Tuesday, December 31, 2019

These are details of what happened from Clint Hill, and you'l notice that he says nothing about "physically striking or violently shoving" Mrs. Kennedy, as Dino Brugioni claimed to have seen in the original Zapruder film. Upon reading it, I have no reason to think Hill struck her or shoved her, and I dismiss Brugioni's claim outright. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-7-new-horrifying-new-details-from-the-jfk-assassination-2012-4
I was just informed that My Stretch of Texas Ground is an Official Selection of the Vegas Movie Awards.
Dear Ralph,
CONGRATULATIONS!
We are extremely pleased to inform you, ahead of schedule, that your film My Stretch of Texas Ground has just been accepted as a Vegas Movie Awards™ Official Selection




Monday, December 30, 2019

Don't listen to the trolls. It is Oswald in the doorway as sure as it is Christ on the Cross. Do you understand that there was not this much likeness between Oswald and Lovelady? 
It is 2020 now, and there is no longer a debate about this. Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway when JFK got shot, and that is ironclad. 
I am enjoying a nice correspondence with Dr. David Mantik, and just this morning, December 30, 2019, he wrote the following to me:

"Of course the Backyard photos are fake." 

I hope you realize that I wouldn't put words in his mouth. 

This was my response to him:

Thank you, David, but also please consider that JFK was shot in the back at the time of the Croft photo. 

The proof is that they put a screener over his back right where he got shot. It looks like a little wall there. It's attached, so take a look. 



And when you look at the whole photo, you can see that JFK isn't right. He isn't waving at the spectators. He looks extremely stiff. Look at his posterior cervical tension. He is under stress there. And then, the whole image of Jackie is wrong. Look at the extent of her left cervical rotation. It's about 90 degrees! Turn your head left and see how far it goes. It doesn't go that far. And what people do, instinctively, is turn their whole body, so that they don't have to turn their neck so much. So, that's fake too. 



He was shot there, but only in the back. The shot to his throat occurred behind the sign, although the real sign was not as big or as obstructing as we see in the Z film. 

The Z film has it that Kennedy was smiling and waving until he passed behind the sign and then he got shot for the first time. No! He was shot in the back higher on the hill, and they cut that whole section out of the film. That's why he reaches the sign so fast. The last photo shows the part that was cut out. 



Please consider this and share it with Doug. Thank you.  Ralph 


Someone who usually supports me was taken back by my denunciation of Dino Brugioni, noting that Doug Horne spoke highly of Brugioni. Dino told Doug that he remembered the Zapruder film being different, that he remembered a high white cloud over JFK's head from the fatal head shot, and that he remembered Clint Hill "physically striking or violently shoving" Jackie back into the limo. But, are either of those claims realistic? Why would Clint Hill have to strike Jackie? And if he did, wouldn't bystanders have seen it? Since no one except Brugioni ever claimed such a thing, shouldn't we treat it with doubt? 

And when it comes to a person being shot in the head, it's something that most of us have never seen. All we've seen are simulations of it in the movies. But, I am not finding any references to a white cloud rising high over the victim's head, and again, no one at the scene described such an effect. 

So, both citings of Brugioni about what he recalled seeing different in the original Zapruder film are suspect and not very credible. And how could he miss the huge jump-cut between frame 132 and 133, where it goes from the three advance motorcycles to the limo already on Elm in just one frame movement?   

I told you that Brugioni wrote a book Photo Fakery which I have and have read. And now I am going to tell you that I think that defending the authenticity of the Backyard photos of Oswald was a major reason why Brugioni wrote the book. 

First, I hope you realize that the Backyard photos are definitely fake. Oswald said they were fake, that his face was put over the body of another man. Now, if you are a defender of Lee Harvey Oswald, as I am, then you have to believe him. And if you don't believe him, then STOP calling yourself an Oswald defender. He wasn't an idiot. It wasn't a crime to pose for that photo. And if he had posed for it, he would have said so."Yes, that's me in the photo, but I didn't shoot the President." If he owned the rifle, he would have admitted it. "Yes, I own that rifle, but it has not been in my possession of late, and someone else must have gotten it to frame me." In other words, if you're innocent,  you don't lie to the police. You have no reason to lie. You state the facts as you know them. It wouldn't have been the first time that someone's weapon was stolen to commit a crime and then frame the owner. 

