Q&A FOR
THE WORLD-WAR PROVOCATEUR PHENOMENON
POSED AT THE HISTORY CHANNEL’S BLOG
(boards.history.com)
Answers to the following questions are essentially excerpts from The World-War Provocateur Phenomenon by David Malone. My thanks to the History Channel bloggers who participated in this discussion.
QUESTIONS
1. Weren’t
Napoleon, Hitler and Bin Laden very different characters?
2. How do you define a “world
war”? How do the global war of 1812 and
the 9/11 War constitute “world wars”?
3. How does Bin Laden compare in
importance to Napoleon and Hitler?
4. What is a “world-war
provocateur“? Could another “world-war
provocateur” be the obscure character who helped trigger World War I by
assassinating the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne?
5. Isn’t the parallel career chronology
of Napoleon, Hitler and Bin Laden just a “numbers game”?
6. Didn’t the German Revolution start
in November 1918, not 1919?
7. How was the 1983 bombing of the U.S.
marine barracks in Lebanon considered a “coup”? How
was the French Reign of Terror a “coup”? Wasn’t
Napoleon just a marginal figure in
this event?
8. Was there really a French economic
depression in 1799 and a Soviet-Afghan economic depression in 1989?
9. How does Osama's Caliph coronation
as the ruler of Al Qaeda’s shadow empire in 1994 constitute a "major
milestone" in his career on par with Napoleon’s and Hitler's
Emperor/Fuehrer "coronations"?
10. How was America provoked into
Napoleon's war by the British siege of the U.S. merchant fleet? How is this comparable to the Pearl Harbor
and 9/11 attacks? How is a military
attack (such as Pearl Harbor) comparable to a terrorist attack (such as
the
9/11 attack)?
1. Weren’t
Napoleon, Hitler and Bin Laden very different characters?
The World-War Provocateur Phenomenon does not imply that the three world-war provocateurs were identical. It simply highlights the fact that the major milestones of their careers paralleled each other in the precise manner described.
2. How do you define a “world war”? How do the global war of 1812 and the 9/11 War constitute “world wars”?
a. A World War:
We define "world war" as modern phenomenon involving a global projection of military power that triggers a conflict among the majority of the world's leading powers. In particular, a world war occurs when the most powerful nations of the world enter into direct, simultaneous military combat in a multi-continental war. In each of the historical world wars, these nations include the "Big Three" empires of modern Western civilization, the United States, Russia, and Great Britain, along with the rest of Europe. Not just another one of the "disasters of history", a world war constitutes the greatest of history's man-made calamities. Such a planetary emergency threatens the continuity of civilization itself.
b. The World War of 1812:
Commentators on the History Channel itself, along with many other historians, have classified Napoleon's War of 1812 as history's first world war (despite the official designation for the world war of 1914-1918). Napoleon's invasion of Russia was the culmination of his campaign to provoke the most powerful nations of the world to enter into direct military combat in the multi-continental war of his belligerent French empire. These nations included the "Big Three" empires of modern Western civilization, the United States (entry in 1812 following Napoleon's fomentation of a U.S. - British naval conflict), Russia (entry in 1812 following Napoleon's invasion) and Great Britain (entry in 1803 following Napoleon's provocative treaty violations), along with the rest of Europe (nearly all the nations of which had entered by 1812).
In terms of the various Allied military coalitions raised against Napoleon over the years, the world war of 1812-1815 includes the sixth and seventh coalitions (along with the U.S.-British conflict of the same time frame). Just as there existed international coalitions against Hitler and Bin Laden prior to the inception of their world wars, the world wars only began in the 24th year of their career when America, Russia and Britain had all begun direct military conflict in the war. For example, WWII did not begin in 1939, as is often mistakenly observed. The European conflict that precipitated WWII began in 1939 with the Nazi invasion of Poland and the Anglo-French declaration of war on Germany. But only at the beginning of 1942, in the weeks after Hitler declared war on America and merged the Pacific and European theaters, did America begin direct military battle in the war.
c. The 9/11 War
The 9/11 War is a world
war. Many experts have made this classification
since the day of the 9/11 attack. Al Qaeda's global terrorist campaign
and the
global U.S. response encompass the largest geographical scope of any
world war
to date. Counterterrorism analysts concur that this war will definitely
involve
a nuclear conflict. The prospect that the 9/11 War will continue to
escalate
most clearly identifies this conflict as the first world war of the
nuclear
age.
