War I

Elihu Root, President of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1910-1925)Joseph H. Choate (A.B. Harvard 1852), Vice President of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1911-1917)George Gray (A.B. Princeton 1859), Vice President of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1918-1925)James Brown Scott (A.B. Harvard 1890), Secretary of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1910-1940)Charlemagne Tower (A.B. Harvard1872), Treasurer of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1912-1923)

Name Trustee (Year) Primary OccupationRobert Bacon 1913-1919 U.S. Ambassador to France (1909-1912); Member of J.P. Morgan & Co. (1894-1903)Robert S. Brookings 1910-c.1929 Founder and Chairman of The Brookings InstitutionThomas Burke 1910-1925 Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Washington Territory (1888-1889)Joseph H. Choate 1910-1917 U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain (1899-1905)Nicholas Murray Butler 1910-1945 President of Columbia University (1902-1945)Cleveland H. Dodge (A.B. Princeton 1879)

1910-1919 Director of National City Bank of New York

Charles W. Eliot 1910-1919 President of Harvard University (1869-1909)Arthur William Foster 1910-1925 former President of Northwest Pacific RailwayJohn W. Foster 1910-1917 U.S. Secretary of State (1892-1893); U.S. Minister to Mexico (1873-1880)Austen G. Fox 1910-c.1929Robert A. Franks 1910-c.1929George Gray 1915-1925 Judge of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1899-1914)William M. Howard 1910-c. 1929 U.S. Congressman (Democrat-Georgia, 1897-1911)Samuel Mather 1910-1919 Director of U.S. Steel CorporationAndrew J. Montague 1910-c.1929 U.S. Congressman (Democrat-Virginia, 1913-1937); Governor of Virginia (1902-1906)George W. Perkins 1910-1920 Partner of J.P. Morgan & Co. (1901-1910)Henry S. Pritchett 1910-c.1929 President of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1900-1907)Elihu Root 1910-c.1929 U.S. Senator (Republican-New York, 1909-1915); Secretary of War (1899-1904)Jacob G. Schmidlapp 1910-1919 Chairman of the board of Union Savings Bank & Trust Co. of Cincinnati (1907-1919)James Brown Scott 1910-1940 Solicitor of the U.S. Department of State (1906-1910)James L. Slayden 1910-1924 U.S. Congressman (Democrat-Texas, 1897-1919)Oscar S. Straus 1910-1926 U.S. Secretary of Commerce and Labor (1906-1909)Charles L. Taylor 1910-1922Charlemagne Tower 1910-1923 U.S. Ambassador to Russia (1899-1902); U.S. Ambassador to Germany (1902-1908)Andrew D. White(B.A. Yale 1853)

1910-1918 President of Cornell University (1866-1885);U.S. Minister to Germany (1879-1881, 1897-1902)

John Sharp Williams 1910-1922 U.S. Senator (Democrat-Mississippi, 1911-1923)Robert S. Woodward 1910-1924 President of Carnegie Institution of Washington (1904-1921)Luke E. Wright 1910-1918 U.S. Ambassador to Japan (1906-1907); Secretary of War (1908-1909)

Note: Cleveland H. Dodge (A.B. Princeton 1879) was a classmate of Woodrow Wilson (A.B. Princeton 1879), President of the United States from 1913 to 1921, and Mahlon Pitney (A.B. Princeton 1879), Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1912 to 1922.

Note: Andrew Carnegie, the longtime steel baron who sold his steel company to John Pierpont Morgan in 1901, was born on November 25, 1835 and died on August 11, 1919.

Officers and Trustees of The Rockefeller Foundation during World War I

Frederick T. Gates, Starr J. Murphy, John Davison Rockefeller Sr. (Founder), John Davison Rockefeller Jr., Jerome D. Greene

Julius Rosenwald, Alonzo Barton Hepburn, Charles Evans Hughes, George E. Vincent, Charles W. Eliot, Harry Pratt Judson

Officers and Trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation during World War I:

John Davison Rockefeller Jr. (A.B. Brown 1897), President (1913-1917) and Chairman (1917-1940) of The Rockefeller FoundationGeorge E. Vincent (B.A. Yale 1885), President of The Rockefeller Foundation (1917-1929)Jerome Davis Greene (A.B. Harvard 1896), Secretary of The Rockefeller Foundation (1913-1917)Edwin R. Embree (B.A. Yale 1906), Secretary of The Rockefeller Foundation (1917-1923)Louis G. Myers, Treasurer of The Rockefeller Foundation (1913-1931)Robert Horner Kirk, Comptroller of The Rockefeller Foundation (1916-1925)

Name Trustee (Year) Primary OccupationJohn D. Rockefeller Sr. 1913-1923 Founder of Standard Oil CompanyJohn D. Rockefeller Jr. 1913-1939Jerome Davis Greene 1913-1917,

1928-1939Member of Lee, Higginson & Co. [banking firm in New York City] (1918-1932)

Starr Jocelyn Murphy 1913-1921 personal legal adviser of John D. Rockefeller; counsel for Rockefeller FoundationFrederick Taylor Gates 1913-1923 Baptist minister and friend of John D. Rockefeller Sr.Harry Pratt Judson 1913-1923 President of University of Chicago (1907-1923)Wickliffe Rose 1913-1928 Dean of Peabody College and University of Nashville (1904-1907)Simon Flexner 1913-1929 Director of laboratories at Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research (1903-1935)Charles Otto Heydt 1913-1916Charles William Eliot 1914-1917 President of Harvard University (1869-1909)Alonzo Barton Hepburn 1914-1922 President (1899-1911) and Chairman (1911-1917) of Chase National BankHarry Emerson Fosdick 1916-1920Martin A. Ryerson 1916-1928 Trustee of University of ChicagoFrederick Strauss 1916-1930Charles Evans Hughes 1917-1921,

1926-1928Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1910-1916, 1930-1941)Presidential Candidate for the Republican Party (1916)

George E. Vincent 1917-1929 President of University of Minnesota (1911-1917)Julius Rosenwald 1917-1930 President (1910-1925) and Chairman (1925-1932) of Sears, Roebuck & Co.Wallace Buttrick 1917-1926 Secretary (1902-1917), President (1917-1923), and Chairman (1923-1926) of

General Education Board

Trustees of the General Education Board in July 1915(Photo: Rockefeller Archives Center/http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/history/griffin.htm)

Prelude to World War I, Part 2: Baku Oil Fields

The Baku Oil Fields in the late 1890s near Baku, Russia

The Ottoman Empire conquered Baku on September 14-15, 1918 and relinquished its control of Baku to the British Empire on October 30, 1918, when the Ottoman Turkish government agreed to the Armistice of Moudros. The Armistice of Moudros ended the hostilities in the Middle Eastern theater between the Ottoman Empire and the British Empire and its allies. Azerbaijan was established as a de facto independent nation on May 28, 1918 with its capital at Baku despite British army occupation of Azerbaijan and the city of Baku. The Bolsheviks conquered Azerbaijan and the city of Baku as well as the Baku oil fields on the night of April 27-28, 1920 and immediately persecuted the oil barons living in Baku and killed an estimated 40,000 Azerbaijanis.

“Baku – already inefficient before the outbreak of violence, because of antiquated machinery – would never again be the same. And even if the agitation calmed, couldn’t it start up again? The best evidence is that the Rothschilds were already looking for a way out of Russia at this time. Disaffection became a decision to sell by 1909; active negotiatons with the logical purchaser got under way two years later. The divestment took the form of a sale of Rothschild holdings – 80 percent of Bnito (the production and refining operation of Baku and Batum), the same share of the marketing company Mazout – to Royal Dutch, their partner in Standard Russe. Later it would be said that the Rothschilds had foreseen the approaching collapse of the czarist regime and moved to cut their losses. But the best student fo that time and place sees the decision to withdraw as strictly financial. To Edmond de Rothschild, the famlily’s senior oil expert, it would have made sense to let tested partners – Royal Dutch and Shell – take over the risk. Still later a Soviet historian with access to banking archives came to a similar conclusion. Oil was a growth industry, but the Rotshchilds knew that they would never be able to compete with Royal Dutch expeerience in extraction and refinery operations, not to speak of its world market. Their real trade, after all, was banking. So they’d sell Russian Standard cheap (it was losing money), while they got more capital out of Bonito and Mazout than these companies were worth. The negotiations were exacting all the same, condlcluded only in December 1911, the final agreement to be ratified by all parties on February 21 of the following year. In the end the family was paid in shares – 60 percent of the value of their holdings in Royal Dutch stock, 40 percent in Shell – thus giving them a sizable stake in the global operations of the merged giant, with a provision that they would continue to receive bonuses from their former Bnito fields in any year that production exceeded a given amount. They remained friends, the Rothschilds and the Dutch. In 1913, when expanding operations called for a significant increase in capital, Royal Dutch went to the French market with its new shares; the syndicate of underwriters was composed of Banque de Paris et des Pays-Bas, Credit Lyonnais, Societe Generale – and De Rothschild Freres.”– The French Rothschilds: The Great Banking Dynasty through Two Turbulent Centuries by Herbert R. Lottman, p. 143-144

“It was perhaps inevitable that a powerful competitor would emerge to challenge the Nobel primacy in Baku and Russia. What Ludvig may not have expected was that the threat would come from another influential European family – the French branch of the House of Rothschild. Barons Alphonse and Edmond de Rothschild were sons of a great financial dynasty whose interests spanned investment banking, mining, oil, and railways. The brothers themselves owned refineries in Marseilles and the Adriatic port of Fiume. For them, Baku was an opportunity to buy low-cost crude to refine in Fiume – and, not so incidentally, to mount a credible challenge to Rockefeller’s dominance in Europe. From the time of their arrival in Baku in 1883, the Rothschilds always seemed to be a target of mischief. Lev Naussimbaum, the son of an oilman, wrote a probably exaggerated account of how the brothers were victimized for refusing to hire kotchi guards. The hired gunmen retaliated by committing a series of burglaries, after which the Rothschilds got the message and put them on the payroll. But even then, the best the brothers could manage was a sort of catastrophic protection plan covering major crimes; the still-disgruntled kotchis reserved the right to engage in occasional minor thievery on Rothschild property.” – The Oil and The Glory: The Pursuit of Empire and Fortune on the Caspian Sea by Steve LeVine, p. 21

“For a time, the railroad’s success was tempered by bottlenecks that developed in the Caucasus mountains, where steep grades slowed train traffic from Baku and harsh weather sometimes halted it altogether. The main culprit was the 3,200-foot Suram Pass, so difficult a climb that two engines were required to pull just eight tankers over the crest at a time. Rapidly, crude oil awaiting shipment to Batumi was backing up in Baku. The logical fix seemed to be a pipeline, one far more ambitious than any built thus far in or around Baku. At first, Czar Alexander’s court would have none of it. The opposition there was understandable. The Crown was earning enormous tariffs from the railroad; anticipation of this windfall had been a main reason for St. Petersburg’s original keenness in the project. Neither did the czar’s avaricious agents in Baku support a pipeline. There were endless ways in which they could meddle with the movement of tanker cars on the railroad in order to generate bribes from oilmen anxious that their shipments of crude be expedited. Baku’s oilmen finally struck a compromise with the Crown, agreeing to a scaled-back pipeline project that kept the trains running at least part of the distance. In 1886, Nobel, the Rothschilds, and Zeynalabdin Tagiyev formed an alliance of convenience, using four hundred tons of Alfred Nobel’s dynamite to punch through the Suram Pass and clear a path for their pipeline. The line that they laid from Baku terminated seventy-eight miles short of Batumi, but it did surmount the mountains and speed the shipment of oil. Seventeen years later, in 1906, the line would be extended the remaining distance to the port, at a total cost of $12 million.”– The Oil and The Glory: The Pursuit of Empire and Fortune on the Caspian Sea by Steve LeVine, p. 23-24

“By 1901, Baku was producing a majority of the world’s oil supply, and the company that Ludvig Nobel had built was satisfying 9 percent of this global demand. It ranked among the world’s largest commercial enterprises, employing more than twelve thousand people with an annual payroll of $2.5 million. By 1916, the company would be transporting its oil on the world’s largest private fleet.” – The Oil and The Glory: The Pursuit of Empire and Fortune on the Caspian Sea by Steve LeVine, p. 26

“The continuing instability in and around Baku in the years before and after the Russian Revolution made western oilmen understandably nervous The port was under the control of the Bolsheviks, then the British – intervening from their outpost in Persia – then the Turks, then the British again. But through it all, oil field deals went on, and one of the most aggressive players was Henri Deterding, the gambling-minded chief executive of Royal Dutch/Shell. Short but massive and powerful, with lively black eyes and a white moustache, he was called the Napoleon of oil by his detractors. In 1913, Deterding took over the Rothschild holdings in Baku and Batumi in exchange for 2.9 million pounds’ worth of Royal Dutch stock. Thirty years earlier, Alphonse and Edmond de Rothschild, sons of one of Europe’s most influential Jewish families, had managed to establish themselves in the Russian Empire despite prohibitions against Jews owning or renting land. Now, however, the brothers were leaving, discouraged by the events in Russia and fearful of rising anti-Semitism. The transaction made the Rothschilds the largest individual shareholders in Royal Dutch. Deterding next bought prospective oil property in Grozny, the capital of the land of the unruly Chechens, located 280 miles north of Baku.”– The Oil and The Glory: The Pursuit of Empire and Fortune on the Caspian Sea by Steve LeVine, p. 32

“But Deterding was not alone in expecting another Baku windfall. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil of New Jersey [Exxon] early in 1919 agreed to pay independent Azerbaijan $320,000 in French francs for eleven plots of undeveloped Baku oil land. Sister company Standard Oil of New York [Mobil] negotiated a six-month virtual monopoly on Baku oil shipments. The first deal proceeded unchallenged, but not the second one – Deterding urged Britain’s Baku governor general, W.M. Thomson, to derail it. Thomson, who enjoyed veto power over decisions by the “independent” government, exercised his authority. Great Britain’s Anglo-Persian Oil Company [later renamed British Petroleum] chose to negotiate with the Bolsheviks and signed an agreement with a trade commissar to buy Grozny oil lands. To Deterding’s chagrin, the deal included Royal Dutch properties that the revolutionaries had confiscated. But the Bolshevik leadership later vetoed the agreement. Standard of Jersey commenced talks with a now-humbled Emanuel Nobel, who figured that his oil empire was lost to the revolution but sensed that a partner able to invoke American diplomatic influence might help him reclaim it.”– The Oil and The Glory: The Pursuit of Empire and Fortune on the Caspian Sea by Steve LeVine, p. 33

“It was only in the 1870s that private investments were allowed to this part of the Russian Empire. Indeed, in the history of Baku oil, it is impossible not to note the investment of foreign companies, especially the Nobel family. Robert Nobel was the first of the Nobels to understand the importance of the oil industry in Baku. He convinced his brother Ludwig to invest in oil extraction. In 1873, they established the Nobel Brothers Oil Extracting Partnership. Thanks to his skillful leadership, Ludwig, a talented engineer, developed many inventions that helped modernize the technology related to oil production. The Nobel Brothers Company, for example, bought the first tanker in the Caspian Sea, in order to reduce transport expanses. Due to the success of that first tanker, the Nobel Brothers built an entire fleet of tankers, giving names to the ships such as Moses, Spinoza, and Darwin. The tankers increased the turnover of goods to such an extent that, by 1890, Baku had become the busiest port in the world. In addition, the Nobel Brothers were first to introduce railway tanks for oil transportation. In 1883, a railway was laid from Baku to Tbilisi, enabling the oil to be transported by trains. In 1897, they built a pipeline which reduced the expenses of transportation by five times and paid for itself within a single year. The pipeline, the largest in the world at that time, was built from Baku to Batumi on the Black Sea Coast, a distance of 883 kilometers. All this modernization allowed the Nobel Brothers to take the lead in the oil business by 1900, and to gain tremendous profit during the 47 years of their partnership in Azerbaijan. The Rothschild Company and Shell, lead by Samuel Markus, were also involved in oil production in Baku. More than 50 per cent of the oil extraction, and 75 per cent of the oil production commerce, were held by these three foreign companies. Oil turned Baku into a centre of world oil commerce and enabled it to exert an incredible influence on the entire economic development of the Caucasus.”– Energy and Security in the Caucasus by Emmanuel Karagiannis, p. 16

“During World War I, Azerbaijan was producing a major part of oil world oil supply and the usage had already expanded into motor vehicles and diesel engines of the naval vessels. It was an important commodity to the industrial countries of the world. In 1917, the fall of the Russian Empire created a serious vacuum on the Caucasian front. The desire to control Baku’s oil fields caused fierce competition among German, Turkish, and British forces. At the end of the war, the victory of the Entente states was in many respects connected with their control over the important oil regions. In fact, Azerbaijan’s oil became a major factor in the victory of 1918. According to British Prime Minister Lloyd George, though Entente states had an advantage over their rivals towards the end of the war, military operations could have been prolonged and it would have been difficult to predict the final result had the German bloc managed to gain control over the Baku oil fields. Meanwhile, the situation in Azerbaijan became more complicated due to international circumstances, especially after the defeat of Germany and Turkey in World War I. On 28 May 1918, Azerbaijan declared independence. On 30 October 1918, Turkey signed an armistice with the Entente in Mudros. In accordance with the conditions of that agreement, British troops were deployed in Azerbaijan, keeping the Azerbaijani oil industry under British control. In the summer of 1919, however, the Allied regime was dismissed and British troops withdrew from Baku. Encouraged by the British withdrawal, the threat from Soviet Russia significantly increased. On the night of 27-28 April 1920, the Russian eleventh army crossed the Azerbaijani border and reoccupied Azerbaijan’s oil fields. The Bolshevik regime benefited significantly from the wealth of Azerbaijan’s oil. Later on, Lenin wrote: ‘We all know that our industries stood idle because of lack of fuel…now we control the basis for an economy capable of supporting our industries’.”– Energy and Security in the Caucasus by Emmanuel Karagiannis, p. 16-17

“During World War II, Azerbaijan’s oil fields were a strategic objective in Nazi Germany’s campaign against the Soviet Union. On the eve of what came to be known as ‘The Great Patriotic War’, Baku was the cradle of the Soviet oil industry, and as such, the major supplier of oil and oil products for the Red Army. In 1940, for example, 22.2 million tons of oil were extracted from Baku which comprised nearly 72 per cent of all the oil extracted in the entire USSR. Hitler was determined to conquer Azerbaijan from the beginning of the war because the interruption of Azerbaijani oil supplies on any large scale could possibly result in the collapse of Soviet war effort. Moreover, if the German army would have captured the oil fields of Azerbaijan, Hitler was convinced that the Third Reich would be self-sufficient within in own borders, and thus invulnerable. By late July 1942, Hitler’s quest for Baku seemed well on its way to achieving his goal. The Germans had already captured the city of Rostov in North Caucasus and severed the main oil pipeline from Azerbaijan. The determination to capture Baku was so intense that the date for the final attack and seizure had been fixed – September 25, 1942. A few days prior, Hitler’s generals presented him with a large decorated cake which depicted the Caspian Sea and Baku. Documentary films show how amused Hitler was at the gesture and how he chose the most desirable piece – Baku – for himself. Fortunately, the attack never occurred, and German forces were defeated before they ever reached Azerbaijan.”– Energy and Security in the Caucasus by Emmanuel Karagiannis, p. 17-18

“Many tycoons and middle-class professionals were sympathetic contributors to the Bolsheviks. Berta Nussimbaum, wife of an oil baron and mother of the writer Essad Bey, was a Bolshevik sympathizer. “My mother,” Essad Bey says, “financed Stalin’s illicit communist press with her diamonds.” It remains astonishing how the Rothschilds and other oil barons, among the richest tycoons in Europe, funded the Bolsheviks, who would ultimately destroy their interests. Alliluyev remembered these Rothschild contributions. The Rothschild managing director, David Landau, regularly contributed to Bolshevik funds, as recorded by the Okhrana – whose agents noted how, when Stalin was running the Baku Party; a Bolshevik clerk in one of the oil companies “was not active in operations but concentrated on collecting donations and got money from Landau of the Rothschilds.” It is likely that Landau met Stalin personally. Another Rothschild executive, Dr. Felix Somary, a banker with the Austrian branch of the family and later a distinguished academic, claims he was sent to Baku to settle a strike. He paid Stalin the money. The strike ended. Stalin regularly met another top businessman, Alexander Mancho, managing director of the Shibaev and Bibi-Eibat oil companies. “We often got money from Mancho for our organization,” recalls Ivan Vatsek, one of Stalin’s henchmen. “In such cases, Comrade Stalin came to me. Comrade Stalin also knew him well.” Either Mancho was a committed sympathizer or Stalin was blackmailing him, because the businessman coughed up cash on request at even the shortest notice. Stalin was also running protection-rackets and kidnappings. Many tycoons paid if they did not wish their oilfields to catch fire or “accidents” to befall their families. It is hard to differentiate donations from protection-money, because the felonies Stalin now unleashed on them included “robberies, assaults, extortion of rich families, and kidnapping their children on the streets of Baku in broad daylight and then demanding ransom in the name of some ‘revolutionary committee,’” states Sagirashvili, who knew him in Baku.” – Young Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore, p. 197

“Stalin settled Kato and Laddie, their baby, in the apartment of an oil worker and plunged himself into a life of banditry, espionage, extortion and agitation, the murkiest years of his entire career. Probably again on the Rothschild payroll, he soon moved his little family outside Baku city into a “Tartar house with a low ceiling on the Bailov Peninsula which he rented from its Turkish owner,” just above a cave, right on the seaside…Always dressed in his trademark black fedora, Stalin gave a speech on 17 June 1907, the very day he arrived, and threw himself into his editing of the two Bolshevik newspapers, Bakinsky Proletary and Gudok (Whistle); he immediately set about dominating the Party there with his brand of aggressive politics, terrorist intimidation and gangster fund-raising. Everywhere in Russia, “The reaction had triumphed, all liberties destroyed and revolutionary parties smashed,” recalls Tatiana Vulikh, but Baku, ruled as much by the oil companies and corrupt policemen as by the Tsar’s governors, followed its own rules. Stalin was on the run in Tiflis, but for a few months before Stolypin’s next crackdown he could stroll the Baku streets. Tiflis, said Stalin contemptuously, had been a parochial “marsh” but Baku “was one of the revolutionary centres of Russia,” its oil vital to the Tsar and the West, its workers a true proletariat, its streets violent and lawless. Baku, wrote Stalin, “would be my second baptism of fire.” Baku was a city of “debauchery, despotism and extravagance,” and a twilight zone of “smoke and gloom.” Its own governor called it “the most dangerous place in Russia.” For Stalin, it was the “Oil Kingdom.” – Young Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore, p. 186-187

Baku was created by one dynasty. Swedish by origin, Russian by opportunity and international by instinct, the Nobels made their first for tune selling land mines to Tsar Nicholas I, but in 1879, the year of Baku’s first “fountain” of oil, the brothers Ludwig and Robert Nobel founded the Nobel Brothers Oil Company in the town known mainly for the ancient Zoroastrian temple where Magi priests tended their holy oil-fuelled flames. The drilling had already started; entrepreneurs struck oil in spectacular gushers. The Nobels started to buy up land particularly in what became the Black City. Another brother, Alfred, invented dynamite, but Ludwig’s invention of the oil tanker was almost as important. The French Rothschilds followed the Nobels into Baku. By the 1880s, Baron Alphonse de Rothschild’s Caspian Black Sea Oil Company was the second biggest producer – and its workers lived in the industrial township called the White City. By 1901, Baku produced half the world’s oil – and the Nobel Prize, established that year, was funded on its profits.”– Young Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore, p. 187

A map of Azerbaijan (including the city of Baku), Armenia, Georgia, and the disputed territories

Map of Azerbaijan and the southern Caucasus region in 1918 during World War I

Portrait by the artist Georges Becker of the coronation of Czar Alexander III and Empress Maria Fyodorovna, which took place on May 27, 1883 at the Uspensky Sobor Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. On the left of the dais can be seen his young son and heir, the Tsarevich Nicholas, and behind Nicholas can be seen a young Grand Duke George.

Czar Alexander II of Russia (left), who ruled Russia from March 2, 1855 until his death by assassination on March 13, 1881, and his son Czar Alexander III of Russia, who ruled Russia from March 13, 1881 until his death on November 1, 1894, allowed the Nobels and the Rothschilds to acquire oil in Baku, an ancient city located on the Caspian Sea.

“The foreign policy of Russia in the first half of the nineteenth century was characterized by a not unnatural ambivalence. Unresolved problems of national interest, arising from earlier territorial gains, necessarily continued to drive her to further expansion. Nowhere is the truth of the saying, “The appetite grows with eating,” more clearly exemplified than in Russia's relations with Turkey. Originally purely defensive, directed at checking the destructive raids of the Crimean Tatars, Russian policy and Russian arms had under Catherine given her a wholly defensible frontier, the northern shore line of the Black Sea. The natural sequel had been her “Greek project,” designed to seat her grandson on the throne of a re-created Christian empire at Constantinople. Such futile dreams apart, the consolidation of Russian power over Little Russia and the acquisition of New Russia had laid the basis for a new national Russian interest. The possibility of growing wheat, and the mounting demand for wheat in the West, made control of the Straits, the narrow outlet from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, of paramount importance to Russia. It was not sufficient to secure guarantees for peaceful commerce; in an uncertain world, in which “international law” remains a fiction, only military control of the essential passage could really satisfy Russian national interests. Yet this Russian craving, natural though it might be, seemed to threaten to disturb the balance of the world. It was naturally regarded by the mistress of the seas as a special menace to her predominance. If Russia was determined to secure control of the Straits – the Bosporus and Dardanelles – Great Britain was no less determined to prevent it. Thus was brought into focus the dominant theme of nineteenth-century diplomacy, the “cold war” waged between Britain and Russia, in which Britain persistently pursued a policy of “containment” of any Russian expansion in any quarter which England could effectively reach. The quarrel had, of course, still wider implications. Britain had played the lion's role in destroying the power of France and in tumbling the European dictatorship of Napoleon, but this tremendous victory had not been attained single-handed. Much as Russia had owed to British subsidies, the fact remained that without the massed military might of Russia the Battle of Leipzig and the campaign around Paris in 1814 would have been impossible. There was no question that, next to Great Britain, Russia was the leading world power. It was inevitable, then, that in the very moment of triumph there should develop a strong polarity between Great Britain and Russia. Inevitable is a word at which every historian shies, but it is the inevitability of specific events, not of general trends, that chiefly gives him pause. There was no reason to be surprised that, less than six months after the abdication of Napoleon, the victorious allies, led on opposite sides by Great Britain and by Russia, should be threatening each other with war over the Polish question. Temporary community of larger interests momentarily prevented open conflict. Though Alexander's mystically conceived “Holy Alliance” was sidetracked, the Concert of Europe found expression in the Quadruple (later Quintuple) Alliance. Stronger than Russia’s native expansionist tendencies was Russia's desire to preserve the status quo arrived at by the Treaty of Paris (1814) and by the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna (1815). Determined to preserve intact the existing regime in Russia itself, it had been only natural for Alexander I and, in large measure, for his brother Nicholas I, to wish to preserve also the existing international regime. This was the basis for Russia’s role as “the gendarme of Europe,” ready to stamp out anywhere any movement threatening the established order.”– A History of Russia by Jesse D. Clarkson, p. 284-285

The Nobel Brothers, left to right: Robert Nobel (1829-1896), Ludwig Nobel (1831-1888), and Alfred Nobel (1833-1896)

Alfred Nobel was a shareholder of the Nobel brothers’ oil company in Baku, Russia who invented the dynamite and established the Nobel Prizes. Ludwig Nobel invented the oil tanker ship.

“In the end, Count Sergei Witte, the Russian finance minister, spiked the scheme for a grand alliance of Standard Oil with the Nobels and Rothschilds…All the while, Russia kept pumping crude oil and by the late 1890s briefly overtook the United States in oil production, even though Standard Oil handily eclipsed it in refining….In 1884, Dutch drillers began prospecting for oil in Sumatra and six years later received a royal charter to exploit Dutch East Indian reserves, christening their company Royal Dutch. Meanwhile, another aggressive contender waited in the wings. In 1891, the enterprising London merchant Marcus Samuel signed a contract with the Rothschilds to market their kerosene in the Far East. Samuel used the Suez Canal to speed the export of Russian kerosene to Asian markets. Oil had taken four months to travel from New York to the Far East but now reached it from Batumi in a month. Even though Samuel designed a custom-made bulk tanker, the Murex, to conform to the canal’s strict requirements, Standard Oil hired London solicitors to sow doubts about the project, spreading nasty rumors about a “powerful group of financiers and merchants” under “Hebrew influence” who planned to take tankers through the canal. Rockefeller later ranted against “our Asiatic competitors controlled by Jewish men who cry ‘Wolf! Wolf! Standard Oil Company!” and keep moving in and getting control of markets.”…Warding off this verbal sabotage, Samuel managed to defeat Standard Oil decisively, and his trademark red oilcans – in contrast to Standard’s blue cans – soon became known throughout Asia. By 1892, with oil production booming in Burma and Java, Standard Oil belatedly recognized the need for concerted action in Asian markets. It tried in vain to buy the business of both Royal Dutch and Marcus Samuel, who renamed his company Shell Transport and Trading Company in 1897 to honor his family’s old seashell-box business. Standard even stooped to trading for Russian kerosene in order to serve better its Asian customers. It finally set up a series of Asian stations and assigned a small army of agents to Shanghai, Calcutta, Bombay, Yokohama, Kobe, Nagasaki, and Singapore. These operatives sold Standard kerosene in tin cans with wooden frames because Asian customers recycled the tin as roofing and turned the wooden cases into household objects. For all these smart marketing ploys, Standard Oil was forced to coexist with Royal Dutch and Shell, which merged to create a rival empire in the early 1900s.”– Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. by Ron Chernow, p. 248-249

The information card on Georgian-born Russian Bolshevik-Communist terrorist and alleged Rothschild agent Josef Stalin (December 18, 1878-March 5, 1953), from the files of the Tsarist secret police in St. Petersburg, Russia. Josef Stalin’s real name was Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili.

Baron Alphonse de Rothschild (left, February 1, 1827-May 26, 1905) and his younger brother Edmond de Rothschild (August 19, 1845-November 2, 1934) were the sons of Baron James de Rothschild (1792-1868). Baron James de Rothschild was the brother of Nathan Meyer Rothschild and the son of Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), the founder and “godfather” of the Rothschild Dynasty.

“The Allied cause had floated to victory upon a wave of oil.”– Lord Curzon, at a victory banquet in London on November 18, 1918

Prelude to World War I, Part 3: European Political Intrigues

European kings pose for a group portrait at Windsor Castle in Great Britain on May 20, 1910, following The Funeral of King Edward VII of the United Kingdom. Standing, from left to right: King Haakon VII of Norway, King Ferdinand of Bulgaria, King Manuel II of Portugal, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, King George I of Greece, and King Albert of the Belgians. Seated, from left to right: King Alfonso XIII of Spain, King George V of Great Britain, and King Frederik VIII of Denmark.

Note: King Manuel II of Portugal ruled Portugal from February 1, 1908 to October 5, 1910, when he abdicated the throne and went into exile in London following a political revolution in Lisbon, Portugal that occurred on October 5, 1910.

Note: King George I of Greece was assassinated in Thessaloniki, Greece on March 18, 1913.

Lone Gunman or Patsy? Alexandros (Alekos) Schinas, a Greek anarchist and socialist who lived in New York City, assassinates King George I of Greece in Thessaloniki (formerly Salonika), Greece on March 18, 1913.

International banker John Pierpont Morgan, a lifelong resident of New York City, died in Rome, Italy on March 31, 1913.(Photo: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division)

Lone Gunman or Patsy? Gavrilo Princip is captured by police officers in Sarajevo after assassinating Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his wife on June 28, 1914. The assassination of the Austrian Archduke and his wife would be used as a pretext by major European powers to initiate a major war in Europe, a war known as “The Great War”, “The War to End All Wars”, and “World War I”. The Bosnian Crisis of 1908-1909, also known as the Annexation Crisis, began when Austria-Hungary announced the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina on October 6, 1908. Bosnia and Herzegovina was previously a province of the Ottoman Empire. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on July 28, 1914 after Austria-Hungary issued the July Ultimatum to the Kingdom of Serbia.

The Austro-Hungarian Emperor Franz-Josef (left) is followed by the Archduke Franz-Ferdinand. (Photo: Underwood & Underwood)

Czar Alexander II of Russia was assassinated in St. Petersburg, Russia on March 13, 1881 when Polish rebels threw a bomb toward the Czar. Czar Alexander II of Russia ruled Russia from 1855 to 1881. Czar Alexander II’s son Czar Alexander III of Russia would assume the throne and use the assassination as a pretext to initiate pogroms against the Jews. Vladimir Lenin’s brother Aleksandr Ilyich Ulyanov was hanged in May 1887 after he attempted to assassinate Czar Alexander III.

Lone Gunman or Patsy? Italian-American mobster Gaetano Bresci assassinates King Umberto I of Italy (March 14, 1844- July 29, 1900) in Monza, Italy on July 29, 1900. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

Depiction from the July 2, 1894 edition of Le Petit Journal of the assassination of President Sadi Carnot of France

Lone Gunman or Patsy? Italian mobster Michele Angiolillo (left) assassinates Prime Minister of Spain Antonio Cánovas del Castillo in Mondragón, Spain on August 8, 1897.

Theodoros Deligiannis, the Prime Minister of Greece, is assassinated by a Greek man (a professional gambler named Gherakaris) in Athens, Greece on June 13, 1905.

Monarchs during World War I, left to right: King George V of the United Kingdom (reign, 1910-1936), Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany (reign, 1888-1918), and Czar Nicholas II of Russia (reign, 1894-1917). King George V and Kaiser Wilhelm II were Queen Victoria’s grandsons.

Five grandsons of King Christian IX of Denmark (reign, 1863-1906) who ruled Europe during World War I were: King George V of the United Kingdom (reign, 1910-1936), Czar Nicholas II of Russia (reign, 1894-1917), King Constantine I of Greece (reign, 1913-1917 and 1920-1922), King Christian X of Denmark (reign, 1912-1947), and King Haakon VII of Norway (reign, 1905-1957).

Left: Tsar Nicholas II of Russia (left) and Prince George of Great Britain (later King George V) pose for a portrait in London in circa 1905.Right: Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany (left) wears a Russian army uniform while Czar Nicholas II of Russia wears a German army uniform during a group portrait taken in circa 1905. (German Federal Archives)

Napoleonic Wars & “Balance of Power” (1803-1815)

The Battle of Trafalgar, a naval battle that occurred on October 21, 1805, was a sea battle fought between the British Royal Navy and the combined fleets of the French Navy and Spanish Navy, during the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815). The British Royal Navy under the leadership of Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson, who was mortally wounded in combat at the Battle of Trafalgar, defeated the French and Spanish navies and maintained dominance of the high seas.

The Battle of Austerlitz (also known as the Battle of the Three Emperors), a military battle that occurred on December 2, 1805, was a battle between Napoleon’s French army and the Russian and Austrian armies under the command of Czar Alexander I of Russia. Napoleon and his French army defeated the Russian and Austrian armies; the Battle of Austerlitz resulted in the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire.

Map of the Holy Roman Empire in 1789. The Holy Roman Empire existed from 962 to August 6, 1806, when Holy Roman Emperor Francis II (Emperor Francis I of Austria) abdicated his throne following his defeat to Napoleon and the French army in 1806.

Flag of the Holy Roman Empire

The French Army under the command of Napoleon Bonaparte celebrates in Berlin next to the Brandenburg Gate on October 27, 1806; the French Army defeated the Prussian army at Jena on October 14, 1806. The Kingdom of Prussia lost half of its territory in a treaty the following year and was obligated to join a military alliance with France during the Napoleonic Wars.

Napoleon Bonaparte and his French army appear in Moscow, Russia in September 1812 during the French Invasion of Russia. The city of Moscow was set on fire after the Russian Czar and his army abandoned the city. The French Invasion of Russia (Patriotic War of 1812) lasted from June 24, 1812 until December 14, 1812.

The Russian army and its allies, including the Prussian army and Austrian army, enter Paris, France in March 1814. Napoleon abdicated as Emperor of France on April 6, 1814, effectively ending the Napoleonic Wars and establishing a “new world order” in continental Europe. The War of the Sixth Coalition lasted from 1812 until 1814.

The Battle of Waterloo, fought on June 18, 1815 near Waterloo, Belgium, ended Napoleon’s rule in France and created a “balance of power” that involved Great Britain, France, Prussian Empire, and Austrian Empire. The Spanish Empire began to decline after the Napoleonic Wars. The War of the Seventh Coalition (Napoleon's Hundred Days) lasted from March 20, 1815 until July 8, 1815.

Left painting: Klemens Wenzel von Metternich (May 15, 1773-June 11, 1859) was Foreign Minister of the Austrian Empire from 1809 until 1848 and an Austrian diplomat who was involved in creating the “balance of power” in Europe at the Congress of Vienna in 1814 and 1815 following the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars and the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte.