So, Oswald denied owning that, or any, rifle, and he denied posing for that photo, and he denied the authenticity of the photo. Yet, Dino Brugioni devoted 4 pages in his book to defending the Backyard photos and maligning Oswald. 

Furthermore, it's obvious from reading what Brugioni wrote that he was well read on the Backyard photos. He listed the claims of Jack White, without referring to Jack, about what was wrong with the Backyard photos, including the anvil-like chin with the very long wide cleft.  


Well, Brugioni defended it. He said that the HSCA brought in experts who said that the photos were authentic. He went on to say that "microscopic analysis" proved that they were legit. In fact, he included 2 collages concerning the microscopic examination of the Backyard photos, neither of which had any value. Here's one:


The image on the right is supposed to be the negative, and he refers to it as a "microscopic analysis" but that is obviously not microscopic. It's the exact same perspective as the image on the left and not "microscopic" at all. 

And that deep line going across the anvil-like chin? Brugioni had an excuse for it. He said it was "the edge of a water spot" which he said is common in photo processing. 

Oh, I see. So by random chance, a random water spot just happened to occur there? Based on what?

Oswald's face was superimposed, just as Oswald said, but they left the chin of the original man, whom many have said is DPD Officer Roscoe White, who had a very wide chin. 



In his book, Brugioni posted many examples in which someone's head was superimposed over the body of someone else. Here's one example he gave. 



So, this is from Brugioni's book. You see that it was the signing of some bill by Bill Clinton. On the left, there is a man in a dark shirt (an arrow points to him) who was, apparently, less important than the man farther down from him, circled in both photos. In the crop, they wanted to include him. So, they converted the other man into him. They plopped his head over the other guy's, and then they lightened the other guy's shirt. 

So, Brugioni was well aware that replacing heads in photos is something that has been done a lot. Another example he displayed was the replacing of the head of Sen. John Calhoun with that of Abraham Lincoln. Yet, Brugioni dismissed that it was done with the Backyard photos, which he repeatedly and adamantly defended as being real, legit, and untampered with. 

In having reread much of the book again now, I realize that that was a major reason why he wrote it: to defend the Backyard photos. He refers to them in multiple places in the book, and has at least 3 collages pertaining to them. He discusses the Backyard photos specifically more than any other photos in the book. 

And now, I am more convinced than ever that Brugioni was dirty, that he was a company man, a CIA man- all the way; and that when he was nice and cooperative and respectful to Peter Janey and Doug Horne that he was playing them like an instrument. I don't think he was honest with them about the Zapruder film, and the things he said about it make no sense. 

And considering how well informed he was about the controversies surrounding the Backyard photos, don't you think he was equally well-informed about the controversies surrounding the Altgens photo? But, that he didn't mention, and it is, without a doubt, the most massively altered photo in the history of photography. The Altgens photo is a grotesque monstrosity of photographic alteration, and Brugioni damn-well knew it.  




Sunday, December 29, 2019

Alan Murphy At first I thought the alteration theory was too bizarre. But like everything else in the overthrow it is beyond weird. Your critique makes sense. That sign had to get larger. Otherwise the lone nut scam is over.
1
  • Ralph Cinque Hey, you put it very succinctly, Alan. The lone nut story depended on that sign because, in the film, JFK approaches the sign smiling and waving where all was well, and then he goes behind the sign, which is like the magician's curtain, and emerges all shot.
This is a partial display of the film festival awards and recognition that My Stretch of Texas Ground has garnered. 
You can see the whole list on our website:
https://mystretchoftexasground.com

This is a film which decries the killing of innocents in the U.S. post-9/11 wars. The death toll from those wars is well over a million human beings, although in the film, we refer to it as "hundreds of thousands and more." The American populace has never faced or reckoned with the bloodied and genocidal rampage that their government went on following 9/11. Everything the film says about the wars is true and undisputed. It's just not politically correct to talk about it.  There is no other movie like My Stretch of Texas Ground, not in this era or any other era. But note that two of those awards are for Best Actor, and that's Jeff Weber as Sheriff Joe Haladin, and Junes Zahdi as Abdul Latif Hassan.  
Now, I have visible proof that the sign we see in the Zapruder film is bogus. First, here is the result of someone standing on Zapruder's pedestal and filming the way he did. However, it's apparent that Zapruder used the power-zoom on his camera, and this person did not. Compare:



So, he must have used the Zoom, right? He had one. OK, now let's go back and install the freeway sign in the recent picture. 

