§770 The March on Rome; Dictatorship of Mussolini (1919-1945): VII-32.

VII-32 (§770):

One of the Royal mountain shall be born of a hovel,
Who bets and is reliable, shall come to tyrannize,
Shall raise troops of the Milanese march,
Shall exhaust Faenza, Florence, wealth and the nation.

(Du mont Royal naistra d'une casane,
Qui cave, & comte viendra tyranniser,
Dresser copie de la marche Millane,
Favene, Florence d'or & gents expuiser.)

NOTES: The Royal mountain: « Rome sometimes is called “The Royal Mountain,” from its Capitoline Hill.» (Boswell, 1941, p.257).

Casane
(hovel): = « diminutif de casa, maison, taudis (diminutive of casa, house, hovel).» (Fontbrune, 1939, p.224).

One of the Royal mountain shall be born of a hovel: « Benito Mussolini was the son of Alessandro Mussolini, socialistic blacksmith and innkeeper of the hamlet Dovia, in Romagna. A “Sunday child,” like Goethe, the future Duce was born on July 29, 1883.» (Boswell, id.).

Who bets and is reliable, shall come to tyrannize
: « Mussolini organized the first Fascio di Combattimento in March, 1919, while he was in Milan editing Popolo d’Italia. Though Mussolini started fascism to combat the wave of anarchy sweeping Italy, he had to control all industries to keep them open and to provide jobs for the workers. Factories remained in the owners’ hands, but profits were controlled strictly. Fascism took over the entire national economy to provide a living for all Italians. Thus, Il Duce tyrannized ...» (Boswell, id.).

Cave
: = He bets; « CAVER. 1° Creuser (to hollow); 2° Faire mise d’une somme d’argent à certains jeux: poker, bouillotte (to bet a sum of money on certain games: poker, an old French card game).» (Petit Robert).

Comte
: = Compte = He is reliable; « COMPTER. ... 4° Être compté, avoir de l’importance (to be counted, to be of importance).» (Petit Robert).

Who bets and is reliable,
Shall raise troops of the Milanese march: « The wind of change was blowing in rather a different direction. By the second half of 1919 new types of ‘vanguard élites’ were making their appearance in Europe. They too were socialists. Marx was often in their pantheon. But they appealed to something broader than an abstract ‘proletariat’ which was mysteriously failing to respond – at any rate as an electoral or a fighting force – and their collective dynamic was not so much class as nation, even race. They also had a powerful and immediate grievance in common: dissatisfaction with the Treaty of Versailles. In Turkey, which had lost its Arab empire and appeared to be losing its western littoral also, Mustafa Kemal Pasha, soon to be ‘Ataturk’, likewise offered national socialism and was already proving that a settlement determined in Paris could not be enforced on the spot. Italy, too, though a big gainer, still had a grievance against Versailles: she had not got the Dalmatian coast. On 11 September, the poet and war-hero Gabriele d’Annunzio led a raggle-taggle force of army deserters into the port of Fiume. It was an impudent bluff: but Britain and France, the custodians of the settlement, backed down – an ominous portent. D’Annunzio, too, was a national socialist. From Milan, Mussolini sniffed this new wind and liked it, just as five years earlier he had caught the whiff of wartime excitement, and liked that too. The coming of war and his own determination to bring Italy into it had taken him right out of the official socialist party. It had made him a nationalist, not merely in the romantic-Left tradition of Mazzini but in the acquisitive tradition of the old Romans, whose fasces, turned into a radical emblem of the French Revolution, he found a useful symbol, just as Lenin had picked on the hammer and sickle of the old Social Democrats. It made him hate Lenin for taking Russia out of the war and so jeopardizing Italy’s promised gains. By 1919 Lenin’s economic failure had turned him away from the outright expropriation of industry. He now wanted to use and exploit capitalism rather than destroy it. But his was to be a radical revolution nonetheless, rooted in the pre-war ‘vanguard-élite’ Marxism and syndicalism (workers’ rule) which was to remain to his death the most important single element in his politics. Many other young Italian former socialists shared his radicalism while abandoning their internationalism. Internationalism had not worked either in 1914, when it had failed to stop war, or in 1917, when it had failed to respond to Lenin’s call for world revolution. But the desire to install a new economic Utopia remained. On 23 March 1919 Mussolini and his syndicalist friends founded a new party. Its programme was partial seizure of finance capital, control over the rest of the economy by corporative economic councils, confiscation of church lands and agrarian reform, and abolition of the monarchy and senate.» (Johnson, 1991, p.95-96); « Italy was not a happy or a well-governed country. It had appalling poverty, the highest birth-rate in Europe and, after Germany, one of the highest inflation-rates. The parliamentary regime was grievously corrupt. The monarchy was unloved. The state itself had been at daggers with the Church since 1871, and was denounced from every pulpit on Sundays. There was genuine fear of a Red Terror, for the Catholic newspapers were full of Lenin’s atrocities and the Russian famine. Mussolini was not personally identified with violence. On the contrary: he seemed to many to be the one to stop it. He had become a wonderful public speaker. He had learnt from d’Annunzio the gift of conducting a quasi-operatic dialogue with the crowd. But he was not just a demagogue. His speeches specialized in the wide-ranging philosophical reflections Italians love. Liberals from Benedetto Croce downwards attended his meetings. By the early autumn of 1922 his oratory had acquired a confident and statesmanlike ring [Who is reliable]. He was now in secret contact with the palace, the Vatican, the army, the police and big business. What, they all wanted to know, did he want? At Udine he told them, in the last of a series of major speeches given all over the country: ‘Our programme is simple: we wish to govern Italy.’ He would govern Italy as it had never been governed since Roman times: firmly, fairly, justly, honestly, above all efficiently. On 16 October 1922 Mussolini decided to force the issue [Who bets], believing that if he waited, Giolitti [in premiership in May 1892 – Dec. 1893 and in May 1906 – Dec. 1909], the one man he feared, might steal his role. He arranged for a march on Rome for the end of the month, by four divisions totalling 40,000 blackshirted men. Many army and police commanders agreed not to fire on them, and his paper, Il Popolo d’Italia, carried the banner: I grigioverdi fraternizzano con le Camicie Nere! [The graygreens (of the Italian Army uniforms) will fraternize with the Black Shirt (of the Fascists)!] Mussolini had a lifelong capacity for hovering uneasily between grandeur and farce. By the time his ill-equipped, badly clothed and unfed army had halted outside Rome, in pouring rain, on the evening of 28 October, it did not present a very formidable spectacle. The government, though weak, had a Rome garrison of 28,000 under a reliable commander and it agreed to proclaim a state of emergency. But Rome buzzed with rumours and misinformation. The little King Victor Emmanuel, tucked up in the Quirinale Palace, was told only 6,000 ill-disciplined troops faced a horde of 100,000 determined fascists. He panicked and refused to sign the decree, which had to be torn down from the walls where it had just been posted. At that point the government lost heart. Mussolini, for an impatient man, played his cards skilfully. When he was telephoned in Milan by the King’s
ADC, General Cittadini, and offered partial power in a new ministry, he simply replaced the receiver. The next day, 29 October, he graciously consented to form his own government, provide the invitation by phone was confirmed by telegram. The wire duly came, and that evening he went to Milan Station in state, wearing his black shirt, to catch the night-sleeper to Rome. As it happened, the wife of the British ambassador, Lady Sybil Graham, was also on the train. She saw Mussolini, who was surrounded by officials, impatiently consult his watch, and turn fiercely on the station-master. ‘I want the train to leave exactly on time,’ he said. ‘From now on, everything has got to function perfectly.’ Thus a regime, and a legend, were born. In the last decade of his life Mussolini became an increasingly tragic, even grotesque. figure. Looking back from this later perspective it is hard to grasp that, from the end of 1922 to the mid-1930s, he appeared to everyone as a formidable piece [Who is reliable] on the European chess-board. Once installed, he did not make any of Lenin’s obvious mistakes. He did not create a secret police, or abolish parliament. The press remained free, opposition leaders at liberty. There were some murders, but fewer than before the coup. The Fascist Grand Council was made an organ of state and the Blackshirts were legalized, giving an air of menace to the April 1924 elections, which returned a large fascist majority. But Mussolini saw himself as a national rather than a party leader. He said he ruled by consent as well as force. He seems to have possessed not so much the will to power as the will to office. He wanted to remain there and become respectable; he wished to be loved.» (Johnson, id., p.99-100).