Right picture: The Rothschild Brothers, sons of Mayer Amschel Rothschild: Amschel Mayer Rothschild (Frankfurt, 1773-1855), Salomon Mayer Rothschild (Vienna, 1774-1855), Nathan Mayer Rothschild (London, 1777-1836), Karl Mayer Rothschild (Naples, 1788-1855), and James Mayer Rothschild (Paris, 1792-1868). The Rothschild Brothers maintained an banking firm in major European cities – London, Paris, Frankfurt, Vienna, and Naples. The Rothschilds were (and are) the renowned Jewish bankers of Europe.

Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington (1769-1852), also known as “The Duke of Wellington”, fought against Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 and served as Prime Minister of Great Britain (1828-1830, 1834).

The Congress of Vienna in 1814-1815, convened following the end of the Napoleonic Wars, meet to create a “balance of power” in the continental Europe. (Photo: http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_image.cfm?image_id=255)

Map of Europe in 1815

The Unification of Germany (1815-1871)

Military Alliance or Political Conspiracy?: King Friedrich Wilhelm III of Prussia, Emperor Francis I of Austria, and Czar Alexander I of Russia meet for the first time in Prague on March 18, 1813.

Following Napoleon’s defeat in the Russian campaign of 1812, Prussia and Austria extricated themselves from their involuntary support for the French emperor and, by 1813, had joined Russia to drive Napoleon from Germany. On March 16, 1813, the Prussian king declared war on France; the next day, he delivered the address, “To my People,” in which he exhorted his subjects to support the war (and promised the constitutional reorganization of Prussia and Germany). On March 18, 1813, the three allied monarchs, Friedrich Wilhelm III of Prussia (left), Francis I of Austria (center), and Czar Alexander I of Russia (right) met at the gates of Prague.

Colored etching by an unknown artist, undated. © Bildarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz / Kunstbibliothek, SMB / Knud Petersen. Original: Kunstbibliothek, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (Source: http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_image.cfm?image_id=2698)

Left: Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (August 27, 1770-November 14, 1831), German professor of philosophy at University of BerlinRight: General Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz (1780-1831), Prussian army officer and military strategist

“War is nothing but a duel on an extensive scale…War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.” – General Carl von Clausewitz, On War, Book 1, Chapter 1, Paragraph 2

Map of the Holy Roman Empire in 1789

German Confederation in 1806

Map of the German Confederation, 1815-1866

Excerpts from Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1821)

“The state, which is the realized substantive will, having its reality in the particular self-consciousness raised to the plane of the universal, is absolutely rational. This substantive unity is its own motive and absolute end. In this end freedom attains its highest right. This end has the highest right over the individual, whose highest duty in turn is to be a member of the state.”– Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Philosophy of Right, Paragraph 258

“Were the state to be considered as exchangeable with the civic society, and were its decisive features to be regarded as the security and protection of property and personal freedom, the interest of the individual as such would be the ultimate purpose of the social union. It would then be at one’s option to be a member of the state.—But the state has a totally different relation to the individual. It is the objective spirit, and he has his truth, real existence, and ethical status only in being a member of it. Union, as such, is itself the true content and end, since the individual is intended to pass a universal life. His particular satisfactions, activities, and way of life have in this authenticated substantive principle their origin and result…The idea of the state is not concerned with the historical origin of either the state in general or of any particular state with its special rights and characters. Hence, it is indifferent whether the state arose out of the patriarchal condition, out of fear or confidence, or out of the corporation. It does not care whether the basis of state rights is declared to be in the divine, or in positive right, or contract, or custom. When we are dealing simply with the science of the state, these things are mere appearances, and belong to history. The causes or grounds of the authority of an actual state, in so far as they are required at all, must be derived from the forms of right, which have validity in the state.”– Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Philosophy of Right, Paragraph 258

“The state as a completed reality is the ethical whole and the actualization of freedom. It is the absolute purpose of reason that freedom should be actualized. The state is the spirit, which abides in the and there realizes itself consciously; while in nature it is realized only as the other of itself or the sleeping spirit. Only when it is present in consciousness, knowing itself as an existing object, is it the state. In thinking of freedom we must not take our departure from individuality or the individual’s self-consciousness, but from the essence of self-consciousness. Let man be aware of it or not, this essence realizes itself as an independent power, in which particular persons are only phases. The state is the march of God in the world; its ground or cause is the power of reason realizing itself as will. When thinking of the idea of the state, we must not have in our mind any particular state, or particular institution, but must rather contemplate the idea, this actual God, by itself. Although a state may be declared to violate right principles and to be defective in various ways, it always contains the essential moments of its existence, if, that is to say, it belongs to the full formed states of our own time. But as it is more easy to detect short-comings than to grasp the positive meaning, one easily falls into the mistake of dwelling so much upon special aspects of the state as to overlook its inner organic being. The state is not a work of art. It is in the world, in the sphere of caprice, accident, and error. Evil behavior can doubtless disfigure it in many ways, but the ugliest man, the criminal, the invalid, the cripple, are living men. The positive thing, the life, is present in spite of defects, and it is with this affirmative that we have here to deal.”– Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Philosophy of Right, Paragraph 258

“These kingdoms are based upon the distinction, which has now won the form of absolute antagonism, and yet at the same time are rooted in a single unity and idea. In the obdurate struggle, which thus ensues, the spiritual has to lower its heaven to the level of an earthly and temporal condition, to common worldliness, and to ordinary life and thought. On the other hand the abstract actuality of the worldly is exalted to thought, to the principle of rational being and knowing, and to the rationality of right and law. As a result of these two tendencies, the contradiction has become a marrowless phantasm. The present has stripped off its barbarism and its lawless caprice, and truth has stripped off its beyond and its casualness. The true atonement and reconciliation has become objective, and unfolds the state as the image and reality of reason. In the state, self-consciousness finds the organic development of its real substantive knowing and will, in religion it finds in the form of ideal essence the feeling and the vision of this its truth, and in science it finds the free conceived knowledge of this truth, seeing it to be one and the same in all its mutually completing manifestations, namely, the state, nature, and the ideal world.”– Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Philosophy of Right, Paragraph 360

“Everyone Reads Everything" – A Reading Café in Berlin in 1832. The years between 1815 and 1848 saw the introduction of educational reforms, the spread of mandatory elementary education, and the increasing availability of books and newspapers. As a result, Germany’s reading public expanded enormously during this period, peaking during the years of the revolution. The painting below, tellingly entitled Everyone Reads Everything [Alles liest Alles], attests to the literate public’s voracious hunger for reading materials. But the ever watchful presence of the sovereign, literally represented by a portrait of King Frederick William III (1770-1840 (reign, 1797-1840)), raises serious doubts about whether even close to “everything” was available to these avid readers. Following the Wars of Liberation against Napoleon, the Prussian monarch had abandoned further reforms in favor of restoration, opting in 1819 for repression in accordance with Metternich’s Carlsbad Decrees, which included press censorship. The obvious fact this reading café is populated solely by men speaks to contemporary conceptions of gender roles, according to which women's place was the private world of home and family, not the public sphere.Oil painting by Gustav Taubert (1755-1839), 1832. (© Bildarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz / Hans-Joachim Bartsch)http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_image.cfm?image_id=2245

Manifesto of the Communist Party (German: Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei), also known as The Communist Manifesto, was published on February 21, 1848. Das Kapital was written by Karl Marx and edited by Friedrich Engels; Das Kapital was published in 1867.

Karl Marx (left, born May 5, 1818; died March 14, 1883) and Friedrich Engels (right, born November 28, 1820; died August 5, 1895) were the co-author of The Communist Manifesto. Karl Marx’s great-grandfather was Salomon David Barent-Cohen, and Karl Marx’s great-great grandfather was Barent Cohen. British Jewish banker Nathan Meyer Rothschild’s wife was Hannah Barent-Cohen, the daughter of Levi Barent-Cohen and granddaughter of Barent Cohen.

The aborted German Revolution in Berlin on March 19, 1848. In the painting one can recognize in the middle and on the bottom edge the flag of the monarchist Revolutionaries. They wanted a unified Germany with a monarch at its head. On the right side one can see two flags of the republican Revolutionaries. They wanted a Republic based on the French example and therefore constructed their flag with vertical stripes, in the style of the French Tricolor. The order of the three colors on the first German Tricolors varied. Klemens Wenzel von Metternich resigned as Foreign Minister of Austria on March 13, 1848 after angry residents of Vienna demanded his resignation.

A painting of a street battle at Soufflot barricades at Rue Soufflot Street in Paris, France on June 24, 1848.

“The ideas of Karl Marx (1818-1883) and of his associate Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) were published in the Communist Manifesto of 1848 and in their three-volume opus, Das Kapital (1867-1894). Although they were aroused by the deplorable conditions of the European working classes under industrialism, the chief sources of the ideas themselves were to be found in the idealism of Hegel, the materialism of the ancient Greek atomists (especially Democritus), and the theories of the English classical economists (especially Ricardo). Marx derived from Hegel what has come to be known as the "historical dialectic." This theory maintained that all historical events were the result of a struggle between opposing forces which ultimately merged to create a situation which was different from either. Any existing organization of society or of ideas (thesis) calls forth, in time, an opposition (anti-thesis). These two struggle with each other and give rise to the events of history, until finally the two fuse into a new organization (synthesis). This synthesis in turn becomes established as a new thesis to a new opposition or antithesis, and the struggle continues, as history continues. A chief element in Marxist theory was the economic interpretation of history.According to this view, the economic organization of any society was the basic aspect of that society, since all other aspects, such as political, social, intellectual, or religious, reflected the organization and powers of the economic level.”– Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley, p. 378

“The international Socialist movement was both a product of the nineteenth century and a revulsion against it. It was rooted in some of the characteristics of the century, such as its industrialism, its optimism, its belief in progress, its humanitarianism, its scientific materialism, and its democracy, but it was in revolt against its laissez faire, its middle-class domination, its nationalism, its urban slums, and its emphasis on the price-profit system as the dominant factor in all human values. This does not mean that all Socialists had the same beliefs or that these beliefs did not change with the passing years. On the contrary, there were almost as many different kinds of Socialism as there were Socialists, and the beliefs categorized under this term changed from year to year and from country to country. Industrialism, especially in its early years, brought with it social and economic conditions which were admittedly horrible. Human beings were brought together around factories to form great new cities which were sordid and unsanitary. In many cases, these persons were reduced to conditions of animality which shock the imagination. Crowded together in want and disease, with no leisure and no security, completely dependent on a weekly wage which was less than a pittance, they worked twelve to fifteen hours a day for six days in the week among dusty and dangerous machines with no protection against inevitable accidents, disease, or old age, and returned at night to crowded rooms without adequate food and lacking light, fresh air, heat, pure water, or sanitation. These conditions have been described for us in the writings of novelists such as Dickens in England, Hugo or Zola in France, in the reports of parliamentary committees such as the Sadler Committee of 1832 or Lord Ashley's Committee in 1842, and in numerous private studies like In Darkest England by General William Booth of the Salvation Army. Just at the end of the century, private scientific studies of these conditions began to appear in England, led by Charles Booth’s Life and Labour of the People in London or B. Seebohm Rowntree’s Poverty, a Study of Town Life. The Socialist movement was a reaction against these deplorable conditions of the working masses. It has been customary to divide this movement into two parts at the year 1848, the earlier part being called "the period of the Utopian Socialists" while the later part has been called “the period of scientific Socialism.” The dividing line between the two parts is marked by the publication in 1848 of The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This work, which began with the ominous sentence, “A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of Communism,” and ended with the trumpet blast, “Workers of the world, unite!” is generally regarded as the seed from which developed, in the twentieth century, Russian Bolshevism and Stalinism. Such a view is undoubtedly an oversimplification, for the development of Socialist ideology is full of twists and turns and might well have grown along quite different paths if the history of the movement itself had been different.The history of the Socialist movement may be divided into three periods associated with the three Socialist Internationals. The First International lasted from 1864 to 1876 and was as much anarchistic as Socialistic. It was finally disrupted by the controversies of these two groups. The Second International was the Socialist International, founded in 1889. This became increasingly conservative and was disrupted by the Communists during World War I. The Third, or Communist, International was organized in 1919 by dissident elements from the Second International. .As a result of the controversies of these three movements, the whole anticapitalist ideology, which began as a confused revolt against the economic and social conditions of industrialism in 1848, became sorted out into four chief schools. These schools became increasingly doctrinaire andincreasingly bitter in their relationships.”– Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley, p. 375-376

“The basic division within the Socialist movement after 1848 was between those who wished to abolish or reduce the functions of the state and those who wished to increase these functions by giving economic activities to the state. The former division came in time to include the anarchists and the syndicalists, while the latter division came to include the Socialists and the Communists. In general the former division believed that man was innately good and that all coercive power was bad, with public authority the worst form of such coercive power. All of the world’s evil, according to the anarchists, arose because man's innate goodness was corrupted and distorted by coercive power. The remedy, they felt, was to destroy the state. This would lead to the disappearance of all other forms of coercive power and to the liberation of the innate goodness of man. The simplest way to destroy the state, they felt, would be to assassinate the chief of the state; this would act as a spark to ignite a wholesale uprising of oppressed humanity against all forms of coercive power. These views led to numerous assassinations of various political leaders, including a king of Italy and a president of the United States, in the period 1895-1905. Syndicalism was a somewhat more realistic and later version of anarchism. It was equally determined to abolish all public authority, but did not rely on the innate goodness of individuals for the continuance of social life. Rather it aimed to replace public authority by voluntary associations of individuals to supply the companionship and management of social life which, according to these thinkers, the state had so signally failed to provide. The chief of such voluntary associations replacing the state would be labor unions. According to the syndicalists, the state was to be destroyed, not by the assassination of individual heads of states, but by a general strike of the workers organized in labor unions. Such a strike would give the workers a powerful esprit de corps based on a sense of their power and solidarity. By making all forms of coercion impossible, the general strike would destroy the state and replace it by a flexible federation of free associations of workers (syndicates). Anarchism’s most vigorous proponent was the Russian exile Michael Bakunin (1814-1876). His doctrines had considerable appeal in Russia itself, but in western Europe they were widely accepted only in Spain, especially Barcelona, and in parts of Italy where economic and psychological conditions were somewhat similar to those in Russia. Syndicalism flourished in the same areas at a later date, although its chief theorists were French, led by Georges Sorel (1847-1922). The second group of radical social theorists was fundamentally opposed to the anarcho-syndicalists, although this fact was recognized only gradually. This second group wished to widen the power and scope of governments by giving them a dominant role in economic life. In the course of time, the confusions within this second group began to sort themselves out, and the group divided into two chief schools: the Socialists and the Communists. These two schools were further apart in organization and in their activities than they were in their theories, because the Socialists became increasingly moderate and even conservative in their activities, while remaining relatively revolutionary in their theories. However, as their theories gradually followed their activities in the direction of moderation, in the period of the Second International (1889-1919), violent controversies arose between those who pretended to remain loyal to the revolutionary ideas of Karl Marx and those who wished to revise these ideas in a more moderate direction to adapt them to what they considered to be changing social and economic conditions. l he strict interpreters of Karl Marx came to be known as Communists, while the more moderate revisionist group came to be known as Socialists. The rivalries of the two groups ultimately disrupted the Second International as well as the labor movement as a whole, so that anti-labor regimes were able to come to power in much of Europe in the period 1918-1939. This disruption and failure of the working-class movement is one of the chief factors in European history in the twentieth century and, accordingly, requires at least a brief survey of its nature and background.” – Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley, p. 376-378

Emperor Franz Josef I of Austria survives an assassination attempt by Hungarian nationalist János Libényi on February 18, 1853. (Painting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Joseph_I_of_Austria)

Die Proklamation des Deutschen Kaiserreiches by Anton von Werner (1877), depicting the proclamation of the foundation of the German Reich on January 18, 1871 at the Palace of Versailles in France. Left, on the podium (in black): Crown Prince Friedrich (later Friedrich III), his father Emperor Wilhelm I, and Friedrich I of Baden, proposing a toast to the new emperor. Center (in white): Otto von Bismarck, first Chancellor of Germany, and Helmuth von Moltke the Elder, Prussian Chief of Staff.

Creation of the German Empire, 1866-1871

Map of the German Empire (1871-1918)

Second War of Italian Independence (also known as Franco-Austrian War or Austro-Sardinian War) was fought between Italy (with the assistance of France) and Austria in 1859. The creation of a unified, independent Italy was established in 1861. The Kingdom of Italy acquired the city of Rome on September 20, 1870.

Italian soldier Giuseppe Garibaldi (left) and Italian political revolutionary Giuseppe Mazzini

A map detailing the unification of Italy

The Crimean War, which lasted from 1853 until 1856, was fought between the Russian Empire and the allied European and Turkic powers – British Empire, French Empire, and Ottoman Empire. Russia lost the Crimean War and was forced to sign a treaty that prohibited Russia from maintaining a fleet in the Black Sea. (Painting: The Siege of Sevastopol by Franz Roubaud (1904).

A painting of the capture of Grivitsa strongpoint near Plevnen during the Russo-Turkish War in July-August 1877. The Russian Empire fought against the Ottoman Empire in 1877-1878. Romania and Serbia were formally recognized by the “Great Powers” (Britain, France, Germany, and Italy) at the Congress of Berlin in 1878.

British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (sixth from left), Germany’s Chancellor Otto von Bismarck (center), Russian delegates, and Turkish delegates attend the Congress of Berlin in Berlin, Germany from June 13 1878 to July 13, 1878.

The Berlin Conference on Africa (also known as Congo Conference) takes place in Berlin, Germany in 1884. European colonial powers met in Berlin to discuss the European colonization and occupation of the African continent.

“The unification of Germany in the decade before 1871 ended a balance of power in Europe which had existed for 250 or even 300 years. During this long period, covering almost ten generations, Britain had been relatively secure and of growing power. She had found this power challenged only by the states of western Europe. Such a challenge had come from Spain under Philip II, from France under Louis XIV and under Napoleon, and, in an economic sense, from the Netherlands during much of the seventeenth century. Such a challenge could arise because these states were as rich and almost as unified as Britain herself, but, above all, it could arise because the nations of the West could face seaward and challenge England so long as central Europe was disunited and economically backward. The unification of Germany by Bismarck destroyed this situation politically, while the rapid economic growth of that country after 1871 modified the situation economically. For a long time Britain did not see this change but rather tended to welcome the rise of Germany because it relieved her, to a great extent, from the pressure of France in the political and colonial fields. This failure to see the changed situation continued until after 1890 because of Bismarck's diplomatic genius, and because of the general failure of non-Germans to appreciate the marvelous organizing ability of the Germans in industrial activities. After 1890 Bismarck's masterful grip on the tiller was replaced by the vacillating hands of Kaiser William II and a succession of puppet chancellors. These incompetents alarmed and alienated Britain by challenging her in commercial, colonial, and especially naval affairs. In commercial matters the British found German salesmen and their agents offering better service, better terms, and lower prices on goods of at least equal quality, and in metric rather than Anglo-Saxon sizes and measurements. In the colonial field after 1884, Germany acquired African colonies which threatened to cut across the continent from east to west and thus checkmate the British ambitions to build a railway from the Cape of Good Hope to Cairo. These colonies included East Africa (Tanganyika), South-West Africa, Cameroons, and Togo. The German threat became greater as a result of German intrigues in the Portuguese colonies of Angola and Mozambique, and above all by the German encouragement of the Boers of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State before their war with Britain in 1899-1902. In the Pacific area Germany acquired by 1902 the Caroline, Marshall, and Marianas Islands, parts of New Guinea and Samoa, and a base of naval and commercial importance at Kiaochau on the Shantung Peninsula of China. In naval affairs Germany presented her greatest threat as a result of the German Naval bills of 1898, 1900, and 1902, which were designed to be an instrument of coercion against Britain. Fourteen German battleships were launched between 1900 and 1905. As a consequence of these activities Britain joined the anti-German coalition by 1907, the Powers of Europe became divided into two antagonistic coalitions, and a series of crises began which led, step by step, to the catastrophe of 1914. International affairs in the period 1871-1914 can be examined under four headings: (1) the creation of the Triple Alliance, 1871-1890; (2) the creation of the Triple Entente, 1890-1907; (3) the efforts to bridge the gap between the two coalitions, 1890-1914; and (4) the series of international crises, 1905-1914.”– Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley, p. 211-212

“The establishment of a German Empire dominated by the Kingdom of Prussia left Bismarck politically satisfied. He had no desire to annex any additional Germans to the new empire, and the growing ambitions for colonies and a worldwide empire left him cold. As a satisfied diplomat he concentrated on keeping what he had, and realized that France, driven by fear and vengeance, was the chief threat to the situation. His immediate aim, accordingly, was to keep France isolated. This involved the more positive aim to keep Germany in friendly relations with Russia and the Habsburg Empire and to keep Britain friendly by abstaining from colonial or naval adventures. As part of this policy Bismarck made two tripartite agreements with Russia and Austro-Hungary: (a) the Three Emperors' League of 1873 and (b) the Three Emperors' Alliance of 1881. Both of these were disrupted by the rivalry between Austria and Russia in southeastern Europe, especially in Bulgaria. The Three Emperors' League broke down in 1878 at the Congress of Berlin because of Habsburg opposition to Russia's efforts to create a great satellite state in Bulgaria after her victory in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877. The Three Emperors’ Alliance of 1881 broke down in the "Bulgarian crisis" of 1885. This crisis arose over the Bulgarian annexation of Eastern Rumelia, a union which was opposed by Russia but favored by Austria, thus reversing the attitude these Powers had displayed at Berlin in 1878. The rivalry between Russia and Austria in the Balkans made it clear to Bismarck that his efforts to form a diplomatic front of the three great empires were based on weak foundations. Accordingly, he made a second string for his bow. It was this second string which became the Triple Alliance. Forced to choose between Austria and Russia, Bismarck took the former because it was weaker and thus easier to control. He made an Austro-German alliance in 1879, following the disruption of the Three Emperors' League, and in 188: expanded it into a Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria, and Italy. This alliance, originally made for five years, was renewed at intervals until 1915. After the disruption of the Three Emperors' Alliance in 1885, the Triple Alliance became the chief weapon in Germany's diplomatic armory, although Bismarck, in order to keep France isolated, refused to permit Russia to drift completely out of the German sphere, and tried to bind Germany and Russia together by a secret agreement of friendship and neutrality known as the Reinsurance Treaty (1887). This treaty, which ran for three years, was not renewed in 1890 after the new Emperor, William II, had discharged Bismarck. The Kaiser argued that the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia was not compatible with the Triple Alliance with Austria and Italy, since Austria and Russia were so unfriendly. By failing to renew, William left Russia and France both isolated. From this condition they naturally moved together to form the Dual Alliance of 1894. Subsequently, by antagonizing Britain, the German government helped to transform this Dual Alliance into the Triple Entente.”– Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley, p. 212-213

Left: A photo of King Leopold II of Belgium (reign, 1865-1909), who ruled the Belgian colony of Congo harshly.Right photo: Photos of children in Congo whose hands were amputated by Belgian colonial overlords in the late 1800s after children were punished for failing to obey Belgian requirements regarding the production of rubber, ivory, and other raw materials found in Congo.

British diamond baron Cecil Rhodes (center), the founder of DeBeers and the Rhodes Scholarship, appears with his comrades at the Siege of Kimberley in South Africa during the Boer War in 1900. (De Beers archives)

(Source: The French Rothschilds: The Great Banking Dynasty through Two Turbulent Centuries by Herbert R. Lottman)

The Italo-Turkish War was fought between the Ottoman Empire and the Kingdom of Italy from September 29, 1911 to October 18, 1912. Italy conquered Libya from the Ottoman Empire in 1912 and colonized Libya until the middle of World War II.

Berber militia hanged in Tripoli, Libya in circa 1912, part of the 20,000 local troops and 8,000 Turkish soldiers who opposed the invading Italian army of 100,000 men during the Italo-Turkish War. (Roger-Viollet)

Bulgarian soldiers pose for a group photo in the Ajvaz baba Fort outside Adrianople during the First Balkan War in March 1913. Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, and Serbia fought against the Ottoman Empire in 1912 and 1913 in an attempt to conquer the remaining European territory under Ottoman Turkish rule. Albania declared its independence from the Ottoman Empire on November 28, 1912. The First Balkan War lasted from October 8, 1912 to May 30, 1913. The Second Balkan War, which lasted from June 29, 1913 to August 10, 1913, began when Bulgaria waged war against Greece over territorial claims originating from the peace treaty that ended the First Balkan War. The Ottoman Empire ceded most of its European territory in 1913.

Greek lithograph of the Surrender of Ioannina by Esad Pasha to the Crown Prince Constantine of Greece (later King Constantine I of Greece) during the conclusion of the First Balkan War in 1913.

King George I of Greece (left, standing toward the stairs, wearing a moustache) appears with Tsar Ferdinand of Bulgaria (center, wearing a beard) in the headquarters of the Bulgarian army at Thessaloniki, Greece in December 1912. Despite the two countries’ alliance in the First Balkan War, the Greco-Bulgarian dispute over the city of Thessaloniki and the province of Macedonia would erupt into open warfare the following year, resulting in the Second Balkan War. Greece formally annexed Thessaloniki and Macedonia in 1913. (Photo: Library of Congress)

Delegates to the Bucharest Peace Conference in 1913; the Treaty of Bucharest, ending the Second Balkan War, was signed on August 10, 1913.

Map of the Balkan peninsula in 1913, following the end of the Second Balkan War

Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany (left) appears with Tsar Ferdinand in Sofia, Bulgaria in 1916.

Boxer Rebellion and Russo-Japanese War

The Eight-Nation Alliance, a group of armies from United States of America, Great Britain, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, and Austria-Hungary, occupy the Forbidden City in Peking during the Boxer Rebellion in 1900. (Photo: National Archives)

U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt (center) meets with peace envoys from Russia and Japan at the signing of the Treaty of Portsmouth in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, U.S.A. on September 5, 1905. Japan acquired the southern half of Sakhalin Island from Russia and the Chinese port of Port Arthur from Russia at the end of the Russo-Japanese War, which began on February 8, 1904 and ended on September 5, 1905.

U.S. Secretary of War William Howard Taft speaks with Japanese dignitaries while leaving the dock at Yokohama, Japan in July 1905. Secretary of War William Howard Taft met with Taro Katsura, the Prime Minister of Japan, in Tokyo, Japan on July 27, 1905. The Taft-Katsura Memorandum (commonly called the Taft–Katsura Agreement) consists of notes containing portions of a long, confidential conversation between Japanese Prime Minister Taro Katsura and U.S. Secretary of War William Howard Taft held in Tokyo, Japan on July 27, 1905. (Photo: Library of Congress)

Left: The Imperial Japanese Navy defeats the Russian Navy in the Battle of Tsushima on May 27–28, 1905.Right: Admiral Heihachiro Togo was the commander of the Japanese naval fleet during the Battle of Tsushima.

Battle of Port Arthur on February 8, 1904. A line of Japanese battleships, positioned on the right, fire on a line of Russian battleships on the left, in a surprise naval assault on the Russian fleet at Port Arthur (Lüshun). (Library of Congress)

Japan issued a declaration of war on February 8, 1904; however, three hours before Japan’s declaration of war was received by the Russian government in St. Petersburg, the Imperial Japanese Navy attacked the Russian Far East Fleet at Port Arthur during a daring night raid conducted by Admiral Heihachiro Togo. The Imperial Japanese Navy engaged in another surprise attack on nearly 38 years later at Pearl Harbor.

“The byzantine financial intrigues of the early 1900s bound Jewish bankers tightly to the state. The diatribes against Jewish bankers actually stood reality on its head, for they didn’t exploit Germany so much as serve its imperial escapades to a fault. This very intimacy with the government would make it hard for them to react later on when persecution and terror came from the state itself. The Kuhn, Loeb connection also implicated M.M. Warburg in more political work. Outraged by the pogroms against Russian Jews, [Jacob] Schiff made it a point of honor to finance Japan in its 1904-05 war against Russia and even paid for distribution of anti-czarist propaganda to Russian prisoners. In spring 1904, he shocked Japan’s financial commissioner, Baron Korekiyo Takahashi, by volunteering to underwrite half the ten-million-pound loan sought by the Imperial Japanese Government in London and New York. This first of five major Kuhn, Loeb loans to Japan was approved by King Edward VII at a luncheon with Schiff and Sir Ernest Cassel. When Japan was ready for a third loan in 1905, Schiff thought New York was saturated with Japanese bonds and asked Max [Warburg] to open a German market. To ensure that such a step conformed to German policy, Max remembered, “I did what every upstanding banker has to do in such case, I went to the Foreign Ministry in Berlin.” The Krupp firm had warned the Foreign Office that Germany would lose munitions contracts if the third Japanese loan were placed entirely in New York and London. So Under-Secretary of State Arthur Zimmermann endorsed the move and authorized Max to negotiate with Japan. Before proceeding with his second Japanese loan, Max met the Kaiser aboard his yacht to get his official imprimatur. This second issue was ten times oversubscribed, strengthening Japan’s hand at the Portsmouth peace conference. That Max suddenly managed a major strategic transaction was a stunning achievement for a firm that just a few years earlier had been a provincial power. Max owed this breakthrough to his brothers’ presence at Kuhn, Loeb, but he had ably exploited the opportunity. He negotiated the first loan in London with Korekiyo Takahashi, later Japanese finance minister and prime minister. Takahashi never forgot the favor, later telling Max, if “I have distinguished myself in any way in my life, it is, to my great appreciation, due to your goodwill and friendship which you were kind enough to extend to me in old times.” After the war with Russia, Takahashi visited Hamburg, and in 1906 [Jacob] Schiff visited Japan. Schiff had a rare private lunch with the Mikado at the Imperial Palace, where he was decorated with the Order of the Rising Sun. At one dinner, he sat beside Takahashi’s teenage daughter, Wakiko, and casually invited her to New York, but Takahashi took the invitation quite literally. To Schiff’s astonishment, Wakiko ended up going back with him and living with the Schiffs for three years.” – The Warburgs by Ron Chernow, p. 110-111

“Because the House of Mitsui, an ancient Japanese dynasty, had opened a Hamburg branch, family members periodically dropped in on the Warburgs. Once Baron Mitsui came to dinner and, as he rambled on about labor relations in Japanese, Max mischievously learned over and whispered to Charlotte that the baron wanted to know if Max’s son, Eric, would marry his daughter. On another visit, Baron Mitsui and his partner, Takuma Dan, asked how the Warburgs kept peace in the family. They told Max and Carl Melchior about battles inside the Mitsui clan and asked how to stop them. Max replied that the Warburgs quarreled as much as any family. He and Melchior suggested that Mitsui divide its operations into separate banking, shipping, insurance, and export companies, each supervised by a different family member who then reported to a central firm. In this way, Max took credit for suggesting to the Japanese the zaibatsu or conglomerate structure that would dominate their economy. In gratitude, Mitsui sent Max a wax Japanese general in a casket.” – The Warburgs by Ron Chernow, p. 111

“The influence of these Jewish bankers grew in tandem with the prosperity of America. Just as Wall Street took over from London as the world’s banker in the early twentieth century, so American Jews assumed responsibility from the Rothschilds and other European Jews for suffering Jews everywhere. The watershed event was probably the Kishinev pogrom of April 1903, in which the czarist government conspired. This massacre – ruled by blind mob fury – by the Romanian border near the Black Sea left forty-five Jews dead, more than five hundred injured, and two thousand families homeless. These numbers terrified a Jewish community whose senses weren’t yet dulled by the unutterable horror of the Holocaust. From a selfish standpoint, American Jews feared that the massacre might stimulate an unwanted flood of destitute Russian Jewish immigrants to the United States, with an attendant backlash. Jacob Schiff mobilized the American Jewish Community and got President Theodore Roosevelt to protest to Russia, which was Schiff’s implacable foe. He unashamedly used his financial influence to thwart the czar at every turn. As he boasted to Lord Rothschild in 1904, “I pride myself that all the efforts, which at various times during the past four or five years have been made by Russia to gain the favor of the American market for its loans, I have been able to bring to naught.” At one point, Schiff pressed Teddy Roosevelt to conduct a Rough Rider assault, patterned after the American invasion of Cuba, against Russia. In 1905, another set of deadly pogroms left two thousand Russians Jews dead, injured, or homeless. This led Jacob Schiff, Cyrus Adler, and others to create the American Jewish Committee a year later. It was the first group to coordinate the action of American Jews and the first American organization to support Jews worldwide. Drawn predominantly from the German-Jewish grandees, it reflected their stress upon assimilation and American patriotism instead of worldwide Zionist loyalty or anything that might smack of radicalism or “dual loyalty.” Inevitably, they were accused by poor Jews of being latter-day “Court Jews,” who wished to curry favor with the non-Jewish world. Schiff and other Jewish merchant princes felt alarmed by Zionism because it claimed a universal Jewish loyalty while they were strenuously asserting their primary loyalty to America. They saw no necessary incompatibility in being both patriotic citizens and pious Jews…Though not a Zionist, Schiff supported many projects in Palestine, including the Jewish Agricultural Experiment Station and the Hebrew Technical Institute in Haifa. He and Felix Warburg would regard Palestine as a spiritual home for Judaism rather than a future nation-state, but would be no less active or involved for all that. In 1906, Schiff warned in The New York Times, “It is quite evident that there is a serious break coming between those who wish to force the formation of a distinct Hebraic element in the United States, as distinct from those of us who desire to be American in attachment, thought and action…” Indeed, the break would be deep, bitter, and protracted.” – The Warburgs by Ron Chernow, p. 100-101

Russian soldiers fire upon the Russian people in St. Petersburg on “Bloody Sunday” in 1905, following Russia’s defeat to Japan in the Russo-Japanese War.

Jewish victims of pogroms in Russia in 1905

“These economic developments had profound political effects under the weak-willed Czar Nicholas II (1894-1917). For about a decade Nicholas tried to combine ruthless civil repression, economic advance, and an imperialist foreign policy in the Balkans and the Far East, with pious worldwide publicity for peace and universal disarmament, domestic distractions like anti-Semitic massacres (pogroms), forged terroristic documents, and faked terroristic attempts on the lives of high officials, including himself. This unlikely melange collapsed completely in 1905-1908. When Count Witte attempted to begin some kind of constitutional development by getting in touch with the functioning units of local government (the zemstvos, which had been effective in the famine of 1891), he was ousted from his position by an intrigue led by the murderous Minister of Interior Vyacheslav Plehve (1903). The civil head of the Orthodox Church, Konstantin Pobedonostsev (1827-1907) persecuted all dissenting religions, while allowing the Orthodox Church to become enveloped in ignorance and corruption. Most Roman Catholic monasteries in Poland were confiscated, while priests of that religion were forbidden to leave their villages. In Finland construction of Lutheran churches was forbidden, and schools of this religion were taken over by the Moscow government. The Jews were persecuted, restricted to certain provinces (the Pale), excluded from most economic activities, subjected to heavy taxes (even on their religious activities), and allowed to form only ten percent of the pupils in schools (eve in villages which were almost completely Jewish and where the schools were supported entirely by Jewish taxes). Hundreds of Jews were massacred and thousands of their buildings wrecked in systematic three-day pogroms tolerated and sometimes encouraged by the police. Marriages (and children) of Roman Catholic Uniates were made illegitimate. The Moslems in Asia and elsewhere were also persecuted. Every effort was made to Russify non-Russian national groups, especially on the western frontiers. The Finns, Baltic Germans, and Poles were not allowed to use their own languages in public life, and had to use Russian even in private schools and even on the primary level. Administrative autonomy in these areas, even that solemnly promised to Finland long before, was destroyed, and they were dominated by Russian police, Russian education, and the Russian Army. The peoples of these areas were subjected to military conscription more rigorously than the Russians themselves, and were Russified while in the ranks. Against the Russians themselves, unbelievable extremes of espionage, counterespionage, censorship, provocation, imprisonment without trial, and outright brutality were employed. The revolutionaries responded with similar measures crowned by assassination. No one could trust anyone else, because revolutionaries were in the police, and members of the police were in the highest ranks of the revolutionaries. Georgi Gapon, a priest secretly in the pay of the government, was encouraged to form labor unions and lead workers' agitations in order to increase the employers’ dependence on the autocracy, but when, in 1905, Gapon led a mass march of workers to the Winter Palace to present a petition to the czar, they were attacked by the troops and hundreds were shot. Gapon was murdered the following year by the revolutionaries as a traitor. In order to discredit the revolutionaries, the central Police Department in St. Petersburg “printed at the government expense violent appeals to riot” which were circulated all over the country by an organization of reactionaries. In one year (1906) the government exiled 35,000 persons without trial and executed over 600 persons under a new decree which fixed the death penalty for ordinary crimes like robbery or insults to officials. In the three years 1906-1908, 5,140 officials were killed or wounded, and 2,328 arrested persons were executed. In 1909 it was revealed that a police agent, Azeff, had been a member of the Central Committee of the Socialist Revolutionaries for years and had participated in plots to murder high officials, including Plehve and the Grand Duke Sergius, without warning these. The former chief of police who revealed this fact was sent to prison for doing so. Under conditions such as these no sensible government was possible and all appeals for moderation were crushed between the extremists from both sides. The defeats of Russian forces in the war with Japan in 1904-1905 brought events to a head. All dissatisfied groups began to agitate, culminating in a successful general strike in October 1905.”– Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley, p. 98-99

Map of European military alliances in 1914

Map of European military alliances in 1914, with illustrations of railroad lines on the map

Prelude to World War I, Part 4: The Jewish Lobby & The Rise of Zionism

Theodor Herzl (wearing a top hat) departs from a synagogue in Basel, Switzerland on the occasion of the Sixth Zionist Congress in 1903.