That sign should be perpendicular to the road or the sidewalk. So, it needs to be rotated counter-clockwise probably 20 to 30 degrees to be correct. But, it will have to do. Now obviously, the sign intrudes on the camera field- when you include the whole field. But, Zapruder zoomed in. He used the Power Zoom on his camera. And the best way for me to mimic that is to crop and enlarge because that is the  manual way of zooming. Note that that first frame in Zapruder caught only part of the latice-work at the corner in front of the reflecting pond.


I cropped that image out of the one with the sign, and you notice that the sign does not intrude. I can leave a lot more in without the sign intruding. 
Still, there is no sign intruding. So, the sign we see in the Zapruder film is fake. There was a sign on Elm Street, and no doubt Zapruder captured it, but it was smaller; it did not come into view high on the hill; and it was angled differently and did provide as much screening (blocking of the view) that there is in the Zapruder film, The real sign was subsumed under the larger phony one, and we never see the real sign in the Zapruder film. It's the phony sign all the way in the Z film. 


Saturday, December 28, 2019

I suspect that Dino A. Brugioni led the photo-altering team that altered the Altgens photo, and I shall make the case for it.  



And be aware that there was photo-altering done before the Altgens photo, the most important of which were the Backyard photos. And, it was really in the midst of the assassination that this team worked because they immediately got to work on the Altgens photo when JFK's body was still warm. It's likely that they did it at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, the private photo lab which did image processing for the U.S.military and U.S. intelligence community. And you know that that is what their business was because if they were pitching to the public or even to the business world, they surely would have found a catchier name than Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. It was an arcane name for an arcane business. Ironically, Oswald worked there from October 1962 to April 1963, although perhaps it isn't the least bit ironic. And when Oswald saw the Backyard photo, he said his image was faked and that he knew how it was done and could demonstrate it at a photo lab.   

But first, some bio on Dino, and by the way, he lived until 2015. He was a senior official at the CIA's "National Photographic Interpretation Center." Remember, we live in an Orwellian world, and that is an Orwellian name. Do you recall that CIA Chief Allen Dulles gave a speech at Princeton University in the early '50s in which he decried the burgeoning Russian mind-control program, saying that they were spending millions on it?  What he didn't say was that he was spending 10X as much on the CIA's burgeoning mind-control program which became known as  MK-ULTRA.   The National Photographic Interpretation Center no longer exists. It was morphed into the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. But, my point about Dulles is that he accused the Russians of doing something that the CIA was doing in spades.

Dino wrote a book which I have and which I have read, and more than once, called Photo Fakery. The subtitle is: "The History and Techniques of Photographic Deception and Manipulation". It's over 200 pages, and they are very big pages, decrying the photo manipulation done by the Nazis and the Soviets, even including some photo manipulation that was done for propaganda purposes during the American Civil War, but not one word about the CIA altering photos. You get the impression from reading the book that the highly moral CIA would never stoop to doing something so devious and nefarious as photo manipulation. But, when you consider all the things the CIA has done, including start revolutions, overthrow leaders, conduct secret renditions involving torture, engage in drug trafficking, and flat-out kill people, they certainly had no qualms about altering photos.    

Dino was considered to be "the world's foremost imagery intelligence analyst."

So, he was tops in the world at image intelligence, and the JFK assassination was the most image-altered event ever and to this day. So, how were they not going to use him? And if not him, who? Who could possibly have been more qualified? And who could possibly have been more trustworthy? He was a CIA man. If you haven't read Peter Janney's book Mary's Mosaic, read it because it tells you about the culture of the CIA. And again: Brugioni was a CIA man. 


But first, some bio on him. He was born in Missouri, and he served as a pilot in WW2. He did 66 bombing runs plus many reconnaissance flights. He was awarded the Purple Heart, 9 Air Medals, and a Distinguished Unit Citation. In other words, he was a war hero, like Cort Meyer, who went on to a distinguished CIA career, and George HW Bush. 

