Review: Volume 25 - Military History

Review: Volume 25 - Military History

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

'Butcher' Cumberland is portrayed as one of the arch villains of British history. His leading role in the bloody defeat of the Jacobite rebellion in 1745 and his ruthless pursuit of Bonnie Prince Charlie's fugitive supporters across the Scottish Highlands has generated a reputation for severity that has endured to the present day. He has even been proposed as the most evil Briton of the eighteenth century. But was Prince William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, the younger son of George II, really the ogre of popular imagination? Jonathan Oates, in this perceptive investigation of the man and his notorious career, seeks to answer this question. He looks dispassionately at Cumberland's character and at his record as a soldier, in particular at this behaviour towards enemy wounded and prisoners. He analyses the rules of war as they were understood and applied in the eighteenth century. And he watches Cumberland closely through the entire course of the '45 campaign, from the retreat of the rebels across northern England to the Highlands, through Battle of Culloden and on into the bloodstained suppression that followed.

Review: Volume 25 - Military History - History

Reactions and Non-Reactions: Lessons of the Korean War and the Public Debate over Containment and American National Military Strategy, 1950-1955

Target Taiwan: Bombing Japan’s Model Colony

Admiral William S. Pye’s 1943 Evaluation of the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, November 13-15, 1942

Revisiting the Classics

What was Mahan really saying? A Re-visitation of the Naval Theorist’s Classic Work, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783

Altar of Ego: Personal Politics and the Loss of Fort Fisher

Back to the Cold War: The U.S. Army after Vietnam

U.S. Cavalry Operations in the Philippine War, 1899-1902

Were They So Unprepared?: Josephus Daniels and the United States Navy’s Entry into World War I

Intercontinental Warfare: The Not-So-New American Way of War

Digging in the Archives

University of Tulsa McFarlin Library Special Collections World War I Collections

Cost of Elitism?: Elitism and Group Identity among American Paratroopers in World War II

American Wunderwaffe: The History and Influence of Drones in World War II

Pragmatic Leadership: The Move Toward Progressive Action on Integration in Korea

Lee’s Re-treaded Tar Heels: The 26th North Carolina Infantry Regiment between Gettysburg and the Wilderness
Richard L. DiNardo ..……………………………………………. ……………………… 3

Fighting for Air: The Struggle for Air Force COMINT, 1945-1952
Philip Shackelford ……………………………………………. …. …………………… 23

American Military History, Volume I: The United States Army and the Forging of a Nation, 1775-1917

This latest edition of an official U.S. Government military history classic provides an authoritative historical survey of the organization and accomplishments of the United States Army. This scholarly yet readable book is designed to inculcate an awareness of our nation&aposs military past and to demonstrate that the study of military history is an essential ingredient in lea This latest edition of an official U.S. Government military history classic provides an authoritative historical survey of the organization and accomplishments of the United States Army. This scholarly yet readable book is designed to inculcate an awareness of our nation's military past and to demonstrate that the study of military history is an essential ingredient in leadership development. It is also an essential addition to any personal military history library.

This text is used in military ROTC training courses as a basic military history textbook. Volume 1 of 2 volume set. . more

Book Review-Life in Medieval Europe by Danièle Cybulskie

[FULL DISCLOSURE: I received my copy of this book free from the author and/or publisher. I was not paid for this review and the opinion expressed is purely my own] I expected this book to be somewhat similar to the classic “A World Lit Only by Fire” by William Manchester. It is in that it describes medieval life and it is different in that it presents a more realistic appreciation of what life was actually like in the Middle Ages vice the depressing picture painted by Manchester. First, the stats. The book is 117 pages of text divided into six topical chapters. There are no notes in the text but … More after the Jump…

Book Review – India’s Wars: A Military History, 1947 – 1971 by Arjun Subramaniam

Warfare is as old as human civilization and so is its history. The Indian subcontinent has been witness to bloody conflicts and clashes since ages. Epics such as Mahabharata, Ramayana, Alha-Udhal are masterpieces of South Asia’s age old tradition of rendering conflicts in different literary and art forms.

