Conspiracies: The Facts * the Theories * the Evidence (13 page)

‘Enabling Act’ the Nazis wanted, which would effectively grant

the chancellor absolute power over the Reichstag
parliament (meaning ‘imperial diet’, or assembly), was being held back by

justifiably concerned voices, especial y among the Communist

opposition. Without a catalysing event to justify the desired Act –

lawful only in times of extreme emergency – forcing through such

a measure while holding only 32 per cent of the Reichstag seats

was going to be difficult. Serendipity, however, suddenly made

that task easier.

In the early hours of 27 February 1933, a fire broke out in

Berlin’s Reichstag building. The flames soon gutted the central

structure and caused substantial damage. Inside the building,

police apprehended the Dutch Communist and political agitator

Marinus van der Lubbe. Four leading members of the Communist

Party were soon rounded up and arrested for good measure. To

Nazi propagandists the situation was categorical: the fire clearly marked the first phase of a major Communist uprising which

threatened to destabilize the country and undermine parliament.

Emergency legislation took effect almost immediately, with mass

detainments across the country, while already-diminishing civil

liberties vanished overnight. The removal of the Communist

73

Conspiracy.indd 73

23/10/2012 15:42:21

conspiracies

Party from both the chamber and the political landscape gave the

Nazis the majority they had sought, and Adolf Hitler was, without obstruction, granted the absolute power he craved.

The circumstances of the Reichstag fire have long raised

the question of whether it was, in truth, a Nazi false-flag

operation, rather than a Communist plot. Why, after al , would

the Communists want to compromise their own position in

parliament, when savage persecution would be sure to follow?

Indeed, it has now become a conspiracy staple to use the phrase

‘the burning of the Reichstag’ in the same breath as describing an event which smel s even slightly of underhand manipulation to

benefit the reputation of a ‘wronged’ party.

For all this, despite the Nazis’ infamous reputation, unlikely

to inspire trust of any kind in their direction, their responsibility for the fire has never been entirely proven. Van der Lubbe was a

known arsonist, certainly, and prone to unpredictable behaviour.

Most agree that he, at least, probably had a hand in starting the blaze. Other defendants were acquitted during the subsequent

trial, but van der Lubbe was found guilty and executed. According to a British journalist present when Hitler arrived to inspect the burned-out Reichstag, the Führer appeared genuinely uncertain

about what had occurred, and what it meant for Germany, while

his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, reportedly did not at

first believe the fire story when telephoned with the news. Given these characters’ propensity towards sly deception, none of this

absolves their potential culpability, but questions have nonetheless been raised about who, precisely, instigated the event.

Was van der Lubbe a patsy, set up by Nazi backers, or simply a lone maverick? Or was he genuinely fronting an ill-advised Communist

plot, as the official Nazi story goes? It has been asserted that a whole group of arsonists must have been present for the fire to have taken so quickly and effectively (using self-lighting incendiaries). Some researchers claim that clues derived from Gestapo archives now

held in Moscow make it very clear that the Nazis were directly

74

Conspiracy.indd 74

23/10/2012 15:42:21

false-flag conspiracies

responsible, albeit through circumstantial records, but others

dispute this. If it
was
a false-flag event, of course, it does not necessarily follow that Hitler and his closest cronies were personal y aware of what was going on. If engineering by New World Order

operatives was occurring, as some have alleged, they may have been the unwitting beneficiaries of a manufactured scheme to elevate

the Nazis in the hope of guaranteeing a major European conflict

further down the line. Either way, the fire was an undisputed gift to Hitler, who described the event as a ‘sign from heaven’, and it tipped Germany into irreversible despotism for over a decade.

It is interesting to note that probable Nazi responsibility for the Reichstag fire has, on the whole, gained mainstream acceptance,

despite many unanswered questions, yet similar false-flag claims

regarding political y useful atrocities such as 9/11, for which

there is more substantial evidence, are dismissed by the media

as deranged fantasies, despite many fundamental restrictions

on freedom also having resulted from them. Society is greatly

influenced by popular archetypes of ‘goodies’ and ‘baddies’, and

our responses appear to be very easily conditioned.

Sometimes, however, potential plots to manipulate conflicts

and conflagrate world events may not always go to plan.

iv) The uss
LIberty

Between 5 and 10 June 1967, long-brewing tensions between

Israel on one side, and Egypt, Jordan and Syria on the other,

boiled over into open conflict through what became known as

the ‘Six-Day War’. Israel’s decision to launch pre-emptive air

strikes against its Arab neighbours rather than wait for incoming action gave the Jewish nation an upper hand which back-footed

its enemies and granted it a decisive victory. Yet, in between

the many complex controversies of the war, which still cause

division today, a particular incident stands out in the pantheon of 75

Conspiracy.indd 75

23/10/2012 15:42:21

conspiracies

conspiracy theories and is held by most truthseekers to be one of the most likely modern attempts, albeit a failed one, at a false-flag manoeuvre.

On 8 June 1967, with the war raging inland, the US navy

‘technical research ship’ USS
Liberty
was cruising north of the Sinai Peninsula in international waters. Official y, the USA

maintained a neutral status during the Six-Day War, but was

monitoring military communications nonetheless. That morning,

several Israeli planes overflew
Liberty
, and the crew assumed that its identity as an American vessel was clear. Yet, around 2.00pm, the ship was suddenly assailed by apparently Israeli forces, from both air and sea. Mirage jets strafed the deck with a variety of

deadly ordnance, including napalm, followed by offensives from a

flotil a of three torpedo boats which arrived shortly after. Unsure at first about who was attacking, the largely unarmed
Liberty
briefly returned fire with machine-gun rounds. But five torpedoes were

launched by the Israelis, one of which struck the vessel, holing the research department and causing heavy casualties.
Liberty
was relatively lucky – it stayed afloat. The ship would almost certainly have been sunk had the four other errant torpedoes hit home.