Exhaust Faenza, Florence
: = « épuiser l’Italie (to exhaust Italy).» (Ionescu, 1976, p.529).

Shall exhaust Faenza, Florence, wealth and the nation: « From the Corfu Incident of 1924 [sic; (1923)] to the attack on Abyssinia of 1935, [Mussolini] indulged in an aggressive foreign policy. Although at first hostile to Hitler’s Germany because of its ambitions in Austria (Italy’s neighbour), the similarity between the Fascist and Nazi systems and the international ostracism imposed on Italy because of the Abyssinian War led Mussolini to bring the two countries together in what he called the ‘Axis’ of 1936. At Easter 1939 he annexed Albania. He declared war on Britain and France on June 10th, 1940, when France was already defeated. On the following October 28th his troops invaded Greece but were repulsed and, soon after, suffered reverses in Libya and East Africa. These defeats weakened Mussolini’s prestige, especially as the Fascists had always sought to inculcate admiration for the glories of war. By the summer of 1941 Mussolini had become virtually a German pensionary but it was not until July 25th, 1943, that a coup by King Victor Emmanuel and Marshal Bodoglio forced him to resign. He was imprisoned, but was rescued from the Appennines by German parachutists (September 12th, 1943) and set up a Republican Fascist Government which administered German-occupied northern Italy.» (Palmer, p.194-195).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved.
スポンサーサイト

§769 Wall Street Crash (1929.10): VIII-28.

VIII-28 (§769):

The simulacra of gold and of silver so inflated,
That after the kidnapping in a lake shall have been thrown.
In debt all extinct and troubled,
Among the inscribed marbles the before-inscribed ones interjected.

(Les simulachres d'or & d'argent enflez,
Qu'apres le rapt au lac furent gettez
Au descouvert estaincts tous & troublez.
Au marbre escript prescripz intergetez. [№10])

NOTES: The simulacra of gold and of silver: = Securities. Many of interpreters of Nostradamus used to see in this phrase ‘paper money, paper currency’ (e.g., Laver, 1942, p.222; Cheetham, 1973, p.317; Hogue, 1997, p.640; Halley, 1999, p.143), but in principle and above all under the gold standard, paper currency is equivalent to gold, and even under a ‘managed currency’ it is given a legal and public guarantee, while securities are essentially private and most imitative. Moreover, ‘vouchers’ such as paper money, postage stamps, revenue stamps, etc. do not belong to the category of ‘securities’, each being fundamentally different from the other in character. The most characteristic difference is that vouchers never become worthless, while securities are liable to be eventually zero in value in case of bankruptcy, etc. Therefore, If the phrase of the second line: « in a lake shall have been thrown » does mean ‘will be worthless’ (Lamont, 1942, p.142), it is not valid for paper money, but only for securities. The only one who has interpreted this not as paper money but as securities (papiers et valeurs) is Dr. Fontbrune (Fontbrune, 1939, p.135).

Le rapt: = Literally kidnapping. But in the context of the sudden rise and fall of securities, it may mean ‘loss of the monetary value of securities’, namely their ‘crash’ (loss of nest eggs).

Getter: = Jeter; « geter, getter, getray, etc. V. jeter (See throw).» (Daele)
.

Furent gettez (were thrown): = Auront été jetées (shall have been thrown), this type of substitution sometimes seen in the Prophecies of Nostradamus (e.g., VIII-53, X-20 and X-57).

Descouvert: = Default of obligations. « descouvert. n. deficit, shortage.» (Dubois); « descouvert. la dette (the debt).» (Fontbrune, id.).

Estainct
: = estaint = éteint (extinct): Reasonably meaning a suicide in a great depression in the context of the ‘gravestones’ (marbles) of the fourth line.

Marbre (marble): = « tombeau (tomb).» (Fontbrune, id.).  

Le marbre escript
: = the inscribed marbles: = the gravestones newly built in contrast with the before-inscribed existing ones.


[Les marbres] prescripz: = the before-inscribed existing gravestones.

Au marbre escript prescripz intergetez
: = ‘Among the new gravestones the old ones interjected’, which is an ironical, but logical reversed expression of a fact. The regular style is as follows: Au marbre prescripz intergetez le marbre escript, namely ‘The new gravestones are interjected among the old ones’.

