Counter Information

The Tip of the Iceberg: Israel. The Historical Role of The Rothschilds

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 22 Jul 2025 20:45:00 -0400

Global Research, July 22, 2025

The genocidal monster Netanyahu is not a new creation. He was an aide to his murderous master, Ariel Sharon. He has been directly or indirectly governing Israel and the USA for 30 years. The fact that he has been governing the US has become abundantly clear during the Trump era. With Epstein and other blackmail teams he has formed over the past 30 years, all the perversions of US elites and presidents have been documented and are now being recklessly used to fuel a world war.

Before them, there were hundreds of murderers and terrorists like Netanyahu in the state of Israel.

So who is using Israel?

The Rothschild dynasty, the bankers who financed wars in Europe for nearly 500 years, spearheaded the establishment of Israel.

In an interview before his death, the elder Jacob Rothschild openly stated, “Our family founded Israel.”

In fact, it was founded in Istanbul. It’s a long story, and I’ll discuss it in another article.

The Rothschild dynasty is also closely connected to the British Royal Family.

The City of London financial center, where 80 percent of the world’s money laundering comes from, is a private sphere with its own laws and regulations and is under the control of the Rothschild family.

Jewish banking capital city played a significant role in Lord Palmerston’s proposing the idea of Israel in the mid-1800s. And of course Benjamin Disraeli.

The Balfour Declaration in 1917 is a result of these facts.

Balfour Declaration

Nuclear War A la Mode? Trump and Netanyahu Conspire to Destroy Iran. Dr. Philip Giraldi

Yes, the idea of Zionism originated in British politics, but back then, just as today, it was the Rothschild dynasty that controlled British politics from shadows. For example, the idea of NATO was conceived in the 1930s by a royally-backed think tank founded by British capitalists like Rothschild and Cecil Rhodes (round table) and implemented after the war.

The goal is always the same: to penetrate the impenetrable, to penetrate untouchable places and acquire new colonies. They began with communism and then, geopolitically, they invaded every place they couldn’t capture. NATO and Israel are essentially at the service of global finance capital—simply put, the Rothschild house. Netanyahu is the most important actor in the Greater Middle East Project with the “Clean Break” project he imposed on the US in 1997. Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and now Iran have all been devastated, driven to fragmentation under Netanyahu’s coordination.

Netanyahu, having reached the end of his political career, is now seeking to start another major war. He will overthrow the al-Qaeda militants he supported in Syria and replace them with SDF/YPG/PKK forces. Then, using his domestic political clout in Turkey, he will force Ankara to accept this. He will then incite an attack on Iran.

Trump is already in Netanyahu’s back pocket.

If we look at the structure in Turkiye, we see that all the projects of NATO and Israel have been realized.

As can be seen from the recent Iranian attack and the abandonment of Libya and then Syria, Israel, which has also signed a secret immunity agreement with Russia, sees little obstacle in its path. Unless China pulls off a surprise, of course!

However, the world is changing rapidly, and Netanyahu is in a hurry.

The US is weakening, the G-7 can no longer claim to be the world’s leader, and the BRICS, albeit lamely, are drawing a new geopolitical and economic map. Global finance capital currently operates solely on dirty money, constantly trying to prevent the financial bubble they’ve been inflating since 2008 from bursting. That’s why they want to start a world war.

Netanyahu will eventually attack Iran, and neoconservative NATO will eventually target Turkiye. But it appears the wheels of history are no longer moving in the West’s favor. The West can no longer produce as it once did, nor can it control the world and the seas. Things can’t work solely on free cash and financial games.

The technocratic neo-feudalism project launched by the Western wealthy with the pandemic and now under the pretext of climate change is also highly unlikely. Because they know this, they’ve effectively strung Netanyahu along, the tip of the imperialist terror iceberg. He’s accompanied by Trump, a half-witted lunatic who’s clearly been held captive by the Epstein files.

I hope China and Russia are aware of the gravity of the situation.

I expect a world war in 2025-2026. It will be earlier than 2030, as predicted.