After the war, he got a Master's degree in International Relations at Georgetown University. And he joined the CIA in 1948, which was within months of its founding. In 1955, he was chief of the Photographic Intelligence Division of the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) which was headed by Arthur Lundahl. Lundahl was "director" and Brugioni was "senior manager." Anytime that Lundahl needed a "briefing board" prepared, it was Dino Brugioni, working with NPIC's  "photo-interpreters and graphics department," who oversaw its development. They even called Brugioni the "briefing board czar." Now remember, they didn't have a division for altering photos. That's something they never admitted doing. But remember: this is the CIA we're talking about. 

And there was nothing in the commercial world that ventured into this realm. I'm sure the art departments of newspapers and magazines have people who do minor photo altering but nothing close to the fiendish, freakish, monstrous alterations that were done to the Altgens photo. Forget about it. So, the spycraft world was the only place that this existed. Brugioni's team: they were it. There was no one else who could possibly have done it. 

Brugioni saw the original Zapruder film on Saturday night. It was brought to the NPIC for him to analyze and make a briefing board of it. He and his team stayed up all night to do it. He was sure it was the original, and apparently, it's easy to distinguish the original from a copy. When Brugioni was shown by Peter Janey the extant Zapruder film in 2011, he said two things about its content: 

1) He said that in the original the fatal head shot was not limited to frame 313 alone, that it manifested in several frames, and that the explosive mist or cloud was white, rather than red, and that it went high over JFK's head. 

2) He said that Clint Hill either physically struck or violently pushed Jackie back into the back seat of the limo.  

Now, I don't know who you are, but regardless of who you are, you can't dispute that the Zapruder film shows the three lead motorcycles but not the "lead car" with Curry and Decker and not the limo making the turn from Houston to Elm. And you have no reason to assume that Zapruder turned his camera off and then back on. It's a very, very glaring and jolting "jump-cut" going from the three motorcycles to the limo that is suddenly on Elm St. 

You know that I made a film, My Stretch of Texas Ground, which decries the killing of innocents in the post-9/11 wars, and I was very involved in the editing of it. Films are "cut" throughout, where it cuts, not just from one scene to another, but from one angle within a scene to another angle. But, there are rules and guidelines you have to follow in order to avoid making jump-cuts which are unacceptable to the human eye, where it stands out as a jump. 

So, the Zapruder film has a huge jump-cut that is inexplicable. It occurs at frames 132/133. 






You know that can't be continuous, right? Don't we have to assume that Zapruder captured everything in-between those two frames? So, why wouldn't Dino recall that?  And then there is the Stemmons freeway sign in the lower right corner. I've told you that it's fake. There is no way that that sign would have intruded onto Zapruder's camera field when he was pointing his camera at the intersection at the top of the hill. 



The longest and leftward-most line is his camera angle when starting out. The shortest and rightward-most line is when he was shooting through the freeway sign. There is no way that sign could have intruded on his camera field when he was pointed at the intersection. So, the very presence of the sign in this image is bogus:




But, it's not just the presence of the sign; it's the angle of it. The sign was perpendicular to the road, that road that the limo is on. So, if you look at the line of the limo, that had to be 90 degrees to the orientation of the sign. In other words, you would have to rotate that sign counter-clockwise quite a lot to make it accurate. But again, it was lower on the hill. It wasn't up there. 

So, what is going on with this? What is going on is that they cut out a huge swath of the Zapruder film, from the time JFK got shot in the back, which occurred right at the time and place of the Croft photo until JFK emerged from behind the sign reacting to being shot in the throat, which was a separate shot. So, this part of the descent on the hill got cut out:



That red swath- all that is missing from the Zapruder film as we know it. And that's why the freeway sign intrudes into the frames at the top of the hill. The sign we see is not the real sign, and it is not oriented correctly. It is there to be a screen. 

So, what we are left with in the Zapruder film is Kennedy smiling and waving until he reaches the sign and passes behind it, and then he emerges from the obscurity of it reacting to being shot. Ever so conveniently, everything happens behind the sign. 

It's not reality. It's not what happened. It's not what the film originally showed.  

So, here's what Dino should have observed with Janey:

1. The first huge excision which removed the lead car completely and removed the limo making the 120 degree horseshoe turn. All that got cut out. Dino should have said so. 