Now, this custom of building an individual gravestone for burying a new individual deceased is properly Western and far from that in Japan where peoples have in general their own family grave to bury in common each member when died. Therefore, this quatrain is judged to refer not to 1990s’ depression in Japan, but to that of USA in autumn 1929 to the beginning of 1930. In fact, at that time the USA adopted the gold standard and it was only in March 1933 that she suspended it. Then paper money was not an imitative of gold or silver but truly a convertible currency, though in practice the conversion itself having been in a malfunction. Thence we can conclude that in this quatrain it concerns ‘securities’ excluding paper money. And in reality the U.S. dollar did not suffer such a sudden rise and fall.

« A fortnight before this scene [on Friday 3 October 1929], Winston Churchill, who until earlier that year had been Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer for five years, wrote to his wife from America:

Now my darling I must tell you that vy gt & extraordinary good fortune has attended me lately in finances. Sir Harry McGowan asked me rather earnestly before I sailed whether he might if an opportunity came buy shares on my account without previous consultation. I replied that I could always find 2 or 3,000 £. I meant this as an investment limit i.e. buying the shares outright. He evidently took it as the limit to wh I was prepared to go in a speculative purchase on margin. Thus he operated on about ten times my usual scale... So here we have recovered in a few weeks a small fortune... It is a relief to me to feel something behind me and behind you all.

It is interesting that Churchill should have been speculating on margin right up to the brink of the crash. He was one of about 600, 000 trading on margin of the 1,548,707 customers who, in 1929, had accounts with firms belonging to America’s twenty-nine stock-exchanges. At the peak of the craze there were about a million active speculators, and out of an American population of 120 million about 29-30 million families had an active association with the market. Churchill, despite his experience and world-wide contacts, was no better informed than the merest street-corner speculator. The American economy had ceased to expand in June. It took some time for the effects to work their way through but the bull market in stocks [The simulacra of gold and of silver so inflated] really came to an end on 3 September, a fortnight before Churchill wrote his joyful letter. The later rises were merely hiccups in a steady downward trend. On Monday 21 October, for the first time, the ticker-tape could not keep pace with the news of falls and never caught up; in the confusion the panic intensified and speculators began to realize they might lose their savings and even their homes [In debt troubled]. On Thursday 24 October shares dropped vertically with no one buying [the kidnapping], speculators were sold out as they failed to respond to margin calls, crowds gathered in Broad Street outside the New York Stock Exchange, and by the end of the day eleven men well known on Wall Street had committed suicide [In debt extinct]. One of the visitors in the gallery that day was Churchill himself, watching his faerie gold vanish. Next week came Black Tuesday, the 29th, and the first selling of sound stocks in order to raise desperately needed liquidity. Great stock-exchange crises, with their spectacular reversals of fortune and human dramas, make the dry bones of economic history live...» (Johnson, 1991, p.230-231).


« The credit inflation petered out at the end of 1928. The economy went into decline, in consequence, six months later. The market collapse followed after a three-month delay. As we have seen, the Stock Exchange fall began in September and became panic in October. On 13 November, at the end of the panic, the index was at 224, down from 452. There was nothing wrong in that. It had been only 245 in December 1928 after a year of steep rises. The panic merely knocked out the speculative element, leaving sound stocks at about their right value in relation to their earnings. If the recession had been allowed to adjust itself, as it would have done by the end of 1930 on any earlier analogy, confidence would have returned and the world slump need never have occurred. Instead, the market went on down, slowly but inexorably, ceasing to reflect economic realities – its true function – and instead becoming an engine of doom, carrying to destruction the entire nation and, in its wake, the world. By 8 July 1933 New York Times industrials had fallen from 224 at the end of the panic to 58 [The simulacra of gold and of silver after the kidnapping in a lake shall have been thrown]. US Steel, selling at 262 before the market broke in 1929, was now only 22. GM, already one of the best-run and most successful manufacturing groups in the world, had fallen from 73 to 8. By this time the entire outlook for the world had changed – infinitely for the worse.» (Johnson, id., p.240-241).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved.

§768 The discovery of radioactivity and nuclear chain-reaction (1896-1939): I-27.

I-27 (§768):

The branches and leaves in a chainwork of an oak Gyes struck by Heaven,
Not far from there is hidden the treasure,
That had been clustered for long centuries,
Who shall have found it shall die: the eye burst by a spring.

(Dessoubz de chaine Guien du ciel frappe,
Non loing de la est caché le tresor,
Qui par longs siecles avoit este grappé,
Trouve moura: l'oeil crevé de ressort.)

NOTES: Dessoubz: = « dessousn. Underpart, underside, lower part, bottom; Wrong side (envers [verso, back]); Pl. Underclothing, underclothes; Fig. Mystery, the seamy side.» (Dubois); « dessousn. the face (overt side) of cards [the side with images and characters]; [the cards being put down face down]; [forestry] lower branches (of a tree).» (Ibuki).

Chaine: This word as well as chaisne in the Prophecies of Nostradamus (I-27, I-65, II-21, III-79bis, IV-84, VII-24 and IX-56) has always the meaning of chain (chaîne), and in this quatrain also that of oak (chêne).

Dessoubz de chaine: = The lower branches, the surface and the inner parts (underclothes and mystery) of an oak, namely all of its branches and leaves in a chainwork.

Guien: = the Greek « Γύης, Gyès, un des Géants aux cent bras (Gyes, one of the Giants with a hundred arms).» (Bailly); = the Latin « Gyās, a giant with a hundred arms.» (Smith-Lockwood). This is a prophetical and ingenious way of designating a nucleus of uranium having around it a large number of electrons corresponding to its many protons. The tree of an oak already on the scene suggests through its acorns this smallest globe of an atom, amazingly represented by a Giant who « symbolizes a telluric energy of great amplitude... We are therefore entitled to conclude that Nostradamus wishes to indicate by the name ‘Guien’ a gigantic force born of a matter, a nuclear energy.» (Ionescu, 1976, p.751-752). And the element of uranium has been introduced by the word ‘le ciel (Uranus, the heaven)’ as V. Ionescu used to explain so (Ionescu, 1976, p.752; 1993, p.153); « uranium n. [< Gk. ouranos heaven]» (Obunsha).