“At Basel I founded the Jewish state. If I were to say this today, I would be greeted by universal laughter. In five years, perhaps, and certainly in 50, everyone will see it.” – Theodor Herzl

Left picture: French artillery officer Alfred Dreyfus, a Jew from Alsace province of France (and later a territory of Imperial Germany), was stripped of his rank on January 13, 1895 after he was tried in secret and convicted for treason. Dreyfus was accused of providing military secrets to Germany. Alfred Dreyfus (October 9, 1859-July 12, 1935) was imprisoned for several years on an offshore island near Africa before he was pardoned by the President of France; Dreyfus was later reinstated into the French army and served in the French army during World War I. Theodor Herzl, who observed the Dreyfus trial as a journalist for an Austrian newspaper in Vienna, wrote a book in 1896 promoting the establishment of a Jewish state; the title of Herzl’s book was Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State).

Right picture: Austrian Jewish political activist and Zionism founder Theodor Herzl delivers a speech to his fellow Jews during the Sixth Congress of the Zionists in Basel, Switzerland in 1903. Theodor Herzl was born in Pest (Budapest), Hungary on May 2, 1860; Herzl died in Austria on July 3, 1904. Jerusalem and present-day Israel were governed by the Ottoman Empire until 1917, when the British Empire defeated the Ottoman Turkish army during World War I and occupied Jerusalem.

Theodore Herzl (1860-1904), founder of modern Zionism, appears with a group of delegates at the Fifth Congress in Basel, Switzerland in 1902, Including Dr. Chaim Weizmann (second row, first from right). This is thought to be the only known photograph in which Herzl and Weizmann appear together. (Photo: © Bettmann/CORBIS)

The Pale of Settlement in the Russian Empire

Czarina Catherine II (“The Great”) of Russia established the Pale of Settlement in 1791 as a territory for Russian Jews to live. Created under pressure to rid Moscow of Jewish business competition and "evil" influence on the Russian masses, the Pale of Settlement included the territory of present-day Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine and Belorussia. More than 90% of Russian Jews were forced to live in the poor conditions of the Pale, which made up only 4% of imperial Russia. Still, the Jewish population in Russia grew from 1.6 million in 1820 to 5.6 million in 1910. Even within the Pale, Jews were discriminated against; they paid double taxes, were forbidden to lease land, run taverns or receive higher education. A liberalization period in the 1860s, which granted Jews some privileges was reversed under the May Laws of 1882. These laws restricted Jews in the Pale to urban areas, which were often overcrowded and offered limited economic opportunities. In addition thousands of Jews fell victim to devastating pogroms in the 1870s and 1880s. The pogroms, boycotts and other anti-Semitic depredations Jews faced in the Pale led to mass immigration to the United States (two million between 1881 and 1914) as well as a string of other developments, such as the controversial Haskalah movement, which sought to modernize Jewish culture. Zionism also took hold in the Pale. Only after the overthrow of the Czarist regime in 1917 was the Pale of Settlement abolished.Source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/pale.html

“In 1880 there were about five million Jews in the world. Of these only about fifteen per cent lived in western Europe. The vast majority – about seventy-five per cent – were spread throughout Russia, Poland and the Balkans, where they lived for the most part in poverty and degradation. For centuries they had been confined to their own ghettoes and rural settlements, subjected to constant anti-Semitic attacks of a most brutal kind and to occasional pogroms, which reflected official prejudice and indifference. Their situation improved during the reign of the more enlightened Alexander II (1855-81); but the relief was only temporary, for the Tsar was assassinated in the streets of St. Petersburg in March 1881 and, worse still, one of his murderers was a Jew. Alexander’s successor inaugurated a policy of reactionary terror designed to root out all disaffection. The old antagonism towards the Jews revived. There were fresh pogroms and anti-Semitic riots. Finally, in 1882, the notorious May Laws were promulgated, viciously restricting Jewish residence and commerce. Hundreds of thousands of families were uprooted and forced into the already overcrowded urban ghettoes. Things were no better in the areas outside Russian control. The Balkan States had generally disregarded the terms of the Berlin Treaty. Jews in those countries suffered constant arson and looting while their sufferings were ignored by the authorities. It was only in Russia, however, that anti-Semitism was government policy. It was the declared objective of the rulers to squeeze the community so hard that a third of the people would die, a third would be assimilated into the Gentile population and a third would emigrate. The last of these objectives was certainly achieved. Multitudes of men, women and children made their way to Germany, Austria, France, England and the USA, often arriving with nothing more than the clothes they stood up in.”– Rothschild: The Wealth and Power of a Dynasty by Derek Wilson (1988), p. 281

“With such ideas in the background, it is not surprising that Edmond’s relatives were concerned about his support for settlement schemes and positively alarmed when they heard that he had had a meeting with the ardent Jewish nationalist, Theodor Herzl. Herzl was a Vienna-based journalist of extreme views. In 1896 he published a pamphlet entitled Der Judenstaat, an event generally acknowledged as marking the beginning of modern Zionism. In simple, pungent prose, Herzl challenged all that the Rothschilds and the other leading European Jews stood for: “…I consider the Jewish question neither a social nor a religious one, even though it sometimes take these and other forms. It is a national question…We have sincerely tried everywhere to merge with the national communities in which we live, seeking only to preserve the faith of our fathers. It is not permitted to us. In vain are we loyal patriots, sometimes super-loyal; in vain do we make the same sacrifices of life and property as our fellow citizens; in vain do we strive to enhance the fame of our native land in the arts and sciences, or her wealth by trade and commerce. In our native lands where we have lived for centuries we are still decried as aliens, often by men whose ancestors had not yet come at a time when Jewish sighs had long been heard in the country. The majority decides who the “alien” is; this , and all else in the relations between peoples, is a matter of power…”…Herzl believed that the Ottoman Sultan could and should be persuaded to cede Palestine to the Jews, and he embarked upon a campaign aimed at achieving this objective. His tour of European statesmen and Jewish leaders inevitably brought him before long to Baron Edmond’s door.”– Rothschild: The Wealth and Power of a Dynasty by Derek Wilson (1988), p. 296-297

“When Turkey became embroiled in war with France and Britain in 1914 the whole situation changed, almost overnight: the dream might now become a reality. Few doubted that Britain’s Middle East campaign would be victorious. She would, therefore, be in a position to impose terms on the Turks. Thus, if the government in London could be persuaded to establish a protectorate over the Palestinian Jews and incorporate plans for a homeland in the ultimate peace negotiations, such a homeland would have a legal basis backed, if necessary, by force of arms. Much the same thinking influenced Lord Rothschild, the lay leader of world Jewry. In the last months of his life Natty moved from a firm assimilationist position to one of active pro-Zionism. His continued support for his suffering co-religionists made him more aware than most of his contemporaries that the overall position was getting worse rather than better. Sporadic persecution continued in Russia and eastern Europe and the problems of re-settlement thus became steadily more acute. In his talks with leading politicians, he found some (notably Balfour and Lloyd George) favourably disposed towards the idea of a strong Jewish presence in the Middle East. In his last months he considered with Herbert Samuel, president of the Local Government Board, a discussion document the minister was preparing for the cabinet in which he urged his government colleagues to acquire Palestine, “into which the scattered Jews would in time swarm back from all quarters of the globe, and in due course obtain Home Rule”. Nothing came of this at the time but the idea of Britain using her imperial role to make a historical gesture of epic proportions had its attraction. There was also the practical foreign policy consideration that a friendly state in the Middle East would be a distinct long-term advantage. The British campaign in Palestine did not go well at first, but by 1917 the tide had turned and in the autumn General Allenby launched a major offensive which carried his forces to Jerusalem by the end of the year. Meanwhile the war cabinet wanted diplomatic and popular support for the Allied cause (especially from the Jewish element in America, which entered the war in April) and, as it became apparent that Britain would play a central role in disposing of the former Turkish dominions, they were eager to make use of the bargaining counter which now lay to hand. The conditions thus existed in 1917 for a dialogue with international Jewry.”– Rothschild: The Wealth and Power of a Dynasty by Derek Wilson (1988), p. 339

“James de Rothschild, and his new English wife, Dorothy, were ardent enthusiasts for a Jewish homeland. So were the honourable Charles Rothschild and Rozsika. It was Jimmy, however, who, as far as his military commitments allowed, was the main activists…The chief protagonists was Chaim Weizmann, president of the English Federation of Zionists, a gifted research chemist whose important work on explosives had already commended him to Lloyd George. The Rothschilds were also able to win support among leading figures in English society and politics, such as Neil Primrose who, as we have seen, was later killed in Palestine, and his sister, Lady Crewe. But at this juncture another member of the family, rather surprisingly, stepped into the limelight as the very active figurehead of the Zionist movement – Walter Rothschild. This twenty-two-stone human massif emerged from among his glass cases of stuffed animals and drawers of moths and insects, to do his duty as he saw it. His father had been the lay head of Jewry, and Walter, for whom all issues were matters of clear-cut black and white, believed that he had inherited this responsibility as surely as he had inherited Natty’s peerage. Like his father and his brother, he was a convinced Zionist and it was, therefore, for him, the most natural thing in the world that he, who had hitherto shown little interest in international politics, should now conduct a vigorous advocacy with the nation’s leaders.”– Rothschild: The Wealth and Power of a Dynasty by Derek Wilson (1988), p. 340

“General [Jan Christiaan] Smuts had expressed very decided views as to the strategical importance of Palestine to the British Empire,” Lloyd George later wrote, and became immediately involved with the issue. Perhaps because it had been decided that the political links of the empire were not to be tightened, Smuts and Amery moved at the British system; and both men concentrated on the importance of Palestine. If broadly defined, and in conjunction with Mesopotamia, Palestine gave Britain the land road from Egypt to India and brought together the empires of Africa and Asia. The capture of German East Africa by Botha and Smuts had already created a continuous stretch of British-controlled territories between, on the one hand, Cape Town, the Atlantic Ocean port at the southern tip of Africa, and on the other, Suez, which bridged the Mediterranean and the Red Sea at the continent’s northeastern tip. With the addition of Palestine and Mesopotamia, the Cape Town to Suez stretch could be linked up with the stretch of territory that ran through British-controlled Persia and the Indian Empire to Burma, Malaya, and the two great Dominions in the Pacific – Australia and New Zealand. As of 1917, Palestine was the key missing link that could join together the parts of the British Empire so that they would form a continuous chain from the Atlantic to the middle of the Pacific. The Prime Minister, of course, saw it the same way. As he wrote later, “For the British Empire, the fight with Turkey had a special importance of its own . . . The Turkish Empire lay right across the track by land or water to our great possessions in the east India, Burma, Malaya, Borneo, Hong Kong, and the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand. Amery, who was about to advise the Cabinet that continued Ottoman (and thus German) control of Palestine was a future danger to the British Empire, believed, with the Prime Minister, that Palestine ought to be invaded immediately – and that Smuts was the general to do it. For Smuts was not only a brilliantly successful general, but also shared their immediate strategic and broader geopolitical goals. . . Smuts continued, though, to take a keen interest in Palestine. He and Amery later went out together to the Middle East to study the situation and report; and both of them came back urging a strong Palestine offensive. As a Boer, steeped in the Bible, Smuts strongly supported the Zionist idea when it was raised in the Cabinet. As he later pointed out, the “people of South Africa and especially the older Dutch population has been brought up almost entirely on Jewish tradition. . . Like Lloyd George, he had grown up believing that “the day will come when the words of the prophets will become true, and Israel will return to its own land,” and he fully agreed with Lloyd George that the Jewish homeland should be established in Palestine under British auspices…Amery put together the pieces of this new imperial vision at the end of 1918, when he wrote to Smuts that Britain’s hold on the Middle East should be permanent, and not terminate when the mandates did.”A Peace to End All Peace, Creating the Modern Middle East, 1914-1922 by David Fromkin, p. 281-283.(Note: David Fromkin is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.)

Members of the B’nai B’rith visit U.S. President William Howard Taft (center) at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S.A. William Howard Taft was a member of Skull & Bones, a secret society at Yale University. The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith was founded in 1913. The Federal Reserve Act and the federal income tax (the 16th Amendment) were promulgated in 1913. (Photo: Harris & Ewing Collection/Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division)http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/hec2009001865/?sid=a686ea9e9fe6f02184a602a270d1d5cc

Photo shows the notification ceremony that took place on September 3, 1913 on the steps of City Hall in New York City, where Mayor William Jay Gaynor was nominated for re-election. Bankers Jacob Henry Schiff (center (holding a piece of paper in his left hand, 1847-1920) and Ruel Ross Appleton, Sr. (1853-1928) are shown with Gaynor. William Jay Gaynor died in office on September 10, 1913 aboard a steamship en route to Europe. New York City Mayor William Jay Gaynor was shot in the throat on a ship at Hoboken, New Jersey on August 9, 1910 by a lone gunman named John J. Gallagher.(Photo: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division)

Jewish banker Jacob H. Schiff, a partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. banking firm in New York City (later acquired by Lehman Brothers in 1977), provided millions of dollar to Leon Trotsky in 1917 to help Trotsky finance the Bolshevik Revolution and the establishment of Communism in Russia. Leon Trotsky, whose real name was Lev Davidovich Bronstein, was a son of a Russian Jewish farmer.

Vote under the Shovel: Photo shows the notification ceremony that took place on September 3, 1913 on the steps of City Hall in New York City, where New York City Mayor William Jay Gaynor was nominated for re-election. Banker Jacob Henry Schiff (holding his hat in his left hand, 1847-1920) stands next to Gaynor (holding a shovel). William Jay Gaynor died in office on September 10, 1913.(Photo: George Grantham Bain Collection/Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division)

Significant Historical Events in 1913:The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith was founded in 1913.The Rockefeller Foundation was founded in 1913.The Sixteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution legalizing federal income tax was ratified on February 3, 1913.The U.S. Department of Labor was established on March 4, 1913.President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law on December 23, 1913.Francisco I. Madero, former President of Mexico, was assassinated in Mexico on February 22, 1913.Woodrow Wilson was inaugurated President of the United States on March 4, 1913.King George I of Greece was assassinated in Thessaloniki, Greece on March 18, 1913International banker John Pierpont Morgan Sr. died in Rome, Italy on March 31, 1913.The Treaty of London ending the First Balkan War was signed on May 30, 1913.The Treaty of Bucharest ending the Second Balkan War was signed on August 10, 1913.

Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971): “USA”, Vol. 15, col. 1623-1624: Eighteenth annual convention of the Zionist Organization of America, Boston, Mass., 1915. Among those present are Henrietta Szold (1) and Louis Dembitz Brandeis (2).(Zionist Archives, New York) (Source: http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/USA/EncJud_juden-in-USA04_1880-1919.html)

Since its founding in 1897, the Zionist Organization of America has been fighting for the Jewish people and the Land of Israel. Under the leadership of such illustrious presidents as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, Rabbi Dr. Abba Hillel Silver, and current National President Morton A. Klein, the ZOA has been on the front lines of Jewish activism. With a national membership of over 30,000, and chapters throughout the United States (including Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, North Jersey, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, South Jersey and Washington D.C.), the ZOA today works to strengthen US-Israeli relations, through educational activities, public affairs programs, working every day on Capitol Hill, and by combating anti-Israel bias in the media, textbooks, and on campuses…The ZOA's Center for Law & Justice works through the courts to help Israel and the Jewish people…The ZOA speaks out for Israel - in reports, newsletters, and other publications...in speeches in synagogues, churches, and community events, in high schools and colleges from coast to coast...in e-mail action alerts...in op-eds and letters to the editor...in radio and television appearances by ZOA leaders.(Source: http://www.zoa.org/content/about_us.asp)

Baron Edmond de Rothschild, a French Jewish financier, visits Jerusalem in 1914, prior to the beginning of World War I. The city of Jerusalem in 1914 was administered by the Ottoman Empire, a state governed by Muslim Turks in Constantinople (Istanbul). The Ottoman Empire surrendered Jerusalem to the British Empire in December 1917 during World War I. The State of Israel was established on May 14, 1948, after the British Empire ended its occupation of the Holy Land in 1948.

Federal Reserve Board member Paul M. Warburg (wearing a top hat and a moustache), a Jewish banker from Hamburg, Germany, attends the First Pan American Financial Conference in Washington, D.C. in May 1915.(Photo: Harris & Ewing Collection/Library of Congress)

Oscar S. Straus, an American Jewish businessman who served as U.S. Minister to the Ottoman Empire (1887-1889, 1898-1899), U.S. Secretary of Commerce and Labor (1906-1909), and U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire (1909-1910), delivers a speech during World War I. Oscar S. Straus was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. (Photo: George Grantham Bain Collection/Library of Congress)

Julius Rosenwald, President of Sears, Roebuck & Co. [Sears department stores] from 1910 to 1925, poses for a photographer in 1917. Julius Rosenwald was a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, a member of the American Jewish Committee, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. (Photo: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division)http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/hec2008005882/?sid=3c6695673d493ab03304f8ed37494bce

A Joint Distribution Committee meeting takes place on August 16, 1918. Jews of the United States of America who have distributed twelve million dollars of the relief moneys raised by American Jewry since the beginning of World War I. Jacob Schiff, philanthropist, international banker and one of the founders of the American Jewish Historical Society, appears in the lower right corner.

Seated from left to right are: Felix M. Warburg, of Kuhn Loeb & Co., Chairman of the Committee; Rabbi Aaron Teitelbaum, Corresponding Secretary of the Joint Distribution Committee; Mrs. F. Friedman, official stenographer; Dr. Boris D. Bogen, organizer of the branch of the Committee in Holland and a director of the National Conference of Charities; Leon Sanders, President of the Independent Order of Brith Abraham; Harry Fishcel, Treasurer of the Central Relief Committee; Sholem Asch, noted Yiddish writer and Vice Chairman of People's Relief Committee; Alexander Kahn, Chairman of the People's Relief Committee; Jacob Milch; Miss Harriet Lowenstein, woman lawyer and Comptroller of Joint Distribution Committee; Colonel Moses Schonenberg; Rabbi M.Z. Margolies, President of the Agudas Habonim; Israel Friedlander, Jewish Theological Seminary of NY; Paul Baerwald, Associate Treasurer of the Committee; Julius Levy; Peter Wiernik, Chairman of the Central Relief Committee and editor of the Jewish Morning Journal; Meyer Gillis, assistant editor of Forward; Colonel Harry Cutler, Chairman of the Jewish Welfare Board; Cyrus Adler, President of Dropsey College and the Jewish Theological Seminary; Arthur Lehman, Treasurer of the Committee and member of Lehman Bros.

Standing from left to right: Abraham Zucker, People's Relief Committee; Isadore Hershfield, who established communication between Jewish families in Europe and America; Rabbi Meyer Berlin, Vice President of the Central Relief Committee; Stanley Bero, Central Relief Committee; Louis Topkis; Morris Engelman, financial secretary of the Central Relief Committee and originator of the plan for American Relief for the Jewish

War Sufferers. (Photo: American Jewish Historical Society/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/center_for_jewish_history/3420953499/)

This photograph was published in Barnet Litvinoff‘s book Weizmann: Last of the Patriarchs.

Lord Arthur James Balfour visits Tel Aviv in 1920. British Jewish Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann is seen standing to the left of Lord Balfour. (Source: Pictorial History of Israel by Jacob A. Rubin and Meyer Barkai)

American Jewish leaders gather for a portrait aboard a ship in 1922. From left to right: Nathan Straus, co-owner of Macy's; Louis Brandeis, U.S. Supreme Court Justice; Stephen Samuel Wise, leading Reform rabbi, founding secretary of the American Federation of Zionists, and first President of World Jewish Congress. (Photo: Library of Congress)

Baron Edmond de Rothschild meets with Sir Herbert Samuel, the first British High Commissioner of Palestine. Sir Herbert Samuel was a British Jewish politician, a Member of Parliament, and a Zionist who served as the High Commissioner of Palestine from July 1, 1920 to June 30, 1925. Sir Herbert Samuel chose Haj Amin Al-Husseini as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in 1921; Haj Amin Al-Husseini was a Nazi collaborator during World War II. (Source: Pictorial History of Israel by Jacob A. Rubin and Meyer Barkai)

Prominent American Jewish Financiers and Powerbrokers during World War I

Oscar Solomon StrausU.S. Ambassador to the

Ottoman Empire(October 4, 1909-

September 3, 1910)

Abram Isaac ElkusU.S. Ambassador to the

Ottoman Empire (October 2, 1916-April

20, 1917)

Henry Morgenthau Sr.U.S. Ambassador to the

Ottoman Empire(1913-1916)

Jacob H. SchiffPartner of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. [bank in New York

City] and Bolshevik Revolution financier

Edwin R.A. SeligmanMcVickar Professor of Political Economy and Finance at Columbia

University (1904-1931)

George BlumenthalSenior Partner of Lazard Freres & Co. (1904-1925)

Frank AltschulPartner of Lazard Freres

& Co. (1916-1945)Paul Warburg

Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve

(1916-1918)

Felix WarburgPartner of Kuhn, Loeb &

Co. (1896-1937)

Otto H. KahnPartner of Kuhn, Loeb &

Co. (1897-1934)

Eugene MeyerB.A. Yale 1895

Member of the War Industries Board (1917); Director of War Finance Corporation (1918-1920)

Julius RosenwaldPresident of Sears,

Roebuck & Co.(1910-1925)

Albert StraussVice Chairman of the

Federal Reserve(1918- 1920)

Bernard BaruchChairman of the War

Industries Board (1918-1919) under U.S. President

Woodrow Wilson

Louis D. BrandeisJustice of the U.S.

Supreme Court(1916-1939)

Nathan StrausChairman of American

Jewish Congress(1920-1931)

Rabbi Stephen S. WisePresident of World

Jewish Congress (1936-1949); President of

Zionist Organization of America (1936-1938)

Samuel UntermeyerLawyer in New York City;

counsel for the Pujo hearings in Congress in

1912

Perry BelmontU.S. Minister to Spain (1889); New York City

financier

Adolph S. OchsPublisher of The New

York Times (1896-1935)

German Atrocities during World War I

May 7, 1915 – Sinking of the Lusitania: British luxury cruise ship RMS Lusitania was torpedoed by a German U-boat on May 7, 1915. The great ship sank in just 18 minutes, eight miles (15 km) off the Old Head of Kinsale, Ireland, killing 785 people, including 128 Americans, of the 1,257 people aboard.

October 12, 1915 – Summary Execution of Edith Cavell: An Imperial German army officer (left poster) exterminates 49-year-old British nurse Edith Cavell in Brussels, Belgium on October 12, 1915 after Edith Cavell was court-martialled and found guilty of “treason”. Right photo: A portrait of Edith Cavell

Standing as I do in view of God and eternity, I realise that patriotism is not enough, I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone.” – Edith Cavell, on October 11, 1915, the day before her summary execution

Black Tom Explosion in Jersey City, New Jersey (July 30, 1916):German Espionage or False-Flag Operation?

Aftermath of the Black Tom Explosion, an act of sabotage on American ammunition supplies by German agents which occurred at the Black Tom Pier in Jersey City, New Jersey on the night of July 30, 1916. (Photo: Central intelligence Agency Library)

On a summer night in New York City in 1916, a pier laden with a thousand tons of munitions destined for Britain, France, and Russia in their war against Imperial Germany suddenly caught fire and exploded with a force that scarred the Statue of Liberty with shrapnel, shattered windows in Times Square, rocked the Brooklyn Bridge, and woke sleepers as far away as Maryland. Within days, local authorities had concluded that the blasts at "Black Tom" pier were the work of German saboteurs seeking to destroy supplies headed from neutral America to Germany's enemies.

German bombs seized in New Jersey. (Photo: Central intelligence Agency Library)

Count Johann Heinrich von Bernstorff was the German Ambassador to the United States from 1908 to 1917. Bernstorff was a member of the German Reichstag during the 1920s and moved to Switzerland following the “election” of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in 1933.

The sabotage cable of 26 January 1915, intercepted by the British: German text, left; actual message with decoding, right. (Photo: Central intelligence Agency Library)

Left: Wanted Poster issued for suspected German agent.(Source: Central intelligence Agency Library)

Right: Inspector Thomas J. Tunney of the New York bomb Squad. (Source: Central intelligence Agency Library)

The Kaiser Sows Destruction Protecting the Homeland the First Time Around

By Michael Warner

Intelligence officers responding to the attacks on 11 September 2001 perhaps had little inkling that they were following paths trod long ago by their forebears. On a summer night in New York City in 1916, a pier laden with a thousand tons of munitions destined for Britain, France, and Russia in their war against Imperial Germany suddenly caught fire and exploded with a force that scarred the Statue of Liberty with shrapnel, shattered windows in Times Square, rocked the Brooklyn Bridge, and woke sleepers as far away as Maryland. Within days, local authorities had concluded that the blasts at "Black Tom" pier were the work of German saboteurs seeking to destroy supplies headed from neutral America to Germany's enemies.

Black Tom pier, after the explosion

Black Tom was neither the first nor the costliest incident in the two-year German sabotage campaign in America, but it made perhaps the deepest impression. Although this campaign was the work not of terrorists but of German agents—and despite the fact that it took comparatively few lives—it marked the national psyche, as well as America's laws and institutions. Indeed, some of the very organizations and processes being tested today in the war on terrorism were created to deal with the German sabotage campaign, or to prevent a repetition. A quick look at the campaign and the American response provides some striking parallels between our time and an earlier age.

Germany Attacks

World War I erupted in July 1914, with Britain soon joining the French and Russians against the Germans and Austrians. The Royal Navy quickly blockaded Germany's ports and swept the seas of the Kaiser's ships, more than a hundred of which scurried for refuge in the harbors of neutral America. The British blockade made it impossible for Germany and Austria to import war materiel and foodstuffs from overseas, while leaving the British, French, and Russians at their leisure to buy the products of America's farms and factories. American businessmen welcomed the foreign customers who bought huge quantities and paid cash when necessary.

 

 

  

German Ambassador, Count Johann von Bernstorff

The government of the United States and most Americans regarded the war as an Old World squabble best avoided. The German ambassador, Count Johann von Bernstorff, protested the fact that the British, French, and Russians were buying armaments in America, but he received no satisfaction from official Washington. The United States was neutral, and willing to sell to anyone who could pay. President Woodrow Wilson sympathized with the British, despite his advice to Americans to remain neutral "in fact as well as in name during these days that are to try men's souls."1 Politicians and editorialists lamented the war in Europe

and complained of the British blockade, but increasing exports to the Allies (swiftly turning America from a debtor to a creditor nation) gradually and surely yoked the nation's economy to the Allied cause.2

After months of fruitless complaints, Germany decided to take bold action to stem the flow of American arms and supplies to its enemies. On 4 February 1915, Berlin ordered its submarines to sink any vessels—even those flying the flags of neutrals—sailing within an exclusion zone around Great Britain. At roughly the same time, the General Staff confirmed its prior authorization to Germany's military attache in Washington to mount sabotage operations against "every kind of factory for supplying munitions of war."3 Despite this sweeping grant of authority, however, the attaché, Franz von Papen, had no training in clandestine activities, and accomplished little over the next few months.

Berlin sent von Papen some help in April 1915. An aristocratic naval officer, Captain Franz von Rintelen, arrived in New York carrying a Swiss passport and orders to run a sabotage campaign under illegal cover. Rintelen spoke fluent English and knew Manhattan's banking and social milieus. He was as unschooled in covert action as his Embassy counterparts, but was more innovative and seemingly inexhaustible. Within weeks of his arrival, he had enlisted sailors and officers from the 80-odd German ships languishing in New York harbor, turning a workshop on one of the ships into a bomb factory. He convinced a German-born chemist across the river in New Jersey to fill cigar-shaped firebombs, and claims to have used Irish dockworkers to plant the devices on Allied ships in American ports. The shipping news soon noted a rash of mysterious accidents at sea; ships carrying munitions from America were damaged and their cargoes ruined by fires.

America Responds

Until this point, the Americans had been baffled and fumbling in their response to German secret activities. The United States had no national intelligence service beyond its diplomats and a few military and naval attaches. There was no codebreaking agency and only rudimentary communications security. Still more remarkable, no federal statute forbade peacetime espionage and sabotage. Planting bombs and committing passport fraud—to name only two of the transgressions already perpetrated by German agents—had to be investigated piecemeal by federal, state, and local authorities. No federal agency had either the power or the resources to follow leads that hinted at a foreign-directed conspiracy to violate the laws of multiple jurisdictions. That soon began to change, however, thanks to Captain Rintelen's colleagues in the German navy.

The sabotage cable of 26 January 1915, intercepted by the British: German text, left; actual message with decoding, right.

In May 1915, a U-boat off the coast of Ireland sank the British liner Lusitania with appalling loss of life, including 128 Americans. The sinking turned public opinion against Germany and angered President Wilson, who ordered the Secret Service—previously confined to protecting presidents and hunting counterfeiters—to watch German diplomats. Although the Secret Service officers did not spot Rintelen, they filched the briefcase of the German commercial attaché on a New York streetcar in July 1915, and found in his papers several leads to the sabotage campaign. Officials in Washington began to see what was afoot.

German bombs seized in New Jersey.  

Not long afterward, Captain Rintelen was ordered to Berlin for consultations and boarded a Dutch steamer for the long trip. He never made it. Tipped by a decoded German message, the British stopped his ship in the English Channel and detained him. His Swiss passport only delayed the inevitable, and soon Rintelen admitted to his captors that he was an enemy officer.4

American authorities by late 1915 had enough evidence to expel other German diplomats. Military Attache Franz von Papen held diplomatic immunity and thus could not be arrested by the British when they stopped his ship in the Channel, but His

Majesty's officers decided that von Papen's immunity did not extend to his luggage. The British found various incriminating documents, some of which they turned over to the Americans to assist their growing investigation of German activities.

 

 

 

 

 

Wanted Poster issued for suspected German agent.

The departure of the key diplomats corresponded with a shift in the center of gravity of the investigations. With no obvious targets left to investigate, federal authorities could do little to help. The trail of the ship bombers thus shifted to the Bomb Squad of the New York Police Department, which found itself for a time hamstrung by the inefficiency of coordinating with police and authorities in New Jersey. The NYPD also discovered that it needed Germans to catch German saboteurs. America in 1915 was home to more than 2.5 million German immigrants; perhaps 4 million native-born Americans had parents who had been born in Germany. The great majority of these people saw themselves as loyal American citizens. Indeed, several German-speaking detectives served on the NYPD Bomb Squad, and were subsequently stationed in dockside taverns where German sailors gossiped and plotted over their lager. In early 1916, the authorities swooped into New York and New Jersey, rounding up Rintelen's confederates who had been "outraging our neutrality," in the words of a contemporaneous book on the incidents. This action largely halted the campaign of ship bombings.5

The dragnet, however, missed other conspirators. Rintelen's former contacts shifted their targets from ships carrying war materiel to the factories producing it. Although American detectives never caught more than a handful of the suspects—and thus it is difficult at this remove to sketch the true picture of the conspiracy—it seems clear now that small teams of German agents succeeded in infiltrating various plants and sites filling contracts for the Allies.6

The conflagration at Black Tom pier was their most spectacular success, but there were others. In January 1917, a mysterious fire at a shell-packing plant in Kingsland, New Jersey, just across the river from Manhattan, rocked the city and sent thousands fleeing from unfused shells flung high in the air by the blasts. Three months later, another unexplained fire destroyed the Hercules Powder Company plant in Eddystone, Pennsylvania, killing over a hundred workers, most of them women and children. A book published in 1937 estimated that, between early 1915 and spring 1917, 43 American factories suffered explosions or fires of mysterious origin, in addition to the bombs set on some four dozen ships carrying war supplies to the Allies.

These attacks did little damage to the huge American economy or the Allied war effort. One later estimate put the damage at $150 million in then-current money (or somewhat less than $1.5 billion dollars today).7 Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of the skullduggery—and especially the renewed U-boat sinkings of American ships—poisoned public opinion against Germany. The final straw came with Britain's interception of the Zimmerman Telegram—in which Berlin promised Mexico its lost territory in Texas and the Southwest if it would attack America—and the Wilson administration's publication of the damning cable.8

Inspector Thomas J. Tunney of the New York bomb Squad.

America declared war on Germany in April 1917, creating a new legal and political climate for German agents and their pursuers. As the war loomed that spring, Germany's main undercover agents—fearing execution if captured as spies in an enemy country—had quietly decamped for Mexico. Following the declaration, the Attorney General authorized his department's small Bureau of Investigation to investigate espionage on its own initiative. A few weeks later, Congress passed the Espionage Act, which remains the basis of modern espionage statutes.9 The Bureau's roughly 400 agents joined the campaign against German agents.10 Among the Justice Department officials working closely with the Bureau in its monitoring of suspicious aliens was an up-and-coming attorney named J. Edgar Hoover, who would one day head the organization and give it the name it holds today: the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The fight against German espionage and sabotage took two significant paths thereafter. The long campaign of subversion unfortunately heightened suspicions of all Germans and bred a popular fear of aliens, agitators, and subversives. A wave of wartime vigilantism swept the country, with thousands of Americans denouncing their immigrant neighbors and anyone else suspected of disloyalty. Popular worries about German plotters were misplaced—the vast majority of German-Americans were patriots, and many fought for their country in 1918—but the distrust of entire ethnic groups during times of national emergency was a trait that would endure.

The official response to German sabotage followed a more professional path. With British help, American counterintelligence agencies finally organized themselves and even took the offensive against German networks in the final months of the war. The Army expanded its tiny Military Intelligence Division (MID), hiring detectives from the NYPD Bomb Squad and eventually assigning several sections to domestic security duties, under the theory that "the misbehavior, disloyalty, or indifference of native Americans is as important a material of military intelligence as any other."11 When American authorities penetrated a German operation run from Mexico, one of these MID units—Herbert Yardley's Negative Branch—broke a German agent cipher and provided evidence that helped to convict an important operative.12 Indeed, the decryption of the coded messages of suspected German agents originally formed the bulk of the work of the US Army's code-breaking section, and gave it a reason to begin monitoring radio transmissions as well. Signals intelligence, as well as counterintelligence, was born as a discipline in the United States as a result of World War I.

Postwar Developments

The effects of the German sabotage campaign reverberated after the war. In 1924, the Justice Department's Bureau of Investigation got a new broom—Director J. Edgar Hoover—who was determined to make it an instrument that would energetically and professionally track foreign threats. As a second European war loomed in the late 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt secretly ordered Hoover to monitor communist and fascist sympathizers. The outbreak of World War II in 1939 precipitated new measures to guard American neutrality. The White House authorized the FBI to watch potential saboteurs and Congress passed the draconian Smith Act, requiring (among other things) the periodic re-registration of all aliens and giving federal law enforcement agencies powerful weapons to use against radicals of all stripes. Indeed, memories of the German sabotage campaign helped sway the Roosevelt administration's decision to intern Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor. "We don't want any more Black Toms," President Roosevelt told Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy, who implemented the internment order.13

All this high-level attention also persuaded the Army and Navy intelligence agencies in 1939 to join the FBI on a committee to coordinate actions and policies. It bears noting that the main focus of this coordination—America's first civilian-military intelligence-sharing arrangement—was to prevent sabotage like that conducted by Germany in World War I. The formation of the outfit that became the Office of Strategic Services was closely related to these developments; it had much to do with the

desire of British intelligence agencies for a central point of contact in Washington for information-sharing regarding German threats to British war materiel moving from the United States.

Conclusion

The lessons to America are clear as day. We must not again be caught napping with no adequate national Intelligence organization. The several Federal bureaus should be welded into one, and that one should be eternally and comprehensively vigilant.14

—Arthur Woods, Police Commissioner of New York, 1919

Few today remember the Black Tom explosion or the Kingsland fire, but incidents like these made a deep and lasting impression on the minds of two generations of American leaders. German sabotage actually killed only a comparative handful of Americans. Nevertheless, it piled outrage upon outrage to convince many people of two elemental but enduring lessons: first, that enemy aliens in our midst can be a source of great mischief in wartime and therefore must be watched closely; and, second, that strong federal laws and federal agencies are indispensable to the effective investigation—and deterrence—of foreign conspiracies on American soil.

No one today can predict the long-term impact on the Intelligence Community of the events of 11 September 2001. If the past is any guide, however, those effects are likely to be profound. Certain lessons from that tragedy are sure to shape the minds of the American people, their elected officials, and those who oversee the Intelligence Community. The effects of Germany's sabotage campaign took at least three decades to work themselves out; the attack on 11 September may exert powerful pressures for change in the American intelligence establishment for at least that long.

Footnotes

1. Quoted in Jules Witcover, Sabotage at Black Tom: Imperial Germany's Secret War in America, 1914-1917 (Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin, 1989), pp. 70-71.

2. Thomas A. Bailey, A Diplomatic History of the American People (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1958 [sixth edition]), pp. 567-575.