India inherited thorny issues left behind by colonial masters at the time of partition, which led to altercation and conflict with neighbours. These issues are still festering, making the understanding of military history an essential part of statecraft. India can ill-afford to ignore the history of conflict in this part of the world. Still there are a few good books on this topic worth visiting. Academics have largely ignored this important area whereas one comes across accounts of military conflict in memoirs of politicians or retired soldiers. There is a dearth of well-researched accounts on the military history of India. This gap has been filled by Arjun Subramaniam, a soldier-scholar and an expert on military matters. The account of conflicts faced by India after freedom in 1947 to 1971 comes directly from the horse’s mouth. India’s Wars: Military History, 1947 – 1971 by serving Air Vice Marshal Arjun Subramaniam is well-researched, and deftly-written without personal or profession prejudice. With this book, the author seeks to create a missing link between the study of military history and its impact on contemporary strategic culture.

Arjun Subramaniam writes for various military journals both in India and abroad on Leadership, Air Power, Jointmanship, India-China relations, Terrorism and Fourth Generation Warfare, National Security and Military History.

Soon after independence, India faced an attack on J&K by Pathan tribals as well as Pakistani regulars. A country that was limping back to normalcy after deadly riots and the displacement of a large part of its population had to send its army to its northern border hastily and unwillingly. There was the challenge of national integration of princely states just after independence. The police action in Hyderabad state and liberation of Goa was not an easy task. The 1962 conflict and defeat suffered at the hands of China, the war with Pakistan in 1965 and the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971 are testimonies to the valour and sacrifices rendered by brave soldiers in the line of duty.

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Military history of Puerto Rico/archive1

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC) [1].

Military history of Puerto Rico Edit

Review section Edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because as stated on talk, the article has multiple issues:

  • At 17,511 words the article is too long and it needs to be cut almost in half to reach the recommended length, perhaps by using summary style and shifting material to sub-articles.
  • The article cites questionable sources such as .
  • Some sources don't have page numbers, and a consistent citation format is not used.
  • The lead doesn't meet MOS:LEAD.
  • There's considerable unsourced content.

The response to these concerns was to state that there's nothing wrong with the article.[2] Article was last reviewed in 2006 at the time, it was only 7992 words long, so the greater part of the article has never been reviewed at all. (t · c) buidhe 04:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

  • This is what our well respected editors and Wikipedia Foundation had to say about the article. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
    • These comments, as noted above, related to a completely different article than the current version and a very different interpretation of the FA criteria back in 2006. (t · c) buidhe 05:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I agree that the above comments left at a 2006 FAC aren't at all useful in 2021. Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

      Comments by Nick-D I've long considered this article problematic, and agree that a FAR is in order. I'd like to offer the following comments:

      • The article is clearly too long, and includes obviously bloated material.
      • Some structural examples of bloat are:
        • The 'Puerto Rican commander in the Philippines' section, which seems to cover only a single Puerto Rican
        • The 'Second Nicaraguan Campaign (1926–33)' section, which has multiple paras on a handful of Puerto Ricans performing routine-looking duties
        • Listing every(?) unit assigned an airfield in World War II (without supporting references as well)
        • The entire 'The USS Cochino incident' section
        • The 'Operation El Dorado Canyon' section (two paras covering one Puerto Rican)
        • The 'Puerto Rican women with the rank of general' section (and why focus only on two generals rather than provide a history of Puerto Rican women in the era since women were integrated into the military?)
        • The 'Congressional Gold Medal' section - this should be a para at most somewhere
        • It's not clear to me why the pre-colonisation military history of the island is presented in the context of colonisation. The statement that "The Tainos were known as a peaceful people, however they were also warriors and often fought against the Caribs" is poorly written, and risks repeating a 'noble savage' myth
        • What's the relevance of the para starting with 'According to the "500th Florida Discovery Council Round Table"'?
        • " In November 1917, the first military draft (conscription) lottery in Puerto Rico was held in the island's capital, San Juan. The first draft number was picked by Diana Yaeger, the daughter of the U.S. appointed governor of Puerto Rico Arthur Yager. The number she picked was 1435 and it belonged to San Juan native Eustaquio Correa. Thus, Correa became the first Puerto Rican to be "drafted" into the Armed Forces of the United States." - delete everything after the first sentence.
        • "However, with the defeat of Germany in 1945, the United States concentrated all of their efforts to the war in the Pacific. " - the USN was focused on the Pacific for most of the war
        • The 'Cuban Missile Crisis' section notes only the role played by a single Puerto Rican. Surely the bases on the island were used in this action?
        • "Two Puerto Ricans who served in Vietnam held positions in the Administration of President George W. Bush. " - relevance?
        • "He was ambushed in Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, by Somali warlords" - sloppy writing: presumably the 'warlords' didn't personally ambush him. Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
          • G'day, I had a go at fixing some of the issues, but probably can't rectify the major concerns listed above. I will try to help a bit more over the next week or so if I get a chance, but would need someone else to do the heavy lifting, sorry. These are my edits so far: [3] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Prose size = > 17,000 words (8,000 words when last reviewed). I don't support FACs that exceed 10,000.
          • The areas for cutting excess detail are easily found, sample Puerto Ricans in sensitive positions, undue and if people have their own articles anyway . , why all these citations for an uncontroversial fact? On June 10, 2014, President Barack Obama, signed the legislation known as "The Borinqueneers CGM Bill" at an official ceremony. The Bill honors the 65th Infantry Regiment with the Congressional Gold Medal.[3][197][198][199]
          • There is uncited text.
          • Another section that presents obvious opportunities to trim excess detail is Post World War II any where one looks, it is easy to see that this article can be cut to half the current size. One route might be a notable Puerto Ricans in the military section, cutting everything down to just the basics, since they have their own articles if they are notable.

          I agree with the nominator and other commenters here that this article has major issues and is not up to current FA standards. It is actually really hard to read and its coverage of the topic is very uneven. As an example, I don't understand why, in the Korean War section, there is so much focus on the 65th Regiment, when the preamble to the section mentions 61,000 Puerto Ricans served in the war. Presumably they didn't all serve in the 65th regiment. The heading for the section containing the awards the regiment earned during the war is misplaced. The amount of awards earned in WWII seem trivial and hardly worth mentioning given the scope of the article. I am not hopeful that the remedial work will be completed as the primary editor best placed to do this seems to think nothing is wrong with the article. As an aside, I am also concerned that the primary editor is mentioned in the article in the Vietnam War section and a picture of himself illustrates the section. That seems to be a COI if the primary editor added them. Zawed (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

          I agree, I have deleted the Vietnam War COI sentence and images. Mztourist (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

          Comment by TJMSmith: I am a bit confused on the scope of the article. I think it obfuscates the military history of Puerto Rico (the island) and the history of Puerto Rican military people. For example, this article mentions Maritza Sáenz Ryan, Marc H. Sasseville and Hilda Clayton who were all born in the states and did not serve their career in PR. Are they relevant to this article? Additionally, Hector E. Pagan, Irene M. Zoppi, Noel Zamot, María Inés Ortiz have served the majority of their careers off the island on missions not tied to PR. Heather Penney is mentioned but is not Puerto Rican. TJMSmith (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

          Comment by AustralianRupert: G'day, I have done what I can to add some more citations to areas that were missing them, but I am probably at the limit of what I can do. There are a few issues in the Korean War section that I think need clarification as a couple of points don't quite seem to make sense (I have marked these with clarification tags) -- can anyone assist with rectifying these? I have also tried to reduce image sandwiching and in the process have reorganised the article a little, including merging a couple of sections: [4]. Potentially this merge wasn't the best idea on my part -- I would appreciate others taking a look and if need be, I am happy for it to be reverted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

          Agree the Korean War section is a mess. I've been doing too much citation clarification on this and related articles to really dive into it (plus Korea isn't my area of focus), but it feels very boosterish to me. Intothatdarkness 01:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC) G'day, given that no one seemed to step forward to rectify my clarification tags, I had a go myself. These are my changes: [5]. If anyone with more knowledge feels keen to adjust, please do. I'd be happy to keep trying to help save this one, but I really need some assistance from someone with access to a broader range of sources (potentially someone in PR or the wider US). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC) I may be able to help, but one thing to be aware of is the need to check almost every cite (when possible) to make sure what's being quoted is actually IN the listed source. I've run into this problem with many of these articles (including individuals linked out of this article. which is where the issue seems especially frequent), and wanted to make sure people were aware. In some cases it's been misquoting, but in others what's attributed isn't even in the source. Intothatdarkness 13:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC) This may be of help with the Korea section: Intothatdarkness 17:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