Further cannon and ammunition fire were received before the

assault was halted.

By the end of this unexpected drama, 34 US crewmen had been

killed, and 171 injured, while the ship itself was heavily damaged.

But why? With its culpability now undeniable, apologies were

quickly transmitted to the US authorities by Israel, claiming that it had all been a terrible mistake. Confused intelligence reports had led them to believe
Liberty
was, in fact, an Egyptian warship. In the heightened state of tension, they couldn’t take chances and so acted decisively. Compensation was soon offered, and rounds of

diplomatic smoothing began. Despite the misgivings of a number

of high-level US military staff and politicians, President Lyndon B

Johnson quickly accepted the official apology, and appeared to wish to sweep the whole matter under the carpet as quickly as possible.

76

Conspiracy.indd 76

23/10/2012 15:42:21

false-flag conspiracies

It is interesting to note that, in Johnson’s later autobiography, the
Liberty
incident warrants no more than a passing mention, with even the casualty figures substantial y and mysteriously lowered

from their true numbers, seemingly to dilute their significance.

Others, however, did not go along with the proffered explana-

tion, not least the majority of
Liberty
’s surviving crewmen, who remain convinced that the Israeli forces must have known full

well that the ship was of US origin. Conspiracy theorists have long been convinced that the attack was a botched attempt to escalate

a local war (if a serious one) into a full-blown international

crisis. However, given that Americans are general y supportive of Israeli versions of events, especial y among the military classes, it is notable that the USS
Liberty
Veteran’s Association also firmly maintains the false-flag stance, and continues to campaign for

justice and a fuller investigation.

With ‘friendly-fire’ tragedies and disastrous intelligence errors apparently a recurring and inevitable part of any large military

conflict, what, then, are the main objections to seeing the
Liberty
event as just another example of such confusion?

The crew’s conviction that the Israelis must have positively identified the US origin of
Liberty
lies in the fact that several low fly-bys were made by Israeli planes in the hours before the assault (as film and photos attest) – low enough that the noise from one of the slower propeller craft actual y rattled the infrastructure of the ship.

Some claim that the pilots even waved to deck crew as the plane

passed. All this time, with just one brief interlude during a change-over, records show that, alongside other clear English-language

markings (significantly different to Arabic characters), very visible US flags were flying – something denied by Israeli reports. The

torpedo boats, at least, in close proximity to
Liberty
, should have realized immediately that it was not an Egyptian adversary.

It is known for certain that at least one Israeli pilot reported the vessel’s identity as American just before the attack, confirmed by a radio communication intercepted by the US embassy in Beirut

77

Conspiracy.indd 77

23/10/2012 15:42:21

conspiracies

– yet the planes were still ordered to fire. It has been implied by Israel that even if the pilots and naval captains in question
were
aware that the vessel was American, their intelligence reports may not have been passed through the chain of command correctly,

in true incompetence-as-caveat tradition, thus failing to stop the onslaught in time. But this is challenged by a number of important observations.

One of the routine combat techniques used by Israeli forces

was to employ signal-jamming devices to block emergency

transmissions from their targets, and
Liberty
’s records show that this occurred during the offensive. But such jamming can only

take place when an enemy’s precise frequency has been identified, which requires extensive pre-attack monitoring of signals. As

each ship in the US navy – as a defence against blanket jamming

– always uses an individual transmission frequency, the
Liberty
’s own must have been listened to, analysed and clearly identified

in advance, or the jamming could not have taken place. This vital point in itself is seen by many researchers as evidence enough

that the ‘accidental’ hypothesis cannot be correct and that Israeli commanders should have known full well what they were firing

at. Significantly, they have never responded to the issue of the

signal jamming.

Other areas raise doubts over the official version of events.

Liberty
was not cruising at a speed which would have identified it as a warship, and Israeli intelligence allegedly compared

reconnaissance images of the ship taken during the morning fly-

bys with international y available data on military vessels (
Jane’s
Fighting Ships
). Israel claims that the US naval attaché in Tel Aviv was contacted to verify the identity of
Liberty
, which informed them that no US ships were in the region; thus it attacked on the basis that the ship must therefore be an Egyptian intruder. But the USA denies that any such enquiry was made. One side or the other

would appear not to be telling the truth. This raises the double

spectre that either covert forces within the USA were secretly

78

Conspiracy.indd 78

23/10/2012 15:42:21

false-flag conspiracies

manipulating
Liberty
into a vulnerable position (
à la Lusitania
) in the hope that it would be attacked for sinister reasons of their own, or that the Israelis lied to cover connivance or incompetence.

Why would Israel want to launch an assault against its

staunchest al y, however? Several ideas have been put forward. One hypothesis states that
Liberty
had been scanning communications that might too soon have revealed Israel’s plans to cross into

Syria via the Golan Heights if they had inadvertently been leaked from the USA to the Syrians, thus losing the crucial element of

surprise. Evidence suggests that the Golan attack (a key element

in the ultimate victory of the Israelis that would have benefited from happening sooner rather than later, although it was a move

opposed by the USA) may have been postponed until after
Liberty
was disabled, thus allowing the action to go ahead unmonitored.