2. The second huge excision which removed the swath from the time JFK was shot in the back until he got shot in the throat, which were two separate shots, separated by both time and space. They were taken at different locations, and the back shot came first. So, the part of the Zapruder film showing JFK getting shot in the back and reacting to it was taken out. When a man gets shot in the back, he's going to show it, right? The Z film must have shown it. But instead, it shows JFK smiling and waving until he passes behind the scene and then emerging reacting. Bull. He was shot in the back before he reached the sign.  

3. The bogus sign which appears at the start of the Zapruder film and then stands out like a sore thumb is an obstruction that was added. That sign is the magician's curtain, and Dino should have noticed that too. Remember, he was an expert at determining the authenticity of photos. He wrote a book about it. So, how could he not notice that that bogus sign was wrong in its dimension, angle, and location? 

Those are 3 very big things that should have jumped out at Dino. But, let's add number 4.

4. We know that the limo either stopped or came very, very close to stopping, which you don't see in the Zapruder film. So, why didn't Dino recall the limo stop? And again, if it didn't stop completely, it practically did. Recall that Jean Hill said to JFK, "Look this way Mr. President. We want to take your picture." How could she have said that to him if he was moving by her at any speed at all? Even a car moving at 15 mph would pass her before she could say all that, never mind expect to take his picture before he's gone. And how could Clint Hill have jumped off his car and then, on foot, caught up with the moving limo in front of him in order to climb on it? How does a man on foot catch up with a moving car? Again, if it was going 15 mph, there is no way he could have done it. So, there is absolutely no doubt that the limo either stopped completely or it slowed to 5 mph- or less. So, how is it that Dino didn't notice that?

Again, those are big, huge, glaring things. And there's plenty more, such as people looking the wrong way as the President passes. It would take an entire volume to list all the discrepancies in the Zapruder film. But, these 4 are big ones that should have jumped out at Dino, and he instead raised the issue of the red cloud in 313 and Clint Hill shoving Jackie back into the well of the back seat. 

So, what was going on? I think Dino knew what was expected of him, and he wanted to please. He knew that it would be pleasing if he said that the original film looked different, and by saying that it did, it took him off the hook. Of course, he didn't alter it because no one who altered it would admit that it was altered. And if he didn't alter it, then his team didn't alter it, so it takes them all off the hook. He came across as trying to be helpful, but I think it was more likely a slick evasion. 

So, let's look at the two things Brugioni cited. First, it's not even true that the red cloud is only seen in 313. It's scene in every frame up to 320. And the idea that a white cloud would be seen high above Kennedy's head? What is the evidence that such a thing ever happens? Show me the footage. 

And regarding Clint Hill "physically striking or violently pushing" Jackie, that's ridiculous. We can see what he does. He puts his hand up to block her from going further, and no doubt he was talking to her, telling her to go back, to get back into the car. And she obeyed. 




I suppose they could have used that foliage to obscure it if he, in fact, got rougher with her than what it appears, but it is just ridiculous. There is no significance to this. There is no smoking gun here. It doesn't matter. He certainly didn't strike her. I would say that Brugioni is making a mountain out of a mole-hill except that I'm not even sure there is a mole-hill. 

So, Brugioni cited two things about the Zapruder film to suggest alteration, but the second one is completely bogus, and the first one he misrepresented and then proffered a scenario that seems just as unlikely. And he said nothing about the massive changes that were definitely made.  

We know beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt that the Altgens photo was massively altered, and it was done on Friday afternoon. We know it was done between 12:30 PM and 5:30 PM Central Standard Time because at 6:30 PM Eastern, Walter Cronkite showed the altered photo to the country on television. 

A team did it because only a team, working in sync, could have gotten everything done in time. Brugioni led such a team. It wasn't officially a photo-altering team, but it was a photo-processing team that did intelligence work for the government. There is no other realm except the CIA that could have had such a team, at least, not in this country.

Remember: we know who was behind the assassination: It was the CIA and Johnson. Johnson didn't have a photo-altering team. That wasn't his department. Photo work in the intelligence realm, that was Brugioni's department. And again, he even wrote a book, Photo Fakery, which carefully omitted the CIA from engaging in the practice. But, if the spy agencies of the Nazis and the Soviets engaged in photo fakery on a regular basis, wouldn't the U.S. spy agency also do so?  Why not? 