3. Henry Landau, The Enemy Within: The Inside Story of German Sabotage in America (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1937), p. 8. The German Embassy had apparently been ordered to conduct sabotage against British economic interests in 1914, but its initial, amateurish efforts had been directed against railways in Canada. Berlin's 26 January 1915 authorization survived--courtesy of British signals intelligence--and is crucial as a piece of evidence because it is the sabotage campaign's earliest extant operational order.

4. After America entered the war, the British bundled Rintelen off to New York to stand trial. One of the charges that stuck was that of conspiracy to create an illegal restraint of trade by inducing dockworkers to strike against firms loading ships with munitions. He thus became surely the most important--and probably the only--spy to be jailed for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. Released in 1920, Rintelen eventually moved to England, told his story in a lurid memoir titled The Dark Invader: Wartime Reminiscences of a German Naval Intelligence Officer (London: Lovat, Dickson, 1933), and died in London in 1949.

5. Thomas J. Tunney and Paul Merrick Hollister, Throttled: The Detection of the German and Anarchist Bomb Plotters in the United States (Boston: Small, Maynard, 1919), p. vii.

6. This phase of the sabotage campaign may forever remain obscure. Few if any official documents on this subject survived in Germany; many were apparently destroyed by the German General Staff in 1919. Most of the German agents were never caught, and those who were said little to help the authorities.

7. The $150 million estimate and the numbers of ships and factories come from Landau, pp. 38, 300. In 1953, the new Federal Republic of Germany agreed to pay $95 million (including interest) over 26 years to claimants alleging damages from the Black Tom and Kingsland fires. The last payments were made on schedule in 1979--see Witcover, p. 310. It is also interesting to note that munitions at Black Tom were bound for Russia, and might have lessened the shortfall that hastened the collapse of the Czar's army in the fall and winter of 1916-1917.

8. Barbara W. Tuchman tells this story in The Zimmerman Telegram (New York: Dell, 1958). Of particular interest is the groundwork laid--both in the minds of German leaders and American investigators--by Rintelen in his dealings with exiled Mexican contenders in New York. Washington was already sensitive about German plotting with Mexico when the British passed Zimmerman's cable to American diplomats. See Tuchman, pp. 64-81.

9. On 1 July 1916, before there was an espionage statute, Congress had allowed the Bureau to investigate German subversive activities upon request from the Department of State.

10. The Bureau gained at least one counterintelligence coup in April 1918, when it quietly tunneled into a vault of the Swiss consulate in New York to peek at the files of former German Commercial Attaché Heinrich Albert. Don Whitehead, The FBI Story: A Report to the People (New York: Random House, 1956), p. 32.

11. John Patrick Finnegan, Military Intelligence (Washington: US Army Center of Military History, 1998), pp. 24-30.

12. The agent, Lothar Witzke, has long been suspected of a hand in the Black Tom sabotage; see Witcover, pp. 245-246. Herbert Yardley tells the story in his own words in The American Black Chamber (New York: Ballantine, 1981 [1931]), pp. 106-107.

13. See Witcover, p. 311. Witcover notes that he interviewed McCloy in his law offices high in World Trade Center, commanding a fine view of the Statue of Liberty and the site of Black Tom pier. McCloy's interest in the German campaign ran deep. He had investigated the sabotage for the Mixed Claims Commission that heard the cases against Berlin in the 1930s, and had been brought to Washington by Secretary of War Stimson in late 1940 to work as a consultant on German sabotage; see Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas, The Wise Men: Six Friends and the World They Made (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1986), pp. 123-25, 182.

14. Quoted in Tunney and Hollister, p. ix

Michael Warner, serves on the CIA History Staff.

Historical DocumentPosted: Apr 14, 2007 07:17 PMLast Updated: Jun 27, 2008 07:19 AMLast Reviewed: Apr 14, 2007 07:17 PM

Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol46no1/article02.html

German Ambassador Count Johann von Bernstorff to Robert Lansing, U.S. Secretary of State

Washington D.C., 31 January 1917

Mr. Secretary of State:

Your Excellency was good enough to transmit to the Imperial Government a copy of the message which the President of the United States of America addressed to the Senate on the 22nd inst.  The Imperial Government has given it the earnest consideration which the President's statements deserve, inspired, as they are, by a deep sentiment of responsibility.

It is highly gratifying to the Imperial Government to ascertain that the main tendencies of this important statement correspond largely to the desires and principles professed by Germany.  These principles especially include self-government and equality of rights for all nations.  Germany would be sincerely glad if, in recognition of this principle, countries like Ireland and India, which do not enjoy the benefits of political independence, should now obtain their freedom.

The German people also repudiate all alliances which serve to force the countries into a competition for might and to involve them in a net of selfish intrigues.  On the other hand, Germany will gladly cooperate in all efforts to prevent future wars.

The freedom of the seas, being a preliminary condition of the free existence of nations and the peaceful intercourse between them, as well as the open door for the commerce of all nations, has always formed part of the leading principles of Germany's political program.  All the more the Imperial Government regrets that the attitude of her enemies, who are so entirely opposed to peace, makes it impossible for the world at present to bring about the realization of these lofty ideals.

Germany and her allies were ready to enter now into a discussion of peace, and had set down as basis the guarantee of existence, honour, and free development of their peoples.  Their aims, as has been expressly stated in the note of December 12, 1916, were not directed toward the destruction or annihilation of their enemies and were, according to their conviction, perfectly compatible with the rights of the other nations.

As to Belgium, for which such warm and cordial sympathy is felt in the United States, the Chancellor had declared only a few weeks previously that its annexation had never formed part of Germany's intentions.  The peace to be signed with Belgium was to provide for such conditions in that country, with which Germany desires to maintain friendly neighbourly relations, that Belgium should not be used again by Germany's enemies for the purpose of instigating continuous hostile intrigues.

Such precautionary measures are all the more necessary, as Germany's enemies have repeatedly stated, not only in speeches delivered by their leading men, but also in the statutes of the Economical Conference in Paris, that it is their intention not to treat Germany as an equal, even after peace has been restored, but to continue their hostile attitude, and especially to wage a systematical economic war against her.

The attempt of the four allied powers to bring about peace has failed, owing to the lust of conquest of their enemies, who desired to dictate the conditions of peace.  Under the pretence of following the principle of nationality, our enemies have disclosed their real aims in this way, viz., to dismember and dishonour Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria.  To the wish of reconciliation they oppose the will of destruction.  They desire a fight to the bitter end.

A new situation has thus been created which forces Germany to new decisions.  Since two years and a half England is using her naval power for a criminal attempt to force Germany into submission by starvation.  In brutal contempt of international law, the group of powers led by England not only curtail the legitimate trade of their opponents, but they also, by ruthless pressure, compel neutral countries either to altogether forego every trade not agreeable to the Entente Powers, or to limit it according to their arbitrary decrees.

The American Government knows the steps which have been taken to cause England and her allies to return to the rules of international law and to respect the freedom of the seas.  The English Government, however, insists upon continuing its war of starvation, which does not at all affect the military power of its opponents, but compels women and children, the sick and the aged, to suffer for their country pains and privations which endanger the vitality of the nation.

Thus British tyranny mercilessly increases the sufferings of the world, indifferent to the laws of humanity, indifferent to the protests of the neutrals whom they severely harm, indifferent even to the silent longing for peace among England's own allies.

Each day of the terrible struggle causes new destruction, new sufferings.  Each day shortening the war will, on both sides, preserve the lives of thousands of brave soldiers and be a benefit to mankind.

The Imperial Government could not justify before its own conscience, before the German people, and before history the neglect of any means destined to bring about the end of the war.  Like the President of the United States, the Imperial Government had hoped to reach this goal by negotiations.

Since the attempts to come to an understanding with the Entente Powers have been answered by the latter with the announcement of an intensified continuation of the war, the Imperial Government - in order to serve the welfare of mankind in a higher sense and not to wrong its own people - is now compelled to continue the fight for existence, again forced upon it, with the full employment of all the weapons which are at its disposal.

Sincerely trusting that the people and the Government of the United States will understand the motives for this decision and its necessity, the Imperial Government hopes that the United States may view the new situation from the lofty heights of impartiality, and assist, on their part, to prevent further misery and unavoidable sacrifice of human life.

Inclosing two memoranda regarding the details of the contemplated military measures at sea, I remain, etc.

Memoranda Enclosed with Count Bernstorff's Note

From February 1, 1917, sea traffic will be stopped with every available weapon and without further notice in the following blockade zones around Great Britain, France, Italy and in the Eastern Mediterranean:

In the North: The zone is confined by a line at a distance of twenty sea miles along the Dutch coast to Terschelling Lightship, the meridian of longitude from Terschelling Lightship to Udsire; a line from there across the point 62 degrees north, 0 degrees longitude, to 62 degrees north, 5 degrees west; further to a point three sea miles south of the southern point of the Faroe Islands; from there across a point 62 degrees north, 10 degrees west, to 61 degrees north, 15 degrees west; then 57 degrees north, 20 degrees west, to 47 degrees north, 20 degrees west; further, to 43 degrees north, 15 degrees west; then along the parallel of latitude 43 degrees north to twenty sea miles from Cape Finisterre, and at a distance of twenty sea miles along the north coast of Spain to the French boundary.

In the South - The Mediterranean: For neutral ships, remains open the sea west of the line Pt. Des Espiquettes to 38 degrees 20 minutes north and 6 degrees east; also north and west of a zone sixty sea miles wide along the North African coast, beginning at 2 degrees longitude west.  For the connection of this sea zone with Greece there is provided a zone of a width of twenty sea miles north and east of the following line: 38 degrees north and 6 degrees east to 38 degrees north and 10 degrees west, to 37 degrees north and 11 degrees 30 minutes east, to 34 degrees north and 22 degrees 30 minutes east.  From there leads a zone twenty sea miles wide, west of 22 degrees 30 minutes eastern longitude, into Greek territorial waters.

Neutral ships navigating these blockade zones do so at their own risk.  Although care has been taken that neutral ships which are on their way toward ports of the blockade zones on February 1, 1917, and have come in the vicinity of the latter, will be spared during a sufficiently long period, it is strongly advised to warn them with all available means in order to cause their return.

Neutral ships which on February 1st are in ports of the blockade zones can with the same safety leave them.

The instructions given to the commanders of German submarines provide for a sufficiently long period during which the safety of passengers on unarmed enemy passenger ships is guaranteed.

Americans en route to the blockade zone on enemy freight steamers are not endangered, as the enemy shipping firms can prevent such ships in time from entering the zone.

Sailing of regular American passenger steamers may continue undisturbed after February 1, 1917, if:

(A) The port of destination is Falmouth.

(B) Sailing to or coming from that port course is taken via the Scilly Islands and a point 50 degrees north, 20 degrees west.

(C) The steamers are marked in the following way, which must not be allowed to other vessels in American ports: On ship's hull and superstructure three vertical stripes one metre wide, each to be painted alternately white and red.  Each mast should show a large flag checkered white and red, and the stern the American national flag.  Care should be taken that, during dark, national flag and painted marks are easily recognizable from a distance, and that the boats are well lighted throughout.

(D) One steamer a week sails in each direction with arrival at Falmouth on Sunday and departure from Falmouth on Wednesday.

(E) United States Government guarantees that no contraband (according to German contraband list) is carried by those steamers.

Source: Source Records of the Great War, Vol. V, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/uboat_bernstorff.htm

World War I Casualties by Countries

Allies of World War IPopulation

(millions)Military

deathsCivilian

deathsTotal deaths

Deaths as % of population

Military wounded

Australia 4.5 61,928 61,928 1.38% 152,171Canada 7.2 64,944 2,000 66,944 0.93% 149,732Indian Empire 315.1 74,187 74,187 0.02% 69,214New Zealand 1.1 18,050 18,050 1.64% 41,317Dominion of Newfoundland

0.2 1,204 1,204 0.6% 2,314

South Africa 6.0 9,463 9,463 0.16% 12,029United Kingdom 45.4 885,138 109,000 994,138 2.19% 1,663,435Sub-total for British Imperial Forces

- 1,114,914 111,000 1,225,914 - 2,090,212

 Belgium 7.4 58,637 62,000 120,637 1.63% 44,686France 39.6 1,397,800 300,000 1,697,800 4.29% 4,266,000Greece 4.8 26,000 150,000 176,000 3.67% 21,000Italy 35.6 651,000 589,000 1,240,000 3.48% 953,886Empire of Japan 53.6 415 415 0% 907Luxembourg 0.3 See footnoteMontenegro 0.5 3,000 3,000 0.6% 10,000Portugal 6.0 7,222 82,000 89,222 1.49% 13,751Romania 7.5 250,000 430,000 680,000 9.07% 120,000Russian Empire 175.1 1,811,000 1,500,000 3,311,000 1.89% 4,950,000Serbia 4.5 275,000 450,000 725,000 16.11% 133,148United States of America

92.0 116,708 757 117,465 0.13% 205,690

Total (Entente Powers) 806.0 5,711,696 3,674,757 9,386,453 1.19% 12,809,280

Central PowersPopulation

(millions)Military

deathsCivilian

deathsTotal deaths

Deaths as % of population

Military wounded

Austria-Hungary 51.4 1,100,000 467,000 1,567,000 3.05% 3,620,000Bulgaria 5.5 87,500 100,000 187,500 3.41% 152,390German Empire 64.9 2,050,897 426,000 2,476,897 3.82% 4,247,143Ottoman Empire 21.3 771,844 2,150,000 2,921,844 13.72% 400,000Total (Central Powers) 143.1 4,010,241 3,143,000 7,153,241 5% 8,419,533Neutral nationsDenmark 2.7 722 722 0.03%Norway 2.4 1,892 1,892 0.08%Sweden 5.6 - 877 877 0.02%Grand total 960.0 9,721,937 6,821,248 16,543,185 1.75% 21,228,813

A group of men work in an airplane factory in circa 1916-1917. (Photo: National Photo Company Collection/Library of Congress)

Women in America and Europe worked in the factories during World War I while men who previously worked in the factories were sent to the battlefield.

Historical photo of the 1918 Spanish Influenza ward at Camp Funston, Kansas, showing the many patients ill with the flu. An estimated 20-50 million people died from the Spanish Influenza from 1918 to 1921. Was the Spanish Influenza a form of biological warfare? (U.S. Army photo)

Prominent American Diplomats during World War I

Left to right: Robert Lansing, Walter Hines Page, William Graves Sharp, David Rowland Francis, James W. Gerard, and Abram I. Elkus

Robert Lansing – U.S. Secretary of State (June 24, 1915-February 13, 1920)Walter Hines Page – U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain (May 30, 1913-October 3, 1918)William Graves Sharp – U.S. Ambassador to France (December 4, 1914-April 14, 1919)David Rowland Francis – U.S. Ambassador to Russia (May 5, 1916-November 7, 1917)James W. Gerard – U.S. Ambassador to Germany (October 29, 1913-February 5, 1917)Abram I. Elkus – U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire (October 2, 1916-April 20, 1917)

Prominent Harvard University Graduates during World War I

J.P. “Jack” Morgan Jr.A.B. Harvard 1889

Chairman of the board of J.P. Morgan & Co., Inc.

(1913-1943)Overseer of Harvard

University (1909-1922)

Thomas W. LamontA.B. Harvard 1892

Chairman of the board of J.P. Morgan & Co., Inc.

(1943-1948)Overseer of Harvard

University (1912-1925)

Frederic Adrian DelanoA.B. Harvard 1885

Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve

(1914-1916);Overseer of Harvard

University (1905-1918)

Charles S. HamlinA.B. Harvard 1883

Chairman of the Federal Reserve (1914-1916)

August Belmont Jr.A.B. Harvard 1874

Head of August Belmont & Co., bankers, New York

City (1890-1924)

James H. PerkinsA.B. Harvard 1898

Vice President of National City Bank of New York

(1914-1919)

Oswald Garrison VillardA.B. Harvard 1893

President of New York Evening Post (1897-1918)

Abbott Lawrence Lowell A.B. Harvard 1877;LL.B. Harvard 1880President of Harvard

University (1909-1933)

Sidney Edward Mezes A.B. Harvard 1890;Ph.D. Harvard 1893President of the City College of New York

(1914-1927)

Jerome D. GreeneA.B. Harvard 1896

Secretary of the Rockefeller Foundation

(1913-1917)Overseer of Harvard

University (1911-1913, 1917-1923, 1944-1950)

Joseph Hodges Choate A.B. Harvard 1852;LL.B. Harvard 1854U.S. Ambassador to

Great Britain (1899-1905); Vice President of

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

(1911-1917)

Charlemagne TowerA.B. Harvard 1872

U.S. Ambassador to Russia (1899-1902);U.S. Ambassador to

Germany (1902-1908); Treasurer of Carnegie

Endowment for International Peace

(1912-1923)

James Brown ScottA.B. Harvard 1890

Secretary of Carnegie Endowment for

International Peace (1910-1940)

Charles W. EliotA.B. Harvard 1853

President of Harvard University (1869-1909);Trustee of Carnegie

Endowment for International Peace

(1910-1919)

Robert BaconA.B. Harvard 1880

U.S. Ambassador to France (1909-1912);

Member of J.P. Morgan & Co. (1894-1903);

Trustee of Carnegie Endowment for

International Peace (1913-1919)

Garrett DroppersA.B. Harvard 1887

U.S. Minister to Greece (October 9, 1914-

April 16, 1920)

Franklin D. RooseveltA.B. Harvard 1904

Assistant Secretary of the Navy (1913-1920)

Overseer of Harvard University (1917-1923)

Henry Cabot Lodge Sr. A.B. Harvard 1871,LL.B. Harvard 1874,Ph.D. Harvard 1876

U.S. Senator(R-Mass., 1893-1924)Overseer of Harvard

University (1911-1924)

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. A.B. Harvard 1861;LL.B. Harvard 1866Justice of the U.S.

Supreme Court(1902-1932)

Learned HandA.B. Harvard 1893;LL.B. Harvard 1896

Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern

District of New York (1909-1924)

Nicholas LongworthA.B. Harvard 1891U.S. Congressman

(R-Ohio, 1903-1913, 1915-1931)

Boies PenroseA.B. Harvard 1881

U.S. Senator(R-Penn., 1897-1921)

Henry French HollisA.B. Harvard 1892

U.S. Senator (D-New Hampshire, 1913-1919)

Frederick HaleA.B. Harvard 1896

U.S. Senator(R-Maine, 1917-1941)

Peter Goelet GerryA.B. Harvard 1901

U.S. Senator(D-Rhode Island, 1917-

1929; 1935-1947)

Augustus P. GardnerA.B. Harvard 1886U.S. Congressman

(R-Mass., 1902-1917)

Samuel E. WinslowA.B. Harvard 1885U.S. Congressman

(R-Mass., 1913-1925)

John Jacob RogersA.B. Harvard 1904U.S. Congressman

(R-Mass., 1913-1925)

James Ambrose GallivanA.B. Harvard 1888U.S. Congressman

(D-Mass., 1914-1928)

Frederick W. Dallinger A.B. Harvard 1893U.S. Congressman

(R-Mass., 1915-1925, 1926-1932)

George H. TinkhamA.B. Harvard 1894U.S. Congressman

(R-Mass., 1915-1943)

Clement Laird Brumbaugh A.B. Harvard 1894U.S. Congressman

(D-Ohio, 1913-1921)

Edmund PlattA.B. Harvard 1888U.S. Congressman

(R-New York, 1913-1920)

Luther Wright MottA.B. Harvard 1896U.S. Congressman

(R-New York, 1911-1923)

George Edmund Foss A.B. Harvard 1885U.S. Congressman

(R-Illinois, 1895-1913, 1915-1919)

Robert Todd LincolnA.B. Harvard 1864

Chairman of the board of The Pullman Co.

(1911-1926)

Theodore RooseveltA.B. Harvard 1880

President of the United States (1901-1909)

Overseer of Harvard University (1895-1901,

1910-1916)

George von L. MeyerA.B. Harvard 1879

Secretary of the Navy (1909-1913); Postmaster

General of the United States (1907-1909)

Overseer of Harvard University (1911-1917)

Francis Gordon Caffey A.B. Harvard 1891

U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New

York (1917-1921)

Arthur WoodsA.B. Harvard 1892

Commissioner of New York Police Department

(1914-1918)Overseer of Harvard

University (1917-1923, 1925-1931)

H. Percival DodgeA.B. Harvard 1892

Special Representative to Serbia in charge of the

American Legation (June 10, 1917-June 17, 1919)

Peter Augustus JayA.B. Harvard 1900Counselor of U.S.

Embassy in Rome, Italy (1916-1919)

James Freeman CurtisA.B. Harvard 1899

Deputy Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (1914-1919)

William PhillipsA.B. Harvard 1900

Assistant Secretary of State (1917-1920)

Joseph C. GrewA.B. Harvard 1902Secretary of U.S.

Embassy in Berlin, Germany (1912-1916)

Alanson B. HoughtonA.B. Harvard 1886

President of Corning Glass Works (1910-1918)

Prince Lucien Campbell A.B. Harvard 1886

President of University of Oregon (1902-1925)

Charles Francis Adams III A.B. Harvard 1888

Treasurer of Harvard University (1898-1929)

W. Cameron ForbesA.B. Harvard 1892

Overseer of Harvard University (1914-1920)

Dwight Filley DavisA.B. Harvard 1900

Overseer of Harvard University (1915-1921,

1926-1929)

Moorfield StoreyA.B. Harvard 1866

President of the National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)

(1910-1929)

W.E.B. Du BoisA.B. Harvard 1890;Ph.D. Harvard 1895

Director of Publications, NAACP (1910-1932)

Roger Nash BaldwinA.B. Harvard 1904

Founder and Director of American Civil Liberties

Union (1917-1950)

Percy Stickney GrantA.B. Harvard 1883

Rector of the Church of the Ascension in New York City (1893-1924)

Bouck WhiteA.B. Harvard 1896

Pastor of the Church of the Social Revolution in New York City during

World War I

Left photo: Charles G. Washburn (A.B. Harvard 1880) was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives (Republican Party-Massachusetts, December 18, 1906-March 3, 1911) and a Class B Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (1914-1928). Charles G. Washburn was a classmate of former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt (A.B. Harvard 1880).(Photo: Library of Congress)

Right photo: Ellis Loring Dresel (A.B. Harvard 1887) was the U.S. Commissioner to Germany (1919-1921) and a corporate lawyer in Boston. Ellis Loring Dresel was a classmate of Harvard University history professor Archibald Cary Coolidge (A.B. Harvard 1887), the great-great-grandson of former U.S. President Thomas Jefferson. (Photo: Library of Congress)

Harvard University Graduates and Their Occupation during World War I (1914-1918) and Bolshevik Revolution (1917-1919)

Federal Government Officials:Franklin Delano Roosevelt (A.B. 1904) – Assistant Secretary of the Navy (1913-1920)William Phillips (A.B. 1900) – Third Assistant Secretary of State (1914-1917); Assistant Secretary of State (1917-1920)Lester Hood Woolsey (A.B. 1901) – Solicitor of the U.S. State Department (1917-1920)Charles Warren (A.B. 1889, A.M. 1892) – Assistant U.S. Attorney General (1914-1918)Andrew James Peters (A.B. 1895, LL.B. 1898) – Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (1914-1917); Mayor of Boston (1918-1922)Frank W. Taussig (A.B. 1879) – Chairman of the U.S. Tariff Commission (1917-1919)Edward Prentiss Costigan (A.B. 1899) – Member of the United States Tariff Commission (1917-1928)George Rublee (A.B. 1890, LL.B. 1895) – Member of Federal Trade Commission (1915-1916)William Leavitt Stoddard (A.B. 1907) – Administrator of National War Labor Board (1918-1919)Louis Brandeis Wehle (A.B. 1902, LL.B. 1904) – General Counsel of War Finance Corp. (March 1919-November 1920)

Francis Bowler Keene (A.B. 1880) – U.S. Consul in Geneva, Switzerland (1905-1915); U.S. Consul General in Zurich, Switzerland (1915-1917); U.S. Consul General in Rome, Italy (1917-1924)Garrett Droppers (A.B. 1887) – U.S. Minister to Greece (1914-1920)Frederic J. Stimson (A.B. 1876) – U.S. Minister to Argentina (1915-1921)Edwin V. Morgan (A.B. 1890) – U.S. Ambassador to Brazil (1912-1933)H. Percival Dodge (A.B. 1892) – Special Representative to Serbia in charge of the American Legation (June 10, 1917-June 17, 1919)Robert Woods Bliss (A.B. 1900) – Secretary (Feb. 1, 1912-1916) and Counselor (July 17, 1916-1920) of U.S. Embassy in ParisPeter Augustus Jay (A.B. 1900) – Secretary of U.S. Embassy in Rome (Dec. 1913-1916); Counselor of U.S. Embassy in Rome (1916-1919)Joseph C. Grew (A.B. 1902) – Secretary of U.S. Embassy in Berlin (1912-1916); Counselor of U.S. Embassy in Berlin and Vienna (1917)Edward Bell (A.B. 1904) – Second Secretary (1913-1917) and First Secretary (1917-1919) of U.S. Embassy in LondonFranklin Mott Gunther (A.B. 1907) – Second Secretary (1914-1917) and First Secretary (1917-1919) of U.S. Embassy in LondonCharles Stetson Wilson (A.B. 1897) – First Secretary of the U.S. Embassy in Petrograd, Russia (1912-1916); Secretary of U.S. Embassy in Madrid, Spain (1916-1918)Frederick A. Sterling (A.B. 1898) – Second Secretary at the U.S. Embassy in Petrograd, Russia (1915-1916); State Department Chief of Division of Western European Affairs (1916-1918)Mahlon Fay Perkins (A.B. 1904) – Vice Consul in Shanghai (1915-1917); Consul in Changsha, China (1918-1920)Willing Spencer (A.B. 1899) – Secretary of Legation in Panama (1915-1916); Secretary of Legation in Peking, China (1918-1919)William Cullen Dennis (A.B. 1897, LL.B. 1901) – Legal Adviser to the Chinese Government (1917-1919)Roger Sherman Greene (A.B. 1901) – U.S. Consul General at Hankow [present-day Wuhan], China (1911-1914); Resident Director in China of China Medical Board for The Rockefeller Foundation (1914-1921); brother of Jerome D. GreeneEllis Loring Dresel (A.B. 1887, LL.B. 1892) – Special Representative of U.S. State Department at Berlin, Germany (Dec. 1915-Feb. 1917); General Director of Central Committee for American Prisoners [office in Switzerland] (1917-1918); American Red Cross representative for Switzerland (1917-1918); Representative of the War Trade Board for Switzerland (1917-1918); U.S. Commissioner to Germany (1919-1921); Charge d’affaires of U.S. Embassy in Germany (November 18, 1921-April 18, 1922); American plenipotentiary and signer of the peace treaty with Germany on August 25, 1921

Henry Cabot Lodge Sr. (A.B. 1871, LL.B. 1874, Ph.D. 1876) – U.S. Senator (Republican Party-Massachusetts, March 4, 1893-Nov. 9, 1924)Boies Penrose (A.B. 1881) – U.S. Senator (Republican Party-Pennsylvania, 1897-1921)Henry French Hollis (A.B. 1892) – U.S. Senator (Democratic Party-New Hampshire, 1913-1919)Frederick Hale (A.B. 1896) – U.S. Senator (Republican Party-Maine, 1917-1941); Member of Republican National Committee (1912-1918)Peter Goelet Gerry (A.B. 1901) – U.S. Senator (Democratic Party-Rhode Island, 1917-1929; 1935-1947); U.S. Congressman (1913-1915)Augustus Peabody Gardner (A.B. 1886) – U.S. Congressman (Republican Party-Massachusetts, November 4, 1902-May 15, 1917)Michael Francis Phelan (A.B. 1897) – U.S. Congressman (Democratic Party-Massachusetts, 1913-1921)Samuel Ellsworth Winslow (A.B. 1885) – U.S. Congressman (Republican Party-Massachusetts, 1913-1925)John Jacob Rogers (A.B. 1904, LL.B. 1907) – U.S. Congressman (Republican Party-Massachusetts, 1913-1925)James Ambrose Gallivan (A.B. 1888) – U.S. Congressman (Democratic Party-Massachusetts, 1914-1928)Frederick William Dallinger (A.B. 1893) – U.S. Congressman (Republican Party-Massachusetts, 1915-1925, 1926-1932)George H. Tinkham (A.B. 1894) – U.S. Congressman (Republican Party-Massachusetts, 1915-1943)Luther Wright Mott (A.B. 1896) – U.S. Congressman (Republican Party-New York, 1911-1923)Edmund Platt (A.B. 1888) – U.S. Congressman (Republican Party-New York, 1913-1920); Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve (1920-1930)Walter Warren Magee (A.B. 1889) – U.S. Congressman (Republican Party-New York, 1915-1927)Richard Patrick Freeman (A.B. 1891) – U.S. Congressman (Republican Party-Connecticut, 1915-1933)Henry Alden Clark (A.B. 1874) – U.S. Congressman (Republican Party-Pennsylvania, 1917-1919)Clement Laird Brumbaugh (A.B. 1894) – U.S. Congressman (Democratic Party-Ohio, 1913-1921)Nicholas Longworth (A.B. 1891) – U.S. Congressman (Republican Party-Ohio, 1903-1913, 1915-1931); Speaker of the House (1925-1931)George Edmund Foss (A.B. 1885) – U.S. Congressman (Republican Party-Illinois, 1895-1913, 1915-1919)Robert J. Bulkley (A.B. 1902) – U.S. Congressman (Democrat-Ohio, 1911-1915); Chief of legal section, War Industries Board (1917-1918)

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (A.B. 1861, LL.B. 1866) – Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1902-1932)Frederic Dodge (A.B. 1867, LL.B. 1869) – Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit [Boston] (1912-1918)James Madison Morton Jr. (A.B. 1891, LL.B. 1894) – Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (1912-1932)George Albert Carpenter (A.B. 1888, LL.B. 1891) – Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois [Chicago] (1910-1933)Learned Hand (A.B. 1893, LL.B. 1896) – Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (1909-1924)Augustus Noble Hand (A.B. 1890, LL.B. 1894) – Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (1914-1927)Edward T. Sanford (A.B.1885, LL.B. 1889) – Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (1908-1923)Francis Gordon Caffey (A.B. 1891) – U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (1917-1921); Solicitor of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (1913-1917)John Percy Nields (A.B. 1889, LL.B. 1892) – U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware (1903-1916)

Herbert Putnam (A.B. 1883) – Librarian of Congress (1899-1939)William Francis Murray (A.B. 1904) – Postmaster of Boston (October 1, 1914-September 21, 1918)Arthur George Smith (A.B. 1905, LL.B. 1908) – Deputy Attorney General (1910-1917) and Attorney General (1917-1918) of Territory of HawaiiWilliam Horace Davis (A.B. 1893, M.D. 1897) – Chief Statistician for Vital Statistics, U.S. Census Bureau (1916-1929)John William Kilbreth Jr. (A.B. 1898) – U.S. Army officer (Brigadier General); Chief of Operations of Army Artillery, 1st Army, Allied Expeditionary Forces (AEF) (June-Aug. 1918); Chief of Staff of Army Artillery, 1st Army, Allied Expeditionary Forces (AEF) (Aug.-Oct. 1918)Perry Belmont (A.B. 1872) – Commander [rank of Captain] of U.S. Quartermasters Corps, U.S. Army (May 1917)Marcus Cauffman Sloss (A.B. 1890, LL.B. 1893) – Judge of Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, California (1901-1906); Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of California (1906-1919); Trustee of Stanford University (1920-1950); Member of Bohemian Club

Bankers:Charles S. Hamlin (A.B. 1883) – Chairman [Governor] of the Federal Reserve (1914-1916); Member of Federal Reserve Board (1914-1936)Frederic A. Delano (A.B. 1885) – Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve (1914-1916); Member of Federal Reserve Board (1914-1918)James Freeman Curtis (A.B. 1899, LL.B. 1903) – Deputy Governor and Counsel of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (1914-1919)Charles G. Washburn (A.B. 1880) – Class B Director of Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (1914-1928); U.S. Congressman (1906-1911)Thomas Prince Beal (A.B. 1869) – Class A Director of Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (1914-1923); President of Second National Bank of Boston (1888-1923)Augustus H. Vogel (A.B. 1886) – Class B Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (1914-1929)William Woodward (A.B. 1898, LL.B. 1901) – Class A Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (1914-1918); President of Hanover National Bank [New York City] (1910-1929)August Belmont Jr. (A.B. 1874) – Head of August Belmont & Co., bankers, New York City (1890-1924)John Pierpont “Jack” Morgan Jr. (A.B. 1889) – Chairman of the board of J.P. Morgan & Co. (1913-1943)Thomas W. Lamont (A.B. 1892) – Partner of J.P. Morgan & Co. (1911-1948)George Cabot Lee (A.B. 1894) – Member of Lee Higginson & Co. (1900-c.1938)Walter E. Sachs (A.B. 1904) – Member of Goldman, Sachs & Co. (1910-1959)Waddill Catchings (A.B. 1901; LL.B. 1904) – Member of Goldman, Sachs & Co. (1918-1930); President of Platt Iron Works Company [Dayton, Ohio] (1913-1920); Director of Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc.James A. Stillman (A.B. 1896) – Vice President of National City Bank of New York (c.1913-1918)James H. Perkins (A.B. 1898) – Vice President of National City Bank of New York (1914-1919)F. Abbot Goodhue (A.B. 1906) – Vice President of First National Bank of Boston (1913-1921)Philip Stockton (A.B. 1896) – President of Old Colony Trust Co. [Boston] (1910-1934); Director of General Electric Co. and AT&TWallace Brett Donham (A.B. 1898; LL.B. 1901) – Vice President of Old Colony Trust Co. (1906-1919)Francis Minot Weld (A.B. 1897) – Partner of White, Weld & Co. [banking firm in New York City, 14 Wall Street] (1910-1949)Norwood Penrose Hallowell (A.B. 1897) – Partner of Lee, Higginson & Co. [banking firm in Boston] (1905-1932)Charles H. Schweppe (A.B. 1902) – Partner of Lee, Higginson & Co. [banking firm in Boston] (1913-1941)Francis Lee Higginson Jr. (A.B. 1900) – Member of Lee, Higginson & Co. [banking firm in Boston]William Endicott (A.B. 1887) – Member of Kidder, Peabody & Co. [banking firm in Boston] (1897-1929)Russell Green Fessenden (A.B. 1890) – President and Chairman of American Trust Company [banking firm in Boston] (1907-1927)Charles Hallam Keep (A.B. 1882, LL.B. 1885) – Chairman of the board of Columbia Trust Co. [banking firm in New York City] (1912-1923)Guy Emerson (A.B. 1908, LL.B. 1911) – Vice President of National Bank of Commerce of New York (1917-1923)

Businessmen:Robert Todd Lincoln (A.B. 1864) – Chairman of the board of The Pullman Co. (1911-1926); son of former U.S. President Abraham LincolnCharles Elliott Perkins Jr. (A.B. 1904) – President (July 18, 1918-1920) and Director (1914-1928) of Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.Howard Elliott (C.E. 1881) – President of New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co. (1913-1917)Alanson B. Houghton (A.B. 1886) – President of Corning Glass Works (1910-1918)Alfred Dwight Foster (A.B. 1873) – President of New England Mutual Life Insurance Company (1908-1924)Philip Leffingwell Spalding (A.B. 1892) – President of New England Telephone and Telegraph Co. (1912-1918)John Weiss Stedman (A.B. 1902) – Assistant Treasurer (1915-1918) and Second Vice President (1918-1924) of Prudential Insurance Co.Walter S. Gifford (A.B. 1905) – Chief Statistician of American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1908-1919); Member, Council of National Defense (1916-1918)John White Hallowell (A.B. 1901) – Partner of Stone & Webster Inc. [electrical engineering firm in Boston] (1912-1917); Assistant to Herbert Hoover, Federal Food Administrator (May 1917-March 1919)Arthur Messinger Comey (A.B. 1882) – Director of Eastern (Research) Laboratory of E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (1906-1920)

Lawyers:Hugh Lennox Bond Jr. (A.B. 1880) – General Counsel of Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. (1907-1922)Charles MacVeagh (A.B. 1881) – General Solicitor and Assistant General Counsel of U.S. Steel Corporation (1901-1925)Edward Bruce Hill (A.B. 1874; LL.B. 1876) – Member of Sullivan & Cromwell [law firm in New York City]Francis D. Pollak (A.B. 1896) – Member of Sullivan & Cromwell [law firm in New York City]Joseph P. Cotton (A.B. 1896; LL.B. 1900) – Member of Spooner & Cotton [law firm in New York City] (1910-1919)Charles Howland Russell (A.B. 1872, LL.B. Columbia 1874) – Member of Stetson, Jennings & Russell [law firm in New York City] (1894-1921)Edmund Lincoln Baylies (A.B. 1879, LL.B. 1882) – Member of Carter, Ledyard & Milburn [law firm in New York City] (1904-1926)Joseph Hodges Choate Jr. (A.B. 1897, LL.B. 1902) – Member of Evarts, Choate & Sherman [law firm in New York City]Herbert Conrad Lakin (A.B. 1894; LL.B. 1898) – Member of Lord, Day & Lord [law firm in New York City] (1905-1919); President of Cuba Railroad (1919-1925)Langdon P. Marvin (A.B. 1898, LL.B. 1901) – Member of Marvin, Hooker & Roosevelt [law firm in New York City, 52 Wall Street] (1910-1920); director of Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.; Deputy Commissioner of American Red Cross Commission for Great Britain (1918) [rank of Major]Samuel Adams (A.B. 1892) – Member of Adams, Follansbee, Hawley & Shorey [law firm in Chicago] (1913-1925)Mitchell Davis Follansbee (A.B. 1892) – Member of Adams, Follansbee, Hawley & Shorey [law firm in Chicago]; President of Chicago Bar Association (1914-1915); director of Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. [MetLife]John Lowell (A.B. 1877) – Senior Member of Lowell & Lowell [law firm in Boston]