Dessoubz de chaine Guien (The branches and leaves in a chainwork of an oak Gyes): The phrase ‘The branches and leaves in a chainwork of an oak’ and the word ‘Gyes’ are in apposition, Gyes being imagined in this context as an oak of the sort, a truly gigantic figure.

Guien du ciel frappe: = Guien du ciel frappé = the atom of uranium struck by Heaven. This phrase supposes a story in mythology: « Nor were the heights of heaven more secure: Giants, it’s said, to win the gods’ domain, Mountain on mountain reared and reached the stars. Then the Almighty Father [Jupiter] hurled his bolt And shattered great Olympus and struck down High Pelion piled on Ossa. There they lay, Grim broken bodies crushed in huge collapse, And Earth, drenched in her children’s weltering blood, Gave life to that warm gore; and to preserve Memorial of her sons refashioned it In human form. But that new stock no less Despised the gods and relished cruelty, Bloodshed and outrage – born beyond doubt of blood.» (Ovid, 1986, I, 151-162.).  

The branches and leaves in a chainwork of an oak Gyes struck by Heaven: The verse in totality means the nuclear chain reaction, the meaning of the key word Gyes being at the same time a singular atom (an acorn) and the whole network of numberless atoms (an oak tree) of uranium.

There: = In the atom of uranium.

Not far from there is hidden the treasure: This treasure is physically the nuclear energy (E) emitted in the process of fission of a large nucleus with a certain mass (m1) into two smaller nuclei with a smaller sum of mass (m2), expressed in the formula: E = (m1-m2)c2, based upon Einstein’s theory of equivalence of mass and energy: E = mc2, where (m1-m2) is called ‘a mass defect’ and (m1-m2)c2 ‘a binding energy’. And this energy is not straightway in a large nucleus though not without it, disclosing itself only in the fission of the large nucleus into two smaller ones, namely in the transubstantiating process of the former’s collapse and the latter’s generation.

That had been clustered for long centuries: The heavier elements like gold, silver, uranium, etc. are said to be created in the explosion of a supernova, the last stage of evolution of massive stars, of which the greatest being with a shortest lifetime of about 2.7 million years (Nomoto and Williams, 1997, p.154 and p.131), which is to be the least of the said ‘long centuries’.

Trouve moura
: = Trouvé mourra = Qui l’aura trouvé mourra (who shall have found it shall die).

l'oeil (the eye): The white of the eye suggesting the leukocyte of blood.

Ressort (spring): = Radioactive rays.

Trouve moura: l'oeil crevé de ressort (who shall have found it shall die: the eye burst by a spring): A Polish scientist in France Marie Curie (1867-1934) who had studied deeper, after the discovery of radiation of uranium by Becquerel in 1896, and confirmed more the phenomena of radioactivity of uranium, thorium, polonium and radium (the new term radioactivity was her creation) shall die of leukemia, her leukocytes had been damaged because of her quotidian exposition to radioactive rays in her lifetime study in laboratory (cf.
Trémolières III, p.309).

Nuclear fission and chain reaction: « 1939Nuclear Fission was discovered by a German physico-chemist Otto Hahn (1879-1968) and Nuclear Chain Reaction by a Hungarian physicist in USA Leo Szilard (1898-1964).» (Asimov, 1996, pp.352, 404-405); « Szilard drafted (1939) a letter of Einstein recommending the President of USA to exploit atomic bombs.» (Iwanami’s biographical dictionary).

The first nuclear reactor (Chicago Pile 1): « 1942. The idea of Szilard about the nuclear chain reaction had not been put into practice, while, in 1941, it started the Manhattan Project – exploitation of atomic bombs, and Enrico Fermi (1901-1954) was charged with the Project aiming at the realization of such a chain reaction... On December 2, 1942, 3:45 p.m., in the squash court at the University of Chicago, the chain reaction became self-sustaining and was stopped. It has just started the atomic age. This reactor was the first nuclear one.» (Asimov, id., p.412).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved.

§767 The discovery of Pluto (1930.2.18): I-84.

I-84 (§767):

The Moon obscured in the profound darkness,
Her brother having passed from the ferruginous colour:
The great hidden for a long time in its seclusion,
Shall make fade the iron in the sanguinary wound.

(Lune obscurcie aux profondes tenebres,
Son frere passe de couleur ferrugine:
Le grand caché long temps sous les latebres,
Tiedera fer dans la plaie sanguine.)

NOTES: Son frere (her brother): = « le Soleil (the Sun).» (Brind’Amour, 1996, p.165).

Passe: = passé (having passed) (Ionescu, 1983, p.230). Ionescu’s interpretation of the phrase ‘Son frere passe de couleur ferrugine’ as the Sun’s advancing beyond Mars in the longitude (id., p.233) is not literally pertinent because the astronomic situation he tells is inferred only from his horoscope (planetary configuration) devised upon the date of Pluto’s discovery (id., p.229) and a simple phrase denoting an attribute ‘couleur ferrugine (the ferruginous colour)’ cannot exclusively designate the planet Mars rather than the colour of the Sun itself, and moreover the planet Mars is evidently and substantially referred to in the fourth line as ‘fer dans la plaie sanguine (the iron in the sanguinary wound)’.

The ferruginous colour: = the colour of the Sun in sunset. Ionescu’s identification of this phrase with Mars (id. p.233) is not pertinent.

Latebre: « latebre, s.m., lieu retiré (a secluded place), secret (a secret), cachette (a hiding-place); adj., caché (hidden).» (Godefroy).

Tiedera: = « tiédira, rendra tiède (shall fade, shall make fade).» (Brind’Amour, id.).

The iron in the sanguinary wound: = the planet Mars, Mars in alchemy corresponding to the metal iron and symbolizing in mythology wars and weapons (the French fer [the English iron also] having the sense of a sword).

V. Ionescu ingeniously disclosed the theme of the quatrain as the discovery of Pluto in 1930 (Ionescu, 1983, p.228-241), but his interpretation seems a priori starting from the horoscope (planetary configuration) of January 23, 1930, when Pluto’s move had been photographed compared with the photo six days later (January 29), but in detail he does not always follow faithfully the literal expressions of the quatrain, which we should explain at first.

In the beginning, the theme of the quatrain is to be identified as ‘a starry matter in the night without moonlight’ because the first hemistich describes the invisibility of the Moon [The Moon obscured in the profound darkness] and the aftertime of the sunset [Her brother having passed from the ferruginous colour], the two indispensable conditions for a starry observation**.