3. How does Bin Laden compare in importance to Napoleon and Hitler?
Even though his war has yet to climax, strong evidence suggests that the provocateur of the 9/11 War is an epic warlord on par with Napoleon and Hitler. For over fifteen years Bin Laden’s guerrilla army has bombed the lone superpower and only grown stronger. In 2007, the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Al Qaeda concluded that the syndicate was "as strong as ever". Despite the damage America has wrought upon the core Al Qaeda organization, its top two leaders still remain at large, communicating to the entire world publicly and to the syndicate in private. Furthermore, Al Qaeda’s numerous affiliate organizations remain essentially in tact since 9/11, and have even swelled their ranks with rising Islamist support for Bin Laden’s global anti-American insurgency. Perhaps most revealing, America's leaders are horrified at the prospect of invading Bin Laden's territory in Pakistan. Nevertheless, a takeover of Afghanistan and Pakistan by a Taliban-Al Qaeda alliance appears increasingly likely. Most glaringly, Al Qaeda poses the most serious threat of nuclear terrorism. Since the millennium, U.S. intelligence has consistently identified Al Qaeda as the single greatest foreign adversary facing the most powerful military in human history.
4. What is a “world-war provocateur“? Could another “world-war provocateur” be the obscure character who helped trigger World War I by assassinating the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne?
By this term, we refer to an individual who willfully triggers a world war in a serious bid to conquer the planet. There is a virtual consensus among historians that Napoleon was the provocateur of the world war of 1812, Hitler was the provocateur of WWII, and Bin Laden was the provocateur of the 9/11 War. Such a designation does not befit the obscure assassin who in 1914 activated the disastrous “alliance system” of world powers, the true culprit behind WWI. Notably, despite its militarism, Germany had no intention of engaging in a world war in 1914. Only its failure to convey this message in time to its ally led to the outbreak of WWI. WWI was not the design of a provocateur, but rather a fluke that revealed the folly of its participants reliance on militaristic coalitions as a guarantee of world peace.
5. Isn’t the parallel career chronology of Napoleon, Hitler and Bin Laden just a “numbers game”?
The pattern of historical dates examined in the World-War Provocateur Phenomenon is more than a simple "numbers game". Relativity and fractal geometry are also “numbers games”, but they have far greater meaning than simple mathematical exercises. The world-war provocateur phenomenon reflects another important mathematical pattern, one involving the most earth-shaking form of man-made emergency. This discovery is worthy of attention. More than just a great academic mystery, the World-War Provocateur Phenomenon provides a means to destroy Bin Laden's reputation as a righteous insurgent leader by depicting him as a modern Hitler.
6. Didn’t the German Revolution start in November 1918, not 1919?
We mark the German Revolution, most notably the Brown Revolution and the Weimar Revolution, from the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. The foundation of the League of Nations in 1919 also distinguishes the broader geopolitical revolution here that we are comparing with the French Revolution of 1789 and the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The end of WWI in mid-November of 1918 did not place humanity on an unavoidable course to the German Revolution, however, the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations did. While the end of WWI in 1918 was a precipitating event for the German Revolution, this was analogous to precipitating events in 1788 that led to the French Revolution.
Moreover, we should not get too bogged down in disputing whether an event occurred a few months earlier or a few months later. The overarching purpose of this examination is to highlight a parallel sequence of events demonstrating the anomalous similarity of the paths that Napoleon, Hitler and Bin Laden each took to provoke their separate world wars.
7. How was the 1983 bombing of the U.S. marine barracks in Lebanon considered a “coup”? How was the French Reign of Terror a “coup”? Wasn’t Napoleon just a marginal figure in this event?
a. The 1983 bombing of the U.S. marine barracks in Lebanon:
This terrorist military coup aimed to unseat the U.S.-backed Lebanese government, the U.S. and Israeli military presence in Lebanon, as well as the leadership inside Radical Islam that appeared to be faltering in the war against the American superpower and its chief Middle Eastern ally Israel. In particular, the massive terrorist bombing was designed to expel the American-Israeli occupation of Muslim Lebanon and deprive its Lebanese collaborators of support from the superpower expeditionary force. The attack killed over two hundred U.S. Marines, America's first modern experience with suicide bombing and Radical Islam's most successful terrorist attack until 9/11. This watershed event in 1983 was the principal catalyst for the withdrawal of the U.S. and Israeli military presence in virtually all of Lebanon during the following year. The Islamist coup to oust the "infidel occupation" worked, and ever since has been lauded as Radical Islam’s greatest success at evicting America and Israel from Muslim lands.
