En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

mercredi, 12 février 2014

The Assassination That Began the Century of War


And it isn’t the one that you are thinking of….

1939 – The War That Had Many Fathers, by Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof.

As mentioned in my first post on this book, the author has been dismissed in Germany regarding his historical views on the beginnings of the Second World War. From what I read in the preface, I found no reason to dismiss his views – and in any case, one can hold wrong views on certain subjects while providing valuable insights in others. It is for these hidden gems that I am reading the book. So, I continue.

I found one of those hidden gems in the first few pages – or is it a wacky assertion from a wrong-headed revisionist? If his point is valid, it provides a valuable insight – at least to me – into the manipulations by the elite at the turn of the last century and leading to the century of war.

The British – German Rivalry

The author begins by pointing to two mistakes by the German politicians prior to 1914 that led to the Great War:

They fail to extend the German – Russian Mutual Protection Pact, and they give to the economic upswing in Germany a maritime component.

The author sees in the first the opening for Russia to be drawn to France, and in the second a challenge to Britain on the seas. There is nothing terribly controversial here – many historians, mainstream and revisionist, have pointed to one or both of these factors.

From Britain’s view, Germany – post unification – was becoming the power on the continent with which it should have concern – replacing France. In various measures, Germany was growing into an economic powerhouse – the production of coal, iron, steel, etc. In 1887 in London, the “Merchandise Marks Act” was introduced, with the hope to attach stigma to products thereafter labeled “Made in Germany.”


Britain viewed it as good policy to keep a balance of power on the continent, thus freeing its hand elsewhere. Germany threatened not only that balance, but now could even threaten Britain itself. Britain’s views changed from seeing France as the primary continental threat to seeing this in in Germany:

On 1 January 1907 a top official of the British Foreign Ministry, Sir Eyre Crowe, drafts “an analysis of British Relations with France and Germany for his King.” … Now and in the future, Crowe concludes, Germany counts as England’s only opponent. (Page 22)

The British will therefore work to isolate Germany in the field of foreign policy, and the author suggests that German blunders provide the opportunity for this.

As mentioned, England previously saw France as its biggest competitor in the colonies; it now reached agreements with France on such matters. A 1904 treaty would coordinate colonial interests. In 1911, the British military promises France the support of six army divisions in the event of war with Germany. And without a proper treaty with Russia, this would one day place Germany in a strong vice.

Germaniam esse delendam to Protect Trade and Transport

Schultze-Rhonhof identifies comments coming out of England and against Germany almost immediately upon the formation of the German Reich in 1871. For example, he quotes Prime Minister Disraeli in a speech before the Lower House:

“The balance of power has been completely destroyed, and the country which suffers the most from this and feels the effect of this change most strongly, is England.” (Page 33)

Deputy Robert Peel adds that Germany has been united under a military “despotism.” (Page 33)

The author laments: “So Germany – just because unified – has already become a danger, and indeed for all of Europe.” (Page 34)

The press gets in on the act:

The London Saturday Review, an upper class journal, writes on 24 August 1895:

“We English have always waged war against our competitors in trade and transport. Our main competitor today is no longer France, but Germany…. In a war against Germany we would be in a position to win a lot and to lose nothing.” (Page 34)

On 1 February 1896 the same journal writes:

“If tomorrow every German were eliminated, there would be no British business nor any English enterprise which would not profit (lit “grow”). If every Englishman were to vanish tomorrow, the Germans would reap gains…. One of the two must quit the field. Get ready for the fight with Germany, for Germaniam esse delendam.” (Page 34)

Germany must be destroyed….

And again on 11 September 1897:

“Everywhere where the English flag has followed the Bible, and trade [has followed] the flag…the German trader fights the English…. States have waged wars for years over a town or rights to a throne; and should we not wage war when an annual trade of five billion is at stake?” (Page 34)

From the Belgian Ambassador in London to his ministry in Brussels on 24 May 1907, quoting Mr. Harmsworth (Lord Northcliffe), publisher of several daily papers in London:

“Yes we hate the Germans and that from the heart…. I will not allow my newspapers to print even the slightest thing that could hurt France. But I would not want them to carry anything at all that could be pleasant to the Germans.” (Page 38)


Is it a surprise to see the press doing the state’s bidding and leading the drumbeats to war?