          Comment by Intothatdarkness: I took a whack at some of the stuff in Vietnam and WW2. Having done cleanup in some of the other linked articles I've found misquoting or misparaphrasing sources to be issues worth checking, and corrected some examples in the sections I worked on. Not much, but it's a start. Intothatdarkness 16:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


          1. Vincent Cronin, Napoleon Bonaparte, An Intimate Biography (London, 1971).Back to (1)
          2. Steven Englund, Napoleon: A Political Life (Cambridge, MA, 2004).Back to (2)
          3. Philip Dwyer, Napoleon: the Path to Power (New Haven, CT, 2008).Back to (3)
          4. Charles Esdaile, Napoleon’s Wars: an International History (London, 2007).Back to (4)
          5. Ralph Ashby, Napoleon against Great Odds (Santa Barbara, CA, 2010).Back to (5)
          6. Andrew Uffindell, Napoleon, 1814: the Defence of France (Barnsley, 2009).Back to (6)

          Professor Hughes is grateful for the reviewer's comments about his book, and declines to respond further.

          Journal of Chinese Military History

          To celebrate the 10th volume of the Journal of Chinese Military History, selected articles from the past 10 volumes will be available for free downloading during 2021.

          The Journal of Chinese Military History is a peer-reviewed semi-annual that publishes research articles and book reviews. It aims to fill the need for a journal devoted specifically to China's martial past and takes the broadest possible view of military history, embracing both the study of battles and campaigns and the broader, social-history oriented approaches that have become known as "the new military history." It aims to publish a balanced mix of articles representing a variety of approaches to both modern and pre-modern Chinese military history. The journal also welcomes comparative and theoretical work as well as studies of the military interactions between China and other states and peoples, including East Asian neighbours such as Japan, Korea, and Vietnam.

          Online submission: Articles for publication in Journal of Chinese Military History can be submitted online through Editorial Manager, please click here.

          What is the Value of Studying Military History?

          Military history is a valuable field of study to both professional soldiers and civilians. As historian John Keegan said, "[t]he written history of the world is largely a history of warfare."1 Yet one may argue if someone is not preparing for war, what is the point of studying the military past? This shortsighted view ignores much of human history, where "civilian life has always been affected by warfare."2 Most warfare through the ages featured not only professional soldiers, but also everyday civilians who, before the wars, made their living as teachers, businessmen, and actors, among many other professions. These professions have long traditions, but in recorded history, none is as ancient as the profession of soldiery. The earliest historians were often recording wars - making them as much military historians as historians in the traditional sense. War is such a dominant feature of human history that most modern nation-states and the nation-state system itself came into existence either through or because of war. Those national leaders whom historians have dubbed "great" often became great through warfare. Surprisingly, few of today's world leaders have any military experience on their resumes. Thus, military history provides one of the only avenues for them to understand past, current, and present conflicts in context. This understanding affects their ability to prevent, start, fight, and end wars. This understanding can hold the future of the world in the balance. Given the role war and conflict has played and continues to play in modern human civilization, it is hard to understate the value of studying military history.

          War predates recorded history. Before humans learned to write, "[T]hey already had wars--and warriors--to write about."3 Fortifications "dated back to the 8th millennium BC,"4 reveal the existence of organized warfare centuries before the invention of writing. When humans finally started writing, they often wrote about military conflicts. An ivory knife handle, dated from 3400 BC and featuring Egyptians and Mesopotamians engaged in battle, is believed to be "the earliest known representation of conflict between nations."5 From the 31st century BC, a palette depicts Narmer, pharaoh of a united Egypt, holding a captive by the hair with his left hand while his right hand is poised with a mace, ready to strike his victim.6 Narmer, the earliest identifiable figure in recorded history, was a conqueror, a man of war. These are the stories and people the earliest writers--military historians--wrote about.