b. The Jacobin "Reign of Terror" coup:
This was a terrorist military coup d' etat to unseat the French Revolutionary government. The public casus belli for the "Reign of Terror" coup was the French Revolutionary regime's complicity in the widely despised Allied military occupation of part of the French Revolutionary nation. This foreign occupation had begun in the previous year, 1792, under the coordination of the leading Western empire, the British Empire.
c. Napoleon’s Role in the 1793 Reign of Terror:
The principal architect of the coup was the infamous Maximillian Robespierre. As another Jacobin leader widely seen as successor to this party-leader, Napoleon provided crucial support to the nascent Jacobin dictatorship with his military victory in the Siege of Toulon where he defeated the 18th century superpower Great Britain. Besides the momentous victory at Toulon, Napoleon further secured his political mentor's successful coup with his military victory at Marseilles, and again with a victory at Avignon three days before Robespierre joined the ruling Committee for Public Safety. While failing to establish a lasting political regime, Napoleon's military victory under Robespierre's auspices gave the French army the momentum and strategic positioning to force the Allied occupation to withdraw from France in the following year.
In recognition of this instrumental support, upon seizing dictatorial powers Robespierre rewarded his protégé with a rapid series of military promotions, from Captain to Major to Brigadier General to Commander of the Interior Artillery, including the command of operations planning for the French army in Italy. In light of these events, Napoleon shared partial credit for the coup with his senior partner, Maximillian Robespierre, whose orchestration of the "Terror" regime established himself as the French head of state until his trial and execution in the following year. In 1794, Napoleon was imprisoned by the revolutionary government in a security crackdown on his Jacobin party for its treasonous Robespierre "Reign of Terror" Coup. Napoleon's value to the embattled French revolutionary army as a top artillery commander earned him a lenient sentence and a premature release within the year. The Jacobin party, however, would have to endure a two-year banishment from the government before reemerging as a public political force.
Marking his first victory over the world's most powerful nation, (1) Napoleon's "salvation" of the revolutionary nation from the British invasion in the context of the Jacobin coup catalyzed his political career from obscurity to national acclaim. (2) During the coup, the Jacobins enacted the "Cult of the Fatherland", outlawing religion in favor of the new patriotism that Napoleon would combine with his spectacular military legacy as France's savior to create his own nationalist cult movement. (3) Napoleon's critical support for his mentor's French Reign of Terror foreshadowed both the innovative military tactics, such as concentrated artillery fire, and the Jacobin terrorist machinations that he would eventually use to seize control of the French government and provoke the World War of 1812.
8. Was there really a French economic depression in 1799 and a Soviet-Afghan economic depression in 1989?
a. The French depression of 1799:
In the fall of 1799, the onset of a French economic depression and massive civil unrest triggered the political instability within the French government that culminated in Napoleon's seizure of power and initiation of the Napoleonic Revolution. In reality, ten years of France's political and social revolutionary upheaval had stagnated economic growth and fomented civil chaos. Additionally, revolutionary France's war against the British-led European coalition had incurred punishing military and economic penalties that coalesced as the economic depression in 1799. The failure of the French revolutionary government to stabilize the explosive economic crisis and stem the tide of civil strife clearly highlighted the fatal weaknesses of the politically factious republic.