Finally, Balfour is quoted, in response to the immorality of going to war for the purpose of protecting trade. It is suggested to Balfour: if Britain wants to keep up, work harder!

“That would mean we would have to lower our standard of living. Maybe a war would be easier for us.” (Page 38)

War is most certainly a racket! It is refreshing to know that there was a time when the politicians were more honest about this.

Why Not a British – US Rivalry?

Schultze-Rhonhof also examines the growth of production, trade, and naval resources of several other government powers. He concludes by asking: why does Britain fear Germany, when an even stronger opponent on the other side of the Atlantic, with far greater potential, was beginning to show its fangs?

Thus, the British fears of a threat could just as well have been ignited by North America’s fleet. The USA in regard to its industry and trade is also on track to overhaul England. And since 1898 it is acquiring colonies: Cuba, the Philippines, and Hawaii. (Page 31)

Yes, what gives? Schultze-Rhonhof provides his answer, and in it he identifies the assassination that helped to ensure the upcoming wars would be world wars – meaning the intervention of the United States.

Another reason lies in America’s apparent turning toward England. (Page 32)

By “apparent turning,” Schultze-Rhonhof here is describing what is called The Great Rapprochement:

The Great Rapprochement, according to historians including Bradford Perkins, describes the convergence of diplomatic, political, military and economic objectives between the United States and Great Britain in 1895-1915, the two decades before World War I.

This push for “convergence” was given widespread coverage on both sides of the Atlantic, influencing decision makers in both Britain and the United States.

At the turn of the last century, there was a powerful and well-known book, The Americanization of the World: The Trend of the Twentieth Century, by British celebrity journalist and editor of the Pall Mall GazetteWilliam T. Stead. In it, he predicted America’s inevitable – and providential – domination of the world.


From a conference paper outlining the book:

Stead, a tireless champion of Anglo-Saxon expansion, offered his prediction not in fear but in hope. Together, the United States and Britain would rule the world.

A century ago, Stead’s name was known to the public on both side of the Atlantic and to every prominent official in Europe and America.

As early as about 1870, in the immediate context of German unification, Stead advocated union between the British empire and the United States and came to defend what he called a “true Imperialism” aimed at the peace, security, unity, and humanitarian uplift of the world. In 1884 he campaigned for a larger Royal Navy. He wrote an article for the Pall Mall Gazette entitled “The Truth about the Navy,” attempting to provoke enough alarm over Britain’s vulnerability and Germany’s growing navy and colonial adventures to get Parliament to appropriate the necessary funds for a modern navy. Reading Sir John Seeley’s Expansion of England (1883) about this time inspired him with the idea of imperial federation. The scheme further expanded in his mind to bring the United States into an Anglo-Saxon union, reversing the blunder of George III. This proposal was similar to the campaign for Anglo-Saxon unification (or re-unification) waged by Stead’s friend Cecil Rhodes who famously said that he wanted to “paint the map red” with Britain’s empire. Other sympathizers included the industrialist Andrew Carnegie.

Given the determinism of history, Britain and Europe could either cooperate with the inevitable or wage a losing battle and end up Americanized against their will and without their consent. Germany and the Papacy seemed the most resistant to the Americanization of Europe. But the Kaiser’s bluster was as pointless as Canute’s command to the tide.

Stead saw war by the righteous as a means to bring about global peace.

The Assassination

Back to Schultze-Rhonhof:

Until McKinley’s presidency, the relations of the USA with the German Reich were always friendly and balanced. The English-American relationship, on the other hand, up to then is still burdened by the former British Colonial rule and England’s colonial wars in America.

With the assassination of McKinley in 1901 and the change to the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt a new kind of thinking arises in the USA. (Page 32)

Now this is where I struggled. Schultze-Rhonhof suggests that the change in US policy occurred after McKinley, not before. Yet all of the history I read suggests that McKinley is more like his successors than his predecessors – imperialism and all that. To further make this opaque, the Great Rapprochement is commonly dated as beginning in 1895.

Yet, Schultze-Rhonhof suggests this assassination was a turning point for US-German relations and US-British relations. Counter to McKinley:

Roosevelt and his successor Wilson are clearly anglophiles. They seek partnership with Great Britain. (Page 32)

So what gives? At this point, I had to go fishing.