Robert Frederick Herrick (A.B. 1890) – Member of Herrick, Smith, Donald & Farley [law firm in Boston]Jeremiah Smith Jr. (A.B. 1892, LL.B. 1895) – Member of Herrick, Smith, Donald & Farley [law firm in Boston]Thomas Nelson Perkins (A.B. 1891, LL.B. 1894) – Member of Ropes, Gray, Boyden & Perkins [law firm in Boston]William Cowper Boyden (A.B. 1886, LL.B. 1889) – Member of Fisher, Boyden, Kales and Bell [law firm in Chicago]William Thomas (A.B. 1873, LL.B. 1876) – Member of Thomas, Beedy, Presley & Paramore [law firm in San Francisco]Ulysses S. Grant Jr. (A.B. 1874) – lawyer in San Diego, California; son of former U.S. President Ulysses S. Grant

Journalists:Oswald Garrison Villard (A.B. 1893) – President of New York Evening Post (1897-1918); grandson of abolitionist William Lloyd GarrisonFrank H. Simonds (A.B. 1900) – Associate Editor of The New York Tribune (1915-1918)Norman Hapgood (A.B. 1890, LL.B. 1893) – Editor of Harper’s Weekly (1913-1916)Mark Forrest Sullivan (A.B. 1900, LL.B. 1903) – Editor of Collier’s Weekly (1912-1917)Harold deWolf Fuller (A.B. 1898) – Editor of The Nation (1914-1917)Edward Fuller (A.B. 1882) – Editorial Writer of Philadelphia Public Ledger (1914-1919)John Foster Bass (A.B. 1891, LL.B. 1894) – War Correspondent with Russian army in Poland and Galicia (1914-1915); War Correspondent in France, Italy, and Balkans (1915-1918); brother of former Governor of New Hampshire Robert Perkins BassEdwin Emerson (A.B. 1891) – War Correspondent with Germany Army Gen. Paul von Hindenburg at Tannenberg, East Prussia (1914); War correspondent with German Army Gen. Hans Hartwig von Beseler at Antwerp, Ypres (Belgium), and Warsaw (1915); War correspondent with Lyman Sanders at Gallipoli, Turkey (1915); War Correspondent with Enver Pasha on Turkish front and with Kress von Kressenstein on Egyptian front and at Gaza (1917); detained as prisoner of war in Turkey and later in Germany (1917-1918)

Organization Executives:Joseph Hodges Choate (A.B. 1852, LL.B. 1854) – Vice President of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1911-1917)Charlemagne Tower (A.B. 1872) – Trustee (1910-1923) and Treasurer (1912-1923) of Carnegie Endowment for International PeaceCharles W. Eliot (A.B. 1853) – Trustee, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1910-1919); Trustee, Rockefeller Foundation (1914-17)Robert Bacon (A.B. 1880) – Trustee of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1913-1919)Austen G. Fox (A.B. 1869, LL.B. 1871) – Trustee of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1910-c.1929)James Brown Scott (A.B. 1890) – Secretary of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1910-1940)Jerome D. Greene (A.B. 1896) – Secretary of The Rockefeller Foundation (1913-1917)Roger Nash Baldwin (A.B. 1904) – Founder and Director of American Civil Liberties Union (1917-1950)Moorfield Storey (A.B. 1866) – President of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) (1910-1929)William Edward Burghardt Du Bois (A.B. 1890, A.M. 1891, Ph.D. 1895) – Director of Publications, NAACP (1910-1932)Elliot H. Goodwin (A.B. 1895) – General Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce, U.S.A. (1912-1920)Francis Gano Benedict (A.B. 1893) – Director of Nutrition Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution of Washington (1907-1937)Charles Benedict Davenport (A.B. 1889, Ph.D. 1892) – President, Eugenics Research Association (1914); Director of Station for Experimental Evolution (1904-1934) and Director of Eugenics Record Office (1910-1934) of Carnegie Institution at Cold Spring Harbor, New York

Church Administrators:William Lawrence (A.B. 1871) – Protestant Episcopal Bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts (1893-1926)Philip M. Rhinelander (A.B. 1891) – Protestant Episcopal Bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania (1911-1923)James DeWolf Perry (A.B. 1892) – Protestant Episcopal Bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Rhode Island (1911-1946)Herman Page (A.B. 1888) – Protestant Episcopal Bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Spokane, Washington (1915-1923)Frank Hale Touret (A.B. 1897) – Protestant Episcopal Bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Western Colorado (1917-1919)George Angier Gordon (A.B. 1881) – Minister of Old South Church in Boston (1884-1927)Edward Cummings (A.B. 1883) – Minister of South Congregational Church in Boston (1900-1925)Charles Elliott St. John (A.B. 1879) – Pastor of First Unitarian Church in Philadelphia (1907-1916)Percy Stickney Grant (A.B. 1883, A.M. 1886) – Rector of the Church of the Ascension in New York City (1893-1924)Bouck White (A.B. 1896) – Pastor of the Church of the Social Revolution in New York City during World War I; member of the Socialist Party of America; sentenced to Blackwell’s Island as an agitator and in prison from May-November 1914; arrested and imprisoned for desecrating American flag during an pro-internationalist antiwar protest in New York City on June 1, 1916

State and Local Government Officials:Henry W. Keyes (A.B. 1887) – Governor of New Hampshire (1917-1919)Carl E. Milliken (A.B. 1899) – Governor of Maine (1917-1921)Grafton Dulany Cushing (A.B. 1885, LL.B. 1888) – Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts (1915-1916)Francis Joseph Swayze (A.B. 1879) – Justice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey (1903-1924)Marcus Cauffman Sloss (A.B. 1890, LL.B. 1893) – Justice of the Supreme Court of California (1906-1919)William Caleb Loring (A.B. 1872, LL.B. 1874) – Justice of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts (1899-1919)Jabez Fox (A.B. 1871, LL.B. 1875) – Justice of the Superior Court of Massachusetts (1900-1920)Frederic Hathaway Chase (A.B. 1892, LL.B. 1894) – Justice of the Superior Court of Massachusetts (1911-1920)Robert Grant (A.B. 1873, Ph.D. 1876, LL.B. 1879) – Judge of Probate Court and Court of Insolvency for Suffolk County, Mass. (1893-1923)Joseph E. Warner (A.B. 1906) – Member of Massachusetts House of Representatives (1913-1920)Ogden L. Mills (A.B. 1904; LL.B. 1907) – Member of New York State Senate (1914-1917); Captain, U.S. Army (1917-1918)Arthur Woods (A.B. 1892) – Police Commissioner of New York City [Commissioner of New York Police Department] (1914-1918)Haven Emerson (A.B. 1896) – President of the Board of Health and Commissioner of the Department of Health of New York City (1915-1917)Henry Herrick Bond (A.B. 1904, LL.B. 1906) – Income Tax Director of Massachusetts (1916-1919)Thomas Mott Osborne (A.B. 1884) – Warden of Sing Sing Prison in New York (1914-1916)Francis Russell Stoddard Jr. (A.B. 1899) – Deputy Superintendent of Insurance, in charge of New York City office of New York State Insurance Department (1915-1921)Robert Grant (A.B. 1873, Ph.D. 1876, LL.B. 1879) – Judge of the Probate Court and Court of Insolvency for Suffolk County [Boston], Massachusetts (1893-1923)

College Administrators:Charles Francis Adams III (A.B. 1888, LL.B. 1892) – Treasurer of Harvard University (1898-1929); great-great-grandson of Pres. John AdamsAbbott Lawrence Lowell (A.B. 1877, LL.B. 1880) – President of Harvard University (1909-1933)Sidney Edward Mezes (A.B. 1890, A.M. 1891, Ph.D. 1893) – President of the City College of New York (1914-1927)Arthur L. Dean (A.B. 1900) – President of the University of Hawaii (1914-1927)Prince Lucien Campbell (A.B.1886) – President of University of Oregon (1902-1925)John Andreas Widtsoe (B.S. 1894) – President of University of Utah (1916-1921)George E. Ladd (A.B. 1887, A.M. 1888, Ph.D. 1894) – President of New Mexico State University (1913-1917)Charles Franklin Thwing (A.B.1876) – President of Western Reserve University (1890-1921)William DeWitt Hyde (A.B. 1879) – President of Bowdoin College (1885-1917)William W. Comfort (A.B. 1895, A.M. 1896, Ph.D. 1902) – President of Haverford College (1917-1940)Bartholomew Francis Griffin (A.B. 1899) – President of Oahu College [Honolulu] (1902-1922)William Trufant Foster (A.B. 1901) – President of Reed College [Oregon] (1910-1919)Charles Phelps Norton (A.B. 1880) – Chancellor of the University of Buffalo (1909-1920)William Wallace Fenn (A.B. 1884) – Dean of Harvard Divinity School (1906-1922)Edward Hickling Bradford (A.B. 1869, A.M. 1872, M.D. 1873) – Dean of Harvard Medical School (1912-1926)Joseph French Johnson (A.B. 1878) – Dean of School of Commerce, Accounts and Finance at New York University (1903-1925)John Henry Wigmore (A.B. 1883, LL.B. 1887) – Dean of Northwestern University School of Law (1901-1929)Alfred Henry Lloyd (A.B. 1886, A.M. 1888, Ph.D. 1893) – Dean of the Graduate School at University of Michigan (1915-1927)Henry Landes (A.B. 1891) – Dean of College of Science at University of Washington (1912-1936)Andrew Henry Patterson (A.B. 1892) – Dean of School of Applied Science at University of North Carolina (1911-1928)Charles Russell Bardeen (A.B. 1893) – Dean of University of Wisconsin School of Medicine (1907-1935)Frederic Palmer Jr. (A.B. 1900, A.M. 1904, Ph.D. 1913) – Dean of Haverford College (1908-1929)Henry Winthrop Ballantine (A.B. 1900, LL.B. 1904) – Dean of University of Illinois School of Law (1916-1920); Professor of Law at University of Wisconsin (1913-1916)Leon C. Marshall (A.B. 1901) – Dean of College of Commerce and Administration at University of Chicago (1909-1924)Henry Craig Jones (A.B. 1903, LL.B. 1906) – Dean of West Virginia University School of Law (1914-1921)Richard Taylor Evans (A.B. 1906, LL.B. 1909) – Professor of International Law at Imperial Pei-yang University [Tientsin, China] (1909-1920)Albert Parker Fitch (A.B. 1900) – President of Andover Theological Seminary in Cambridge, Massachusetts (1909-1917); Professor of History of Religion at Amherst College (1917-1923)

College Professors:Horatio Stevens White (A.B. 1873) – Professor of German at Harvard University (1902-1919)Eugene Wambaugh (A.B. 1876, LL.B. 1880) – Professor of Law at Harvard University (1892-1925)John Eliot Wolff (A.B. 1879, Ph.D. 1889) – Professor of Petrography and Mineralogy at Harvard University (1895-1923)Joseph Henry Beale (A.B. 1882, LL.B. 1887) – Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University (1912-1937)Samuel Williston (A.B. 1882, LL.B. 1888) – Weld Professor of Law at Harvard University (1903-1919)James Richard Jewett (A.B. 1884) – Professor of Arabic at Harvard University (1911-1933)Theodore William Richards (A.B. 1886, Ph.D. 1888) – Professor of Chemistry at Harvard University (1901-1928)Archibald Cary Coolidge (A.B. 1887) – Prof. of History at Harvard Univ. (1908-1928); great-great-grandson of former U.S. President Thomas JeffersonByron Satterlee Hurlbut (A.B. 1887) – Professor of English at Harvard University (1906-1929); Dean of Harvard University (1902-1916)James Haughton Woods (A.B. 1887) – Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University (1913-1935)Irving Babbitt (A.B. 1889) – Professor of French Literature at Harvard University (1912-1933)Clifford Herschel Moore (A.B. 1889) – Professor of Latin at Harvard University (1905-1931)William Morse Cole (A.B. 1890) – Professor of Accounting at Harvard University (1916-1960)Charles Henry Conrad Wright (A.B. 1891) – Professor of French Language and Literature at Harvard University (1913-1936)Jeremiah Denis Matthias Ford (A.B. 1894, Ph.D. 1897) – Professor of French and Spanish Languages at Harvard University (1907-1943)Edward Henry Warren (A.B. 1895, LL.B. 1900) – Story Professor of Law at Harvard University (1913-1920)Gregory Paul Baxter (A.B. 1896, A.M. 1897, Ph.D. 1899) – Professor of Chemistry at Harvard University (1915-1944)Elmer Ernest Southard (A.B. 1897, M.D. 1901) – Bullard Professor of Neuropathology at Harvard Medical School (1909-1920); Director of Boston Psychopathic Hospital (1912-1920)Joseph Warren (A.B. 1897, LL.B. 1900) – Professor of Law at Harvard University (1913-1942)Chester Noyes Greenough (A.B. 1898, Ph.D. 1904) – Professor of English at Harvard University (1915-1938)Henry A. Yeomans (A.B. 1900, LL.B. 1904) – Professor of Government at Harvard Univ. (1917-1943); Dean of Harvard College (1916-1921)William Ernest Hocking (A.B. 1901, Ph.D. 1904) – Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University (1914-1943)Roger Irving Lee (A.B. 1902, M.D. 1905) – Professor of Hygiene at Harvard University (1914-1924)

Edward Everett Hale (A.B. 1883) – Professor of English at Union College (1895-1932)Charles Theodore Greve (A.B. 1884) – Professor of Law at University of Cincinnati Law School (1904-1917)William Sydney Thayer (A.B. 1885, M.D. 1889) – Professor of Medicine at Johns Hopkins University (1905-1921); Deputy Commissioner of American Red Cross Division [Mission] to Russia [rank of Major] (June 1917-January 1918); Brigadier General, Medical Corps, U.S. Army and Chief Consultant of Medical Services, Allied Expeditionary Forces in France (March 1918-January 1919)Charles Francis Adams Currier (A.B. 1887) – Professor of History and Political Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1907-1919)John Henry Gray (A.B. 1887) – Professor of Economics at University of Minnesota (1907-1920)James Harvey Robinson (A.B. 1887) – Professor of History at Columbia University (1895-1919)Henry Schofield (A.B. 1887, LL.B. 1890) – Professor of Law at Northwestern University [Illinois] (1902-1918)John Osborne Sumner (A.B. 1887) – Professor of History at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1907-1933)Wilder Dwight Bancroft (A.B. 1888) – Professor of Physical Chemistry at Cornell University (1903-1937)William Julian Albert Bliss (A.B. 1888) – Professor of Physics at Johns Hopkins University (1901-1928)George Herbert Mead (A.B. 1888) – Professor of Philosophy at University of Chicago (1907-1931)Frederick Green (A.B. 1889, LL.B. 1893) – Professor of Law at University of Illinois (1904-c.1928)

William Nickerson Bates (A.B. 1890, A.M. 1891, Ph.D. 1893) – Professor of Greek at University of Pennsylvania (1907-1939)Reynolds Driver Brown (A.B. 1890) – Professor of Law at University of Pennsylvania (1897-1936)Evarts Boutell Greene (A.B. 1890, A.M. 1891, Ph.D. 1893) – Professor of History at Univ. of Illinois (1897-1923); brother of Jerome D. GreeneRobert Herrick (A.B. 1890) – Professor of English at University of Chicago (1905-1923)Curtis Hidden Page (A.B. 1890, A.M. 1891, Ph.D. 1894) – Professor of English Language and Literature at Dartmouth College (1911-1946)William Tenney Brewster (A.B. 1892) – Professor of English at Columbia University (1906-1943); Provost of Barnard College (1910-1923)George Purcell Costigan Jr. (A.B. 1892, LL.B. 1894) – Professor of Law at Northwestern University (1909-1922)Ralph Waldo Gifford (A.B. 1892, LL.B. 1901) – Professor of Law at Columbia University (1914-1925)Robert Morss Lovett (A.B. 1892) – Professor of English at University of Chicago (1909-1936)Amos Shartle Hershey (A.B. 1892) – Professor of Political Science and International Law at Indiana University (1905-1933)Lindsay Todd Damon (A.B. 1894) – Professor of English at Brown University (1911-1936)Arthur Lyon Cross (A.B. 1895, A.M. 1896, Ph.D. 1899) – Hudson Professor of English History at University of Michigan (1916-1940)Harry Augustus Bigelow (A.B. 1896, LL.B. 1899) – Professor of Law at University of Chicago (1909-1939)Roscoe James Ham (A.B. 1896) – Professor of German at Bowdoin College (1909-1945)Gilbert Newton Lewis (A.B. 1896, Ph.D. 1899) – Professor of Physical Chemistry at University of California at Berkeley (1912-1946)Edward Lee Thorndike (A.B. 1896, A.M. 1897) – Professor of Educational Psychology at Columbia University (1904-1940)Jonas Viles (A.B. 1896, A.M. 1897, Ph.D. 1901) – Professor of American History at University of Missouri (1907-1945)Roswell Parker Angier (A.B. 1897, Ph.D. 1903) – Assistant Professor (1908-1917) and Professor (1917-1941) of Psychology at Yale UniversityFrederick Parker Gay (A.B. 1897) – Professor of Pathology at University of California at Berkeley (1910-1920)Edward Sampson Thurston (A.B. 1898, LL.B. 1901) – Professor of Law at University of Minnesota (1911-1919); Lieutenant Colonel, Judge Advocate in Allied Expeditionary Forces in North Russia (1917-1918)Robert M. Yerkes (A.B. 1898, Ph.D. 1902) – Professor of Psychology at University of Minnesota (1917-1919)Edwin Bidwell Wilson (A.B. 1899) – Professor of Mathematics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1911-1922)William Stearns Davis (A.B. 1900, Ph.D. 1905) – Professor of European History at University of Minnesota (1909-1927)James Walter Goldthwait (A.B. 1902, Ph.D. 1906) – Professor of Geology at Dartmouth College (1911-1947); U.S. Army captain; officer in charge of map room, Office of Chief of Staff, Washington, D.C.(April 8, 1918-December 31, 1918)Edmund Morris Morgan Jr. (A.B. 1902, LL.B. 1905) – Professor of Law at University of Minnesota (1912-1917); Professor of Law at Yale University (1917-1925); Assistant to the Judge Advocate General, U.S. Army in Washington, D.C. (1917-1919)Warren Abner Seavey (A.B. 1902, LL.B. 1904) – Professor of Law at Tulane Univ. (1914-1916); Professor of Law at Indiana Univ. (1916-1920)Albert Benedict Wolfe (A.B. 1902, Ph.D. 1905) – Professor of Economics and Sociology at University of Texas (1914-1923)Montefiore Mordecai Lemann (A.B. 1903, LL.B. 1906) – Professor of Law at Tulane University (1910-1929)Byron Johnson Rees (A.B. 1903) – Professor of English at Williams College (1914-1920)Edgar Noble Durfee (A.B. 1904) – Professor of Law at University of Michigan (1915-1958)Robert McNair Davis (A.B. 1905) – Professor of Law at University of Arizona (1916-1921)Gustavus Hill Robinson (A.B. 1905, LL.B. 1909) – Professor of Law at University of Missouri (1916-1919)Isaiah Leo Sharfman (A.B. 1907, LL.B. 1910) – Professor of Economics at University of Michigan (1914-c.1954)

Overseers of Harvard University during World War I:Robert Grant (A.B. 1873, Ph.D. 1876, LL.B. 1879) – Overseer of Harvard University (1895-1921)Theodore Roosevelt (A.B. 1880) – Overseer of Harvard University (1895-1901, 1910-1916)George Angier Gordon (A.B. 1881) – Overseer of Harvard University (1897-1916, 1925-1929)Louis Adams Frothingham (A.B. 1893, LL.B. 1896) – Overseer of Harvard University (1904-1910, 1912-1918, 1920-1926)Frederic Adrian Delano (A.B. 1885) – Overseer of Harvard University (1905-1918)William Endicott (A.B. 1887) – Overseer of Harvard University (1907-1917)Francis Joseph Swayze (A.B. 1879) – Overseer of Harvard University (1909-1915, 1917-1923)Howard Elliott (C.E. 1881) – Overseer of Harvard University (1909-1915, 1916-1922, 1924-1928)Lawrence Eugene Sexton (A.B. 1884) – Overseer of Harvard University (1909-1917)John Pierpont Morgan Jr. (A.B. 1889) – Overseer of Harvard University (1909-1922)Charles William Eliot (A.B. 1853) – Overseer of Harvard University (1910-1916)Francis Lee Higginson (A.B. 1863) – Overseer of Harvard University (1910-1916)Abbot Low Mills (A.B. 1881) – Overseer of Harvard University (1910-1916)Augustus Everett Willson (A.B. 1869) – Overseer of Harvard University (1910-1918)George von Lengerke Meyer (A.B. 1879) – Overseer of Harvard University (1911-1917)Henry Cabot Lodge Sr. (A.B. 1871, LL.B. 1874, Ph.D. 1876) – Overseer of Harvard University (1911-1924)William Cowper Boyden (A.B. 1886, LL.B. 1889) – Overseer of Harvard University (1911-1917, 1919-1921, 1923-1929)Jerome Davis Greene (A.B. 1896) – Overseer of Harvard University (1911-1913, 1917-1923, 1944-1950)Thomas William Lamont (A.B. 1892) – Overseer of Harvard University (1912-1925)Owen Wister (A.B. 1882, LL.B. 1888) – Overseer of Harvard University (1912-1925)Frederick Perry Fish (A.B. 1875) – Overseer of Harvard University (1913-1919)Langdon P. Marvin (A.B. 1898, LL.B. 1901) – Overseer of Harvard University (1913-1919, 1921-1927)George Herbert Palmer (A.B. 1864) – Overseer of Harvard University (1913-1919)Frederick Cheever Shattuck (A.B. 1868, M.D. 1873) – Overseer of Harvard University (1913-1919)William Roscoe Thayer (A.B. 1881) – Overseer of Harvard University (1913-1923)Evert Jansen Wendell (A.B. 1882) – Overseer of Harvard University (1914-1917)Edgar Conway Felton (A.B. 1879) – Overseer of Harvard University (1914-1920)William Cameron Forbes (A.B. 1892) – Overseer of Harvard University (1914-1920)John White Hallowell (A.B. 1901) – Overseer of Harvard University (1914-1920, 1926-1927)Thomas Williams Slocum (A.B. 1890) – Overseer of Harvard University (1914-1920, 1923-1929)William DeWitt Hyde (A.B. 1879) – Overseer of Harvard University (1915-1917)Dwight Filley Davis (A.B. 1900) – Overseer of Harvard University (1915-1921, 1926-1929)Robert Frederick Herrick (A.B. 1890) – Overseer of Harvard University (1915-1921)William Sydney Thayer (A.B. 1885, M.D. 1889) – Overseer of Harvard University (1915-c.1930)

Francis Lee Higginson Jr. (A.B. 1900) – Overseer of Harvard University (1916-1922)William Thomas (A.B. 1873, LL.B. 1876) – Overseer of Harvard University (1916-1922)Eliot Wadsworth (A.B. 1898) – Overseer of Harvard University (1916-1922)(Gen.) Leonard Wood (M.D. 1884) – Overseer of Harvard University (1917-1923)Franklin Delano Roosevelt (A.B. 1904) – Overseer of Harvard University (1917-1923)Arthur Woods (A.B. 1892) – Overseer of Harvard University (1917-1923, 1925-1931)

Red Cross Mission:William Sydney Thayer (A.B. 1885, M.D. 1889) – Deputy Commissioner of American Red Cross Mission to Russia (June 1917-January 1918)William Endicott (A.B. 1887) – American Red Cross Commissioner for Great Britain (1916-1919)Langdon P. Marvin (A.B. 1898, LL.B. 1901) – Deputy Commissioner of American Red Cross Commission for Great Britain (1918)Eliot Wadsworth (A.B. 1898) – Vice Chairman of the Central Committee of the American National Red Cross (1916-1919)William R. Castle Jr. (A.B. 1900) – Director of the Bureau of Communication, American National Red Cross (April 1917-March 1919)

Note: Allen Hollis, the brother of U.S. Senator Henry French Hollis, was a Class C Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (1914-1936) and Deputy Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (1917-1936).

Prominent Harvard University Alumni (By Class)

Harvard Class of 1880:Theodore Roosevelt (A.B. 1880) – President of the United States (1901-1909)Robert Bacon (A.B. 1880) – U.S. Secretary of State (1909); U.S. Ambassador to France (1909-1912)Francis Bowler Keene (A.B. 1880) – U.S. Consul General in Zurich, Switzerland (1915-1917); U.S. Consul General in Rome, Italy (1917-1924)Charles G. Washburn (A.B. 1880) – U.S. Congressman (Republican-Massachusetts, 1906-1911)Josiah Quincy (A.B. 1880) – Mayor of Boston (1895-1899)Hugh Lennox Bond Jr. (A.B. 1880) – General Counsel of Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. (1907-1922)Charles Phelps Norton (A.B. 1880) – Chancellor of the University of Buffalo (1909-1920)

Harvard Class of 1888:Charles Francis Adams III (A.B. 1888, LL.B. 1892) – Secretary of the Navy (1929-1933); Treasurer of Harvard University (1898-1929)Larz Anderson (A.B. 1888) – U.S. Minister to Belgium (1911-1912); U.S. Minister to Imperial Japan (1912)George Albert Carpenter (A.B. 1888, LL.B. 1891) – Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois [Chicago] (1910-1933)James Ambrose Gallivan (A.B. 1888) – U.S. Congressman (Democratic Party-Massachusetts, 1914-1928)James Loeb (A.B. 1888) – Member of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. [banking firm in New York City] (1888-1901)Rowland B. Mahany (A.B. 1888) – U.S. Congressman (Republican Party-New York, 1895-1899)Herman Page (A.B. 1888) – Protestant Episcopal Bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Michigan (1923-1939)Edmund Platt (A.B. 1888) – Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve (1920-1930); U.S. Congressman (Republican Party-New York, 1913-1920)Ezra Ripley Thayer (A.B. 1888) – Dean of Harvard Law School (1910-1915)

Harvard Class of 1891:Frank H. Hitchcock (A.B. 1891) – Postmaster General of the United States (1909-1913)Regis Henri Post (A.B. 1891) – Governor of Puerto Rico (1907-1909)Richard Patrick Freeman (A.B. 1891) – U.S. Congressman (Republican Party-Connecticut, 1915-1933)Nicholas Longworth (A.B. 1891) – U.S. Congressman (Republican Party-Ohio, 1903-1913, 1915-1931); Speaker of the House (1925-1931)James Madison Morton Jr. (A.B. 1891, LL.B. 1894) – Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (1912-1932)James Arnold Lowell (A.B. 1891, LL.B. 1894) – Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (1922-1933)Francis Gordon Caffey (A.B. 1891) – Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (1929-1947); U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (1917-1921)Robert Treat Whitehouse (A.B. 1891, LL.B. 1893) – U.S. Attorney for the District of Maine (1906-1914)Philip M. Rhinelander (A.B. 1891) – Protestant Episcopal Bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania (1911-1923)Charles Lewis Slattery (A.B. 1891) – Protestant Episcopal Bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts (1927-1930)

Harvard Class of 1892:Thomas W. Lamont (A.B. 1892) – Partner of J.P. Morgan & Co. (1911-1948)Arthur Woods (A.B. 1892) – Police Commissioner of New York City (1914-1918)Henry French Hollis (A.B. 1892) – U.S. Senator (Democratic Party-New Hampshire, 1913-1919)H. Percival Dodge (A.B. 1892, LL.B. 1895) – U.S. Minister to Denmark (1926-1930); U.S. Minister to Serbia [Yugoslavia] (1919-1926)W. Cameron Forbes (A.B. 1892) – U.S. Ambassador to Japan (1930-1932); Governor-General of the Philippines (1909-1913)David Gray (A.B. 1892) – U.S. Minister to Ireland (1940-1947)Everett J. Lake (A.B. 1892) – Governor of Connecticut (1921-1923); Lieutenant Governor of Connecticut (1907-1909)Frederic Hathaway Chase (A.B. 1892, LL.B. 1894) – Justice of the Superior Court of Massachusetts (1911-1920)Philip Leffingwell Spalding (A.B. 1892) – President of New England Telephone and Telegraph Co. (1912-1918)Samuel Adams (A.B. 1892) – Member of Adams, Follansbee, Hawley & Shorey [law firm in Chicago] (1913-1925)Mitchell Davis Follansbee (A.B. 1892) – Member of Adams, Follansbee, Hawley & Shorey [law firm in Chicago]Jeremiah Smith Jr. (A.B. 1892, LL.B. 1895) – Member of Herrick, Smith, Donald & Farley [law firm in Boston]James DeWolf Perry (A.B. 1892) – Protestant Episcopal Bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Rhode Island (1911-1946)William Tenney Brewster (A.B. 1892) – Professor of English at Columbia University (1906-1943); Provost of Barnard College (1910-1923)Ralph Waldo Gifford (A.B. 1892, LL.B. 1901) – Professor of Law at Columbia University (1914-1925)William MacDonald (A.B. 1892) – Professor of History at Brown University (1901-1917)Robert Morss Lovett (A.B. 1892) – Professor of English at University of Chicago (1909-1936)George Purcell Costigan Jr. (A.B. 1892, LL.B. 1894) – Professor of Law at Northwestern University (1909-1922)Amos Shartle Hershey (A.B. 1892) – Professor of Political Science and International Law at Indiana University (1905-1933)

Harvard Class of 1896:James A. Stillman (A.B. 1896) – Chairman and President of National City Bank of New York (1919-1921)Philip Stockton (A.B. 1896) – President of Old Colony Trust Co. [Boston] (1910-1934)Jerome D. Greene (A.B. 1896) – Trustee (1913-1917, 1928-1939) and Secretary (1913-1917) of the Rockefeller FoundationBouck White (A.B. 1896) – Pastor of the Church of the Social Revolution in New York City during World War IFrederick Hale (A.B. 1896) – U.S. Senator (Republican Party-Maine, 1917-1941)Luther Wright Mott (A.B. 1896) – U.S. Congressman (Republican Party-New York, 1911-1923)Spencer F. Eddy (A.B. 1896) – U.S. Minister to Argentina (1908-1909); U.S. Minister to Romania, Serbia, and Bulgaria (1909)Dave Hennen Morris (A.B. 1896) – U.S. Ambassador to Belgium (1933-1937)Joseph P. Cotton (A.B. 1896; LL.B. 1900) – Under U.S. Secretary of State (1929-1931)John Weld Peck (A.B. 1896) – Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (1919-1923)John Lord O’Brian (A.B. 1896) – U.S. Attorney for the Western District of New York (1909-1914)Herbert Parker (A.B. 1896) – Attorney General of Massachusetts (1901-1905)Haven Emerson (A.B. 1896) – President of the Board of Health and Commissioner of the Department of Health of New York City (1915-1917)George Thomas (A.B. 1896) – President of University of Utah (1921-1941)George Henry Chase (A.B. 1896, Ph.D. 1900) – Dean of Graduate School of Arts and Science at Harvard University (1925-1939)Harry Augustus Bigelow (A.B. 1896, LL.B. 1899) – Dean of University of Chicago Law School (1929-1939); Professor of Law at University of Chicago (1909-1939)Gregory Paul Baxter (A.B. 1896, A.M. 1897, Ph.D. 1899) – Professor of Chemistry at Harvard University (1915-1944)Sidney Bradshaw Fay (A.B. 1896, Ph.D. 1900) – Professor of European History at Smith College (1914-1929); Professor of History at Harvard University (1929-1946)Roscoe James Ham (A.B. 1896) – Professor of German at Bowdoin College (1909-1945)Gilbert Newton Lewis (A.B. 1896, Ph.D. 1899) – Professor of Physical Chemistry at University of California at Berkeley (1912-1946)Edward Lee Thorndike (A.B. 1896, A.M. 1897) – Professor of Educational Psychology at Columbia University (1904-1940)Jonas Viles (A.B. 1896, A.M. 1897, Ph.D. 1901) – Professor of American History at University of Missouri (1907-1945)

Harvard Class of 1898:James H. Perkins (A.B. 1898) – Chairman of the board of National City Bank of New York (1933-1940)William Woodward (A.B. 1898, LL.B. 1901) – President of Hanover National Bank [New York City] (1910-1929); Chairman of the board of Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. [New York City] (1929-1933); Class A Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (1914-1918)Langdon P. Marvin (A.B. 1898, LL.B. 1901) – Member of Marvin, Hooker & Roosevelt [law firm in New York City, 52 Wall Street] (1910-1920)Frederick A. Sterling (A.B. 1898) – U.S. Minister to Ireland (1927-1934), U.S. Min. to Bulgaria (1934-1936); U.S. Min. to Sweden (1938-1941)Eliot Wadsworth (A.B. 1898) – Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (1921-1925)Chester Noyes Greenough (A.B. 1898, Ph.D. 1904) – Dean of Harvard College (1921-1927)Wallace Brett Donham (A.B. 1898, LL.B. 1901) – Dean of Harvard Business School (1919-1942)Edward Sampson Thurston (A.B. 1898, LL.B. 1901) – Professor of Law at University of Minnesota (1911-1919); Professor of Law at Yale University (1919-1929); Professor of Law at Harvard University (1929-1942)Robert M. Yerkes (A.B. 1898, Ph.D. 1902) – Professor of Psychology at University of Minnesota (1917-1919)

Harvard Class of 1900:Dwight F. Davis (A.B. 1900) – U.S. Secretary of War (1925-1929); Governor-General of the Philippines (1929-1932)William R. Castle Jr. (A.B. 1900) – U.S. Ambassador to Imperial Japan (January 24, 1930-May 27, 1930)William Phillips (A.B. 1900) – U.S. Ambassador to Fascist Italy (1936-1941)Peter Augustus Jay (A.B. 1900) – U.S. Minister to Romania (1921-1925)Robert Woods Bliss (A.B. 1900) – U.S. Ambassador to Argentina (1927-1933)Charles Boyd Curtis (A.B. 1900) – U.S. Consul General in Munich, Germany (1925-1927); U.S. Minister to Dominican Republic (1930-1931)Murray Seasongood (A.B. 1900; LL.B. 1903) – Mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio (1926-1930)Edward C. Carter (A.B. 1900) – Secretary General of the Institute of Pacific Relations (1933-1946)Arthur L. Dean (A.B. 1900) – President of the University of Hawaii (1914-1927)Frederic Palmer Jr. (A.B. 1900, A.M. 1904, Ph.D. 1913) – Dean of Haverford College (1908-1929)Henry Winthrop Ballantine (A.B. 1900, LL.B. 1904) – Dean of University of Illinois School of Law (1916-1920)William Stearns Davis (A.B. 1900, Ph.D. 1905) – Professor of European History at University of Minnesota (1909-1927)Paul J. Sachs (A.B. 1900) – Partner of Goldman, Sachs & Co. (1904-1914)

Harvard Class of 1902:Joseph C. Grew (A.B. 1902) – U.S. Ambassador to Imperial Japan (1932-1941); U.S. Ambassador to Turkey (1927-1932)Robert J. Bulkley (A.B. 1902) – U.S. Congressman (Democrat-Ohio, 1911-1915); U.S. Senator (Democrat-Ohio, 1930-1939)Charles P. McCarthy (A.B. 1902) – Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Idaho (1923-?)Wolcott H. Pitkin (A.B. 1902, LL.B. 1906) – Attorney General of Puerto Rico (1912-1914)Arthur Stanley Pease (A.B. 1902, A.M. 1903, Ph.D. 1905) – President of Amherst College (1927-1932)Warren Abner Seavey (A.B. 1902, LL.B. 1904) – Dean of the College of Law at University of Nebraska (1920-1926)Edmund Morris Morgan Jr. (A.B. 1902, LL.B. 1905) – Professor of Law at Harvard University (1925-1950)Roger Irving Lee (A.B. 1902, M.D. 1905) – Professor of Hygiene at Harvard University (1914-1924)James Walter Goldthwait (A.B. 1902, Ph.D. 1906) – Professor of Geology at Dartmouth College (1911-1947)Albert Benedict Wolfe (A.B. 1902, Ph.D. 1905) – Professor of Economics and Sociology at University of Texas (1914-1923)Charles H. Schweppe (A.B. 1902) – Partner of Lee, Higginson & Co. [banking firm in Boston] (1913-1941)John Weiss Stedman (A.B. 1902) – Assistant Treasurer (1915-1918) and Second Vice President (1918-1924) of Prudential Insurance Co.