From Napoleon and the Awakening of Europe by Felix Markham, 1975, p.42-3: “Internally, the government of the Directory had shown itself to be incurably incompetent, irresolute and divided . . . There is no doubt that the personal incompetence and corruption of the Directors have been exaggerated, and that the difficulties of their situation have not been sufficiently appreciated. They had inherited from the Convention a fearful legacy of debt and inflation, and they had made repeated efforts to restore the currency, balance the budget and ensure a regular revenue by taxation. But all these efforts broke down through the weakness of the central government and the division of power between the Directory and the Councils. Chronic weakness of finance threatened the payment and supply of the armies, and deserters swelled the bands of brigands which infested whole areas of France.” (italics added)
b. The Soviet-Afghan depression of 1989:
In the fall of 1989, the onset of a Soviet economic depression and massive civil unrest throughout the Soviet empire triggered the political instability within the U.S.S.R. that led to the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the cessation of the Cold War and the inception of the post-Cold War geopolitical revolution. The end of the Cold War in 1989 was most powerfully symbolized by the dismemberment of the opening front of the Cold War in Berlin. The fall of the Berlin Wall marked a termination of Cold War hostilities that was officially enshrined with the "Armistice" Malta conference between American President George H.W. Bush and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev. Instead of by military conflict, the Cold War was decided by a competition to build the most expensive military that pitted the stifled Soviet economy against the American capitalist enterprise. Rather than nuclear Armageddon, the loser submitted to economic bankruptcy.
While we can quibble about the technical definition
of an
"economic depression" as applies to this comparative historical
analysis, the overarching parallel here is that in Year 11 of his career
a
major economic crisis facilitated his rise to power.
9. How does Osama's Caliph coronation as the ruler of Al Qaeda’s shadow empire in 1994 constitute a "major milestone" in his career on par with Napoleon’s and Hitler's Emperor/Fuehrer "coronations"?
We acknowledge that Napoleon's and Hitler's rise to emperor occurred at the same point (year 16) in each respective 27-year career. As for Bin Laden's caliph coronation in 1994, this represented his rise to lead a global terrorist empire that has effectively waged war on the lone superpower ever since and in 2007 was classified as being "stronger than ever" by the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate. In retrospect, 1994 marked the establishment of the empire of the world-war provocateur, as 1934 marked the Third Reich and 1804 marked the founding of Napoleon's empire.
10. How was America provoked into Napoleon's war by the British siege of the U.S. merchant fleet? How is this comparable to the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks? How is a military attack (such as Pearl Harbor) comparable to a terrorist attack (such as the 9/11 attack)?
a. The 1811 provocation that prompted America to join Napoleon in war on Britain:
In 1811, America's foremost foreign adversary Great Britain launched a campaign of military attacks in the Atlantic Ocean on thousands of U.S. citizens manning the American merchant marine, forcefully impressing sailors into service in the British Navy and confiscating vessels and cargo. These maritime attacks were the principle provocation that led to America's entry into combat in the incipient world war in Year 24. These attacks were caused by recent U.S. naval developments, including an attack on a USS frigate that had escalated the U.S. naval war with Britain, as well as the establishment of a U.S. economic embargo of Britain in early 1811. America's culpability for its own entry into the world war revealed the Madison Administration's predisposition to declare a state of war in order to invade and conquer areas of Canada. Napoleon played a critical role in instigating the United States to enter his war against Britain in 1812 by carefully fomenting the U.S.-British trade conflict, employing diplomatic and naval machinations that placed the two countries on a path to war.
b. Fundamental parallels between the attacks on America in 1811, 1941 and 2001:
In Year 23, America's foremost foreign adversary launched military attacks from off-land on thousands of U.S. citizens and provoked America's entry into combat in the incipient world war in Year 24. These attacks were caused by recent U.S. naval developments, including an attack on a USS warship and the establishment of a U.S. economic embargo of this foreign adversary. America's culpability for its own entry into the world war revealed by the U.S. administration's predisposition to declare a state of war in order to attack a nation other than the perpetrator of the attack. Napoleon, Hitler and Bin Laden each played a critical role in instigating the United States to enter world war.
c. Comparing 9/11 and Pearl Harbor:
Both attacks were unprecedented surprise aerial bombing attacks inside the United States that killed approximately 2500 American citizens and provoked America's entry into the incipient world war's combat in Year 24. Contrary to some of the confused public dialogue expounded by the Bush Administration about the nature of terrorism, it is in fact a military tactic. While not widely recognized as a legitimate tactic in that it violates standards for the rules of war, terrorism nevertheless constitutes a deceitful military tactic. It is definitely one of the more despicable tactics, like Japanese kamikaze attacks or the aerial bombing of city populations (like London or Dresden).
The most conspicuous parallelism between Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden underscores a far greater collective coincidence: the career timelines of history's three world-war provocateurs share in common a highly unique sequence of earthshaking milestones, constituting a parallel career that spanned twenty-seven years.
Peace on Earth,
David Malone