The Global Bankers’ FDR: Conferences (part 5 of 5)

And it continues . . . Dees Illustration

Toomas Trei
Activist Post

In 1941, U.S. and British officials (Hopkins, Hull, Eden, Churchill, Roosevelt) commenced formal and visible meetings with the Soviets regarding post-war boundaries in Europe. Giving back (freeing) any territory that Hitler had offered Stalin in the Soviet-Nazi MRP Pact of 1939, and any other territories that the Red Army would occupy at the end of the War, were non-negotiable from Stalin’s perspective and were officially confirmed to him by the Allies with the October 15, 1939, S-32 agreement.

Many historians look at the Tehran (November 1943) and Yalta (February 1945) Big Three Conferences (Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin) as being the determining events where after tactical negotiations post-WWII borders were drawn up and confirmed. The approach that FDR took at these conferences was to follow the advice of his CFR advisors who were accepting of Soviet totalitarian rule in Eastern and Central Europe.

That would explain why FDR never used the U.S. Lend-Lease aid to the Soviets as bargaining leverage at Tehran or Yalta to help deliver the promise of the Atlantic Charter’s, ‘sovereign rights and self-government’, to those peoples who had them forcibly denied by the Soviets at the end of the War.

What can be said about the Yalta Conference was that it served as a rubber stamp of approval for the ‘de facto’ Soviet occupation of Central and Eastern Europe.


Personal accounts from associates indicate that FDR was charming and could convince and cajole people towards his thinking. After being struck with polio and paralyzed from the waist down in 1921, FDR weakened physically and his stamina was reduced, which would help explain his decision-making style of listening to his advisors, and then making decisions based upon personal opinions. This leadership style would explain why there is little personal documentation from FDR on many important issues.

According to Robert W. Clark, supervisory archivist of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library in Hyde Park N.Y.; “FDR’s thought process … He never wrote memoirs, he wasn’t a reflective kind of guy. This shows him instinctively making decisions that he knew would be for the betterment of the country and world.”[1]

FDR preferred to follow the advice of his personal advisors such as Harry Hopkins, (who has been questioned as a Soviet spy by Eric Breindel in The Verona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America’s Traitors), and Treasury advisors Henry Morgenthau Jr. and Henry Dexter White (whose loyalty to the United States has also been questioned in Major Jordan’s Diaries).

FDR’s non-transparent, non-recorded decision-making process would allow secretive CFR and Masonic influences to be present without detection. General John R. Deane, Secretary of the Combined Anglo-American Chiefs of Staff, commented on FDR’s secretive manner, “For some reason our President often kept our Chiefs of Staff in the dark on those matters until the die was cast.”[2]

Meeting with New York Archbishop Francis Spellman in September 1943 prior to the Tehran conference, FDR indicated that ‘Stalin would receive Finland, the Baltic States, the eastern half of Poland, and Bessarabia.’ FDR stated; “The population of eastern Poland wants to become Russian …. “[3]  Had FDR asked the Finns, Poles, and Balts about this strategy, he undoubtedly would have received answers different from his own thinking.

At least the Finns were able to maintain their independence and freedom by fighting the Soviets to a standstill in the autumn of 1944, (although they lost territory).

At Tehran, “the transcript recounts that “jokingly” FDR said “that when the Soviet armies re-occupied [Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania], he did not intend to go to war with the Soviet Union over this point.” Besides, if an election were held in these three countries, Roosevelt was “personally confident that the people would vote to join the Soviet Union.” However, FDR did not press the issue of having any such free elections.”[4]

That FDR took a cavalier approach with the lives of people in Europe is not a surprise. He took a similar approach towards the lives of American sailors and soldiers by enticing a Japanese attack on an unsuspecting U.S. military at Pearl Harbor, and by ignoring Germany’s 1943 peace overtures which could have spared many U.S. and other allied casualties.[5] In addition, he appeared to have no concern for the American taxpayer, fleecing them of their wealth, and taxing them on behalf of their ‘supposed philosophical enemy’ the Soviet Union.

If FDR truly had wanted to deliver the promise of the Atlantic Charter to the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, he would not have stalled General George Patton’s 3rd Army on its march through Europe preventing it from moving onto Prague and Berlin, thereby leaving Central Europe and its peoples in Soviet hands. (Military historian Robert Wilcox states in his book Target Patton, that anti-communist Patton was on Stalin’s death list, and in the end he was set up by the United States OSS [forerunner to the CIA] to be murdered by Soviet NKVD secret police, because he was threatening to expose allied collusion with the Soviets which cost American lives.)