          War, however, is not just a prehistoric phenomenon. All civilizations have war in their cultures and "the states within which we live came into existence largely through conquest, civil strife or struggles for independence."7 Consider the United States, a nation forged by the Revolutionary War, reforged by the Civil War, and expanded through wars with Native Americans, Mexico, and Spain. France became a kingdom after being unified under the generalship of Charlemagne, and was saved from extinction when Joan of Arc led the French to victories over the English. Numerous German states formed into the German Empire--closely resembling the borders of modern-day Germany--after waging two wars against France in the late 19th century. These are dated examples, but the influence of war on the modern political map is still clear. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and India began to recognize their national identity apart from the British Empire after their troops fought valiantly in the First World War. Communism took hold in Russia because of the same war and would dominate a third of the world's population for years after the Second World War. Mao established the People's Republic of China after his military victories over the Nationalists and his conquests of Tibet and Xinjiang. Sixty years later, the country has virtually the same borders. The study of history, politics and culture over the last millennia of human history would be impossible without a study of military history. Without military history, placing these massive changes in their proper context would be impossible.

          From these conflicts, arise some of the greatest figures in history. Consider the men on Mount Rushmore: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln. Washington fought in the Revolutionary War after Jefferson penned the document that sparked the conflict. When war broke out between the United States and Spain in 1898, Roosevelt raised a cavalry regiment and personally fought in the war, earning the Medal of Honor. Lincoln's entire presidency and legacy is derived from his role in the war between the States. Today, Americans know him as the man who freed the slaves and preserved the Union, but he was a war president. The Emancipation Proclamation freed only the slaves in most Southern States. While it did give the North's war greater purpose, its goal was to hinder the South's ability to fight. Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address, his most famous speech, after the three-day bloody battle marking the turning point in the war. Lincoln's election as president was itself a major catalyst that began the war, and a little over a month after taking office, America was engaged in conflict. Lincoln did not stop fighting for more than four years, until his assassination on April 15, 1865. One of the most famous monuments in Washington DC today is the memorial to Abraham Lincoln. These are only a handful of key figures in American history. In Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and throughout the rest of Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas, there are similar figures. The Duke of Wellington, one of Britain's greatest generals, made his name by defeating Napoleon at Waterloo. He rode this fame all the way to 10 Downing Street, becoming prime minister. Winston Churchill served more than 62 years in the British Parliament and held virtually every major cabinet position in government. Yet, his "finest hour" was during the Second World War when he led his country against Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. These figures in history "understood the use of violence and did not shrink to use it for their ends."8

          While warfare is a regular occurrence in history, its frequency alone does not fully answer why military history is valuable to the everyday citizen who does not plan to serve in the military. The simple answer is this: not everyone who ended up in a war ever planned to be in one. Today's civilized man would prefer diplomatic measures to military ones. Still, leaders with the most peaceful intentions have found themselves in war. Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt ran on campaign platforms promising to keep the United States out of conflict, yet these were America's leaders during the world wars. Neville Chamberlain did all he could to peacefully deal with Adolf Hitler, but still found himself in war. This is why understanding war, even if one does not intend to fight one, is important. Most of today's militaries are not led by those with a strong military background. In fact, save for President Nicolas Sarkozy's experience in the French Foreign Legion, the leaders of the G8 community of nations lack any military experience whatsoever.9 Without experience, these leaders must rely on military history and on their generals--all of whom, by virtue of their experience and education must have a firm grasp of military history--to guide them in the event that diplomacy fails. These men, elected by a populace with generally little military experience, control some of the most powerful armies in the world. Their need to understand the history of warfare is crucial. Granted, understanding how the English dominated the French with the longbow during most of the Hundred Years War may not be important, but understanding the importance of technology, tactics, and strategy is key. President Barack Obama need not look any further than Abraham Lincoln, a figure he is often compared to, to understand how decisions made by the Commander in Chief can determine the success and length of a war. For example, why did President Lincoln go through four different generals before he found Ulysses S. Grant, a man who could win battles? How did the decisions made by Grant's predecessors mount losses by the North and prolong the war? Knowing where his predecessors have failed gives the President a greater understanding and recognition of how not to repeat their mistakes.