In the second place, the question is as to a planetary star because the fourth line stages the planet Mars [the iron in the sanguinary wound] as its lesser rival.

Now, the planet in question is the most recently discovered after a long time hiding [hidden for a long time in its seclusion] to be compared with Mars in the quatrain.

It is not but Pluto, discovered on February 18, 1930 at Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona, USA, after Uranus in 1781 (cf. §341, VIII-69) and Neptune in 1846 (cf. §613, IV-33) and named as such in its publicity on March 13, 1930. In fact in mythology, Pluto is the King of Hades, far superior in its omni-negative potency to Mars, only a dominator of arms and wars, a sector of the approaches to Hades; « HADES. In the classical Greek mythology, Hades – or Pluto – as well as Zeus [Jupiter] and Poseidon [Neptune], is a son of Cronus and of Rhea. After the victory of the Gods over the Titans, he received as his share the underground empire of the dead, the hells, whilst Zeus obtained the Heaven and Poseidon the Sea. The name of this divinity became that of his residence by extension: the Hades, in common Greek, designates hells, the abode of the dead.» (Monloubou).

** The times of the sunset and the rise (the set) of the Moon of the days concerned: February 23 – 29, 1930 in Flagstaff, Arizona (35° 12′ N, 111° 38′ W, 2106m H, GMT-07:00), were as follows: The sunset: 17:53 – 17:59; The rise (the set) of the Moon: 02:30 (13:00) – 07:41 (17:57).

« New Horizons NASA's Mission to Pluto and the Kuiper Belt
Discovery of Pluto
Percival Lowell, Search for Planet X: The story of Pluto's discovery begins with Percival Lowell, the founder of Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona. Lowell was obsessed with the notion of a "trans-Neptunian" planet, which he believed could be detected from the effect it would have on Neptune's orbit. After all, the planet Neptune had been discovered in 1846 by examining irregularities in the orbit of Uranus. Astronomers reasoned that the mystery planet's apparent gravitational influence on Uranus and Neptune could be used to calculate where in the sky it should be found. Lowell was one of several people (William H. Pickering was another) who hunted for Planet X by computing orbits and carefully searching the sky where they concluded the new planet ought to be. Lowell founded an observatory and funded three separate searches for Planet X. He died in 1916 without discovering it, but the search continued at the observatory. In 1929, a special camera-equipped telescope with a 13-inch objective lens was built specifically for this search.

Clyde Tombaugh, The Discoverer of Pluto: Observatory director Vesto Slipher hired a young man from Kansas to conduct the third search — a move that led to Clyde Tombaugh becoming the first American to discover a planet. Amateur astronomer Tombaugh was hired to expose photographic plates with this new camera by night, and to carefully compare the plates by day using an instrument called a blink comparator. On February 18, 1930, Tombaugh finally found what he was looking for: a tiny spot of light moving slowly against the fixed pattern of stars in the constellation Gemini****. Tombaugh set about to search the ecliptic plane for a new planet. As it turns out, Lowell's calculations were based on flawed data about the perturbations of Uranus' orbit. Despite that, one of the two locations predicted by Lowell's calculation (the favored one, in fact) happened to be right where Pluto was found. Tombaugh was fortunate to find Pluto after only searching for a few months. According to Tombaugh and Moore's 1980 book, "Out of the Darkness: The Planet Pluto," he took pictures in pairs, a few days apart, and looked for anything that moved. Any planets would appear to shift against the backdrop of stars because Earth had moved to a new viewing angle over the intervening days. The discovery plates were taken only six days apart, on January 23 and 29, 1930. After Pluto's discovery, Tombaugh began a laborious search of the entire ecliptic and turned up no additional objects in the outer solar system.

Pluto Gets a Name: Planet X was subsequently christened Pluto in 1930, a name suggested by Venetia Burney, an 11-year-old girl in Oxford, England. This name was favored by the astronomers of Lowell Observatory because its first two letters were the initials of Percival Lowell. In hindsight, the discovery had nothing to do with Lowell's calculations based on perceived perturbations to the orbits of Uranus and Neptune. We now know that those perturbations were not real, and that Pluto's mass is much too small to have produced such perturbations in any case. The discovery owes more to the remarkable persistence and diligence of Clyde Tombaugh in his careful search of the sky. The New Horizons Science Operations Center is named for Clyde Tombaugh.

© 2016 The Johns Hopkins University/ Applied Physics Laboratory LLC. All rights reserved. [
http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/Participate/learn/What-We-Know.php?link=Discovery-of-Pluto ] »

« The Space Review in association with SpaceNews
Pluto at 75: a uniquely American anniversary by S. Alan Stern  Monday, February 14, 2005

Seventy-five years ago this month, in February of 1930, our solar system’s ninth planet, Pluto, was discovered. The discovery of Pluto—2,500 kilometers wide and fully a billion kilometers beyond Neptune—was made by Clyde Tombaugh (1906–1997), a plucky, twenty-four-year-old American astronomer working at Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona when he made the landmark find. News of the long-anticipated discovery of “Planet X” rocketed around the world in the spring of 1930, making Tombaugh instantly famous, and garnering a high-profile scientific achievement for what was by then routinely called the “the American Century.” Diminutive Pluto, lying beyond both the rocky inner planet and outer gas giant planet zones of our solar system, was for many years an apparent misfit among the planets. Even after its large satellite, Charon, was discovered in 1978, Pluto’s classification and scientific value seemed problematic. Today, in 2005, that is no longer the case. The ninth planet is the biggest, the brightest, and the first-discovered member of the solar system’s third major architectural zone—the distant and icy Kuiper Belt... The discovery of the Kuiper Belt has fueled a revolution in our understanding of the origin, architecture, and richness of the deep outer solar system. Together, Pluto-Charon and the Kuiper Belt constitute an exciting frontier for scientific exploration, rich with possibilities for illuminating the origin of the planets, the formation of planetary satellites and double planet pairs, the interior properties and surface evolution of icy worlds, and the physics of tenuous atmospheres. In fact, so valuable are the Pluto-Charon system and its Kuiper Belt companions, that their exploration was ranked as the highest priority new mission to launch in this decade by the National Academy of Sciences in its Planetary Decadal Survey report to NASA... the scientific wonderland of Pluto, its giant moon Charon, and the Kuiper Belt is the destination for NASA’s New Horizons mission, which plans to launch in early 2006. If all goes as planned, New Horizons will cross the entire span of the solar system in record time and conduct flyby reconnaissance studies of the Pluto-Charon system in 2015 and then one or more Kuiper Belt objects before 2020. In accomplishing this historic feat, America will complete the reconnaissance of all the known planets, and provide a new and vivid demonstration of the historic kinds of space exploration that only it has the technical prowess to achieve.