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Hüseyin Vodinalı completed master’s degree (MA) in journalism and TV production at the New York Institute of Technology in the USA between 1992-94. During the same period, worked as the New York and United Nations correspondent of Anadolu Agency and TRT. He worked as a diplomacy and defense correspondent on Turkish national TV channels since 1995. Served as the Chief of Foreign News at TRT, the Turkish State/Public Television. Retired from TRT in 2020. He still regularly publishes geopolitical articles on Veryansıntv.com and Dağarcık Turkiye, news and commentary sites. Author of three boks in Turkish: “Covid 19 – Beyond a Virus”, “NATO as a Mandate Organization” and “Epstein Scandal – Mossad’s Global Blackmail”.

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.

The original source of this article is Global Research

https://www.globalresearch.ca/tip-iceberg-israel/5895667

Counter Information publish all articles following the Creative Commons rule creative commons. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.

Follow @counter_infor

Selected Articles: Screaming – Nuclear War Is Coming! “All this is made up to scare you.”

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 22 Jul 2025 20:43:00 -0400

By Global Research News

Global Research, July 22, 2025

Screaming – Nuclear War Is Coming! “All this is made up to scare you.” Peter Koenig

By Peter Koenig, July 21, 2025

Fear achieves making people submissive, obedient, as they are afraid of authorities, of the unknown their beloved authorities may bring and so they give in against their own interests. In the case of yelling “nuclear war is coming,” people suddenly turn to NATO for fake security, as they believe war will bring them Peace.

Impotent Effusions: The Joint Statement on Gaza. Dr. Binoy Kampmark

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, July 22, 2025

The calls to end the war in Gaza grow in number, even among Israel’s allies, but little in substance is being done about it. What matters are statements that speak to a wounded conscience that do little to alter anything on the ground.

Do Trump, Netanyahu, and Their Ilk Believe They Are Virtuous? Edward Curtin

By Edward Curtin, July 22, 2025

That the United States of America is controlled by a criminally perverse, two party ruling class should be obvious to any reasonable (not rational, for the above-named people are very rational) person not living in what Jean-Paul Sartre, the French existential writer, called bad faith (mauvaise foi).

Suffer Little Children — Poisoned by Pesticides and Damaged by Ultra-Processed Foods. Colin Todhunter

By Colin Todhunter, July 22, 2025

Baskut Tuncak is a prominent expert and advocate in the field of human rights and environmental law. He has served as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights and hazardous substances and wastes, where he highlighted the human rights impacts of pollution, toxic chemicals, and hazardous waste on vulnerable populations, including children.

Gaza Gripped by Catastrophic Famine amid Prolonged U.S. Inaction

By Steven Sahiounie, July 22, 2025

The news is the same each day about Gaza. More deaths, more starvation and more suffering. Yesterday, at least 32 people were killed and more than 100 injured after Israeli troops opened fire on crowds of starving Palestiniansat a free food distribution hub in southern Gaza, the only free food available in all of Gaza.

The Impact of the Collapse of Neoliberalism on Global Geopolitics and Türkiye. “The U.S. Is No longer a Super Power.” Admiral Cem Gürdeniz

By Ret Admiral Cem Gürdeniz, July 21, 2025

Neoliberalism appears to have collapsed ideologically, but it still retains its political influence. But state ownership is getting stronger. Expropriation in areas such as water, energy and transportation is on the agenda again. While the role of the state is gaining importance again with inflation and crises, discussions on the transition to the public model are spreading, even if democratic-socialist alternatives do not reach the hegemonic level.

The Russiagate Plot Against Trump. Dr. Paul C. Roberts

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, July 21, 2025

Tulsi Gabbard, Director of US National Intelligence, has the evidence that proves former President Obama and his highest officials orchestrated a conspiracy to manufacture fake evidence that could be used to convict President Trump of colluding with Putin to steal the presidential election.

The original source of this article is Global Research

https://www.globalresearch.ca/selected-articles-screaming-nuclear-war-coming-made-scare/5895682

Counter Information publish all articles following the Creative Commons rule creative commons. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.

Follow @counter_infor

History of World War II: Operation Barbarossa, Consequences of the Wehrmacht’s November 1941 Orsha Conference, Advance on Moscow Resumes

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 22 Jul 2025 20:42:00 -0400

By Shane Quinn

Global Research, July 22, 2025

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

This important article by historian Shane Quinn was first published on December 21, 2025

***

On 13 November 1941 a significant conference was convened in Nazi-occupied Belarus, at the city of Orsha, in order to decide whether the Wehrmacht should resume its advance on Moscow, or go over to the defence for the winter.