Harvard Class of 1904:Franklin Delano Roosevelt (A.B. 1904) – President of the United States (1933-1945); Governor of New York (1929-1932)Irving Nelson Linnell (A.B. 1904; LL.B. 1907) – U.S. Consul General in Yokohama, Japan (1940-1941)Ogden L. Mills (A.B. 1904; LL.B. 1907) – U.S. Secretary of the Treasury (1932-1933); Under Secretary of the Treasury (1927-1932)William Francis Murray (A.B. 1904) – U.S. Congressman (Democrat-Massachusetts, 1911-1914)John Jacob Rogers (A.B. 1904, LL.B. 1907) – U.S. Congressman (Republican Party-Massachusetts, 1913-1925)Francis Joseph William Ford (A.B. 1904, LL.B. 1906) – Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (1938-1972)Mahlon Fay Perkins (A.B. 1904) – U.S. Consul General in Barcelona, Spain (1936)Arthur A. Ballantine (A.B. 1904, LL.B. 1907) – Under Secretary of the Treasury (1932-1933)Henry Herrick Bond (A.B. 1904, LL.B. 1906) – Assistant Sec. of the Treasury (1927-1929); Income Tax Director of Massachusetts (1916-1919)Walter E. Sachs (A.B. 1904) – Member of Goldman, Sachs & Co. (1910-1959); Limited Partner of Goldman, Sachs & Co. (1959-1980)Charles Elliott Perkins Jr. (A.B. 1904) – President of Chicago, Burlington & Quincy (CB&Q) Railroad Co. (July 18, 1918-1920)Harry Bertram Higgins (A.B. 1904) – Chairman of the board of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. (1955-1957)Roger Pierce (A.B. 1904) – Vice President of New England Trust Company (1919-1927)Roger Nash Baldwin (A.B. 1904) – Founder and Director of American Civil Liberties Union (1917-1950)Merwin Kimball Hart (A.B. 1904) – President of New York State Economic Council (1930-1943)Ralph Hayward Keniston (A.B. 1904, Ph.D. 1911) – Dean of the College of Literature, Science and the Arts at Univ. of Michigan (1945-1951)Abbott Payson Usher (A.B. 1904, A.M. 1906, Ph.D. 1910) – Professor of Economics at Harvard University (1936-1949)David A. McCabe (A.B. 1904, Ph.D. Johns Hopkins 1909) – Professor of Economics at Princeton University (1919-1952)Edgar Noble Durfee (A.B. 1904) – Professor of Law at University of Michigan (1915-1958)Charles Phillips Huse (A.B. 1904, A.M. 1905, Ph.D. 1907) – Professor of Economics at Boston University (1920-1953)Sidney St. Felix Thaxter (A.B. 1904; LL.B. 1907) – Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (1930-1958)Samuel A. Welldon (A.B. 1904, LL.B. 1908) – former Chairman of the board of the First National Bank of the City of New YorkDaniel Waldo Lincoln (A.B. 1904, LL.B. 1907) – Member of the Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board (1947-1953)

Harvard Class of 1905:Clarence Dillon (A.B. 1905) – former Chairman of the board of Dillon, Read & Co. [bank in New York City]Walter S. Gifford (A.B. 1905) – President of American Telephone and Telegraph Co. (1925-1948); U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain (1950-53)Arthur W. Page (A.B. 1905) – Vice President of American Telephone and Telegraph Co. [AT&T] (1927-1947)Nicholas Kelley (A.B. 1905, LL.B. 1909) – Vice President and General Counsel of Chrysler Corp. (1937-1957)Roger D. Lapham (A.B. 1905) – Mayor of San Francisco, California (1944-1948)William Caldwell Coleman (A.B. 1905, LL.B. 1909) – Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (1927-1955)Richard K. Conant (A.B. 1905, LL.B. 1908) – Massachusetts Commissioner of Public Welfare (1921-1935)Robert McNair Davis (A.B. 1905) – Dean of Univ. of Idaho School of Law (1923-1929); Dean of Univ. of Kansas School of Law (1929-1934)Harry Louis Frevert (A.B. 1905, Ph.D. 1908) – President (1931-1943) and Chairman of the board (1943-1944) of Midvale Co. [steel company]Leo H. Leary (A.B. 1905, LL.B. 1908) – Vice President of Boston Mutual Life Insurance Co. (1940-1966)Gustavus Hill Robinson (A.B. 1905, LL.B. 1909) – Professor of Law at University of Missouri (1916-1919)Arthur George Smith (A.B. 1905, LL.B. 1908) – Deputy Attorney General (1910-1917) and Attorney General (1917-1918) of Territory of Hawaii

Harvard Class of 1907:Winthrop W. Aldrich (A.B. 1907; LL.B. 1910) – Chairman of Chase National Bank (1934-1953); U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain (1953-1957)George Whitney (A.B. 1907) – Chairman of the board of J.P. Morgan & Co., Inc. (1950-1955)Merrill Griswold (A.B. 1907, LL.B. 1911) – Chairman of the Massachusetts Investors Trust (1932-1953)Franklin Mott Gunther (A.B. 1907) – U.S. Minister to Egypt (1928-1930); U.S. Minister to Romania (1937-1941)Leland Harrison (A.B. 1907) – U.S. Minister to Switzerland (1937-1947); U.S. Minister to Sweden (1927-1929)John Campbell White (A.B. 1907) – U.S. Ambassador to Haiti (1941-1944); U.S. Ambassador to Peru (1944-1945)Ernest Gruening (A.B. 1907) – U.S. Senator (Democrat-Alaska, 1959-1969)Robert Low Bacon (A.B. 1907, LL.B. 1910) – U.S. Congressman (Republican-New York, 1923-1938)Harrison Clifford Dale (A.B. 1907) – President of University of Idaho (1937-1946)Isaiah Leo Sharfman (A.B. 1907, LL.B. 1910) – Professor of Economics at University of Michigan (1914-c.1954)Clarence H. Haring (A.B. 1907, Ph.D. 1916) – Professor of Latin American History and Economics at Harvard University (1923-1953)

Princeton University Graduates and Their Occupation during World War I (1914-1918) and Bolshevik Revolution (1917-1919)

Government Officials:Woodrow Wilson (A.B. 1879) – President of the United States (1913-1921)Mahlon Pitney (A.B. 1879) – Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1912-1922)Charles Andrew Talcott (A.B. 1879) – U.S. Congressman (Democratic Party-New York, 1911-1915)Peter Joseph Hamilton (A.B. 1879) – Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (1913-1921)Alfred Salem Niles (A.B. 1879) – Member of the Board of Police Commissioners of Baltimore (1912-1916)Cleveland H. Dodge (A.B. 1879) – Trustee of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1910-1919)George Gray (A.B. 1859) – Trustee of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1915-1925)Henry Burling Thompson (B.S. 1877) – Deputy Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (1916-1924)Edward Elliott (A.B. 1897) – Class C Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (1917-1920)Roland S. Morris (A.B. 1896) – U.S. Ambassador to Japan (1917-1920)Post Wheeler (A.B. 1891) – Secretary (1914-1916) and Counselor (1916-1917) of the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, JapanJohn W. Garrett (B.S. 1895) – U.S. Minister to the Netherlands (1917-1919); U.S. Minister to Luxembourg (1917-1919)Charles Denby Jr. (A.B. 1882) – U.S. Consul General in Vienna (1909-1915); Director, Bureau of Foreign Agents, War Trade Board (1917)Albert Halstead (A.B. 1889) – U.S. Consul General in Vienna (1915-1917); U.S. Consul General in Stockholm, Sweden (Jan. 1918-May 1919)Blair Lee (A.B. 1880) – U.S. Senator (Democratic Party-Maryland, 1914-1917)Atlee Pomerene (A.B. 1884) – U.S. Senator (Democratic Party-Ohio, 1911-1923)Richard Wayne Parker (A.B. 1867) – U.S. Congressman (Republican Party-New Jersey, 1895-1911, 1914-1919, 1921-1923)Thomas Spencer Crago (A.B. 1893) – U.S. Congressman (Republican Party-Pennsylvania, 1911-1913, 1915-1921, 1921-1923)George White (A.B. 1895) – U.S. Congressman (Democratic Party-Ohio, 1911-1915, 1917-1919)John Bayard McPherson (A.B. 1866) – Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [Philadelphia] (1912-1919)Richard Wilde Walker (A.B. 1877) – Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [New Orleans] (1914-1930)Francis Fisher Kane (A.B. 1886) – U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (1913-1920)William S. Gummere (A.B. 1870) – Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey (1901-1933)Charles Wolcott Parker (A.B. 1882) – Justice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey (1907-1947)John Fleming Main (A.B. 1891) – Justice of the Supreme Court of Washington (1912-1942)Ingram M. Stainback (A.B. 1907) – Attorney General of the Territory of Hawaii (1914-1917)Charles Browne (A.B. 1896) – Mayor of Princeton, New Jersey (1914-1923)William Franklin Henney (A.B. 1874) – Member of the Board of Connecticut State Police Commissioners (1912-1921)Winthrop More Daniels (A.B. 1888) – Member of Interstate Commerce Commission (1914-1923)

College Professors:Charles Alexander Richmond (A.B. 1883) – President of Union College (1909-1928)Livingston Farrand (A.B. 1888) – President of University of Colorado (1914-1919)Max Farrand (A.B. 1892, Ph.D. 1896) – Professor of History at Yale University (1908-1925)Howard Crosby Warren (A.B. 1889, Ph.D. Johns Hopkins 1917) – Professor of Psychology at Princeton University (1902-1934); Stuart Professor of Psychology at Princeton University (1914-1934)James Lee Kauffman (A.B. 1908) – Professor of English and American Law at Imperial University in Tokyo, Japan (1913-1919)John Preston Hoskins (A.B. 1891) – Professor of Germanic Languages and Literature at Princeton University (1912-1935); Director of Propaganda Division, Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Dept. of Justice (Sept. 1918-Sept. 1919)

Others:Paul Matthews (A.B. 1887) – Protestant Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of New Jersey (1915-1937)Wilton Merle-Smith (A.B. 1877) – Pastor of Central Church in New York City (1889-1920)Abram Piatt Andrew Jr. (A.B. 1893) – Soldier in the French Army and U.S. Army, Western Front [France] (December 1914-May 1919)Raymond B. Fosdick (A.B. 1905) – Member, Bureau of Social Hygiene (1913-1915); Member, New York City Board of Education (1915-1916)Timothy Newell Pfeiffer (A.B. 1908) – Counsel of American Social Hygiene Association (1915-1917)John Foster Dulles (A.B. 1908) – Member of Sullivan & Cromwell [law firm in New York City] (1911-1949)Stacy Barcroft Lloyd (A.B. 1898) – Assistant General Counsel of Pennsylvania Railroad (1906-1921)John Lee Tildsley (A.B. 1893, Ph.D. Halle [Germany] 1898) – Associate (1916-1920) and Assistant (1920-1937) Superintendent of Schools of New York City

Columbia University Graduates and World War I (1914-1918) & Bolshevik Revolution (1917-1919)

Nicholas Murray Butler (B.A. 1882; M.A. 1883; Ph.D. 1884) – President of Columbia University (1902-1945)John Purroy Mitchel (B.A. 1899) – Mayor of New York City (January 1, 1914-December 31, 1917)James W. Gerard (B.A. 1890) – U.S. Ambassador to Imperial Germany (1913-1917)John F. Carew (B.A. 1893, LL.B. 1896) – U.S. Congressman (Democrat-New York, March 4, 1913-December 28, 1929)Benjamin Nathan Cardozo (B.A. 1889) – Justice of the Supreme Court of New York (1914-1917)John Dyneley Prince (B.A. 1888) – President of New Jersey Civil Service Commission (1917-1921)Charles Augustus Peabody (B.A. 1869, LL.B. 1871) – President of Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York (1906-1927)Frederic R. Coudert (B.A. 1890; A.M. 1891; Ph.D. 1894) – Member of Coudert Brothers [law firm in New York City] (1895-1955); Legal Adviser to the British Embassy in Washington, D.C. (1915-1920)E.R.A. Seligman (B.A. 1879; LL.B. 1884; Ph.D. 1885) – McVickar Professor of Political Economy and Finance at Columbia Univ. (1904-1931)Frank Pierrepont Graves (B.A. 1890, A.M. 1891, Ph.D. 1912) – Dean of School of Education at University of Pennsylvania (1913-1921)Rabbi Stephen S. Wise (B.A. 1892, Ph.D. 1901) – Founder and Rabbi of Free Synagogue of New York (1907-1949)Oscar S. Straus (B.A. 1871; LL.B. 1873; A.M. 1874) – Trustee of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1910-1926); Chairman of New York Public Service Commission, First District (1915-1918)James C. Egbert (B.A. 1881, Ph.D. 1884) – Professor of Latin at Columbia University (1906-1942)

Prominent Dartmouth College Graduates and Their Occupation during World War I:Irving Webster Drew (A.B. 1870) – U.S. Senator (Republican-New Hampshire, September 2, 1918-November 5, 1918)Sherman Everett Burroughs (A.B. 1894) – U.S. Congressman (Republican-New Hampshire, May 29, 1917-January 27, 1923)Samuel Walker McCall (A.B. 1874) – Governor of Massachusetts (1916-1919)Walter Henry Sanborn (A.B. 1867) – Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit [St. Louis] (1892-1928)George Hutchins Bingham (A.B. 1887) – Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit [Boston] (1913-1939)Charles Merrill Hough (A.B. 1879) – Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [New York City] (1916-1927)Frank Naismith Parsons (A.B. 1874) – Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court (1902-1924)Harry B. Thayer (A.B. 1879) – President of Western Electric Company (1908-1919)Ernest M. Hopkins (A.B. 1901, A.M. 1908) – President of Dartmouth College (1916-1945)Samuel Leland Powers (A.B. 1874) – Trustee of Dartmouth College (1905-1915); Member of the Massachusetts State Board of Education (1915-1919)James Burton Reynolds (A.B. 1890) – Secretary of Republican National Committee (1912-1920); Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (1905-1909); Member of the U.S. Tariff Board (1909-1912)

Prominent Brown University Graduates and Their Occupation during World War I:Arthur Lewis Brown (A.B. 1876) – Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island (1896-1927)William H.P. Faunce (A.B. 1880) – President of Brown University (1899-1929)Charles Evans Hughes (A.B. 1881) – Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1910-1916); Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation (1917-1921)Frank S. Dietrich (A.B. 1887) – Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho (1907-1927)Herbert Ambrose Rice (A.B. 1889, LL.B. Harvard 1895) – Attorney General of Rhode Island (1912-1923)Herbert Howard Rice (A.B. 1892) – Treasurer and Vice President of General Motors Corp. [Detroit] (1916-1921)Alexander Meiklejohn (A.B. 1893) – President of Amherst College (1912-1924)John Hope (A.B. 1894) – President of Morehouse College [Atlanta] (1906-1931)John D. Rockefeller Jr. (A.B. 1897) – President of The Rockefeller Foundation (1913-1917); Chairman of the board of The Rockefeller Foundation (1917-1940); Trustee of Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (1901-1954)

Prominent Amherst College Graduates and Their Occupation during World War I:Charles Henry Parkhurst (A.B. 1866) – Pastor of Madison Square Presbyterian Church in New York City (1880-1918)Herbert Gardiner Lord (A.B. 1871) – Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University (1900-1921)Frederick Huntington Gillett (A.B. 1874) – Member of the U.S. House of Representatives (Republican-Massachusetts, 1893-1925)Henry Clay Folger (A.B. 1879) – President of Standard Oil Company of New York (1911-1923)Frank J. Goodnow (A.B. 1879) – President of Johns Hopkins University (1914-1929)Edward S. Farrington (A.B. 1880) – Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (1907-1928)Rush Rhees (A.B. 1883) – President of University of Rochester (1900-1935)Henry Thomas Rainey (A.B. 1883) – Member of the U.S. House of Representatives (Democrat-Illinois, 1903-1921, 1923-1934)Allen Towner Treadway (A.B. 1886) – Member of the U.S. House of Representatives (Republican-Massachusetts, 1913-1945)Robert Lansing (A.B. 1886) – U.S. Secretary of State (1915-1920)Herman Vandenburg Ames (A.B. 1888; Ph.D. Harvard 1891) – Dean of the Graduate School at University of Pennsylvania (1907-1928)Arthur Marston Heard (A.B. 1888) – Class A Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (1914-1917)William Foster Peirce (A.B. 1888) – President of Kenyon College [Ohio] (1896-1937)Charles S. Whitman (A.B. 1890) – Governor of New York (1915-1918)Charles D. Norton (A.B. 1893) – Vice President of First National Bank of New York (1911-1918)Bertrand Hollis Snell (A.B. 1894) – Member of the U.S. House of Representatives (Republican-New York, 1915-1939)Harlan Fiske Stone (B.S. 1894) – Dean of Columbia Law School (1910-1924)Calvin Coolidge (A.B. 1895) – Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts (January 6, 1916-January 2, 1919)Dwight W. Morrow (A.B. 1895) – Member of J.P. Morgan & Co. (1914-1927)Charles Blakeslee Law (B.S. 1895) – Justice of the Municipal Court of the City of New York (1916-1926)Edwin Prescott Grosvenor (A.B. 1897, LL.B. Columbia 1904) – Member of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft [law firm in NYC] (1914-1930)Henry Clay Hall (A.B. 1881, LL.B. Columbia 1883) – Member (1914-1928) and Chairman (1917-1918, 1924) of Interstate Commerce Commission; Mayor of Colorado Springs, Colorado (1905-1907)

Prominent Williams College Graduates and Their Occupation during World War I:George Weston Anderson (B.A. 1886) – U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts (1914-1917); Member of the U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission (1917-1918)William Ball Gilbert (B.A. 1868) – Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1892-1931)John Milton Killits (B.A. 1880) – Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio [Cleveland, Ohio] (1910-1928)Granville Stanley Hall (B.A. 1867) – President of Clark University (1888-1920)Harry Pratt Judson (B.A. 1870) – President of University of Chicago (1907-1923)Harry A. Garfield (B.A. 1885) – President of Williams College (1908-1934)

Harvard alumni Arthur Woods, the Police Commissioner of New York City [head of the New York Police Department] during World War I, examines miscellaneous reports. (Photo: George Grantham Bain Collection/Library of Congress)

Arthur Woods (A.B. Harvard 1892) was the Police Commissioner of New York City (1914-1918), Overseer of Harvard University (1917-1923, 1925-1931), and Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation (1928-1934). Arthur Woods’ Harvard classmate Thomas W. Lamont was a partner of J.P. Morgan & Co. banking firm in New York City. Franklin Atkins Lord (B.A. Yale 1898, S&B 1898) was the Deputy Police Commissioner of New York City from 1915 to 1918. Franklin Atkins Lord’s Yale classmate and fellow Bonesman James W. Wadsworth Jr. (B.A. Yale 1898, S&B 1898) was a U.S. Senator from New York from 1915 to 1927. Russian Jewish terrorist Leon Trotsky lived in New York City in 1917.

Harvard graduates and descendants of American Presidents, left to right:Charles Francis Adams III, Archibald Cary Coolidge, Robert Todd Lincoln, and Ulysses S. Grant Jr.

The Wilson Administration during World War I

President Woodrow Wilson (left) appears with his Cabinet at the White House during World War I. Clockwise, from left: President Woodrow Wilson, Treasury Secretary William G. McAdoo, U.S. Attorney General Thomas Gregory, Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels, Secretary of Agriculture David F. Houston, Secretary of Labor William B. Wilson, Secretary of Commerce William C. Redfield, Secretary of the Interior Franklin K. Lane, Postmaster General Albert S. Burleson, Secretary of War Newton D. Baker, and Secretary of State Robert Lansing. (Photo: Harris & Ewing Collection/Library of Congress)

Members of the “War Cabinet” during World War I (incomplete):Frank W. Taussig (A.B. Harvard 1879) – Chairman of the U.S. Tariff Commission (1917-1919)William Kent (B.A. Yale 1887) – Member of U.S. Tariff Commission (1917-1920)William S. Culbertson – Member of U.S. Tariff Commission (1917-1925)Bernard Baruch – Chairman of War Industries Board (March 5, 1918-January 1, 1919)Eugene Meyer (B.A. Yale 1895) – Member of the War Industries Board (1917); Director of War Finance Corporation (1918-1920)Edward N. Hurley – Chairman of U.S. Shipping Board (1917-1919)Vance C. McCormick – Chairman of the War Trade Board (1917-1919)Harry A. Garfield – Administrator of U.S. Fuel Administration (1917-1919)Herbert C. Hoover – Administrator of U.S. Food Administration (June 1917-July 1, 1919)Walker D. Hines – Director General of U.S. Railroad Administration (1919)Julius H. Barnes – President of U.S. Food Administration Grain Corporation (August 1917-July 1919)

Council of National Defense members pose for a group portrait in circa 1916-1917. Standing (left to right): Grosvenor B. Clarkson, Julius Rosenwald (President of Sears, Roebuck & Co.), Bernard Baruch (Jewish financier), Daniel Willard (President of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad), Dr. Franklin Martin, Hollis Godfrey (President of Drexel Institute), Howard E. Coffin (engineer of Hudson Motor Car Co.), and W.S. Gifford (AT&T executive). Seated, left to right: Secretary of Agriculture David F. Houston, Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels, Secretary of War Newton D. Baker, Secretary of the Interior Franklin K. Lane, and Secretary of Labor William B. Wilson. Julius Rosenwald, Daniel Willard, Walter S. Gifford, David F. Houston, and Newton D. Baker were members of the Council on Foreign Relations.(Photo: National Photo Company Collection/Library of Congress)

Bernard Mannes Baruch, a New York City financier, was a chairman of the Committee on Raw Materials, Minerals and Metals, a commissioner in charge of raw materials for the War Industries Board, and a member of the commission in charge of all purchases for the Allies. Robert S. Lovett, a railroad baron for the Union Pacific Rrialroad Co., was a member of the War Industries Board from August 1917 to March 1918.

President Woodrow Wilson meets with his “War Cabinet” during World War I. From left to right, standing: Herbert Hoover (Chairman of Food Administration), Edward Hurley (Chairman of the War Transportation Board), Vance C. McCormick (Chairman of the War Trade Board)), and Harry Garfield (Chairman of Fuel Administration); seated: Assistant Secretary of War Benedict Crowell, Secretary of the Treasury William Gibbs McAdoo, President Woodrow Wilson, Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels, and Bernard Baruch (Chairman of the War Industries Board). Hoover, Hurley, McCormick, and Garfield were members of the Council on Foreign Relations, a private organization in New York City.(Photo: Herbert Hoover Presidential Library)

The Red Cross War Council meets during World War I. Front row, left to right: Robert W. DeForest (Scroll & Key), U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, former U.S. President William Howard Taft (Chairman of the American Red Cross, Skull & Bones), and Eliot Wadsworth. Back row, left to right: Henry P. Davison, Col. Grayson M.P. Murphy, Charles D. Norton, and Edward N. Hurley. Robert W. DeForest, Eliot Wadsworth, Grayson M.P. Murphy, Charles D. Norton, and Edward N. Hurley were members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

“The most important diplomatic event of the latter part of the First World War was the intervention of the United States on the side of the Entente Powers in April 1917. The causes of this event have been analyzed at great length. In general there have been four chief reasons given for the intervention from four quite different points of view. These might be summarized as follows: (1) The German submarine attacks on neutral shipping made it necessary for the United States to go to war to secure “freedom of the seas”; (2) the United States was influenced by subtle British propaganda conducted in drawing rooms, universities, and the press of the eastern part of the country where Anglophilism was rampant among the more influential social groups; (3) the United States was inveigled into the war by a conspiracy of international bankers and munitions manufacturers eager to protect their loans to the Entente Powers or their wartime profits from sales to these Powers; and (4) Balance of Power principles made it impossible for the United States to allow Great Britain to be defeated by Germany. Whatever the weight of these four in the final decision, it is quite clear that neither the government nor the people of the United States were prepared to accept a defeat of the Entente at the hands of the Central Powers. Indeed, in spite of the government’s efforts to act with a certain semblance of neutrality, it was clear in 1914 that this was the view of the chief leaders in the government with the single exception of Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan. Without analyzing the four factors mentioned above, it is quite clear that the United States could not allow Britain to be defeated by any other Power. Separated from all other Great Powers by the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, the security of America required either that the control of those oceans be in its own hands or in the hands of a friendly Power. For almost a century before 1917 the United States had been willing to allow British control of the sea to go unchallenged, because it was clear that British control of the sea provided no threat to the United States, but on the contrary, provided security for the United States at a smaller cost in wealth and responsibility than security could have been obtained by any other method. The presence of Canada as a British territory adjacent to the United States, and exposed to invasion by land from the United States, constituted a hostage for British naval behavior acceptable to the United States. The German submarine assault on Britain early in 1917 drove Britain close to the door of starvation by its ruthless sinking of the merchant shipping upon which Britain's existence depended. Defeat of Britain could not be permitted because the United States was not prepared to take over control of the sea itself and could not permit German control of the sea because it had no assurance regarding the nature of such German control. The fact that the German submarines were acting in retaliation for the illegal British blockade of the continent of Europe and British violations of international law and neutral rights on the high seas, the fact that the Anglo-Saxon heritage of the United States and the Anglophilism of its influential classes made it impossible for the average American to see world events except through the spectacles made by British propaganda; the fact that Americans had lent the Entente billions of dollars which would be jeopardized by a German victory, the fact that the enormous Entente purchases of war materiel had created a boom of prosperity and inflation which would collapse the very day that the Entente collapsed— all these factors were able to bring weight to bear on the American decision only because the balance-of-power issue laid a foundation on which they could work. The important fact was that Britain was close to defeat in April 1917, and on that basis the United States entered the war. The unconscious assumption by American leaders that an Entente victory was both necessary and inevitable was at the bottom of their failure to enforce the same rules of neutrality and international law against Britain as against Germany. They constantly assumed that British violations of these rules could be compensated with monetary damages, while German violations of these rules must be resisted, by force if necessary. Since they could not admit this unconscious assumption or publicly defend the legitimate basis of international power politics on which it rested, they finally went to war on an excuse which w as legally weak, although emotionally satisfying. As John Bassett Moore, America’s most famous international lawyer, put it, “What most decisively contributed to the involvement of the United States in the war was the assertion of a right to protect belligerent ships on which Americans saw fit to travel and the treatment of armed belligerent merchantmen as peaceful vessels. Both assumptions were contrary to reason and to settled law, and no other professed neutral advanced them.”” – Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley, p. 249-250

“The Germans at first tried to use the established rules of international law regarding destruction of merchant vessels. This proved so dangerous, because of the peculiar character of the submarine itself, British control of the high seas, the British instructions to merchant ships to attack submarines, and the difficulty of distinguishing between British ships and neutral ships, that most German submarines tended to attack without warning. American protests reached a peak when the Lusitania was sunk in this way nine miles off the English coast on May 7, 1915. The Lusitania was a British merchant vessel "constructed with Government funds as [an] auxiliary cruiser, . . . expressly included in the navy list published by the British Admiralty," with “bases laid for mounting guns of six-inch caliber,” carrying a cargo of 2,400 cases of rifle cartridges and 1,250 cases of shrapnel, and with orders to attack German submarines whenever possible. Seven hundred and eighty-five of 1,257 passengers, including 128 of 197 Americans, lost their lives. The incompetence of the acting captain contributed to the heavy loss, as did also a mysterious “second explosion” after the German torpedo struck. The vessel, which had been declared “unsinkable,” went down in eighteen minutes. The captain was on a course he had orders to avoid; he was running at reduced speed; he had an inexperienced crew; the portholes had been left open; the lifeboats had not been swung out; and no lifeboat drills had been held. The propaganda agencies of the Entente Powers made full use of the occasion. The Times of London announced that “four-fifths of her passengers were citizens of the United States” (the actual proportion was 15.6 percent); the British manufactured and distributed a medal which they pretended had been awarded to the submarine crew by the German government; a French paper published a picture of the crowds in Berlin at the outbreak of war in 1914 as a picture of Germans “rejoicing” at news of the sinking of the Lusitania. The United States protested violently against the submarine warfare while brushing aside German arguments based on the British blockade. It was so irreconcilable in these protests that Germany sent Wilson a note on May 4, 1916, in which it promised that “in the future merchant vessels within and without the war zone shall not be sunk without warning and without safeguarding human lives, unless these ships attempt to escape or offer resistance.” In return the German government hoped that the United States would put pressure on Britain to follow the established rules of international law in regard to blockade and freedom of the sea. Wilson refused to do so. Accordingly, it became clear to the Germans that they would be starved into defeat unless they could defeat Britain first by unrestricted submarine warfare. Since they were aware that resort to this method would probably bring the United States into the war against them, they made another effort to negotiate peace before resorting to it. When their offer to negotiate, made on December 12, 1916, was rejected by the Entente Powers on December 27th, the group in the German government which had been advocating ruthless submarine warfare came into a position to control affairs, and ordered the resumption of unrestricted submarine attacks on February 1, 1917. Wilson was notified of this decision on January 31st. He broke off diplomatic relations with Germany on February 3rd, and, after two months of indecision, asked the Congress for a declaration of war April 3, 1917. The final decision was influenced by the constant pressure of his closest associates, the realization that Britain was reaching the end of her resources of men, money, and ships, and the knowledge that Germany was planning to seek an alliance with Mexico if war began.” – Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley, p. 250-251

Walter Lippmann (left), Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin Delano Roosevelt (center), and Frank Alpine appear at a Labor Relations Board session in Washington, D.C. in 1917. Lippmann (left) was an assistant to Secretary of War Newton D. Baker, and Alpine (right) was the President of the New York State Plumbers' Union. (Photo: Manuscripts & Archives, Yale University Library)

“Colonel” Edward M. House (left) stands beside U.S. President Woodrow Wilson in September 1917. Edward M. House was President Woodrow Wilson’s political adviser and a political powerbroker from Austin, Texas, U.S.A. who supported the establishment of the Federal Reserve System and the establishment of the League of Nations. Edward M. House, one of the co-founders of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City, was the author of Philip Dru: Administrator, a book in which he promotes communism, socialism, central bank, and income tax in America. “Colonel” Edward M. House was the son of British-born Rebel (Confederate) blockade runner and businessman Thomas William House; Thomas William House was the mayor of Houston, Texas in 1862.(Photo: Manuscripts & Archives, Yale University Library)

“Mr. House is my second personality. He is my independent self. His thoughts and mine are one. If I were in his place I would do just as he suggested... If anyone thinks he is reflecting my opinion by whatever action he takes, they are welcome to the conclusion.” – U.S. President Woodrow WilsonSource: The Intimate Papers of Colonel House by Charles Seymour, Volume I, Chapter 5, p.114

President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points SpeechDelivered in Joint Session, January 8, 1918

Gentlemen of the Congress:

Once more, as repeatedly before, the spokesmen of the Central Empires have indicated their desire to discuss the objects of the war and the possible basis of a general peace. Parleys have been in progress at Brest-Litovsk between Russsian representatives and representatives of the Central Powers to which the attention of all the belligerents have been invited for the purpose of ascertaining whether it may be possible to extend these parleys into a general conference with regard to terms of peace and settlement.

The Russian representatives presented not only a perfectly definite statement of the principles upon which they would be willing to conclude peace but also an equally definite program of the concrete application of those principles. The representatives of the Central Powers, on their part, presented an outline of settlement which, if much less definite, seemed susceptible of liberal interpretation until their specific program of practical terms was added. That program proposed no concessions at all either to the sovereignty of Russia or to the preferences of the populations with whose fortunes it dealt, but meant, in a word, that the Central Empires were to keep every foot of territory their armed forces had occupied -- every province, every city, every point of vantage -- as a permanent addition to their territories and their power.

It is a reasonable conjecture that the general principles of settlement which they at first suggested originated with the more liberal statesmen of Germany and Austria, the men who have begun to feel the force of their own people's thought and purpose, while the concrete terms of actual settlement came from the military leaders who have no thought but to keep what they have got. The negotiations have been broken off. The Russian representatives were sincere and in earnest. They cannot entertain such proposals of conquest and domination.

The whole incident is full of significances. It is also full of perplexity. With whom are the Russian representatives dealing? For whom are the representatives of the Central Empires speaking? Are they speaking for the majorities of their respective parliaments or for the minority parties, that military and imperialistic minority which has so far dominated their whole policy and controlled the affairs of Turkey and of the Balkan states which have felt obliged to become their associates in this war?

The Russian representatives have insisted, very justly, very wisely, and in the true spirit of modern democracy, that the conferences they have been holding with the Teutonic and Turkish statesmen should be held within open, not closed, doors, and all the world has been audience, as was desired. To whom have we been listening, then? To those who speak the spirit and intention of the resolutions of the German Reichstag of the 9th of July last, the spirit and intention of the Liberal leaders and parties of Germany, or to those who resist and defy that spirit and intention and insist upon conquest and subjugation? Or are we listening, in fact, to both, unreconciled and in open and hopeless contradiction? These are very serious and pregnant questions. Upon the answer to them depends the peace of the world.

But, whatever the results of the parleys at Brest-Litovsk, whatever the confusions of counsel and of purpose in the utterances of the spokesmen of the Central Empires, they have again attempted to acquaint the world with their objects in the war and have again challenged their adversaries to say what their objects are and what sort of settlement they would deem just and satisfactory. There is no good reason why that challenge should not be responded to, and responded to with the utmost candor. We did not wait for it. Not once, but again and again, we have laid our whole thought and purpose before the world, not in general terms only, but each time with sufficient definition to make it clear what sort of definite terms of settlement must necessarily spring out of them. Within the last week Mr. Lloyd George has spoken with admirable candor and in admirable spirit for the people and Government of Great Britain.

There is no confusion of counsel among the adversaries of the Central Powers, no uncertainty of principle, no vagueness of detail. The only secrecy of counsel, the only lack of fearless frankness, the only failure to make definite statement of the objects of the war, lies with Germany and her allies. The issues of life and death hang upon these definitions. No statesman who has the least conception of his responsibility ought for a moment to permit himself to continue this tragical and appalling outpouring of blood and treasure unless he is sure beyond a peradventure that the objects of the vital sacrifice are part and parcel of the very life of Society and that the people for whom he speaks think them right and imperative as he does.

There is, moreover, a voice calling for these definitions of principle and of purpose which is, it seems to me, more thrilling and more compelling than any of the many moving voices with which the troubled air of the world is filled. It is the voice of the Russian people. They are prostrate and all but hopeless, it would seem, before the grim power of Germany, which has hitherto known no relenting and no pity. Their power, apparently, is shattered. And yet their soul is not subservient. They will not yield

either in principle or in action. Their conception of what is right, of what is humane and honorable for them to accept, has been stated with a frankness, a largeness of view, a generosity of spirit, and a universal human sympathy which must challenge the admiration of every friend of mankind; and they have refused to compound their ideals or desert others that they themselves may be safe.

They call to us to say what it is that we desire, in what, if in anything, our purpose and our spirit differ from theirs; and I believe that the people of the United States would wish me to respond, with utter simplicity and frankness. Whether their present leaders believe it or not, it is our heartfelt desire and hope that some way may be opened whereby we may be privileged to assist the people of Russia to attain their utmost hope of liberty and ordered peace.

It will be our wish and purpose that the processes of peace, when they are begun, shall be absolutely open and that they shall involve and permit henceforth no secret understandings of any kind. The day of conquest and aggrandizement is gone by; so is also the day of secret covenants entered into in the interest of particular governments and likely at some unlooked-for moment to upset the peace of the world. It is this happy fact, now clear to the view of every public man whose thoughts do not still linger in an age that is dead and gone, which makes it possible for every nation whose purposes are consistent with justice and the peace of the world to avow nor or at any other time the objects it has in view.

We entered this war because violations of right had occurred which touched us to the quick and made the life of our own people impossible unless they were corrected and the world secure once for all against their recurrence. What we demand in this war, therefore, is nothing peculiar to ourselves. It is that the world be made fit and safe to live in; and particularly that it be made safe for every peace-loving nation which, like our own, wishes to live its own life, determine its own institutions, be assured of justice and fair dealing by the other peoples of the world as against force and selfish aggression. All the peoples of the world are in effect partners in this interest, and for our own part we see very clearly that unless justice be done to others it will not be done to us. The program of the world's peace, therefore, is our program; and that program, the only possible program, as we see it, is this:

I. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.

II. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants.

III. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.

IV. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.

V. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.

VI. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy.

VII. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the government of their relations with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure and validity of international law is forever impaired.

VIII. All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all.

IX. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.

X. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development.

XI. Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan states to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states should be entered into.

XII. The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.

XIII. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant.

XIV. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.

In regard to these essential rectifications of wrong and assertions of right we feel ourselves to be intimate partners of all the governments and peoples associated together against the Imperialists. We cannot be separated in interest or divided in purpose. We stand together until the end. For such arrangements and covenants we are willing to fight and to continue to fight until they are achieved; but only because we wish the right to prevail and desire a just and stable peace such as can be secured only by removing the chief provocations to war, which this program does remove. We have no jealousy of German greatness, and there is nothing in this program that impairs it. We grudge her no achievement or distinction of learning or of pacific enterprise such as have made her record very bright and very enviable. We do not wish to injure her or to block in any way her legitimate influence or power. We do not wish to fight her either with arms or with hostile arrangements of trade if she is willing to associate herself with us and the other peace- loving nations of the world in covenants of justice and law and fair dealing. We wish her only to accept a place of equality among the peoples of the world, -- the new world in which we now live, -- instead of a place of mastery.