McKinley vs. Roosevelt: What’s the Difference?

My first clue came here: Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy, by Murray Rothbard

William McKinley reflected the dominance of the Republican Party by the Rockefeller/Standard Oil interests. Standard Oil was originally headquartered at Rockefeller’s home in Cleveland, and the oil magnate had long had a commanding influence in Ohio Republican politics. In the early 1890s, Marcus Hanna, industrialist and high school chum of John D. Rockefeller, banded together with Rockefeller and other financiers to save McKinley from bankruptcy, and Hanna became McKinley’s top political adviser and chairman of the Republican National Committee. As a consolation prize to the Morgan interests for McKinley’s capture of the Republican nomination, Morgan man Garret A. Hobart, director of various Morgan companies, including the Liberty National Bank of New York City, became Vice-President.

The death of Hobart in 1899 left a “Morgan vacancy” in the Vice-Presidential spot, as McKinley walked into the nomination. McKinley and Hanna were both hostile to Roosevelt, considering him “erratic” and a “Madman,” but after several Morgan men turned down the nomination, and after the intensive lobbying of Morgan partner George W. Perkins, Teddy Roosevelt at last received the Vice-Presidential nomination. It is not surprising that virtually Teddy’s first act after the election of 1900 was to throw a lavish dinner in honor of J.P. Morgan.



So McKinley was a Rockefeller man, and Roosevelt (McKinley’s vice-president) represented the House of Morgan. This, at least, is one bit of information that differentiates McKinley from Roosevelt. Of course, it would be somewhat irrelevant had not McKinley met his fate on September 6, 1901 (surviving, and believed to be improving, for eight more days). He was assassinated by a lone gunman; a nut, an “anarchist.”

Here again, I turn to Rothbard: “Investigate the Vice President First

Next president to die in office was William McKinley of Ohio, long-time Rockefeller tool. Another lone nut was responsible, the “anarchist” Leon Czolgosz, who, like Guiteau, was quickly tried and executed by the Establishment. Even though Czolgosz was considered a flake and was not a member of any organized anarchist group, the assassination was used by the Establishment to smear anarchism and to outlaw anarchist ideas and agitation. Various obscure anti-sedition and anti-conspiracy laws trotted out from time to time by the Establishment were passed during this post-McKinley assassination hysteria. Beneficiary? The vaulting to power of Teddy Roosevelt, longtime tool of the competing Morgan (as opposed to Rockefeller) wing of the Republican Party. Teddy immediately started using the anti-trust weapon to try to destroy Rockefeller’s Standard Oil and Harriman’s Northern Securities, both bitter enemies of the Morgan world empire. Exhume McKinley, and also start a deep investigation of the possible role of Teddy and the Morgans. Was Czolgosz only a lone nut?

Perhaps something bigger was afoot…. But I still did not find the connection to this changing attitude toward Britain.


Surprise, surprise. Rothbard provides the answer here as well, from A History of Money and Banking in the United States:

As the nations moved toward World War II, the Morgans, who had long been closely connected with Britain and France, rose in importance in American foreign policy, while the Rockefellers, who had little connection with Britain and France and had patent agreements with I.G. Farben in Germany, fell in relative strength. Secretary of State Cordell Hull, a close longtime friend of FDR’s roving ambassador and Morgan man Norman H. Davis, took the lead in exerting pressure against Germany for its bilateral rather than multilateral trade agreements and for its exchange controls, all put in place to defend a chronically overvalued mark. (Page 344)

Rothbard is speaking here of World War II, but the relationships fit the scenario suggested by Schultze-Rhonhof.

The assassination of McKinley – a Rockefeller man favorable toward Germany – ensured the replacement by Teddy Roosevelt, a Morgan man. Morgan, favorably disposed toward Britain, had his man in place – a move that would ensure the US moves closer to Britain.

This one action helped to ensure a transition of the tool of global power projection, from Britain to the United States – as I have previously describedhere (in the context of the Second World War). Of course, the roots of World War Two are many and deep – including the Great War, and perhaps including McKinley’s assassination.