The German Army Group North and Army Group South commanders, Ritter von Leeb and Gerd von Rundstedt, both wanted to switch to a solid defensive line, and thereby rest on the territorial gains made against the USSR up until mid-November 1941. Hindsight is useful but their views were undoubtedly correct.

Field Marshal von Leeb, who had no fondness for the Nazis being a staunch monarchist and catholic, was also considered a world authority on defensive warfare, and his opinion should especially have been heeded. Some of von Leeb’s early writings on defensive warfare were translated into Russian, and had even been incorporated into the Soviet Army’s Field Service regulations of 1936, according to Samuel W. Mitcham, the American military historian. Von Leeb himself believed, “Defence is mostly the necessary recourse of distress; the defenders are nearly always in a critical position”.

Already on the night of 11 November, the temperature just west of Moscow had dropped to minus 20 degrees Celsius. Because of Nazi arrogance and negligence, Wehrmacht troops were not furnished with winter clothing, nor did they have basic medical and military supplies. They were in no condition to fight a winter war that could succeed. Some German soldiers resorted to stealing the felt boots, fur caps and long great coats from dead Russian troops. Regardless, more and more Germans were exiting the battlefield due to frostbite, severe cases of which were first recorded on 7 November 1941.

The Army Group Center commander, Fedor von Bock, had a different opinion to von Leeb and von Rundstedt. Army Group Center was tasked with capturing Moscow and bringing the war to a successful conclusion. Driven by personal ambition and his hope that the Russians were almost finished, Field Marshal von Bock, ignoring the fierce weather and weakened state of his army, insisted that the march towards Moscow should continue.

Adolf Hitler supported this stance. As did the Army High Command Chief-of-Staff Franz Halder, who said at the Orsha meeting that “the enemy is worse off than we are; he is on the verge of collapse”.

Hitler, Halder and von Bock were influenced too by recollections of the First World War. Haunting the Orsha conference like a ghost was the German memory of the September 1914 Battle of the Marne which, it is no exaggeration to say, cost the German Empire victory in World War I. During the Battle of the Marne in northern France, possible German success was thrown away due to a lack of resolution. Though the past usually has lessons to teach, they can be misunderstood, and the similarities are few between the Battle of the Marne and the German position in the late stages of Operation Barbarossa.

It was agreed, therefore, that the advance on Moscow would resume, as it did on 15 November 1941. In awful conditions the Germans struggled forward, pushing Soviet forces back to the Volga Reservoir, about 75 miles north of Moscow. On 22 November Panzer Group 3 entered Klin and promptly captured it, 52 miles from Moscow. On 24 November the town of Solnechnogorsk fell, 38 miles north-west of the Russian capital.

On 27 November 1941 the 7th panzer division formed a bridgehead over the Moscow-Volga Canal; and also on 27 November, the 2nd SS panzer division Das Reich captured Istra, a mere 31 miles from Moscow. However, as of 26 November the Germans had suffered 743,122 casualties; taking into account illnesses and those unavailable through frostbite, the number would slightly exceed 750,000 German casualties in early December 1941. This total is obviously high but, in comparison, Red Army casualties amounted to almost 5 million by the end of 1941, more than 6 times greater than German losses.

In late November 1941, it was becoming clear that the possibility of the Germans capturing Moscow was a slim one. During the first two weeks of November, Joseph Stalin had dispatched 21 fresh Soviet divisions from Siberia and Central Asia to the Moscow sector. Before on 5 October 1941, Stalin had decided to create a strategic reserve of 10 armies, most of which were retained for the counter-offensive that was soon to come. The Germans had barely any new divisions to throw into the fighting. The weakened Luftwaffe previously failed to eliminate the Trans-Siberian rail line, across which the fresh reserves of Soviet troops had been transported.

On 28 November 1941, Panzer Group 3 established a foothold over the Moscow-Volga Canal, but it could proceed no further. Over 100 miles to the south of Moscow, the 2nd Panzer Army was unable to capture the city of Tula. This meant that the planned German pincers envelopment of Moscow, from the south-east and the north-west, could not now be implemented. In the first week of December 1941, Panzer Group 4 pushed a division to within 18 miles of Moscow but it was halted by Soviet resistance.