The plotters (the CIA and Johnson) knew, in advance, that cameras were likely to capture images of the assassination that would conflict with the story they were going to tell. So, they made sure that there were cops there to confiscate the cameras, and they got them all except Babushka Lady's, and as I have told you, she was a plant. They got her film automatically because she was working for them. So, they set up the confiscation in advance, and the second thing they did was have this team there. It was a CIA team of photo-alterers, and most likely, Brugioni led it. 

So, where was Dino Brugioni on 11/22/63? He claimed that it was  10 PM Saturday evening that he started examining the Zapruder film at the NPIC in Washington, and that he and his team worked on it all night. But, he easily could have been in Dallas on Friday.  

I think it's likely that a team led by Dino Brugioni altered the Altgens photo. And it's not good photographic altering either; it's bad. Evil bad. But, it was the best they could do in the short amount of time they had. There is no good reason to look outside the CIA for who did it, and within the CIA, Brugioni was the go-to guy for all things photo-intelligence.  



Recently, I have been making the case why I believe Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. was assassinated in 1944. With plenty of nights to sleep on it, I am more convinced than ever that he was assassinated. Though it's based solely on circumstantial evidence, I am now 90% certain that he was assassinated. So, I shall recap the very strong case for why JPK Jr. was assassinated.

1) It was a bogus bombing target, one that had already been hit by the British with "tall bombs." It was 2 months after D-Day when the Germans were hightailing it out of France. There was no risk that they were going to be able to use that underground missile launching site again. 

2) There was no need for Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. Any pilot could have done what he did. All the pilot had to do was get the plane airborne and then the remote operators would take it over. Any pilot capable of flying the plane could have done it. Nothing compelled having Kennedy do it. 

3) They kept him on the plane longer than necessary. Once it was airborne and the remote operators had control of it, he could have bailed. But, they had him remain on the plane until it was over the water. At least, that was the plan, but it was ridiculous because there was plenty of flat, open, safe, dry English countryside for him to float down in. They needed to keep him on the plane until it reached the chosen spot to blow it up.   

4) They said he volunteered when he must have been recruited. It was a top-secret mission, so he could not have known about it unless they went to him. And he was getting ready to leave- to leave England and to leave the service- for good. He didn't go to them; they went to him, and they didn't need to. 

5) They deliberately blew up the plane in an unpopulated spot so that even though the huge explosion scattered hot debris over a 6 square mile area, no one on the ground got hurt or killed. 

6) And the worst thing of all is that they never investigated the explosion. There never was an official cause for it. All we have, to this day, are either glib explanations, such as, "they must have tripped a wire," or "there was an electrical short," or overly profuse ones, such as "the lack of insulation on the camera emitted a signal which activated the solenoid which triggered the detonation." But, without investigating it, they immediately resumed those drone missions, and there were no other explosions. But think about it: would they have risked the lives of other pilots without first determining the exact cause of the "accident" to a tee? They weren't going to investigate it because an honest investigation would have revealed the truth, that the plane was blown up deliberately. 

7) There is also the fact that JPK Sr. had been forced out and branded an anti-Semite and Nazi sympathizer, and even JPK Jr. was known to have opposed the war and spoken glowingly of Hitler and Nazi Germany (at Harvard), and he was about to enter politics. It's the same situation as JFK Jr. who was murdered when he was about to enter politics.  

With his family name, his family money, and his good looks and military heroism, he was a shoo-in, and they could not let him become President of the United States.  

So yes, I am utterly convinced that Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. was murdered. 

Thursday, December 26, 2019

I mentioned that I am helping my cousin with his book about our uncle's WW2 experience, fighting from Omaha Beach to the outskirts of Berlin. So, I have been reading a lot about WW2. But, I came to realize that you can't understand WW2 without an understanding of WW1. That's because WW2 was a continuation of WW1. The interwar period was, essentially, a 20 year ceasefire. 

And all this reading I am doing about the world wars makes me realize how monstrously murderous and genocidal the 20th century was- the worst century in human history, by far. And, it's a paradox because, at the same time, the 20th century had the greatest and swiftest scientific and technological advancement of any century. It had more progress and advancement than all the centuries that came before it- combined.