This transition from Britain to the US is explored further in “The Peaceful Transition of Power from the UK to the US,” by Feng Yongping. In this, there is also further exploration of the evolving relationships amongst and between the United States, Great Britain, and Germany:

With regard to Great Britain, binding itself in friendship with the United States and avoiding the towering costs of conflict also stands out as extremely significant in preserving the nation’s colonial power, which was seemingly on the verge of decline. Germans were predicting during the 1880s or 1890s that the United States would be drawn into war, with Bismark confidently predicting that Great Britain would confront the American navy in the Atlantic Ocean, generating a British – German alliance with a union of naval and land powers of strategic political benefit. In contrast, Great Britain chose reconciliation with the United States.

In 1905, US President Roosevelt told a British diplomat not to let the nightmare of war between English-speaking democracies keep him up at night. Roosevelt said that in preparing for potential outbreaks of war, a fight against Great Britain was not an issue, since it was an impossibility.

The US also provided similar assistance for the British in the Boer War. After conflict broke out there, Theodore Roosevelt promptly expressed his position of support, saying the war completely aligned the interests of the two English-speaking democracies and in turn, the interests of the civilized world, and that English should become the language of southern Zambezia. During the war, the United States presented Great Britain with great amounts of military supplies and extended credit for about 20% of Great Britain’s war expenses.

Selborne, British Lord of the Admiralty, commented that all subjects of the British Empire knew that war with America would be a colossal failure of British diplomacy. Home Secretary A.H. Lee said that he could not even fathom the possibility of the US and Great Britain actually fighting a war. The US President Theodore Roosevelt spoke nearly the same words in 1905, when he stated his belief that the danger of another British – US dispute had not only passed, but was gone forever. Compared with other large nations, he believed the feeling of friendship to be more genuine with England than with any other.

As previously mentioned, Schultze-Rhonhof’s work was dismissed in Germany. Yet, so far, I am finding that he points to events that have import – events not even found in other revisionist works. This connection – McKinley’s assassination as one of the roots of the Great War – is one that I have not read elsewhere.

It is a connection that is supported by Rothbard’s work. Schultze-Rhonhof seems to keep good company. If he is dismissed for reasons similar to those offered to dismiss Rothbard, I certainly will continue with an open mind.

(I thank Charles Burris for being generous with his comments toward one aspect of this post. Any errors in interpretation or historical fact are completely my own.)

Reprinted with permission from the Bionic Mosquito.

The Best of Jonathan Goodwin


mardi, 09 avril 2013

Domnique Venner, l'imprévu dans l'histoire

Domnique Venner, l'imprévu dans l'histoire

dimanche, 24 mars 2013

The death of Hugo Chavez, and the trend of hi-tech assassinations in global politics


The death of Hugo Chavez, and the trend of hi-tech assassinations in global politics

Ex: http://english.pravda.ru/

by Peter Baofu

Hugo Chavez, the Socialist president of Venezuela for 14 years, died on March 05, 2013, after having courageously fought against cancer in the last few months. Media reports superficially stated "heart attack" as the cause. But a troubling question is, Who killed him? This question is not rhetorical, since its answer points to the trend of hi-tech assassinations in contemporary global politics.

In the last few years alone, quite a number of prominent individuals who opposed the policies of some powerful states on the world stage had been targeted for hi-tech assassination, which often leaves no trace behind and can kill the victim silently (often in a slow and painful death), and this kind of silent killing becomes an increasingly preferred form of very sophisticated assassination by some powerful states in our time -- unlike the crude use of shooting by an assassin in the older days. 

For illustration, just consider some controversial cases of both successful and unsuccessful hi-tech assassinations in the past 2 decades, as shown below:

1.  Cristina Kirchner, current president of Argentina, with thyroid cancer in 2011 
2.  Ollanta Humala, current president of Peru, with cancer in the gut in 2011 
3.  Hugo Chavez, former president of Venezuela, with prostate Cancer in 2011  
4.  Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, former president of Brazil, with cancer of the larynx in 2011 
5.  Nestor Kirchner, former president of Argentina, with colon cancer in 2010  
6.  Fernando Lugo, former president of Paraguay, with lymph cancer in 2010
7.  Evo Morales, current president of Bolivia, with cancer in the nasal cavities in 2009 
8.  Dilma Vana Rousseff, current president of Brazil, with cancer in the lymphatic system 
     in 2009 
9.  Alexander Litvinenko, former Russian secret service officer, with polonium-210 
     poisoning in 2006
10. Yassar Arafat, former chair of the PLO, with brain hemorrhage in 2004 
11. Khaled Meshaal, the leader of the Hamas, with the poisonous shutdown of the brain 
     in 1996

Of course, there can be other examples, so the ones above are illustrative, not exhaustive. At first glance, all these cases seem isolated incidents, but, upon closer examination, reveal a growing and disturbing trend of hi-tech assassinations in contemporary global politics, in that all these individuals with the diseases were major opponents of the policies of some powerful states.