81 Years Ago: Battle of Moscow, Soviet Counterattack

With a last throw of the dice Hitler decided, as Moscow could not be taken by encirclement, that he would wipe the city out by flooding it with water. Hitler compiled an order that was sent to the 33-year-old SS Obersturmfuehrer Otto Skorzeny, who would become one of the most famous – or infamous – soldiers of the war. Hitler’s order expounded that Skorzeny’s unit, belonging to the Das Reich panzer division, should advance to capture the sluices of the reservoir on the Moscow-Volga Canal. They would thereafter open the sluices and “drown” Moscow by turning it into a gigantic artificial lake.

By the start of December 1941 Skorzeny and his men, though they could see the spires of Moscow and the Kremlin in their binoculars, were waist deep in snow and could not advance to carry out Hitler’s order. Skorzeny complained how “in spite of the confusion of our logistics and in spite of the bravery of the Russian soldiers, we would have taken Moscow in the beginning of December 1941 if the Siberian troops had not intervened. In the month of December, our Army Group Center did not receive a single division as reinforcement or replacement”.

Image on the right: Nazi Germany invading the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa, June 22, 1941. Contunico © ZDF Enterprises GmbH, Mainz

On the night of 4 December, the temperature near Moscow plunged to minus 31 degrees Celsius and, 24 hours later, the thermometer sank lower still to minus 36. The German soldiers were fighting desperately in the evergreen woods that lay around Moscow, and further progress was impossible. With this halt the truth suddenly hit home.

Army Group Center’s final effort to take Moscow had failed, and the failure left it in a most dangerous position. They were holding a front around 600 miles in breadth, and against an enemy which, though it had suffered unprecedented losses, seemed if anything to be growing stronger. The Soviet counter-attack was launched on 5 December 1941, timed beautifully to strike the Germans at their weakest moment.

For all of the vast extent of front, von Bock’s army had in reserve a single, understrength division. This was military redundancy, the result of German overconfidence along with Hitler and the high command’s willingness to gamble recklessly. Like players who continually doubled their stakes, they faced ruin should the dice fall the wrong way.

With the temperature below minus 30, the panzers and trucks were becoming immobile because the oil in their sumps was freezing solid, and the Germans had very little antifreeze. Their horses were dying from the cold, and the Wehrmacht was still heavily reliant on these animals for transportation. Even the lubricating oil in guns and other weaponry was starting to freeze, rendering them unserviceable. Out of the 26 trains per day, which the German logistics staff calculated were necessary to maintain Army Group Center, only eight to 10 trains were arriving every 24 hours.

So much for the successful eight week campaign envisaged in Barbarossa’s planning. From the German viewpoint, the invasion could only be regarded as a monumental failure. The objective had been to secure a 1,300 mile line from Archangel, in the far north-west of Russia, to the Caspian Sea – running eastwards of Moscow and including nearly all of European Russia. As December 1941 began, the reality was that the depleted German divisions stood outside of Moscow and Leningrad, Soviet Russia’s two largest cities; while to the south, German forces were stopped 300 miles west of the Caspian Sea. Neither had the Caucasus region been penetrated, following the German retirement from Rostov-on-Don on 2 December.

What were the reasons for the inability to accomplish any of these aims? No single cause can be put forward but some are more important than others. Barbarossa’s strategic planning was inadequate and amateurish. It called for an offensive across an extremely broad front, which served to dilute the force of the attack, and give the Soviet Army time to recover from the opening blows. With Hitler’s mark all over it, the German high command had attempted to reach too many targets at the same time (Leningrad, Crimea, Caucasus, Murmansk, Kiev, Moscow, Donbass).

Mitcham observed, “By sending them racing all over Russia, Hitler had contributed greatly to the wear on his panzers. Tank units had less than 50 percent of their authorized strength when Operation Typhoon, the final drive on Moscow, began”.

Moscow ranked as Soviet Russia’s most important city. Apart from being the USSR’s biggest urban area, the capital was its communications, transportation and administrative hub, which enabled each part of the Soviet Army front to be reinforced. Moscow was a vital industrial center and it headquartered the country’s all powerful leader, Stalin.