Neither do we presume to suggest to her any alteration or modification of her institutions. But it is necessary, we must frankly say, and necessary as a preliminary to any intelligent dealings with her on our part, that we should know whom her spokesmen speak for when they speak to us, whether for the Reichstag majority or for the military party and the men whose creed is imperial domination.

We have spoken now, surely, in terms too concrete to admit of any further doubt or question. An evident principle runs through the whole program I have outlined. It is the principle of justice to all peoples and nationalities, and their right to live on equal terms of liberty and safety with one another, whether they be strong or weak.

Unless this principle be made its foundation no part of the structure of international justice can stand. The people of the United States could act upon no other principle; and to the vindication of this principle they are ready to devote their lives, their honor, and everything they possess. The moral climax of this the culminating and final war for human liberty has come, and they are ready to put their own strength, their own highest purpose, their own integrity and devotion to the test.

Collapse of the Ottoman Empire

Enver Pasha, the Turkish Minister of War (1913-1918), visits the Dome of the Rock Mosque in Jerusalem in 1916, accompanied by Djemal [Cemal] Pasha. (Photo: Library of Congress)

German soldiers enter Jerusalem in 1914 during World War I. (Photo: German Federal Archives)

4th Sussex Regiment (of the British army) march through Bethlehem on December 9, 1917. (Photo: Imperial War Museums)

W Beach (Lancashire Landing) at Cape Helles, Gallipoli, Turkey on 7 January 1916, just prior to the final evacuation of British forces during the Battle of Gallipoli. The explosion of a Turkish shell in the water, fired from the Asian shore of the Dardanelles, can be seen.(Photo by Lt. Ernest Brooks, Courtesy the Imperial War Museum)http://www.city-data.com/forum/history/854697-day-history-january-1-31-a-2.html

Ottoman Turkish soldiers serve rations in the desert in 1917. (Photo: Flickr)

French troops land on Lemnos Island (part of present-day Greece), an island located near the Gallipoli peninsula of Turkey, in 1915.

Turkish Officers visit the Mosque of Omar [Dome of the Rock] in Jerusalem in 1916. (Photo: Flickr)

British troops enter Baghdad on March 11, 1917.

(Source: A Peace to End All Peace: Creating the Modern Middle East, 1914-1922 by David Fromkin)

(Source: A Peace to End All Peace: Creating the Modern Middle East, 1914-1922 by David Fromkin)

Chaim Weizmann (left, wearing an Arab outfit as a sign of friendship) stands beside Emir Feisal I in 1918. Chaim Weizmann was the first President of Israel from 1949 to 1952.

David Lloyd George (left) walks with Winston Churchill some time in 1915. Both George and Churchill served as Prime Minister of Great Britain. David Lloyd George served as the Chancellor of the Exchequer from April 12, 1908 to May 25, 1915.

James de Rothschild meet with Jewish settlers in British Palestine in 1918.(Photo: Weizmann: Last of the Patriarchs by Barnet Litvinoff)

Armenian Genocide: Organized Crime?

Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire in 1915-1916.

Survivors of the Armenian Genocide pose for a photo with a collection of skulls of dead Armenian victims in the foreground.(Photo: http://viparmenia.com/vb/5478/albums/recognize-the-armenian-genocide-17/152-armenian-genocide3-1.html)

The Armenian people were subjected to deportation, expropriation, abduction, torture, massacre, and starvation by the Ottoman Turkish government in Constantinople (present-day Istanbul) during World War I.

The Armenian Genocide

The atrocities committed against the Armenian people of the Ottoman Empire during W.W.I are called the Armenian Genocide. Genocide is the organized killing of a people for the express purpose of putting an end to their collective existence. Because of its scope, genocide requires central planning and a machinery to implement it. This makes genocide the quintessential state crime as only a government has the resources to carry out such a scheme of destruction.

The genocide of the Armenians was centrally planned and administered by the Turkish government against the entire Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire. Preceded by massacres of 200,000 Armenians in 1894-96 and of more than 30,000 in 1909, the main phase of Genocide was carried out during W.W.I between the years 1915 and 1918. The Armenian people were subjected to deportation, expropriation, abduction, torture, massacre, and starvation. The great bulk of the Armenian population was forcibly removed from Armenia and Anatolia to Syria, where the vast majority was sent into the desert to die of thirst and hunger. Large numbers of Armenians were methodically massacred throughout the Ottoman Empire. Women and children were abducted and horribly abused. The entire wealth of the Armenian people was expropriated. After only a little more than a year of calm at the end of W.W.I, the atrocities were renewed between 1920 and 1923, and the remaining Armenians were subjected to further massacres and expulsions. In 1915, thirty-three years before UN Genocide Convention was adopted, the Armenian Genocide was condemned by the international community as a crime against humanity.

On the night of April 24, 1915, the Turkish government placed under arrest over 200 Armenian community leaders in Constantinople. Hundreds more were apprehended soon after. They were all sent to prison in the interior of Anatolia, where most were summarily executed. The Young Turk regime had long been planning the Armenian Genocide and reports of atrocities being committed against the Armenians in the eastern war zones had been filtering in during the first months of 1915. The Ministry of War had already acted on the government's plan by disarming the Armenian recruits in the Ottoman Army, reducing them to labor battalions and working them under conditions equaling slavery. The incapacitation and methodic reduction of the Armenian male population, as well as the summary arrest and execution of the Armenian leadership marked the earliest stages of the Armenian Genocide. These acts were committed under the cover of a news blackout on account of the war and the government proceeded to implement its plans to liquidate the Armenian population with secrecy. Therefore, the Young Turks regime's true intentions went undetected until the arrests of April 24. As the persons seized that night included the most prominent public figures of the Armenian community in the capital city of the Ottoman Empire, everyone was alerted about the dimensions of the policies being entertained and implemented by the Turkish government. Their death presaged the murder of an ancient civilization. April 24 is, therefore, commemorated as the date of the unfolding of the Armenian Genocide.

The decision to carry out a genocide against the Armenian people was made by the political party in power in the Ottoman Empire. This was the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) (or Ittihad ve Terakki Jemiyeti), popularly known as the Young Turks. Three figures from the CUP controlled the government; Mehmet Talaat, Minister of the Interior in 1915 and Grand Vizier (Prime Minister) in 1917; Ismail Enver, Minister of War; Ahmed Jemal, Minister of the Marine and Military Governor of Syria. This Young Turk triumvirate relied on other members of the CUP appointed to high government posts and assigned to military commands to carry out the Armenian Genocide. In addition to the Ministry of War and the Ministry of the Interior, the Young Turks also relied on a newly-created secret outfit which they manned with convicts and irregular troops, called the Special Organization (Teshkilati Mahsusa). Its primary function was the carrying out of the mass slaughter of the deported Armenians. In charge of the Special Organization was Behaeddin Shakir, a medical doctor. Moreover, ideologists such as Zia Gokalp propagandized through the media on behalf of the CUP by promoting Pan-Turanism, the creation of a new empire stretching from Anatolia into Central Asia whose population would be exclusively Turkic. These concepts justified and popularized the secret CUP plans to liquidate the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire. The Young Turk conspirators, other leading figures of the wartime Ottoman government, members of the CUP Central Committee, and many provincial administrators responsible for atrocities against the Armenians were indicted for their crimes at the end of the war. The main culprits evaded justice by fleeing the country. Even so, they were tried in absentia and found guilty of capital crimes. The massacres, expulsions, and further mistreatment of the Armenians between 1920 and 1923 were carried by the Turkish Nationalists, who represented a new political movement opposed to the Young Turks, but who shared a common ideology of ethnic exclusivity.

It is estimated that one and a half million Armenians perished between 1915 and 1923. There were an estimated two million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire on the eve of W.W.I. Well over a million were deported in 1915. Hundreds of thousands were butchered outright. Many others died of starvation, exhaustion, and epidemics which ravaged the concentration camps. Among the Armenians living along the periphery of the Ottoman Empire many at first escaped the fate of their countrymen in the central provinces of Turkey. Tens of thousands in the east fled to the Russian border to lead a precarious existence as refugees. The majority of the Armenians in Constantinople, the capital city, were spared deportation. In 1918, however, the Young Turk regime took the war into the Caucasus, where approximately 1,800,000 Armenians lived under Russian dominion. Ottoman forces advancing through East Armenia and Azerbaijan here too engaged in systematic massacres. The expulsions and massacres carried by the Nationalist Turks between 1920 and 1922 added tens of thousands of more victims. By 1923 the entire landmass of Asia Minor and historic West Armenia had been expunged of its Armenian population. The destruction of the Armenian communities in this part of the world was total.

Source: http://www.armenianembassy.org.uk/1915-genocide.htm

1917: Year of the Snake Bolshevik Revolution, Balfour Declaration, & World War I

Photograph of a Federal Reserve Board meeting in circa 1917. Clockwise, beginning from left: William G. McAdoo (Secretary of the Treasury), John Skelton Williams (Comptroller of the Currency), Adolph C. Miller, Frederic A. Delano, unknown, W.P.G. Harding (Governor of the Federal Reserve), Paul Warburg (Vice Governor of the Federal Reserve), and Charles S. Hamlin. Frederic A. Delano’s nephew Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the Assistant Secretary of the Navy from 1913 to 1920; Frederic A. Delano’s father (and Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s grandfather) Warren Delano Jr. was a partner of Russell & Company opium syndicate and a wealthy drug dealer. (Photo: Harris & Ewing Collection/Library of Congress)

Russian soldiers demonstrate in the streets of Petrograd, Russia in February 1917. Czar Nicholas II of Russia abdicated his throne on March 15, 1917. Czar Nicholas II and his family were assassinated by the Bolsheviks [Communists] in Russia on July 17, 1918.

British troops enter Baghdad, the capital of present-day Iraq (formerly Babylon), on March 11, 1917.

British Field Marshal Edmund Allenby enters Jerusalem on December 11, 1917, after capturing the city from the Ottoman Turks. The Ottoman Empire administered Jerusalem from 1517 to 1917.

T.E. Lawrence (front row, third from right), Prince Feisal (front row, third from left), and others pose after capturing Aqaba in July 1917. Prince Feisal served as the King of Iraq from August 23, 1921 until his death on September 8, 1933.(Photo: http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/mma.cfm?go=forum.posts&forum=2&thread=2051026&page=4)

The Architects of Modern Israel, left to right: Lionel Walter Rothschild, Arthur Balfour, Chaim Weizmann, and Edmond de Rothschild

Lord Arthur Balfour was the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom of Great Britain from 1916 to 1919; Balfour was the Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1902 to 1905. Lord Walter Rothschild was a supporter of a Jewish homeland in the Holy Land. Arthur Balfour, Lord Alfred Milner, Jan Christian Smuts, Philip Kerr, Leo Amery, and William G.A. Ormsby-Gore were members of the Milner Group (also known as the Round Table Group).

THE BALFOUR DECLARATION (Balfour’s Letter to Lord Rothschild)

Foreign Office

November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

”His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

Dear Mr. Balfour

There was one point I forgot to mention on Friday and I think you might draw the Prime Minister’s attention to this; during the last few weeks the official and semi-official German newspapers have been making many statements, all to the effect that in the Peace Negotiations the Central Powers must make a condition for Palestine to be a Jewish settlement under German protection. I therefore think it important that the British declaration should forestall any such move. If you, as you promised, can arrange the interview I suggested please let Dr. Weizmann know as I am going away for a few days on some special business and Dr. Weizmann can get at me quicker than if the message is sent to me direct as there will be no responsible person at Tring as my mother is away also.

Yours sincerely,ROTHSCHILD

Source: Rothschild: The Wealth and Power of a Dynasty by Derek Wilson, p. 341

Mr. Balfour’s letter to Lord Rothschild on November 2, 1917, informally known as “Balfour Declaration”

Australian infantrymen wear gas masks at Ypres, Belgium during the Third Battle of Ypres in September 1917.

Robert Scott Lovett (left), a railroad baron for the Union Pacific Railroad Co., walks with Daniel Willard (right), President of Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., in 1917. Robert Scott Lovett was the Chairman of the board of Union Pacific Railroad Company from 1920 until his death in 1932; Robert Scott Lovett was the father of former Secretary of Defense Robert Abercrombie Lovett. Daniel Willard was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. (Photo: Harris & Ewing Collection/Library of Congress)

Members of the American Red Cross Emergency Financial Committee meet together in 1917. From left to right: Frank B. Hayne, Henry P. Davison (Chairman), Cornelius N. Bliss, Jr., Richard F. Grant, Eliot Wadsworth, and Charles D. Norton. Eliot Wadsworth and Charles D. Norton were members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Henry P. Davison was a partner of J.P. Morgan & Co. Charles D. Norton was the Vice President of First National Bank of New York from 1911 to 1918. (Photo: Harris & Ewing Collection/Library of Congress)

Prominent American Diplomats and Military Officers Appointed in 1917

Left to right: Roland S. Morris, Henry P. Fletcher, John W. Garrett, Gen. Tasker Bliss, and Maj. Gen. James G. Harbord.All five men were members of the Council on Foreign Relations during the 1920s and 1930s.

Roland S. Morris – U.S. Ambassador to Japan (October 30, 1917-May 15, 1920)Henry P. Fletcher – U.S. Ambassador to Mexico (March 3, 1917-January 25, 1919)John W. Garrett – U.S. Minister to the Netherlands (October 11, 1917-June 18, 1919)Gen. Tasker H. Bliss – Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army (September 22, 1917-May 18, 1918)Maj. Gen. James G. Harbord – Chief of Staff of American Expeditionary Force in France (May 15, 1917-May 6, 1918, May 1919-June 1921)

Chinese Republican soldiers besiege the gates of the Forbidden City in Peking, China in July 1917 during the failed recovery of the Manchu dynasty.

European soldiers appear in Peking in July 1917 during a failed attempt to restore the Manchu dynasty.

Robert Lansing (left), the U.S. Secretary of State, chats with John W. Davis (right), Solicitor General of the United States, in 1917.(Photo: Library of Congress)

Japanese special envoy Viscount Kikujirō Ishii (left), appears with U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing in Washington, D.C. on November 2, 1917 for the signing of the Lansing-Ishii Agreement. (Photo: Library of Congress)

Left: The Zimmermann Telegram as it was sent from Washington, D.C. to Mexico in 1917.Right: The Zimmermann Telegram, completely decrypted and translated. The message came as a coded telegram dispatched by the German Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann on January 16, 1917, to the German Ambassador to America Johann von Bernstorff. President Woodrow Wilson received a copy of the Zimmermann Telegram in February 1917. Mexico’s President Venustiano Carranza declined the German diplomatic offer described in the Zimmermann Telegram on April 14, 1917.

Left photo: Arthur Zimmermann (October 5, 1864-June 6, 1940) was State Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the German Empire from November 22, 1916 until his resignation on August 6, 1917. Zimmermann approved of Russian Communist terrorist Vladimir Lenin’s secret train ride from Switzerland to Russia via Germany (including Berlin).

Right photo: Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg (November 29, 1856-January 1, 1921) was a German politician and statesman who served as Chancellor of the German Empire from July 14, 1909 to July 13, 1917.

Comrade Lenin visits Stockholm, Sweden in 1917. Russian Communist terrorist Vladimir Lenin (right, holding an umbrella) takes a stroll in the streets of Stockholm, Sweden on April 13, 1917 [March 31, 1917 Russian [Julian] calendar]. Lenin and his comrades departed Zurich, Switzerland aboard a train on April 6, 1917. The Imperial German government escorted Lenin his comrades aboard a “sealed” train from the Swiss-German border to Berlin and later from Berlin to the Baltic Sea. Lenin met with his German “sponsors” (German intelligent agents) in Berlin and apparently received money before returning to Petrograd to establish a Communist regime in Russia.(Photo: http://www.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/lenin/media/image/1917.htm)

Members of President Woodrow Wilson’s Special Diplomatic Mission to Russia in 1917 pose for a group portrait. Members of the Mission standing among those in the front row are, from left to right: Charles Edward Russell, U.S. Army General Hugh Lenox Scott, David Rowland Francis, and Elihu Root; to the right of Root is Leon Trotsky, and standing behind Root, a little to the right, at the front of the crowded room, is Vladimir Lenin. (Photo: Library of Congress)

Elihu Root was the President of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace from 1910 to 1925. Samuel R. Bertron (S&B 1885) [somewhere in the rear of the photo] was a member of the Special Diplomatic Mission to Russia [also known as the Root Mission] in 1917.

Left photo: Leon Trotsky (real name Lev Davidovich Bronstein) arrives in Petrograd [St. Petersburg], Russia on May 4, 1917.Right photo: The National City Bank branch at Petrograd, Russia in 1917.

Female Russian textile workers call for bread during an International Workers' Day march in Petrograd, Russia (present-day St. Petersburg) in March 1917.

Russian soldiers ride through the streets of Petrograd, Russia on March 11-12, 1917, days before Czar Nicholas II of Russia abdicates and leaves the city.

Russian government troops fire upon demonstrators at the corner of Nevsky Prospect and Sadoyava Street in St. Petersburg, Russia on July 4, 1917. (Gelatin Silver Print)

Czar Nicholas II of Russia poses for a photograph while in detention after his abdication on March 15, 1917.

Imperial German Army Gen. Paul von Hindenburg (center) appears with General Erich Ludendorff (right) in 1917.(Photo: German Federal Archives)

Left to right: General Paul von Hindenburg, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, and General Erich Ludendorff review battle plans at the German General Headquarters in Germany in January 1917. (Photo: Wikipedia)

German officers escort Russian Jewish Communist terrorist Leon Trotsky (center) at a train station in Brest-Litvosk on December 27, 1917 as Leon Trotsky and his Russian delegates prepare to attend the Brest-Litovsk Peace Conference. (Photo: CORBIS)

The Signing of Russian War Loan in 1917. Shown: Constantine Onou, Russian Embassy; Frank L. Polk; Serge Ughet, Russian Embassy; Secretary of the Treasury William G. McAdoo (seated, second from left), and Under Secretary of State Frank L. Polk (seated, second from right). Frank L. Polk graduated from Yale University; Frank L. Polk was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. (Photo: National Photo Company Collection/Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division)http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/npc2008011467/?sid=17edd1dbb1d8ad09f943a6c3948dc8b1

Prominent American government officials in the Woodrow Wilson Administration in 1917, left to right: John W. Davis, Solicitor General of the U.S. (1913-1918); Frank L. Polk, Counselor of the State Department (1915-1919); Russell C. Leffingwell, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (1917-1920); Newton D. Baker, Secretary of War (1916-1921); David F. Houston, Secretary of Agriculture (1913-1920); and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (1913-1920). All men except for Roosevelt were members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

British Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur Balfour (left) appears with U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing (right) in 1917.(Photo: Harris & Ewing Collection/Library of Congress)

American State Department officials await the arrival of British Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur James Balfour (Head of the British Commission to the United States) at a train station in Washington, D.C. in 1917. British Ambassador to America Sir Cecil Arthur Spring-Rice, U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing (2nd left), Frank L. Polk (2nd right, gesturing with left finger), and William Phillips (right) are dressed in standard diplomatic attire, including the black top hat. Sir Cecil Arthur Spring-Rice served as British Ambassador to the United States from 1912 to 1918; Spring-Rice died in Ottawa, Canada on February 14, 1918. (Photo: Library of Congress)

British Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur Balfour (left, holding his hat) appears with American envoy Hugh Gibson (right, smiling) in New York in 1917. (Photo: George Grantham Bain Collection/Library of Congress)

The House Mission group portrait: “Colonel” Edward Mandell House (front row, center, wearing a diplomatic top hat) and his entourage pose for a group portrait in London in November-December 1917. Edward Mandell House met and dined with British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, Arthur Balfour, Lord Alred Milner, Lord Robert Cecil, William Wiseman, King George V of Great Britain, Lord George Curzon, and Gen. Jan Christian Smuts while visiting London in 1917.(Photo: The Intimate Papers of Colonel House by Charles Seymour, Volume 3 (Into the World War))

“Balfour invited Weizmann to participate in the process of drafting an appropriate document. It was what Weizmann and Sykes had sought all along. The process of drafting the appropriate language, and deciding to whom it should be addressed, went on through the summer until September, when Milner and Leo Amery took charge of it. Almost all the governmental figures who mattered were disposed favorably toward the proposed declaration. Sykes, fortified by Ormsby-Gore, had converted the War Cabinet secretariat to Zionism. Balfour, the Foreign Secretary, had long sympathized with Zionism and now believed that Britain should go on record in its favor; and within his own department he was pushed forward in this by Cecil and Graham. Smuts was deeply pro-Zionist. Milner and his set, including Philip Kerr of the Prime Minister’s secretariat, had come to view the establishment of a Jewish Palestine as a vital British imperial interest. The Prime Minister had always planned to carry through a Zionist program; and while he did not express an interest in declaring Britain’s intentions in advance, neither did he place any obstacle in the way of his government’s doing so once his colleagues thought it useful.”A Peace to End All Peace, Creating the Modern Middle East, 1914-1922 by David Fromkin, p. 293-294(Note: David Fromkin is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.)

Arthur J. Balfour’s Letter to “Colonel” Edward M. HouseFrom The Intimate Papers of Colonel House by Charles Seymour, Volume 3 (Into the World War), p. 190-193

Mr. A.J. Balfour to Colonel House[Cablegram]LONDON, October 11, 1917

I would be grateful if you will allow me to put before you the following facts with regard to the shipping situation, for your very careful attention:

In the first two and a half years of the war the total reduction of tonnage in the world due to the enemy’s activities amounted to approximately four and a half million tons. Seven months of ruthless submarine warfare increased the above reduction by an additional four and a quarter million tons.

If to the average rate of destruction of shipping during this intensive campaign is added the decrease of tonnage caused, firstly, by the incapacitation of ships which are badly damaged without being a total loss, and secondly, by ordinary misadventures at sea, it is permissible to estimate the total reduction in the tonnage of the world during a year as in the neighbourhood of eight million tons…

To offset this reduction England, who last year reduced shipbuilding to the production of about six hundred thousand tons in order to direct her energies into other channels, is now bending every effort to construct two and a half million tons next year, though it is to be feared that it will not be possible to fully reach this figure.

If the present rate of destruction is maintained Great Britain’s production of shipping added to that of the rest of the world excepting America will yet leave a minimum yearly deficit of five and a half million tons.

The situation is rendered more serious by the fact, well known to you, that, without taking into o consideration future losses, available tonnage is far from sufficient to fill the civilian and military needs of the Allies.

Tonnage conditions will be the deciding factor in the extent of spring operations in every theatre of war.

England now considers it important to clearly state that she sees no possibility of carrying on her military and naval part in the war, transporting civilian and military supplies in British bottoms and continuing to furnish her Allies with as many ships as in the past.

The present great need for coal and food in Italy and France will become more serious in the spring.

British ships will also be lacking to furnish the supplies which Russia may want during the season next year when the port of Archangel is open.

At the same time, America will be confronted by the great problems presented by the transportation of her forces and the supplies for them.

In view of all the above circumstances, I suggest for your consideration the possibility of the adoption by the United States of plans for the construction of sufficient tonnage to offset the loss by submarine attack at the present rate. This would mean the construction of approximately six million tons per annum.

The effort that such a programme implies is enormous, but you will recollect that if England is unable to adopt such a programme it is because her energies are committed in those other directions into which they were turned, in common with those of her Allies, in the early days of the war under the immediate necessity of providing for increasing armies and navies and the munitions for both. Less effort than that thus expended would have sufficed to produce more ships than submarines destroy, even when most active. It was not until 1916 that the mercantile marine became as important as armies, navies, and munitions.

America, with resources of industry and engineering superior to those of any other country, joined the war at this stage. The expenditure of strength necessary to nullify the loss of shipping, though very great, is relatively less than that made by the Allies with success to meet other emergencies. The programme outlined above means the employment of three and a half million tons of steel, which is not even ten per cent of the production of the United States, and the he work of half a million men, only a minority of whom need be skilled workmen.

Even before any ships were launched, the definite adoption and vigorous prosecution of a scheme such as the hone outlined would in all probability affect the enemy’s hopes and, consequently, his powers of endurance in an entirely dis proportionate manner. Such a programme would, of course, not provide the requisite number of bottoms by next spring, but the very fact that they were under construction would permit of freer use of those available and would be of invaluable help to tide over the critical time coming before the harvests of 1918.

Although in the last few weeks the loss of tonnage has been greatly reduced, it is not yet certain that this diminution will be sustained and it consequently would be most imprudent to take this improvement into consideration as a factor in calculations looking to the adoption of a permanent policy. I cannot, therefore, lay too great a stress on the grave possibility that the superior efforts being made by all the Allies in various other directions may be set at naught by inadequate provision for making good the loss of tonnage.

It is of paramount importance that adequate arrangements should be made for provisioning and transporting the powerful army America is preparing, without reducing the tonnage now devoted to supplying the Allied forces already engaged, lest such reduction should weaken them in the same proportion that the American army will strengthen them.

BALFOUR

The Imperial War Cabinet of 1917 Group Portrait in London in 1917. Front row, left to right: Mr. Arthur Henderson, Lord Milner, Lord Curzon, Mr. Bonar Law, Prime Minister David Lloyd George, Sir Robert Borden, Mr. W. F. Massey, Gen. Jan Christian Smuts. Middle row, left to right: Sir S.P. Sinha, Maharaja of Bikaner, Sir J. Meston, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Walter Long, Sir Joseph Ward, Sir George Parley, Mr. Robert Rogers, Mr J.D. Hazen. Back row: Capt. L.S. Amery, Adm. Jellicoe, Lt. Col. Sir Maurice Hankey, Mr. Henry Lambert, and Major Storr. (Image: © Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS)

British Statesmen during World War I

Lord Walter Rothschild, Lord Arthur J. Balfour, Lord George Nathaniel Curzon, Lord Alred Milner, Lord Robert Cecil

David Lloyd George, Gen. Jan Christian Smuts, Winston Churchill, Rufus Isaacs, Sir William Wiseman

Prominent British Dignitaries during World War I:King George V of Great Britain King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain ()Lionel Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild

Baron Rothschild [Peerage of the United Kingdom] (1915-1937)

David Lloyd George Prime Minister of Great Britain (December 7, 1916-October 22, 1922)Chancellor of the Exchequer (April 12, 1908-May 25, 1915)

Andrew Boner Law Chancellor of the Exchequer (December 10, 1916-January 10, 1919)Lord Arthur J. Balfour Foreign Secretary of Great Britain (1916-1919)Lord George Nathaniel Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston

Leader of the House of Lords (1916-1924); Foreign Secretary of Great Britain (1919-1924)

Lord Alfred Milner Minister Without Portfolio (1916-1918);Secretary of State for War (April 18, 1918-January 10, 1919)

Lord Robert Cecil Minister of Blockade (1916-1918); Member of Parliament (1906-1923)Gen. Jan Christian Smuts Minister Without Portfolio (1917-1919)Winston Churchill Minister of Munitions (July 17, 1917-January 10, 1919)Maurice P.A. Hankey Secretary of the Cabinet (1916-1938)Sir Herbert Samuel Member of Parliament (1902-1918, 1929-1935);

Postmaster General of the United Kingdom (1910-1914, 1915-1916)Waldorf Astor, 2nd Viscount Astor Member of Parliament (1910-1919); Member of the House of Lords (1919-1952)William G. A. Ormsby-Gore(Baron Harlech)

Member of Parliament (1910-1938)

John A. Simon (Viscount Simon) Member of Parliament (1906-1918, 1922-1940)Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland Member of Parliament (1910-1935)Leopold Amery Member of Parliament (1910-1944)Herbert Albert Laurens Fisher Member of Parliament (1916-1926); President of the Board of Education (1916-1922)Rufus Isaacs, 1st Marquess of Reading

British Ambassador to the United States (1918-1919);Lord Chief Justice of England (1913-1921)

Frederick Thesiger(Viscount Chelmsford)

Viceroy of India (April 4, 1916-April 2, 1921)

Edwin Samuel Montagu Secretary of State for India (July 17, 1917-March 19, 1922)Philip H. Kerr (Lord Lothian) Editor of The Round Table (1910-1916)Geoffrey Dawson Editor of The Times of London (1912-1919, 1922-1941)Sir John Hanbury-Williams Chief of the British Military Mission to Russia (1914-1917)Sir George Mansfield Smith-Cumming Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service [MI6] (1909-1923)Sir William Wiseman, 10th Baronet Chief of British Intelligence Office in U.S.A. (1917); Partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (1929-1962)

Edward Douglass White (left), the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1910-1921), administers the oath of office to U.S. President Woodrow Wilson in front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. on Monday, March 5, 1917.(Photo: Library of Congress)

The war message to Congress came on the evening of April 2, 1917. President Woodrow Wilson's determination to preserve America's rights to freedom of the seas (concretely, to sell supplies to the Allies) in the face of desperate and ruthless German submarine warfare had at last canceled out his determination to preserve America's peace, brought the nation to the point of war or surrender. "German submarine warfare against commerce is a warfare against mankind," he cried. "The world must be made safe for democracy." (Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wwplarchives/4322145549/)

The Warburg Brothers, from left to right: Max Warburg, Paul Warburg, and Felix Warburg

Max Warburg served as a financial adviser to Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany and was the head of M.M. Warburg banking firm in Hamburg, Germany during World War I; Max Warburg served on the board of directors of I.G. Farben chemical cartels during the late 1920s. Paul Warburg was a member of the Board of the Governors of the Federal Reserve during World War I. Felix Warburg was a partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. banking firm in New York City during World War I.

Prescott & Friends at Yale: The Whiffenpoofs (a Yale chorus group) of 1917 pose for a group portrait. Prescott Sheldon Bush (third from right), the “Big Man on Campus” and a member of Skull & Bones who graduated from Yale University in 1917, served in the U.S. Army as a captain of Field Artillery in American [Allied] Expeditionary Forces from 1917 to 1919. Prescott Sheldon Bush was a U.S. Senator from 1952 to 1963, the father of former U.S. President George H.W. Bush and grandfather of former U.S. President George W. Bush.

Left to Right: “Eck” Markle, Oliver B. Cunningham, Lawrence Newbold Murray, “Woody” Ward, Kenneth O’Brien, Prescott S. Bush, Richard Bentley, and Stuart Holmes Clement. Oliver B. Cunningham and Prescott S. Bush were members of Skull & Bones. Lawrence Newbold Murray, Kenneth O’Brien, Richard Bentley, and Stuart Holmes Clement were members of Scroll & Key.(Photo: Yale University Manuscripts and Archives)

Second Liberty Loan of 1917 poster

Congressman Lindbergh’s Articles of Impeachment against the Federal ReserveCongressional Record (U.S. House of Representatives), February 12, 1917, p. 3126-3130

U.S. Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. (1859-1924)

Mr. LINDBERGH. Mr. Speaker and the House of Representatives, I, Charles A. Lindbergh, the undersigned, upon my responsibility as a Member of the House of Representatives, do hereby impeach W. P. G. Harding, governor; Paul M. Warburg, vice governor; Frederick A. Delano, Adolph C. Miller, and Charles S. Hamlin, members, each individually as a member of the Federal Reserve Board, and also all of them collectively as the five active working members of said board, or high crimes and misdemeanors.

I, upon my responsibility as a Member of the House of Representatives, do hereby impeach W. P. G. Harding, governor; Paul M. Warburg, vice governor; and Frederick A. Delano, Adolph C. Miller, and Charles S. Hamlin, members, and each of them as members of the Federal Reserve Board, and also impeach all of them collectively as the five active working members of the Federal Reserve Board, of high crimes and misdemeanors in aiding, abetting, and conspiring with certain persons and firms hereinafter named, and with other persons, and firms, known and unknown, in a conspiracy to violate the Constitution and the laws of the United States and the just and equitable policies of the Government, which said conspiracy developed and grew out of and was consummated from the following facts and acts, to wit:

First. On or about the month of July, 1906, the exact date being unknown to the relater, the late J.P. Morgan of the firm of J. P. Morgan & Co., and the said firm, private bankers and brokers, with their main office in New York City and doing business all over the world; Paul M. Warburg, of the firm Kuhn, Loeb & Co., and the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co, also private bankers and brokers, doing business all over the world, with their main office in New York City; Lee, Higginson, & Co., also private bankers and brokers, doing business all over the world with their main offices in Boston and New York: Kidder, Peabody & Co. Also private bankers and brokers, doing business all over the world, with their main offices in Boston and New York, the National City Bank of New York with its office in the city of New York and doing a general banking business domestic and foreign; the First National Bank of New York with its office in New York city doing a general banking business domestic and foreign; and various other persons and firms, known unknown to the relator , did conspire with each other to devise a means through social, political, and other ways of strategy of and by general chicanery, to deceive the people of the United States, the Congress, and the President of the United States for the purpose and with the object to secure an act of Congress providing for a new monetary and banking system to have in in a provision for a managing board vested with unusual and extraordinary powers and to secure the appointment upon the board of management that should be provided for in the act persons for membership on the board who would by subterfuge manipulation, and false administration, so manage as to avoid the spirit and the purpose of the people of the United States, the Congress, and the President aimed at in the passage of an act and instead of administering the act to meet with the spirit and comply with its terms, to induce and secure such board to enter in the conspiracy aforesaid, to administer the act for the special benefit and advantage of all of the said conspirators hereinbefore named, and their associates and contrary to the letter, intent and purpose of the act itself and in contravention of the Constitution and law; that in order to start the campaign with a plan well matured to succeed in said conspiracy Paul M. Warburg, now vice governor of the Federal Reserve Board, but then a member of the firm of Kuhn, Loeb, & Co was a most active participant in drafting the main features and principles which should be embodied into whatever bill might be put through Congress, and did also assist in a plan for a second campaign to be kept from the knowledge of the President with the appointing power, and from the Senate, with the confirming power in the selection and confirmation of all high Federal appointive officials in order that a board of administration should, when the time came for its selection, be appointed that would carry out the designs of the conspirators aforesaid; that there that were many secret meetings held by the conspirators for this purpose which under the very circumstances would be screened and kept from the public and made practically impossible to discover, but nevertheless made certain of the fact because of the acts which point back to their

creation; that one of such meetings which your relator does not undertake to verify the truth of its holding, but is reliably informed that it was held – is described in Leslie’s Illustrated Weekly Magazine in the October 19, 1916, number thereof, which is hereby referred to as showing the method most likely to have been followed for planning the then contemplated act of Congress which is now the act known as the Federal reserve act.

Second. That in pursuance of said conspiracy to promote the object of the conspirators aforesaid and as part of that general scheme to induce Congress to legislate upon the monetary and banking system as stated hereinbefore, said conspirators caused to be organized the so-called Citizens League with headquarters in the city of Chicago, to act as a mother organization and promoter to induce organization of the several states of auxiliary and affiliated leagues, and by misrepresentation to the public and to the origin of said mother league and its purpose to induce citizens who should have no knowledge of the said conspiracy and would be innocent of any wrong intention, and whose motives and intent would be to act in the common interests of their country, to join in the formation of auxiliary league throughout the several States in order to give the outward and surface appearance of respectability and honor, and that in pursuance of that plan the conspirators succeeded in organizing affiliated leagues in 45 of the States; that when organized the conspirators hereinbefore named, themselves directed who should be sent to these organizations as speakers and instructors, and also the kind of literature that should be distributed to the members and to the general public, the design of which was to have only such speakers, instructors, and literature as would discredit the then existing banking and currency system and prejudice the people in every way possible against it; but notwithstanding the then existing banking and currency system was bad and unfitted to the demands of the Nation and the needs of commerce and trade, and such campaign was by its conspirators aforesaid directed not to designate to the public what sort of a banking and currency system would be adopted in its stead, but the promoters of the conspiracy should pretend that the object of the campaign was to aid in every way to create a new monetary banking and currency system to take the place of the then existing bad one, and, as far as it could be cone, the conspirators should prevent the people getting together to prepare a plan of their own to be presented to Congress: that the purpose of the conspirators was simply to make the public believe that a new banking and currency system was absolutely necessary and at the same time keep the public from find out what would be its form and details, all this for the reason that the conspirators aforesaid had their own preconceived plan prepared as a part of their conspiracy, which they would secretly manage in their own way to have presented to Congress as the plan in response to all this public sentiment which the conspirators themselves had ingeniously worked out through the campaign aforesaid, and with the intent that Congress and the President would legislate the conspirators’ said plan into effect; that it was part of said plan to create many offices and positions with lucrative salaries, which offices and positions would be equivalent to a bid for the ambitious to support it, because these offices and positions would be filled by the leaders and most active persons who would join in the campaign to put the conspiracy into effect and influence Congress and the President for the purpose of securing the legislation.