          Military history's value is hard to understate. The professional soldier can obviously extract plenty of value, but the civilian can gain much as well. The history of warfare is the oldest of histories. It is important to understanding the world we live in today. More importantly, most voters lack any military experience, yet elect leaders--with predominately the same lack of experience--to control the most powerful armies in the world. These leaders will determine if and how their countries will wage wars. These decisions will affect the future of civilizations. Military history fills in the gap where personal experience is sorely lacking. As warfare continues to influence our world today, we who study military history must continue to learn, and to teach, the lessons demonstrated in history.

          Military History Book Reviews

          Nick Bryant's The Franklin Scandal is, among other things, an investigative tour de force. Bryant tracked down and interviewed many of the victims. He crossed referenced his interviews along with many previous ones in order to determine the witnesses' veracity. He also provides 100 pages of documentary evidence, including rare primary sources, in the book's appendix. He painstaking concern with detail is necessary given the massive cover-up of the crimes he documents.

          The Franklin Scandal is named after Omaha, Nebraska's Franklin Community Federal Credit Union. It was managed by Lawrence (Larry) King (no relation to the cable news guy). Franklin Community was closed by the feds in November 1988 as part of the savings and loan debacle. King would go to prison for looting over $40 million from its depositors and creditors. King was a prominent member of the Republican Party and sang the National Anthem at its 1984 convention. From his Georgetown townhouse, he lavishly entertained Republican big shots.

          Franklin was also a front for a national pedophile ring. As the Nebraska state legislature dug into Franklin's sordid operations, the witnesses multiplied. The state hired private investigator Gary Caradori to ferret out the facts and get the witnesses on record. Caradori tracked down King's photographer. As with Jeffrey Epstein, King's perversions augmented his career as blackmailer of the rich and powerful.

          As Bryant documents, it is clear that Caradori had acquired either photographs or video of the crimes. Before Caradori could deliver the evidence his Piper Saratoga broke apart and fell out of the sky. Both Caradori and his son were killed. Both the FAA and the NTSB showed a complete lack of curiosity on why the aircraft just broke up during flight. His briefcase was not recovered from the wreckage.

          The next step of the cover-up involved the FBI coercing victims to recant the video taped testimony they had given to Caradori. In typical FBI fashion, they attempted to frame Caradori as a shake-down artist seeking to cash in on the scandal. However, they had not reckoned with Alisha Owen. She refused to recant her statement. Bryant devotes much space on how the FBI, Nebraska State Police and the Omaha Police Department pressured her. By the way, the Omaha chief of police was one of her rapists.

          The state charged Owen with perjury. Her younger brother Aaron was picked up for joyriding. He had the book thrown at him. Then, he was found hanging in his cell. His death was determined a suicide. Of course, it was. Bryant further documents how Owen's first attorney committed a host of offenses that including colluding with the FBI and breaking privilege. None of this mattered, the kangaroo court found her guilty. Bryant meticulously reviews the court transcripts illustrating this obscene miscarriage of justice.

          The state of Nebraska was desperate to substantiate the narrative that it was all just a "carefully crafted hoax." Too many influential people and institutions were involved. For example, Boys Town located just outside Omaha. Bryant tracked down several alumni of Boys Town. They stated that it was used as a hunting ground by the pedo gang. They would recruit boys from Boys Town and then pimp them out for sex parties held for well-heeled garbage. In 1990, few believed such charges brought against a venerable institution. Today, the accusation that the Catholic Church was/is covering up a pedophile ring at Boys Town is not so far-fetched.

          It was the FBI that took point on covering up their political masters' mess. Because, this scandal reached directly into the White House. Remember Larry King's Georgetown townhouse? His pedo ring operated in Washington D.C. He was linked to Craig Spence. Craig Spence ran his own pedo/blackmail ring in D.C. He was conveniently found suicided on 10 November 1989. According to the NY Times, so we know it's true, "Mr. Spence arranged at least four midnight tours of the White House, including one on June 29, 1988, on which he took with him a 15-year-old boy whom he falsely identified as his son."