From the invasion’s outset on 22 June 1941, had Army Group Center been directed towards Moscow in a single great thrust – and protected on the flanks by Army Groups North and South – the capital may well have fallen at the end of August 1941. Such strategic thoughts were beyond the Nazi hierarchy, luckily for the world. Two months into the invasion, on 21 August, previous strategic mistakes could have been rectified by assigning Moscow primary importance on that date; but Hitler compounded the errors by reasserting the plan to capture numerous objectives. The advance on Moscow was postponed for what would be a critical six weeks (until 2 October 1941).

When Hitler’s orders of 21 August were forwarded by telephone on 22 August to Field Marshal von Bock, whose goal had been to capture Moscow, he was very upset. He said it was “unfortunate… All the directives say taking Moscow isn’t important!!… I want to smash the enemy army and the bulk of this army is opposite my front!” On 24 August von Bock continued, “They apparently do not wish to exploit under any circumstances the opportunity decisively to defeat the Russians before winter!”

Note the repeated use of exclamation marks by von Bock, a normally cold and unemotional Prussian not given to hysterics. His views here would prove accurate in every sense. General Halder went so far as to say that Hitler’s 21 August directive “was decisive to the outcome of this campaign”; and in December 1941 von Bock, having seen his prediction come true, again lambasted the 21 August directive, calling it “a terrible mistake”.

There were some other factors, perhaps secondary, behind the German failure. Russian resistance, military capacity, and resources were much greater than the Nazis had anticipated. Overall, the quality of Soviet military hardware was impressive, in particular the T-34 medium tank and KV heavy tank. Yet in 1941 there were, combined, only about 2,000 T-34 and KV tanks available to the Soviets, and most of these had been destroyed before winter by the enemy.

British historian Evan Mawdsley wrote, “In 1941 the Germans were able to cope with the superior number of Soviet tanks, by means of some excellent towed anti-tank guns. The 88mm, which was actually a heavy anti-aircraft gun, gave the Wehrmacht the firepower to knock out even the T-34 and KV”. Consequently, the high standard of Soviet armour, in some instances superior to the German, was not a decisive factor in 1941 when the crucial fighting was unfolding.

The Nazis faced increased resistance, at least in part because of the brutality of their rule in the conquered regions. In the Ukraine, for example, the Wehrmacht had initially been welcomed as liberators by a considerable part of the population. Before long, potential allies would evolve into implacable enemies when the true face of Nazi occupation was revealed, and this certainly did not help the Wehrmacht’s cause.

The size of the Soviet landmass, far larger than western Europe where the Germans were triumphant the year before, is a sometimes overlooked factor in Barbarossa’s failure but it was important. The terrain’s vastness was enhanced by German strategic blunders. The Soviet road network was much inferior when compared to the road system in France. This proved a hindrance to the Germans, especially when the heavy rains arrived in the second half of October 1941, turning the ground into rivers of mud.

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree and he writes primarily on foreign affairs and historical subjects. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Sources

Niklas Zetterling, Anders Frankson, The Drive on Moscow 1941 (Casemate Publishers; First Edition, 19 Oct. 2012)

Samuel W. Mitcham Jr., Hitler’s Field Marshals and Their Battles (Guild Publishers, 1988)

Evan Mawdsley, Thunder in the East: The Nazi-Soviet War, 1941-1945 (Hodder Arnold, 23 Feb. 2007)

Ian Johnson, “August 2017: Stalingrad at 75, The Turning Point of World War II in Europe”, Origins, Current Events in Historical Perspective

Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s General: The Life of Georgy Zhukov (Icon Books, 2 May 2013)

Andrew Roberts, The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War (Harper, 17 May 2011)

Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 April 1985)

R. Ording, The Churchill Equation (Dorrance Publishing Co., 3 April 2018)

Featured image: Troops of the 158th Rifle Division fighting near the Vitebsk railway station during the assault on the city (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

The original source of this article is Global Research

https://www.globalresearch.ca/operation-barbarossa-consequences-wehrmacht-november-1941-orsha-conference-advance-moscow-resumes/5763297

Counter Information publish all articles following the Creative Commons rule creative commons. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.

Follow @counter_infor