But tragically, WW1 was the rudder for the whole century. If only there had been no WW1, there would have been no Communist takeover of Russia. The Czar was distracted. He was fighting the war- on the front. He was no military man, but his generals did so badly, he replaced them with himself. And he did worse. It's fair to say that Germany won the war on the Eastern front. And, it's noteworthy that Germany helped finance Lenin, while Wall Street bankers financed both Lenin and Trotsky, who was living in New York City prior to the Revolution. Many Russians living in New York City accompanied Trotsky back to Russia. 

And, there is no reason to think Hitler would have been elected in Germany without the conditions set up by WW1. He only got 30% of the vote in 1933. But, it was enough for a run-off with President Hindenburg, and Hitler lost that too. But, he did well enough , that a coalition government was formed with Hindenburg as President and Hitler as Chancellor, and you know the rest. But, it was the horrendous conditions in Germany that got Hitler into power and without WW1, conditions would never have gotten that bad in Germany. Before WW1, Germany was on a fast track, not only to economic superstardom, but also scientific and technological dominance as well, and that is why WW1 occurred. It occurred because other countries, particularly Great Britain, and really mainly Great Britain, felt threatened by Germany's rise. It wasn't that Germany was doing anything wrong or illegal. They were just excelling, and Britain did not like it. 

So, Britain wanted war with Germany. From the moment, the Boer War ended in southern Africa, war with Germany was the next war on the British agenda. It was being sought from very early in the 20th century. They wanted the war over 10 years before they got it  in 1914. It took them longer than they thought to provoke it.

But, the British knew that they could NOT prevail over Germany by themselves. So, they got France and Russia to enter a Triple Entente with them in 1907, and it even said in the fine print that they would all go to war against Germany. 

The French were on-board mainly because they loathed Germany for winning the Franco-Prussian war in the 1870s. And as a result of losing that war, they lost Alsace and Lorraine to Germany, which were rich mining provinces. And they wanted them back. 

Czar Nicholas of Russia was mostly prodded into it by the English and French. But, they had to wave a carrot at him, and that carrot was the Bosporous shipping strait and the city of Constantinople. But, they had no intention of delivering on that, and they didn't. Of course, he was gone by then. He didn't survive the war. The Bolsheviks killed him and his family. 

But, the most important thing is that Germany did not want war with anybody. They were busy: building stuff, inventing stuff, discovering stuff. They were not seeking war at all. But, the Kaiser realized that he had enemies on both sides of him. So, he signed an alliance with Austria-Hungay, which was geographically the largest country in Europe at the time. So, England, in order to provoke the war it wanted with Germany, organized the team of Serbs to kill the Archduke Ferdinand, knowing that it would provoke war between Serbia and Austria-Hungary.  And then presto, the various treaties and alliances would turn it into a world war. 

The first act of war was when the Czar mobilized his army on Germany's eastern border, and France mobilized her army on Germany's western border, and in those days, mobilization was considered an act of war. And then, Germany, fearing a simultaneous attack from both sides, felt compelled to launch an attack on France first, hoping to end it quickly, and then turn around and face the Russians.  But, that was Germany's colossal mistake. They should have just waited. They should have forced their enemies to attack first. No matter what the outcome, even if Germany did succumb quickly to a two-front attack, they would have been better off, much better off, if they had waited. The decision of Kaiser Wilhelm to launch WW1, to make the first incursion, even though from his standpoint he was doing it defensively, was the most catastrophic decision of the 20th century. He should have gambled and not done. He should have left if to the French and the Russians. They are the ones who wanted war- no him. Diplomatically and otherwise, he was doing everything he could to prevent war- beseeching his royal relations in England and Russia to stop with the bellicosity, but to no avail.  He should have held his ground- literally. He should have remained on German soil and forced the warmongers to come to him. Had he done so, there is no way Germany could have been blamed for causing or starting the war. As it was, the issue that Britain used to justify declaring war on Germany was Germany's violation of Belgian neutrality. So, what if Germany hadn't violated Belgian neutrality? You see, it's obvious that these countries were thinking about their history and their legacy, and they did not want to go down as the aggressor. So, if Germany refused, refused to aggress, if Germany insisted that her enemies make the first incursion and take the first shot, they may or may not have. It's very clear that they didn't want to strike first, and Germany should have said, "If you want war, you're going to have to do it; not me."   More to follow.