Third. That in further pursuance of said conspiracy and to be in control of the information and literature that should be distributed through the Nation, the said conspirators then having control of a large number of magazines, newspapers, and publishing companies, used all of these, and proceeded to procure control of as many more as could be purchased or subsidized to publish articles prepared by subsidized writers who would criticize the existing banking and currency system so as to create public sentiment against; that of the thousands of country newspapers, a majority of them use ‘so-called “patent” articles not edited or even practically controlled by the owners of the papers, which patent articles are commonly called “boiler-place” stuff, and no responsibility as to the influence such articles have upon the public attaches to anybody; that those writing this “boiler-plate” stuff so published, many of them were also subsidized and controlled by the said conspirators, so that the small newspapers were practically forced to carry on a campaign against the then existing banking and currency system along the same lines of the others referred to hereinbefore; that readers generally do not have the opportunity to distinguish between “boiler-plate” articles and the articles which the editors of the smaller papers write themselves; that the news-distributing agencies through the telegraph and telephone were then and still are largely controlled by said conspirators, and the operators of the news agencies have been allowed to report only such news relating to a new banking and currency system as would promote said conspiracy, and required to suppress and everything in the way of information or news that would tend to encourage the people to prepare for themselves a concrete plan for banking and currency in the interest of all the people; that the general play of the conspiracy was to suppress every article, statement, and thing so far as possible, which would give any information as to the existence of said conspiracy all of which was for the purpose of enabling the conspirators aforesaid to deceive the people as well as Congress and the President, in order that said conspirators might finally consummate their aforesaid conspiracy.

Fourth. That in consequence of the campaign carried on by said conspirators stated and recited in paragraphs named “First,” “Second” and “Third” in these impeachment articles, and numerous secret, clandestine, and underground methods employed by said conspirators, the people of the United States, the Congress, and the President were deceived, and as the first official act in the consummation of the objects sought by said conspirators Congress did legislate and pass and act of Congress which was signed by the President, and is known as the Federal reserve act, which act is substantially the plan prepared by said conspirators as aforesaid.

Fifth. That immediately upon the passage of the Federal reserve act the said conspirators disorganized the so-called “Citizens’ League” and all the affiliated leagues in the 45 States referred to in the paragraph named ”Second” herein; that prior to such disorganization the said conspirators had by secret and underground methods, and for the purpose of using the same in completing and perpetuating their conspiracy, organized another “ association “ and called it the “United States Chamber of Commerce,” giving it that name in order to deceive the public by making it appear that is a department of the Government, which organization is administered with more intricate machinery for management the so-called “Citizens’ League” was, and with a purpose of taking up the work of coordinating everything

social, political, business and other to work for the benefit of the said conspirators in carrying out their plan to force the masses of mankind into absolute and abject industrial slavery; that the methods and the design of the “United States Chamber of Commerce” are set forth to remarks which your relator placed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD March 10, 1916, and are hereby referred to for more specific detail; that the influence of the “United States Chamber of Commerce” is one of the agencies being used as an aid to further consummate the conspiracy charged in these articles of impeachment.

Sixth. That the said Federal reserve act is so framed that it has the possibility and contains the provisions which, under proper and impartial administration, would furnish a remedy to some of the faults that existed in the banking and currency system which it superseded, but also contains provisions which, under a bad and improper administration, makes it more dangerous to the public welfare than ever the old banking and currency system was; that the main feature of the said Federal reserve act in giving effect to it is the authority vested in the Federal Reserve Board and the discretion entrusted to the members thereof in its “administration”; that the “administration” of said Federal reserve act is vested in the Federal Reserve Board, advised by the Federal reserve advisory council made up of 12 persons, 1 selected by each of the 12 Federal reserve banks; that the 5 active working members of the Federal Reserve Board are the said W.P.G. Harding, governor; Paul M. Warburg, vice governor; and Frederick A. Delano, Adolph C. Miller, and Charles S. Hamlin, members; and that the Federal reserve advisory council is formed by the following persons to wit: Daniel G. Wing of Boston; J. P. Morgan, or New York; Levi L. Rue, of Philadelphia; W.S. Rose, of Cleveland; J. N. Norwich of Richmond; Charles A. Lyerly, of Atlanta; J.B. Forgan. of Chicago; Frank O. Watts, of St Louis; J.R. Mitchell, of Minneapolis; E.F. Swinney, of Kansas City; T. J. Record, of Dallas; and Herbert Fleishbacker, of San Francisco; that the said Federal Reserve Board and the said Federal reserve advisory council held many meetings and are now and have been ever since the Federal reserve act was passed, fully advised as to financial and business conditions, domestic and foreign; that the members of the Federal Reserve Board and the members of the Federal reserve advisory council are men with enormous business interests, and each of them have been for more than 15 years last past, and are now excessive operators and speculators for individual profit and gain in the markets, and control several of the largest banks in the country; that J.P. Morgan Jr. is the lending member of the firm of J.P. Morgan & Co., one of the firm hereinbefore charged with being a party to the conspiracy aforesaid; that several of the members of the Federal reserve advisory council own stock in the National City Bank of New York and the First National Bank of New York, they being the two banks charged hereinbefore with being parties to the said conspiracy, and said members also own stock and are interested in business and managed and controlled by the parties specifically named as the conspirators in the paragraph hereinbefore designated as “First”; that Paul M. Warburg, a member and vice governor of the Federal Reserve Board, was at the time of the original formation of the conspiracy aforesaid a party to the said conspiracy, and a partner and member of the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., one of the conspirators; that each of the members of the Federal Reserve Board and of the Federal reserve advisory council are associated with and form a part of a group of promoters and speculators, the individual members of which reside in various parts of the United States, principally in the large cities, and a few of them live in Europe, which said group individually and collectively deal in credits, stocks, bonds, securities and various promoting enterprises from which they have made billions of dollars in profits, and still operate and propose to continue their operations for the purpose of making still greater profits upon their future dealings; that in further pursuance of their said purpose, they joined in the original conspiracy aforesaid and it was planned as a part of the said original conspiracy to create several great business and financial centers in different parts of the United States in order to facilitate with celerity a coordination of all big business and all financial control; for the benefit of the said conspirators in carrying out their plan of personal gain in contravention to the public welfare; that said group instigated the campaign which finally resulted in the passage of the Federal reserve act; that in the administration of said act by the said five active working members of the Federal Reserve Board, and through the influence exercised over them by the members of the Federal reserve advisory council, and collectively all of the members and membership of both the Federal Reserve Board and of the Federal reserve advisory council, a part of and influenced by said larger “group” in this paragraph designated as having joined in the conspiracy aforesaid, the said five active working members of the Federal Reserve Board, each individually and all collectively, at all times since they became members of the said Federal Reserve Board, knowingly and intentionally have been improperly influenced by the said “group,” and because of such influence have failed to administer the Federal reserve act in accordance with the spirit, letter, and intent of Congress and the President when the act was passed; but, on the contrary, the said five active working members of the Federal Reserve Board hereinbefore specifically named as such, with intent to evade and set aside by “administration” all the purposes of Congress and of the President in the passage and approval of the act, and of the act itself, have administered, and are now administering, the Federal reserve act with the intent to coordinate “big business” and “speculation” for the benefit of the said “group” of operators and speculators hereinbefore designated as having taken part in the original conspiracy; that said National City Bank hereinbefore named, in which many of the other conspirators own stock, acts as the “official mouthpiece” for them all, to give technical information to enable them all to act in concert; that to facilitate its distribution said bank issues a monthly bulletin; that in its February, 1917, bulletin, in an article dealing with the present plethora of money and credit available, among other “tips” intended for the conspirators to act upon, is the following – and I would like the House to hear it – this is what is contained the bulletin which the National City Bank issued:Under the circumstances money promises to be in abundant supply, but if bankers have a proper regard for their responsibilities it will not be correspondingly cheap. Compensatory rates for money and ample reserves should be consistently maintained.That said bulletin was sent to the Federal Reserve Board, to all the Federal reserve banks, to all the larger National and State banks and trust companies, in order to “tip” off to the conspirators and those acting in concert to tighten the rates of interest; that such “tips” are a common practice and do prevent the reduction of interest rates to borrowers for legitimate business, contrary to the intent and purpose of Congress and the President and in contravention of the act itself and to the enormous loss of the people and injury to the general

welfare.

Seventh. That there are approximately 20,000 State banks and trust companies in the United States, incorporated and organized under the State laws of the respective States in which their offices and places of business are located, and doing a general banking business, State and interstate, many of which are eligible to become members of the Federal Reserve System, and many not know eligible could become so without an increase of their capitalization; that of those now eligible and that could qualify for membership in the Federal Reserve System without an increase of their capital, they have more than half of the capitalization of all the banks not now included in the Federal Reserve System; that the capitalization of State banks and trust companies, which are not members of the Federal Reserve System exceeds the capital of the banks which are members of the Federal System; that the governors and other high and administrative officials of the 12 Federal reserve banks, through their influence with member banks, wittingly or unwittingly, but most of them wittingly, became accessories to the said conspiracy of the said persons and parties named in these articles of impeachment in the paragraph herein designated as “First” and have caused a boycott of all banks not members of the Federal Reserve System by influencing the member banks to hamper, inconvenience, and annoy the patrons of the nonmember banks by discrimination against them in the clearing of checks drawn upon them and otherwise, that they threaten and seek to cajole the nonmember banks in an attempt to force them to become members of the Federal Reserve System; that the said five active working members of the Federal Reserve Board are cognizant of the same; that the intent, purpose, and aim of each and all of the said conspirators aforesaid is to compel the State banks to join the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of bringing the said banks under the jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve Board in order that all of the banks, National and State, may become one gigantic combination with an absolute and complete monopoly and have the power of exploiting the people for the benefit of the conspirators aforesaid.

Eighth. That Congress in creating the Federal Reserve Board had in mind, and it is the spirit of the Federal reserve act, that the said board should keep a guardian watch over the operations of the banking and currency system and report to Congress and the country; from time to time such facts and occurrences relating to banking and currency as affect the business of the people in trade and commerce exchanges, domestic and foreign, so that Congress should receive information that would give to Congress the facts upon which to base any necessary amendments to the act in order to make it responsive to the general welfare; that contrary to the spirit of the Federal Reserve act, the aforesaid five active working members of the Federal Reserve Board have willfully failed to keep the public and Congress informed of the inflation of bank credits and the effect of it that has taken place under the “administration” of the said act, and in violation of the spirit thereof said members have conspired with the members of the Federal reserve advisory council and their business associates hereinbefore named and have aided and abetted in a conspiracy to a systematic inflation of bank credits for the benefit of the said conspirators and against the public welfare; that in consequence of said unlawful acts and misfeasance in office of the said members of the Federal Reserve Board the bank have, for private gain, increased the bank credits of the country since the passage of said act approximately seven thousand millions of dollars and without effecting a corresponding reduction in the interest rate, thus increasing the aggregate amount of interest paid by the people to the said banks equal to that charged upon said sum; that the effect of the inflation of bank credits has been and is to also increase speculative credits enormously more than equal to the inflation of bank credits, and that such increase since the Federal reserve act took effect has been billions of dollars that the increase in the aggregate sum of interest paid to the banks upon the said inflated bank credits and the increase caused by the said inflation in the speculative values upon commodities required to supply the necessities of life for the people has been many billions of dollars, which have been added to the cost of living for the people to pay; that said increase in the cost of living is mainly the profits that the conspirators have added to their individual fortunes to the equivalent loss of the people generally and to the Government as well.

Ninth. That as part of the said conspiracy and in furtherance of the same the said aforesaid conspirators, in violation of the Nation’s heretofore established economic policy of conservation of material and natural resources, conspired European speculators to draw upon the material resources of this Nation for export with no correlation between value of the materials exported and the value of the materials imported; that in consequence of the conspiracy to affect said export of material resources belonging to this Nation and to the people of it approximately eight thousand millions of dollars in value of the material resources have been exported since the war in Europe began; that as a result thereof the said conspirators acted with the said five members of the Federal Reserve Board in manipulating bank credits, and through credits the markets increased the cost to American consumers in the same period approximately sixteen thousand millions of dollars in excess of the real values, which extra cost has mainly been the profits that have been added to the fortunes of the aforesaid conspirators; that as an additional and future loss to the people of this Nation in consequence of the facts aforesaid, the natural material resources of the Nation are forever less, and the costs made forever higher than they would be if trade and commerce were not manipulated through a false administration of finances.

Tenth. That to further carry out the said conspiracy the aforesaid conspirators have, ever since the Federal reserve act took effect, sought to influence, and in fact have influenced, said five members of the Federal Reserve Board in an attempt to further deceive Congress to secure legislation granting to the said board enlarged powers of “administration”; that in the Sixty-third Congress the said board, concealing the real purpose to aid said conspirators, deceived the Senate Banking and Currency Committee to get it to report for passage the then Senate bill 6505 and it passed the Senate and subsequently came before the House Banking and Currency Committee and was favorably reported, your relator, however, filing a minority report in opposition. Later, on the floor of the House, the chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee withdrew action on the bill; that the aim of said bill was to give the Federal Reserve Board greater “administrative” power over the gold supply, so that it could, whenever the conspirators aforesaid wished it, inflate still further the banking credit by an issue of the Federal-reserve notes for the benefit of said conspirators; that again in this Sixty-fourth Congress

said active working members of the Federal Reserve Board alleged, repeatedly sought the House Banking and Currency Committee to report a bill giving greater “administrative” powers to said board than is authorized by the original act; in fact, to give said board power to force from banks all over the country the gold in their vaults and into the 12 Federal reserve banks, there to form a basis upon which to issue still more Federal-reserve notes and further inflate credit without causing a reduction of interests that in the aggregate would equal the charge made on the inflated currency, but serving mainly as a guaranty to reinforce the conspirators hereinbefore named in exploiting of the people for private gain.

Eleventh. That the Federal reserve act obligates the United States to redeem in gold at the United States Treasury all Federal reserve notes, and as a part of the said conspiracy and in furtherance of the same, and to extend the speculation of the operators and perpetrators of the said conspiracy to include Europe and other foreign territory, they, most of them being international as well as domestic bankers, seek to dominate the relations of the United States with foreign countries and to selfishly influence the same by means of the control of finances, and in furtherance of said branch of their speculations have conspired with the said five active working members of the Federal Reserve Board to secure aid from the Federal Reserve System for said selfish purposes and not in the interest of the public, the conspirators in connivance with the said five active working members of the Federal Reserve Board had the said board select and appoint, through the Federal reserve bank of New York, the so-called Bank of England as its agent, thus putting the credit of the Government of the United States back of this foreign corporation, organized for private gain, which is no longer able to make payments in gold and fails to give a statement of its true conditions; that said Federal Reserve Board is threatening to permit and also to render aid to the international bankers in America who dominate the banking system, to enter into further entangling alliances with bankrupt countries of Europe at the very time this Government contemplates issuing hundreds of millions of dollars of interest-bearing bonds upon the credit of the people of the Nation to meet the Government expenses.

Twelfth. That during the Civil War the Government of the United States issued money commonly called “greenbacks” ; the same being issued upon the credit of the people of the Nation; that of said “greenbacks” so issued there have been ever since their issue and now are outstanding and in general circulation based upon the credit of the people of the United States $346,681,016, for which a reserve of $150,000,000 in gold is held by the Government to guarantee their redemption if demanded; that said circulating “greenbacks” have already saved the Government from paying approximately $1,000,000,000 interest during the time they have been in circulation and are now saving the Government approximately $6,000,000 annually; that in furtherance of said conspiracy in these articles of impeachment alleged and as part thereof, the conspirators have sought and by secret connivance new seek to have the said “greenbacks” retired and the $150,000,000 of gold guarantee placed in the Federal reserve banks on which to base the loaning of “bank credits” as a substitute for the money owned by the people; that if the Federal reserve banks are allowed to secure possession of said gold, when the time comes that the conspirators aforesaid shall be able to use additional bank credits to their advantages in exploiting the people, the same would become the basis for additional bank inflation, directly and indirectly, to the extent of over a billion dollars upon which the banks would collect a great sum of interest, and the speculators would scalp even greater profits from additional manipulation of the markets, all of which would be added to the cost of living for the people to pay.

Thirteenth. That in furtherance of the said aforesaid conspiracy and as a part of the same the said five active working members of the Federal Reserve Board, in their capacity as members, have arbitrarily at all times and with intent to prevent the legitimate business interests of the country securing the advantages that Congress sought to give by the passage of the Federal reserve act, and in connivance with the big reserve and central reserve banks controlled by the conspirators aforesaid, established rediscount rates for member banks desiring to borrow from Federal reserve banks above the rates charged by the reserve and central reserve banks, which creates an excuse for the member banks in the country to charge higher rates of interest to legitimate borrowers than they otherwise would; that the interest rates charged by the reserve and central reserve banks, on the one hand, and the higher rates charged by the Federal reserve banks on the other hand, is maintained at certain times when the conspirators aforesaid desire to draw the reserves of the country banks to the reserve and central reserve cities for the interest that these reserve banks pay on deposit balances and in anticipation of times when the country banks may wish to rediscount paper with said banks; that by following the arbitrary practice of rediscounts aforesaid the said conspirators are enabled to and do go on with their speculations, manipulate the markets, and exploit the people, and whenever they find themselves in financial stress they can raise the rates of interest in the reserve and central reserve banks, which they control, above the Federal reserve bank discount rates, thus forcing the country banks, which may have rediscounted with reserve banks in order to give accommodations to their borrowers, to rediscount with the Federal reserve banks to enable them to repay the reserve and central reserve banks, in order to create free money and credit for said conspirators to carry on their speculations; that the Federal reserve act contains several provisions which when applied under the “administrative” power of the Federal Reserve Board serve as a means of taking or imposing a toll in the nature of discriminatory interest rates in order to force a shift of money and credits from one section of the country to another, or out of the country and to foreign countries; that this discriminatory power vested in the Federal Reserve Board is willfully abused by the said five active working members of the said board for the benefit and in the interest of the said aforesaid conspirators; that the people of the United States have been injured to the extent of several billions of dollars by reason thereof.

Fourteenth. That in furtherance of said aforesaid conspiracy and to give the said aforesaid conspirators complete practical power to carry out and put into effect their purpose of making the masses of mankind absolutely dependent upon “big business,” and in order to create industrial slaves of the masses the said aforesaid conspirators did conspire and now conspire to have the Federal reserve act “administered” so as to enable the conspirators to coordinate all kinds of “big business’ and to keep themselves in control of “big

business,” in order to amalgamate all of the “trusts” into one great trust in restraint and control of trade and commerce, and thus be able to exploit the masses and take from them their earnings, except what they would require for bare subsistence; that to that end and to give them power to accomplish the same said conspirators have marshaled all of the different kinds of “big business” and induced those in control to use their means and whatever kind of patronage and favors they have to give in such way as to promote the objects and purposes of said conspirators and to enslave the masses of humanity; that at the same time that the said conspirators marshal their own “big business” supporters by a coordination of all their interests they have use every trick and subterfuge possible to create friction among the masses and divide them into hostile contending factions, thus keeping the masses from coordinating their affairs to promote the general welfare that the said aforesaid five active working members of the Federal Reserve Board have all the time, by a willful and wrongful “administration” of the Federal reserve act, aided and abetted the said aforesaid conspirators in promoting and carrying out the objects of their said conspiracy and have refused and failed to so administer the Federal reserve act as to have the same promote and operate in favor of the general welfare.

Fifteenth. That the Federal reserve act is void and unconstitutional, but that notwithstanding, the conspirators aforesaid have so manipulated things as to prevent the question of constitutionality of the act from being brought before the courts.CHARLES A. LINDBERGH

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman a question.

Mr. LINDBERGH. I suppose my privilege stops now, does it?

The SPEAKER. It does.

Mr. LINDBERGH. I ask for five minutes in which to answer the question of the gentleman.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman asks five minutes. Is there objection? There was no objection.

Mr. SHERWOOD. In case the Senate should sit as an impeachment court, you have evidence to establish that charge?

Mr. LINDBERGH. I want to say this: I have spent enough time and made enough investigation of this case to know that I can demonstrate – accurately, I may say, but to a mathematical certainty – that the charges in this impeachment are substantially true. I may not be able to establish by direct proof that that some of these meetings to which the impeachment refers were held, but that the charges are substantially true, I will certainly show.

Mr. SHERWOOD. That is, by substantial evidence?

Mr. LINDBERGH. By substantial evidence, and by effects which the business of this country demonstrates beyond question. Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to insert, following the reading of these articles, my remarks upon them and the questions that are incidentally involved in the impeachment articles.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Minnesota asks unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the RECORD. Is there objection?

Mr. SIEGEL. I object.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York objects.

Mr. KITCHIN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the impeachment articles be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and on that I demand the previous question.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from North Carolina moves that the impeachment articles be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and on that he demands the previous question. The previous question was ordered.

The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to refer. The question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.

Note: Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. (Republican Party-Minnesota) was a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from March 4, 1907 to March 3, 1917.

U.S. Congressman F. Oscar Callaway (Democratic Party-Texas)

“In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interests, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world, and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States, and the sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the United States. These 12 men worked the problem out by selecting 179 newspapers, and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month, an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers…This policy also included the suppression of everything in opposition to the wishes of the interests served.”– U.S. Congressman F. Oscar Callaway (Democratic Party-Texas, March 4, 1911-March 3, 1917), in The Congressional Record for February 9, 1917, Volume 54, p. 2947-2948Source: The Nazi Hydra in America: Suppressed History of a Century by Glen Yeadon and John Hawkins, p. 99

The full caption for this item is as follows: Largest Murder Trial in the History of the United States. Scene during Court Martial of 64 members of the 24th Infantry United States of America on trial for mutiny and murder of 17 people at Houston, Texas on August 23, 1917. Trial held in Gift Chapel at Fort Sam Houston. Trial started November 1, 1917, Brigadier General George K. Hunter presiding. Colonel J.A. Hull, Judge Advocate, Council for Defense, Major Harvy S. Grier. Major D.V. Sutphin, Assistant Advocate. Prisoners guarded by 19th Infantry Company C, Captain Carl J. Adler. (A total of 19 soldiers would be executed, and 41 soldiers were given life sentences.) (Photo: National Archives)

The Houston Riot of 1917, or Camp Logan Riot, was a mutiny by 156 African American soldiers of the Third Battalion of the all-black Twenty-fourth United States Infantry. In the spring of 1917, shortly after the United States declared war on Imperial Germany, the War Department, taking advantage of the temperate climate and newly opened Houston Ship Channel, ordered two military installations built in Harris County, Texas — Camp Logan and Ellington Field. To guard the Camp Logan construction site, the Army on July 27, 1917, ordered the Third Battalion of the Twenty-fourth United States Infantry Regiment to travel to Houston by train from their camp at Columbus, New Mexico, accompanied by seven white commissioned officers. Around noon August 23, 1917, two Houston police officers stormed into the home of an African-American woman, allegedly looking for someone in the neighborhood, after firing a warning shot outside. They physically assaulted her, then dragged her partially clad [clothed] into the street, all in view of her five small children. The woman began screaming, demanding to know why she was being arrested, and a crowd began to gather. A soldier from the 24th Infantry stepped forward to ask what was going on. The police officers promptly beat him to the ground and arrested him as well. Their official reports and later news reports stated the soldier was charged with interfering with the arrest of a publicly drunk female. Later that afternoon, Corporal Charles Baltimore went to the Houston police station to investigate the arrest, as well as beating of another black soldier, and also to attempt to gain the release of the soldier. An argument began which led to violence, and Corporal Baltimore was beaten, shot at, and himself arrested by the police. The Camp Logan riot began the evening of August 23, when 156 angry soldiers ignored their officers' orders, stole weapons from the camp depot and marched on the city of Houston. They were met outside the city by the police and a mob of armed citizens, frightened by the reports of a mutiny. A virtual race riot began, which left 20 people dead - four soldiers, four policemen, and 12 civilians. Order was restored the next day, and the War Department disarmed the soldiers. The Third Battalion was sent by rail back to New Mexico. Martial law was declared in Houston, and the Third Battalion was not only returned to Columbus, New Mexico, but the entire regiment was later transferred to the Philippines. Seven of its soldiers agreed to testify in exchange for clemency.Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Riot_(1917)

Woodrow Wilson addresses Congress in 1917. Woodrow Wilson’s campaign slogan during the 1916 presidential election was “He kept us out of the war”.

Major Events in 1917, the “Year of the Snake”:January-March 1917 – Russian communist Leon Trotsky lives in New York CityFebruary 3, 1917 – United States of America (Wilson administration) severs diplomatic ties with GermanyFebruary 5, 1917 – Mexico adopts a new ConstitutionFebruary 12, 1917 – U.S. Congressman Charles Lindbergh Sr. issues articles of impeachment against Federal ReserveMarch 5, 1917 (Monday) – U.S. President Woodrow Wilson is inaugurated in front of the U.S. Capitol for a second termMarch 11, 1917 – British army captures Baghdad (Iraq) from the Ottoman EmpireMarch 15, 1917 – Czar Nicholas II of Russia abdicates his throneApril 6, 1917 – United States of America declares war on GermanyApril 16, 1917 – Russian communist Vladimir Lenin departs from Switzerland and travels to Russia via Germany by trainMay 1917 – Former U.S. Secretary of State Elihu Root and other members of the Root Mission meet with Lenin and Trotsky in RussiaMay 18, 1917 – Selective Service Act is passed by the U.S. CongressJune 12, 1917 – King Constantine I of Greece abdicates his throneJune 15, 1917 – Espionage Act is passed by the U.S. CongressJune 15, 1917 – Russian-born Jewish anarchist Emma Goldman is arrested in New York City for violating the Espionage ActJuly 1, 1917 – A labor dispute and an ensuing race riot in East St. Louis, Illinois leaves 250 people deadJuly 21, 1917 – Alexander Fyodorovich Kerensky is appointed Prime Minister of RussiaAugust 14, 1917 – Republic of China declares war against Germany and Austria-Hungary.November 2, 1917 – British Foreign Secretary Arthur J. Balfour announces ‘Balfour Declaration’ concerning Jewish ‘national home’November 7, 1917 – Bolshevik Revolution begins in Petrograd [St. Petersburg], Russia; Kerensky abdicates as Prime MinisterDecember 7, 1917 – United States of America declares war on Austria-HungaryDecember 9, 1917 – British army captures Jerusalem from the Ottoman EmpireDecember 11, 1917 – British Field Marshal Edmund Allenby enters JerusalemDecember 22, 1917 – Russia opens separate peace negotiations with Germany at Brest-Litovsk1917 – American Civil Liberties Union (originally founded as National Civil Liberties Bureau) is established

Unsolved Mysteries: Wall Street Bombing of 1920 and the Red Scare

The Wall Street Bombing occurred outside of the House of Morgan in New York City at 12:01 P.M. on September 16, 1920. The explosion killed 38 people and seriously injured 143 people. The bombing incident was allegedly conducted by Italian Galleanist anarchists (mobsters); however, no person was convicted in court for their involvement in the Wall Street Bombing despite the fact that Justice Department, led by U.S. Attorney General Alexander Mitchell Palmer, made numerous arrests.

Left to right: U.S. Attorney General Alexander Mitchell Palmer, former U.S. Ambassador to Japan Roland S. Morris, and Vance McCormick pose for a group photo in 1920. Morris and McCormick were members of the Council on Foreign Relations. (Photo: Library of Congress)

U.S. Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer's house in Washington, D.C. was damaged on the night of June 2, 1919, after a bomb exploded and damaged the bottom part of his house. Italian anarchist (mobster) Carlo Valdinoci killed himself when his bomb exploded prematurely as he was attempting to deliver his bomb to U.S. Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer in person. A series of bombing attacks also occurred on June 2-3, 1919, all within 90 minutes of one another, in New York City, Boston; Pittsburgh; Cleveland, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C. A. Mitchell Palmer, who served as the U.S. Attorney General from March 5, 1919 to March 4, 1921, launched a series of raids against suspected Italian anarchists and foreign-born Communists; the raids became known as the “Palmer Raids”.

Italian-born anarchists Bartolomeo Vanzetti (left) and Nicola Sacco were executed in 1927 for murder and robbery. Sacco and Vanzetti were arrested in Massachusetts on May 5, 1920 after a paymaster and his guard were robbed and murdered on in South Braintree, Massachusetts on April 15, 1920. The two Italian anarchists were convicted in court and sentenced to death. Sacco and Vanzetti were executed by electric chair on August 23, 1927. (Photo: From the film ''Sacco And Vanzetti'' By Peter Miller)

Left photo: Emma Goldman, a Russian-born Jewish anarchist and an alleged illegal alien who was also a Bolshevik sympathizer, a pro-homosexual birth control advocate, and a close friend of Margaret Sanger, was arrested in New York City on June 15, 1917 for violating the Espionage Act and imprisoned for two years. Emma Goldman, along with numerous European-born Communists and Anarchists, was deported to Soviet Russia from New York City harbor on December 21, 1919 (during the height of the Red Scare) and arrived in Finland on January 16, 1920 and escorted to Soviet Russia days later. Emma Goldman met with Lenin in Soviet Russia in 1920; Goldman left Soviet Russia (Soviet Union) in December 1921 due to her disillusionment with communism and moved to Riga, Latvia. Emma Goldman lived in Stockholm (Sweden), Berlin (Germany), London (British Empire), St. Tropez (France), Toronto (Canada), and Barcelona (Spain) during the 1920s and 1930s.

Right photo: Emma Goldman addresses a crowd at Union Square in New York City on May 21, 1916.

Former Socialist Party presidential candidate and labor leader Eugene Debs leave the White House in Washington, D.C. on December 26, 1921, the day after his release from prison following a Presidential pardon by President Warren Harding, a member of the Republican Party. Debs was arrested on June 30, 1918 and charged with sedition after delivering a speech encouraging Americans to avoid serving in the military; Debs was found guilty of sedition on September 12, 1918. Debs was sentenced to ten years in prison on November 18, 1918 until his sentence was commuted by President Harding on Christmas Day 1921. (Photo: Library of Congress)

Freedom of Speech: Clear and Present Danger? U.S. Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States (1919)

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

“…We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. It seems to be admitted that if an actual obstruction of the recruiting service were proved, liability for words that produced that effect might be enforced…”– U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., the Opinion of the Court, 3 March 1919

Schenck v. United States (1919) Ruling: Unanimous Decision (9-0) against Charles Schenck

U.S. Supreme Court

SCHENCK v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

249 U.S. 47

SCHENCKv.

UNITED STATES.

BAERv.

SAME.

Nos. 437, 438.Argued Jan. 9 and 10, 1919.

Decided March 3, 1919.

[249 U.S. 47, 48]   Messrs. Henry John Nelson and Henry Johns Gibbons, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. John Lord O'Brian, of Buffalo, N. Y., for the United States.

Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an indictment in three counts. The first charges a conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917, c. 30, tit. 1, 3, 40 Stat. 217, 219 (Comp. St. 1918, 10212c), by causing and attempting [249 U.S. 47, 49]   to cause insubordination, &c., in the military and naval forces of the United States, and to obstruct the recruiting and enlistment service of the United States, when the United States was at war with the German Empire, to-wit, that the defendant wilfully conspired to have printed and circulated to men who had been called and accepted for military service under the Act of May 18, 1917, c. 15, 40 Stat. 76 (Comp. St. 1918, 2044a-2044k), a document set forth and alleged to be calculated to cause such insubordination and obstruction. The count alleges overt acts in pursuance of the conspiracy, ending in the distribution of the document set forth. The second count alleges a conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, to-wit, to use the mails for the transmission of matter declared to be non-mailable by title 12, 2, of the Act of June 15, 1917 (Comp. St. 1918, 10401b), to-wit, the above mentioned document, with an averment of the same overt acts. The third count charges an unlawful use of the mails for the transmission of the same matter and otherwise as above. The defendants were found guilty on all the counts. They set up the First Amendment to the Constitution forbidding Congress to make any law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, and bringing the case here on that ground have argued some other points also of which we must dispose.

It is argued that the evidence, if admissible, was not sufficient to prove that the defendant Schenck was concerned in sending the documents. According to the testimony Schenck said he was general secretary of the Socialist party and had charge of the Socialist headquarters from which the documents were sent. He identified a book found there as the minutes of the Executive Committee of the party. The book showed a resolution of August 13, 1917, that 15,000 leaflets should be printed on the other side of one of them in use, to be mailed to men who had passed exemption boards, and for distribution. Schenck personally attended to the printing. On [249 U.S. 47, 50]   August 20 the general secretary's report said 'Obtained new leaflets from printer and started work addressing envelopes' &c.; and there was a resolve that Comrade Schenck be allowed $125 for sending leaflets through the mail. He said that he had about fifteen or sixteen thousand printed. There were files of the circular in question in the inner office which he said were printed on the other side of the one sided circular and were there for distribution. Other copies were proved to have been sent through the mails to drafted men. Without going into confirmatory details that were proved, no reasonable man could doubt that the defendant Schenck was largely instrumental in sending the circulars about. As to the defendant Baer there was evidence that she was a member of the Executive Board and that the minutes of its transactions were hers. The argument as to the sufficiency of the evidence that the defendants conspired to send the documents only impairs the seriousness of the real defence.

It is objected that the documentary evidence was not admissible because obtained upon a search warrant, valid so far as appears. The contrary is established. Adams v. New York, 192 U.S. 585 , 24 Sup. Ct. 372; Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 395 , 396 S., 34 Sup. Ct. 341, L. R. A. 1915B, 834, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1177. The search warrant did not issue against the defendant but against the Socialist headquarters at 1326 Arch street and it would seem that the documents technically were not even in the defendants' possession. See Johnson v. United States, 228 U.S. 457 , 33 Sup. Ct. 572, 47 L. R. A. ( N. S.) 263. Notwithstanding some protest in argument the notion that evidence even directly proceeding from the defendant in a criminal proceeding is excluded in all cases by the Fifth Amendment is plainly unsound. Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245, 252 , 253 S., 31 Sup. Ct. 2

The document in question upon its first printed side recited the first section of the Thirteenth Amendment, said that the idea embodied in it was violated by the conscription act and that a conscript is little better than a [249 U.S. 47, 51]   convict. In impassioned language it intimated that conscription was despotism in its worst form and a monstrous wrong against humanity in the interest of Wall Street's chosen few. It said, 'Do not submit to intimidation,' but in form at least confined itself to peaceful measures such as a petition for the repeal of the act. The other and later printed side of the sheet was headed 'Assert Your Rights.' It stated reasons for alleging that any one violated the Constitution when he refused to recognize 'your right to assert your opposition to the draft,' and went on, 'If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain.' It described the arguments on the other side as coming from cunning politicians and a mercenary capitalist press, and even silent consent to the conscription law as helping to support an infamous conspiracy. It denied the power to send our citizens away to foreign shores to shoot up the people of other lands, and added that words could not express the condemnation such cold-blooded ruthlessness deserves , &c., &c., winding up, 'You must do your share to maintain, support and uphold the rights of the people of this country.' Of course the document would not have been sent unless it had been intended to have some effect, and we do not see what effect it could be expected to have upon persons subject to the draft except to influence them to obstruct the carrying of it out. The defendants do not deny that the jury might find against them on this point.

But it is said, suppose that that was the tendency of this circular, it is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Two of the strongest expressions are said to be quoted respectively from well-known public men. It well may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom of speech is not confined to previous restraints, although to prevent them may have been the [249 U.S. 47, 52]   main purpose, as intimated in Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 , 27 S. Sup. Ct. 556, 51 L. ed. 879, 10 Ann. Cas. 689. We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205 , 206 S., 25 Sup. Ct. 3. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439 , 31 S. Sup. Ct. 492, 55 L. ed. 797, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. It seems to be admitted that if an actual obstruction of the recruiting service were proved, liability for words that produced that effect might be enforced. The statute of 1917 in section 4 (Comp. St. 1918 , 10212d) punishes conspiracies to obstruct as well as actual obstruction. If the act, (speaking, or circulating a paper,) its tendency and the intent with which it is done are the same, we perceive no ground for saying that success alone warrants making the act a crime. Goldman v. United States, 245 U.S. 474 , 477 38 Sup. Ct. 166, 62 L. ed. 410. Indeed that case might be said to dispose of the present contention if the precedent covers all media concludendi. But as the right to free speech was not referred to specially, we have thought fit to add a few words.

It was not argued that a conspiracy to obstruct the draft was not within the words of the Act of 1917. The [249 U.S. 47, 53]   words are 'obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service,' and it might be suggested that they refer only to making it hard to get volunteers. Recruiting heretofore usually having been accomplished by getting volunteers the word is apt to call up that method only in our minds. But recruiting is gaining fresh supplies for the forces, as well by draft as otherwise. It is put as an alternative to enlistment or voluntary enrollment in this act. The fact that the Act of 1917 was enlarged by the amending Act of May 16, 1918, c. 75, 40 Stat. 553, of course, does not affect the present indictment and would not, even if the former act had been repealed. Rev. St. 13 (Comp. St. 14).

Judgments affirmed.

Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=249&invol=47

President Woodrow Wilson’s 1916 Campaign

Democratic Party activists campaign on behalf of President Woodrow Wilson in 1916; President Wilson campaigned for re-election on the theme “He Kept Us Out of War”. (UPI photo)

Frederic Courtland Penfield (1855-1922)U.S. Minister to the Austro-Hungarian Empire (July 28, 1913–April 7, 1917)