We will protect your privacy…guaranteed!

FDR’s autocratic approach allowed him to make decisions without explanation, and this enabled him to implement decisions that his handlers/advisors wanted. Thus he could bypass the advice of Secretary of War Henry Stimson and Secretary of State Cordell Hull who recommended taking a harder line against the Soviet Union.[6]

FDR also believed his charismatic ways had won over Stalin at Yalta, when the Soviet dictator signed onto the Declaration on Liberated Europe agreeing to “the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live – the restoration of sovereign rights and self-government.” [7]

However, through his own administration’s reports, FDR was well aware that Stalin had previously never kept any of his promises, and that Stalin’s commitment for free and fair elections in Central and Eastern Europe was more empty rhetoric. For four-term president FDR to complain later that Stalin broke this promise is absurd.

The evidence indicates that FDR’s mentor Woodrow Wilson with his 4 principles, 14 points and League of Nations demonstrated an idealistic and sincere, if somewhat naïve approach in trying to put the world’s geopolitical scene into a gentle order where the weak and strong could coexist in a fair, peaceful manner. 

With the Atlantic Charter, Roosevelt espoused the same principles that Wilson had brought forth, but his dedication to implementing these principles was eclipsed by the pragmatic reality that the international bankers who financed his four presidential elections also had an investment in the success of the Bolshevik-Communist Soviet Union. The bankers’ desire for an economic “new world order”, centralizing the flow of commerce and banking, could be better achieved through large autocratic superpowers, (a new ‘Concert of the World’ similar to the Concert of Europe of 1815), which they controlled, rather than through smaller nations who would be focused on their own national interests. Thus FDR’s post WWII peacekeeping proposal the United Nations, included a larger membership of nation states, with Four Policemen (Great Britain, Soviet Union, China and the United States) as the peace enforcing agency.[8]

The feeble Roosevelt, who was President for an unprecedented four terms, understood what the global bankers required of him and he delivered according to his script. George Bernard Shaw said, “Roosevelt is a communist but does not know it,”[9] and though Roosevelt admitted to having communist friends, his collectivist approach was corporatist, whereby the large financial and industrial economic engines worked closely with the government for mutual benefit. This was an easy path for a weak FDR to follow, as decisions and strategies were implemented by others, with his role merely being the messenger to the people of the United States. His Council of Foreign Relations, Federal Reserve and Masonic advisors preferred to work in quiet anonymity, and as Roosevelt did not keep detailed personal records, so much the better. In summary, it can not be said that Roosevelt was naïve, as his own administration’s departments shared with him the reality of the Soviet system’s murderous and crushing policies, but he chose to ignore or deny them.  Even his ‘gentle’ biographer Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. said of FDR, “he never saw very far into the Soviet Union”[10],  which did not allow him to have any empathy for the peoples he ignored and abandoned to Stalin.

Though son-in-law Curtis Dall thought that FDR was ‘exploited by his advisors’, FDR was well aware of the game and its players. He wrote to Col. House on November 21, 1933, (four days after he issued a presidential decree recognizing the communist government of the Soviet Union); “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson—and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of Woodrow Wilson. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson’s fight with the Bank of the United States—only on a far bigger and broader basis.”[11] This message sent to presidential advisor/handler, and banker friend House, shows that FDR was aware of the strength of the forces, (which Wilson had also acknowledged), controlling U.S. policies and development during the Wilson and FDR presidencies. The end of this message indicated that the fight with the ubiquitous global banks was even ‘bigger and broader’ in 1933 than it was in President Jackson’s time [1836], and one might ‘guess’ that by acknowledging this, he was prepared to fight against its power on behalf of U.S. taxpaying citizens.

This assumption, of course, would be wrong as FDR had already demonstrated his loyalty to this ‘financial element’ by confiscating middle class gold. Less than ten months later, this ‘financial element’ (global bankers) would have their foreign gold holdings’ value increased by 70%. FDR’s ambition, arrogance and vanity were the factors which kept him executing the agenda of these global bankers helping him get elected U. S. President four times! FDR was willing to sacrifice the welfare of U.S. citizens on the altar of personal prestige and power.