          We are to believe that a single security guard allowed Spence into the White House for a small bribe. The White House has at least three controlled entry points before anyone can actually enter the building. Every one of those doors/gates are on camera, which are monitored 24/7. The grounds are patrolled by guards who have automatic weapons and attack dogs. The Secret Service has its patrols inside. Cameras are everywhere. But, this Spence character and his sex slave just wandered around the White House in the middle of the night without anyone noticing. Well, that's their story and they're still sticking to it. The Bush administration was ruthless and desperate to cover this up. You do the math.

          In 1993, British television produced a documentary that was scheduled for airing on the Discovery Channel. It was killed and never aired. Here is the "rough draft" without final editing.

          Nick Bryant states that he was investigating the bizarre Finders Cult, which led him to Franklin. The Finders was a murky cult that was involved in child trafficking in the 1980s. Only recently has the FBI deigned to release information on it. The US Customs Service was involved because of its expertise in human trafficking at the time. Its full report is available here in PDF. The conclusion makes for interesting reading. This is an official US Customs Service report:

          "The individual further advised me of circumstances which
          indicated that the investigation into the activity of the FINDER
          had become a CIA internal matter. The MPD report has been.
          classified secret and as not available for review. I was advised that the FBI had withdrawn from the investigation several weeks prior and that the FBI Foreign Counter Intelligence Division had directed MPD not to advise the FBI Washington Field Office of anything that had transpired.
          No further information will be available. No further action will be taken.
          No action to be taken on the basis of this report."

          This is a deep rabbit hole. Apparently, the Customs Service stumbled upon the CIA's Operation Midnight Climax (seriously) which was/is part of MK Ultra. The CIA operated brothels in the USA for blackmail purposes and to further research into mind control. The CIA stated during the Church Committee that they're not doing that anymore. So, there's nothing to worry about. From Wikipedia:

          "The project that started in 1954 consisted of a web of CIA-run safehouses in San Francisco, Marin County, California and New York City. It was established in order to study the effects of LSD on unconsenting individuals. Prostitutes on the CIA payroll were instructed to lure clients back to the safehouses, where they were surreptitiously plied with a wide range of substances, including LSD, and monitored behind one-way glass."

          As with the above mentioned cases, it should go without saying that the legal "system" will take no official notice of Hunter Biden's antics. These are the same people who claim that Pizzagate is nothing but a conspiracy theory. Pay no attention to the Podesta brothers sick "art" and extensive use of pedophile argot.

          The examples are almost endless: from the Clintons' Haitian connections to Hollywood's long standing agenda to normalize child porn from Pretty Baby (1978) to Cuties. There's the anti-Trump Lincoln Project revelations. There's Mark Foley, Dennis Hastert, Jimmy Savile, Anthony Weiner, Rotherham, Penn State.

          There's the truly horrifying case of the Circle S Ranch. From 1953 to 1978 the states of California and Arizona turned over "troubled boys" to the perverts and sadists Leo and Ella Stein. When a boy who ran away was found dead in the desert, nothing happened. Saying this case has been Memory Holed is an understatement. Little about it can be found on the internet. In 1980, NBC aired a documentary on the Circle S Ranch. Part of it has been uploaded onto You Tube. And, that's about it.

          When anyone says that the Franklin Scandal is just a "conspiracy theory," remind them that there are a lot of dots to connect. The West's ruling elite seem to have little problem with pedophilia or human trafficking. More evidence can be found on the American southern border.

          Watch the video: Το ελληνικό τυφέκιο και ο Λαρισαίος οπλουργός


  1. Sanborn

    Excellent thinking

  2. Blaize

    I'm sorry, but, in my opinion, they were wrong. Let us try to discuss this. Write to me in PM, it talks to you.

  3. Benn

    Don't try the torture.

  4. Fezuru

    There are other drawbacks

  5. Yvon

    What excellent topic

  6. Walworth

    What impudence!

  7. Fezuru

    Nicely written, I liked it.

Write a message