For example, the first 8 cases above (cases #1-8) involve some recent leftist opponents of American intervention in South America. This led Mr. Chavez to thus wonder, back in 2011, "Would it be so strange that they [in the U.S.] have invented the technology to spread cancer and we won't know about it for 50 years?" and then added: "I don't know but...it is very odd than we have seen Lugo affected by cancer, Dilma when she was [presidential] candidate, me, going into an election year, not long ago Lula and now Cristina....It is very hard to explain, even with the law of probabilities, what has been happening to some [leftist] leaders in Latin America. It's at the very least strange, very strange," as reported by Tom Phillips on December 29, 2011. 

His friend Fidel Castro in Cuba, who himself had survived hundreds of hi-tech assassination attempts by the U.S. in the past half of a century, therefore gave him some advice: "Chávez, take care. These people have developed technology. You are very careless. Take care what you eat, what they give you to eat...a little needle and they inject you with I don't know what." 

On the day of Chavez's death, Vice President of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, said in an address to the nation that "there's no doubt that Commandante Chavez's health came under attack by the enemy," in that "Chavez's cancer was an 'attack' by his enemies" (meaning the U.S.), as reported by Tracy Connor for NBC News on March 06, 2013. Then, General Jose Ornella, head of Venezuela's presidential guard, "echoed the concern of Vice President Nicolas Maduro that some sort of foul play was involved in Chavez's cancer. 'I think it will be 50 years before they declassify a document (that) I think (will show) the hand of the enemy is involved,' he said. The general didn't identify who he was talking about [or what the classified document was exactly], but Maduro suggested possible U.S. involvement...," as reported by Fabiola Sanchez for the Associated Press on March 06, 2013.

Shortly after the death of Chavez, Kurt Nimmo wrote on March 6, 2013: "For the naysayers who dispute that the CIA was responsible for the cancer death of Hugo Chavez, note the device in the following video. It is a dart gun developed in the 1970s (or possibly earlier) by the CIA. In the video, the weapon is described as inducing heart attacks. Cancer is not mentioned. However, we know that the CIA used Dr. Alton Oschner, the former president of the American Cancer Society, to run covert cancer research for the agency." If they could invent devices like this back in the 1970s, just imagine how much more they could do now in the 2010s!

In addition, Lubov Lulko wrote in January 05, 2012 that there were different technologies to inflict cancer on opponents, like "alpha radiation, electromagnetic waves, or chemicals" which can "cause emergence and development of cancer," as part of the larger efforts by some powerful states to "invent new kinds of biological, chemical and electronic weapons" to kill their enemies.

Then, case #9 on the list (above) has to do with the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko by the Russian government under Putin, since "upon his arrival to London, he [Litvinenko] continued to support the Russian oligarch in exile, Boris Berezovsky, in his media campaign against the Russian government" under Putin, and "the main suspect in the case, a former officer of the Russian Federal Protective Service (FSO), Andrei Lugovoy, remains in Russia," and "subsequent investigations by British authorities into the circumstances of Litvinenko's death led to serious diplomatic difficulties between the British and Russian governments," as reported in an article on Wikipedia.

And cases #10-11 on the list (above) has to do with the Israeli involvement, for the critics, in the assassination of Yassar Arafat, former chair of the PLO, with brain hemorrhage in 2004, and of Khaled Meshaal, the leader of the Hamas, with the poisonous shutdown of the brain in 1996. 


Hi-tech assassinations can be both successful and unsuccessful, of course.
On the one hand, the practice of hi-tech assassination has its own successes. For instance, in the above 11 illustrative cases, 4 attempts were successful, namely, the cases involving Hugo Chavez, Nestor Kirchner, Alexander Litvinenko, and Yassar Arafat.