A planetary scientist, Dr. Alan Stern is the Principal Investigator of the New Horizons Pluto-Kuiper Belt mission and director of the Department of Space Studies at the Southwest Research Institute.
[
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/319/1 ] »

**** « In 1915, Lowell drastically revised the preferred region of search to longitudes of around 85 degrees in the extreme eastern portion of the constellation Taurus. This region is right in the heart of the Milky Way, and the plates taken were extremely rich with star images. Pluto was in this region then. In the examination of these plates, the Pluto images were missed. After the discovery of Pluto in 1930, the better orbit computations gave close approximations of where to retrieve the Pluto images on old plates. Lampland [C.O.Lampland shared with Percival Lowell the 1914-16 trans-Neptunian search.] found the images of Pluto on one-hour exposure plates taken by Gill [Dr. Lampland supervised the new search. The plates were taken by T.B.Gill and E.A.Edwards. From April 1914 to July 1916, nearly one thousand plates were taken over a considerable sky area.] on 19 March and 7 April 1915. The images were quite weak, which was to be expected.» (Tombaugh [and Moore], 1980, p.89-90).

« When the photographing began in April [1929], my instructions from Dr. V.M.Slipher were, ‘Do the regions in Gemini and proceed eastward along the Ecliptic as rapidly as possible.’ The Gemini region was already about 90 degrees west of the opposition point [of the Sun]. It was not until the end of the June lunation that I succeeded in catching up to the opposition point, which sweeps eastward through the constellations at a rate of 30 degrees each month. This is caused by the Earth’s motion of revolution around the Sun... Now in September, the constellation of Capricornus was too far west of opposition. This break would have to be retrieved next year. As the skies cleared in September, I started photographing in the constellations of Aquarius and Pisces. These were lovely regions with hundreds of spiral galaxies to view and not so populous in stars, only about 50,000 per plate. The regions were 60 degrees from the equator of the Milky Way. I could blink a pair of plates in three days of work. I knew that Uranus was in Pisces, but I did not want to know exactly from its listed position in the American Ephemeris. I wanted to test myself on the surprise of encounter. When the Moon stopped my night work, I started blinking these new plates in daytime, field by field, strip by strip, panel by panel. Suddenly, upon turning to the next eyepiece field (1-by-2-centimeters), there was Uranus. being of the sixth magnitude, it was a real wallop. I almost ducked my head. I stopped and measured its shift in position with a millimeter scale. It was exactly as I had calculated it would be on those plates. Now my confidence was complete. From now on, for the next several years, I was obsessed with the planet search... Each succeeding month, I was getting closer and closer to the constellation of Gemini. It was also the region where Herschel discovered Uranus in 1781. In November, I was going through the star fields in western Taurus. The stars thickened in number. The search was approaching the Milky Way. By the end of November, I had blinked about ten pairs of plates. The last two contained as many stars as all of the other eight together. I had sifted through about one million stars.» (Tombaugh [and Moore], id., p.115-123).

« In the January 1930 lunation, I rephotographed the entire Gemini region. On 21 January 1930, I set the 13-inch (33-centimeter) telescope on Delta Geminorum again. A good night seemed to be in prospect. The sky was very clear. Within ten minutes after the shutter was opened to begin the exposure, a strong northeast wind sprang up. In another ten minutes, it was a howling gale. The guide star, Delta Gem, began to fuzz up badly into a diffuse patch, making it hard to guide. Then terrific gusts swept up the east side of Mars Hill [where is Lowell Observatory]. The star image would swell up to several apparent diameters of Jupiter. With succeeding gusts, the image would swell up so badly that it became invisible. I muttered, ‘I can’t see anything to guide on.’ It was a most helpless situation. After the gust had passed, the guide star became visible again, but it was still swollen and in violent, agitated motion. I had never seen such terrible seeing, nor have I seen such in the years since. I thought of terminating the exposure and closing the dome. I was getting worried about the gusts snapping the ropes that held the doors of the slit open, although the ropes were strong and new. With that kind of seeing, the plate was spoiled anyway but I decided to finish out the exposure just to see how bad the images would be after I developed the plate. I had more plates to take, but to do so would be futile, so I closed the dome. After developing the plate the next day, I viewed the dripping plate with a magnifier. The images were swollen to several times their normal diameter. Also, the dilution resulted in a loss of about 1.5 magnitudes. Nevertheless, that horrible plate did record the image of Pluto, but I did not know it then. Some astronomical textbooks state that Pluto was discovered on 21 January 1930. Nonsense! Only on the date that the images are recognized as those of a planet does it constitute a discovery. I have written many letters to authors (many astronomers) to get them to correct the error for their next book edition.» (Tombaugh [and Moore], id., p.123-124).

« On 23 January, I photographed the Delta Gem region again. It was a good plate. I was unable to photograph the region again until 29 January. This six-day interval was twice as long as I preferred. This was the pair that I would blink later. During that lunation, I photographed the western regions of Gemini again... On the morning of 18 February, I placed the 23 January and 29 January Gem plates on the Blink-Comparator, starting on the eastern half. This was a most fortunate decision. Had it been otherwise, Pluto might not have been discovered in 1930... A terrific thrill came over me. I switched the shutter back and forth, studying the images. Oh! I had better look at my watch and note the time. This would be a historic discovery. Estimating my delay at about three minutes, it would place the moment of discovery very close to four o’clock [in the afternoon]. For the next forty-five minutes or so, I was in the most excited state of mind in my life. I had to check further to be absolutely sure. I measured the shift with a metric rule to be 3.5 millimeters. Then I replaced one of the plates with the 21 January plate. Almost instantly I found the image 1.2 millimeters east of the 23 January position, perfectly consistent with the shift on the six-day interval of the discovery pair. Now I felt 100 percent sure.» (Tombaugh [and Moore], id., p.124-127).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved.