In the twentieth century, the global bankers funded the business monopoly and government partnership capitalism (corporatism) in the United States, as well as the tyrannical government communism in the Soviet Union to create another version of the Hegelian dialectic. Their desired synthesis would be that future international political leadership would eventually be transferred to a central controlling agency similar to what Woodrow Wilson with his League of Nations initially proposed, and which would come into being in 1945 with Roosevelt’s initiated United Nations.

From Russia, these bankers were rewarded with great financial returns and they were able to establish absolute political control by eradicating the old order and replacing it with enslaving Marxist philosophy applied with Soviet violence and terror. These policies were dutifully carried out under the steel grip of FDR’s partner Stalin.

Some writers say that Roosevelt was ‘naïve’ dealing with Stalin, but his background and access to information as a four-term President made him well aware of what was happening. He may have been weak, but naïve he was not.

FDR also proved to be no friend of the average American, confiscating gold and silver wealth from the middle class, while sending their boys to fight in distant wars. His support of the Soviets was always personal and urgent, regardless of State department reports which described the atrocities that were occurring in the Soviet Union. Rather FDR used an autocratic approach to have his government’s acquiesce to his unelected advisors’ objectives which had no room for conscience, compassion or justice

Could it be summarized that a stronger power controlled FDR, and he welcomed it because he did not have the stamina to provide leadership? To be physically infirm yet elected United States President four times shows FDR’s support system was powerful, entrenched and happy with his performance. Thus it is fair to say that he was ‘exploited’’ (though voluntarily) as did his son-in-law Curtis Dall.

FDR could also be called a philosophical collectivist ‘fellow traveler’ with the communists as he readily acquiesced to and supported Soviet interests. Is it a coincidence that in 1841, cousin Clinton Roosevelt, [Illuminati follower of Adam Weishaupt], wrote the book Science of Government Founded on Natural Law, which was an important influence on Karl Marx’s 1848 Communist Manifesto?[12]

The FDR-led corporatists in the U.S and the communists in the Soviet Union were both collectivist agents used by the global bankers with which to control those respective financial and political systems. When global bankers’ interests do not coincide with the best interests of a nation; strong, independent, courageous leadership is needed to stand up for the well being of the people.  Unfortunately, for the people of the United States and Europe, FDR was not such a man.

The peoples of Eastern and Central European, whose fate was abandoned to Stalin at the end of World War II, were not actually ‘sold out’ by FDR for obvious personal financial gain; his gains were in political support which enabled him to be a four times elected President. Thus FDR proved to be a useful, trusted puppet of the international bankers pushing enslaving strategies and policies worldwide on their behalf to help implement “a Godless, Dictatorship of the One-Money-One-World-Super State,” in a Novus Ordo Seclorum.[13]

[1]New York Times July 29, 2010, p A12

[2]Butler, S., My Dear Mr. Stalin, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2005, p 7 
[3]Ebeling, R. M.,, part 4
[4]Ebeling, R.M.,, part 3
[5]Dall, C..B., F.D.R. My Exploited Father-in-Law, Christian Crusade Publications, Tulsa , 1968, p 156
[6]Dall, C.B., F.D.R. My Exploited Father-in-Law, Christian Crusade Publications, Tulsa , 1968, p 187
[7]Butler, S., My Dear Mr. Stalin, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2005, p 28
[8]Butler, S., My Dear Mr. Stalin, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2005, p 7
[9]McConnachie, J., & Tudge, R., The Rough Guide to Conspiracy Theories, Rough Guides Ltd., London, 2008, p 363
[10]Butler, S., My Dear Mr. Stalin, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2005, p xi
[11]Epperson, R.A., The Unseen Hand, Publius Press, Tucson, 1985, p 259
[12]Lina, J., Under the Sign of the Scorpion, Referent Publishing, Stockholm, 1998. p 64

[13]Dall, C..B., F.D.R. My Exploited Father-in-Law, Christian Crusade Publications, Tulsa , 1968, p 182

Part 1: The Global Bankers’ FDR: A Communist Fellow Traveller
Part 2: The Global Bankers’ FDR: US Federal Reserve 
Part 3: The Global Bankers’ FDR: Post WWI 
Part 4: The Global Bankers’ FDR: Cats and Mice

Toomas Trei was born in Sweden in 1950 to parents who escaped when the Communists occupied Estonia. His mother always said ‘don’t believe everything that is written about history’.

var linkwithin_site_id = 557381;

linkwithin_text=’Related Articles:’

Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

Be the first to comment on "The Global Bankers’ FDR: Conferences (part 5 of 5)"

Leave a comment