On the other hand, there are failures, in 2 major ways, as explained below. 
Firstly, some attempts (like the 9 cases as mentioned earlier) have not been successful, for the time being at least -- and the most notorious one concerns case #11, when Israel unsuccessfully attempted to silently kill Khaled Meshaal (with poison), but "one of Meshaal's bodyguards, Muhammad Abu Saif, had chased the two Mossad agents who had carried out the operation and, with the help of a passing Palestinian Liberation Army officer, later captured them," and "the failed assassination proved to be one of the greatest fiascos in the history of special operations, and a pivotal moment in the rise of Hamas," and it had also humiliated Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister at the time (1996-1999) and also now (since 2009), since he was forced not only to provide "the antidote and the nature of the [toxins] used against Meshaal," but also "to release the founder of Hamas [Sheikh Ahmed Yassin] from jail in a prisoner exchange deal," as reported by Al Jazeera World on January 30, 2013.

And secondly, even the killings of the opponents do not necessarily bring the results as intended. For instance, the death of Nestor Kirchner has not made Argentina more pro-American; on the contrary, it only brought his widow Cristina Kirchner into power, who has sided with Chavez instead. The death of Yassar Arafat has not brought peace to the Middle East, nor has it made Israel safer from the Hamas, as the two sides recently had another military clash in December of 2012. The death of Alexander Litvinenko has not silenced the opposition against the presidency of Vladimir Putin; on the contrary, the opposition has grown even stronger nowadays, from 29% of the vote in the presidential election in 2004 to 37% of the vote in 2012. And the death of Hugo Chavez has made him a martyr in the eyes of his supporters, both at home and abroad, for his dual achievements (and visions) to give the poor (long treated with contempt and abused by the aristocrats in the region) a voice in the public sphere and to stand up against "yankee imperialism" for South American independence as a larger integrated bloc.  

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, former president of Brazil, eloquently wrote about Chavez in The New York Times on March 6, 2013, the day after his death: "No remotely honest person, not even his fiercest opponent, can deny the level of camaraderie, of trust and even of love that Mr. Chavez felt for the poor of Venezuela and for the cause of Latin American integration."

At home, "Chávez's social campaigns, especially in the areas of public health, housing and education, succeeded in improving the standard of living of tens of millions of Venezuelans," as Mr. Lula wasted no time to point out.

Abroad, "Mr. Chávez was instrumental in the 2008 treaty that established the Union of South American Nations, a 12-member intergovernmental organization that might someday move the continent toward the model of the European Union. In 2010, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States leapt from theory to practice, providing a political forum alongside the Organization of American States. (It does not include the United States and Canada, as the O.A.S. does.) The Bank of the South, a new lending institution, independent of the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, also would not have been possible without Mr. Chávez's leadership. Finally, he was vitally interested in fostering closer Latin American ties with Africa and the Arab world," as Mr. Lula thus praised him.

But this does not mean that Mr. Chavez has no faults of his own making. On the contrary, as Lula thus criticized him: "One need not agree with everything Mr. Chavez said or did....There is no denying that he was a controversial, often polarizing, figure...." And, for his enemies, especially those in the corporate world of big-business capitalism, Mr. Chavez can be regarded as a curse from hell.

Yet, for all those countless folks who completely crowded the streets of Caracas on March 06, 2013 and waited for many hours only in order to bid him farewell when his coffin passed through in a military procession, with many crying and mourning, and some even stayed into the night to see his body at the Fort Tiuma military academy -- his death has made him larger than life in their hearts and minds, to the point that, as Lula aptly put it, "his ideas will come to inspire young people in the future, much as the life of Simón Bolívar, the great liberator of Latin America, inspired Mr. Chávez himself."

Already, "within hours of Hugo Chavez's death, makeshift altars were going up in homes and on street corners around Venezuela with candles, photos and offerings for the late president. Weeping beside his coffin, supporters are likening him to independence hero Simon Bolivar and even Jesus Christ. Ministers quote his words and precepts in reverential tones," as reported by Andrew Cawthorne on March 8, 2013. And Chavez's body will be "embalmed" and be "permanently displayed" inside "a glass tomb" at a military museum in Caracas, as reported by the Associated Press on March 07, 2013.

This then is the best thing that his enemies have done to him: his painful and untimely death makes him a martyr for his followers both at home and abroad, in the present and in the future. 

Peter Baofu

Дмитрий Судаков