§766 The Communist Russia in a long misery (1917-1991): VI-5.

VI-5 (§766):

It shall be so great a famine along the Arctic Circle,
By a pestiferous wave and a long rainfall:
All the regions of the Russian hemisphere
Shall live without law, except politics.

(Si grand famine par unde pestifere,
Par pluye longue le long du polle arctique:
Samarobryn cent lieux de l'hemispere,
Vivront sans loy, exempt de pollitique.)

NOTES: Le polle: = the Greek « πόλος (polos), pivot sur lequel tourne une chose, d’où axe du monde, pôle, p. suite, étoile polaire; cercle décrit autour de cet axe (par un astre, par le soleil), d’où le ciel, la voûte céleste. [Pivot on which turns something, thence pivot of the universe, pole, consequently, the polar star, circle described round this pivot (by a star, by the Sun), thence the heaven, the celestial vault.]» (Bailly).

Le polle arctique
: = the Arctic Circle.

Famine
: Frequently the word famine (famine), with its analogous faim (hunger), is in the Prophecies of Nostradamus a metaphor for the collective sufferings of war or warlike disasters. In fact, of 37 usages of the words famine or faim in his Prophecies, 25 are figurative and 12 literal. In this case, the word seems to mean double as Ionescu interpreted it: « Very great shall be the poverty and the dearth (famine) brought about by the communist revolution (unde pestifere).» (Ionescu, 1976, p.431).

Unde
(wave): The words unde, onde, undant, inundation, inunder, inonder are from the Latin UNDA: débordant, troublant; cf.« Onder, v.a., inonder (to overflow).» (Godefroy). Cf. « L’ONDE. – This word is for invasion, overflowing of inimical armies. Holy Scripture designates equally the invading peoples by this expression: the waters.» (Torné-Chavigny, 1861, p.81). In fact, of 18 usages of the words: onde, unde, undant, inundation, inunder and inonder, 11 figurative for revolution, invasion, social revolt or trouble (I-69, II-43, II-93, III-6, III-70, IV-71, IV-77, V-31, VI-5, VII-36 et IX-33), and only 7 literal (I-2, I-63, II-86, V-27, V-95, VI-79 et VIII-16).

Pestifere (pestiferous): The word peste (plague), as well as the words pestilence, pestilent and pestifere (pestiferous), is figurative, non literal, for most of the expressions indicative of natural phenomena such as " earthquake, rain, tempest, dryness, inundation", etc. are not literal for Nostradamus, but figurative, describing metaphorically wars, revolts, social troubles, collective distress, etc., conditioned principally by human comportments (cf. Introduction §5). In fact, of 38 usages of the words « peste », « pestilence », « pestilent » and « pestifere », 32 are figurative for the warlike and social disasters and menaces, only 5 literal (II-19, II-37, II-46, II-53 and II-65) and one for the real seism (VIII-84); the term plague in this quatrain signifies a sort of moral or mental and social disorder such as pernicious political ideology (Stalinism), inhuman collective mentality (Nazism).

Pluye
(rainfall): Eaux (waters) and pluie (rainfall) in the Prophecies of Nostradamus symbolize mostly the tumultuous, revolutionary or belligerent facts (cf. Torné-Chavigny, 1861, p.111; p.204. 1862, p.38-39). In fact, of 12 usages of the word PLUIE/PLUYE, 9 are figurative in this sense (I-70, II-1, II-18, II-31, III-42, III-52, VI-5, VI-44 and IX-99), 2 are in the sense of abundance (II-46 et III-18) and only l is literal (IV-67).

It shall be so great a famine along the Arctic Circle, By a pestiferous wave and a long rainfall
: « For Stalin, industrialization was the key to the future. The road to it lay [in] forcing the peasant to pay for it just as he had paid for it through taxation in tsarist days. A violent new departure in Soviet policy was probably detonated by a grain crisis in 1927. From 1928 onwards, two ‘Five Year Plans’ announced and carried out an industrialization programme whose roots lay in what was in effect a war against the peasants, who were to be dragooned into providing food at less than cost to the cities. The party now at last conquered the countryside though by means which in practice, though not in theory or presentation, ignored the Plans. To make the peasants give up their grain, land in all the main grain-growing regions was brought into huge collective farms. There was tenacious resistance, sometimes far from passive. The crushing of it was undertaken by the secret police and army. Millions of poorer peasants- as well as the better-off smallholders, the Kulaks, who were now vigorously denounced – were killed or starved to death in what was virtually a second civil war [By a pestiferous wave and a long rainfall] while their grain was carried off to feed the industrial cities, where bread rationing was introduced in 1929. Famine, particularly in the Ukraine, followed massacres and massive deportations [It shall be so great a famine]. In seven years, 5 million families disappeared from European Russia. It seems likely that the huge round-ups of the collectivizations also launched what was to become a very distinctive feature of Soviet society, its development of the old tsarist system of forced labour on an unprecedented scale. In 1929 the term ‘labour camps’ began to be used, and the mass arrests of the next few years appear to have provided a population of 2.5 million prisoners in labour camps and other special settlements by 1933. This total was to rise even higher. It provided a labour force under the direct management of the security services that carried out huge construction tasks; on the eve of the Second World War whole industrial areas (often in particularly unpleasant environments) depended on slave labour while new industrial cities had been constructed by it, and the security service is said to have been responsible for about a quarter of the building work of the whole Soviet Union.» (Roberts, 1999, p.298-299);

« Stalin was soon blaming his henchmen for going too far (a few years later he was to tell a British prime minister that collectivization had been a trial as harsh as the Second World War). Even official Soviet figures admitted that in every year down to 1940 gross agricultural output was lower than it had been in 1928. The livestock population had been virtually halved as angry peasants slaughtered their animals rather than give them up to the authorities. But the aim of getting food from the land at less than the true cost of production by holding down the peasant’s consumption was achieved. Although grain production fell, violence assured that deliveries to the state organs went up in the 1930s, and the towns were fed. The police apparatus kept consumption down to the minimum in them. A fall in real wages pressed heavily on all Soviet citizens [so great a famine along the Arctic Circle; All the regions of the Russian hemisphere], but by 1937, 80 per cent of the industrial output of the USSR came from plant built since 1928. The urban labour force tripled in about the same time... Whatever the true figures, for everyone except the party bureaucrats and directing élite, whose privileges increased, consumer goods remained in short supply and housing was woefully inadequate [so great a famine along the Arctic Circle; All the regions of the Russian hemisphere]. This was only partially offset by improvements in educational and social services. Above all, industrialization confirmed the authoritarian and, indeed, totalitarian aspect of the regime. Very little space was left for private life in the USSR. Methods of government even more brutal but also more effective than those of the old autocracy make Stalin a somewhat paradoxical claimant to Marxist orthodoxy, which taught that the economic sub-structure of society determined its policies. The Soviet Union he created precisely inverted this; Stalin showed that if the will to use political power was there [without law, except politics], the economic sub-structure might be revolutionized by force.» (Roberts, id., p.299-300);

« It now seems odd that for a time there was a fashion to say that the United States and the USSR were growing more and more alike. The once-popular theory of ‘convergence’ gave undue emphasis to one undoubted truth: that the Soviet Union was a developed economy. In the 1960s many people in many other countries still thought socialism a plausible road to modernization because of that. It was overlooked that the Soviet economy was also by many standards inefficient. Soviet industrial growth, though in the 1950s supposedly faster than that of the United States, had been most evident in heavy industry. The individual consumer in the Soviet Union remained poor by comparison with his American (or, increasingly, Western European) counterpart, and would have been even more visibly so but for a costly and inefficient system of subsidies for basic commodities. Russian agriculture, which had once fed the cities of Central Europe and paid for the industrialization of the tsarist area, was a continuing failure; paradoxically, the USSR often had to buy American grain... ... the basic fact that the per capita GDP of the Soviet Union in the 1970s still lagged far behind that of the United States.» (Roberts, id., p.663-664).

A long rainfall: = §756, V-52: « long under such an ensign ». The quatrain VI-74 (§924) exactly predicts the end of the Russian Soviet Regime after 73 years of lasting (or 73 years and 9 months, i.e. November 7, 1917: The November Revolution - August 24, 1991: The Dissolution of the Soviet Communist Party).

Samarobryn
: = Probably, in the context of ‘along the Arctic Circle, an arbitrary composition of « Samara » and « Britvin » in the USSR, symbolizing by synecdoche the entire country along the Arctic Circle; « Samara, river of Russia (Ekaterinoslav), which sources from the point 3 leagues south of the city of Britvin, and joins the Dnieper, almost opposite Ekaterinoslav (modern Dnipropetrovsk), after about 65 leagues of course.» (MacCarthy). This neologism may mislead some of the interpreters of Nostradamus (e.g., Le Pelletier, II, p.464; Boswell, 1941, p.313; Fontbrune, 1996, p.233) because of his orthographic ingenuity to liken it to the real Samarobriva, an old name for Amiens, in France, but this line « does not fit the context.» (Leoni, 1982, p.280).

Cent lieux
: = All the places, the number 100 having a nuance of complete fullness.

Hemispere
: « Hemispere. Hémisphère (hemisphere.» (Huguet).

Samarobryn cent lieux de l'hemispere
: = All the regions of the Russian hemisphere.

All the regions of the Russian hemisphere Shall live without law, except politics
: « The huge industrial investments, the researches in the nuclear and spatial domain, the support given to the countries of the Third World for the purpose of imposing them a communist regime, and in general the propagandist and subversive actions in the Occidental countries have been done to the detriment of the material welfare of the people. Nostradamus remarks with a tone of bitter irony that the people shall suffer too much from the politics in the absence of legality. In all the institutions, in the education, in the cities and villages, in the factories and in the sectors of cultural life, everywhere it is obligatory to learn the Dialectic Marxism, the political economy, and all of creations are to bear a political impress, to express ‘a new humanity’ and to serve the noble cause of ‘the one-hour advanced construction of the Communism’.» (Ionescu, id., p.432).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved.

§765 The Great Terror of Stalin (1924-1938): III-59.

III-59 (§765):

The barbarous empire usurped by the third estate,
Which shall put to death the greatest part of its blood:
By the aged death by him a quarter stricken,
For fear that the blood should not be dead by the blood.

(Barbare empire par le tiers usurpé
La plus grand part de son sang metra à mort:
Par mort senile par luy le quart frapé,
Pour peur que sang par le sang ne soit mort.)

NOTES: Barbarous empire: = the Imperial Russia = « une autre [loy] beaucoup plus seductive (another much more seductive law » (§763, III-95).

Le tiers
: = « The third estate; the proletariat.» (Ionescu, 1976, p.470-471).

The barbarous empire usurped by the third estate: The Russian Revolution of October by the Bolsheviki. 

Mort senile
: The aged death of Nikolai Lenin aged fifty-four in 1924, the term ‘aged’ indicating the two things: 1° Lenin really aged compared with his real successor Joseph Stalin aged forty-five in 1924 (cf. §764, III-60: a young king); 2° Lenin in incapacitation in his last days: « Certainly, Lenin never showed the slightest regrets about his lifework, though in the last two-and-a-half years of his existence he was a sick, angry, frustrated and ultimately impotent creature. It is argued that, towards the end, he recognized Stalin as the emergent monster he undoubtedly was, and sought desperately to build up Trotsky’s influence as a countervailing force. There is however one suggestive and sinister element. As part of his dehumanizing process, Lenin had insisted from the beginning of his rule that the party organs take an interest in the health of senior party men, and issue them (on medical advice) with orders about leave, hospitalization and rest. In mid-1921 Lenin began to experience severe headaches. On 4 June the Orgburo ordered him to take leave; he disobeyed it. He took a month’s leave in July, and began to work less thereafter; there were further orders, from the Politburo, in August. He resumed normal work on 13 September for nearly three months, but in early December his health got worse and he spent more time at his country house at Gorky outside Moscow. In the early weeks of 1922 there were more orders to do little or no work, and he was supposed to visit Moscow only with the permission of the Party Secretariat. His impress was on the tenth Party Congress throughout but ostensibly he only chaired a few committees. He had just left Moscow for a further rest when he had his first stroke on 25 May 1922. He was then completely out of action for months, and when he returned to work on 2 October, the Secretariat, in the name of the Central Committee, enforced a strict regime and prevented him from getting access to papers. There is no doubt at all that Stalin was the most active agent of this medical restriction, and on 18 December he had himself formally appointed supervisor of Lenin’s health. This led directly to the Lenin-Stalin breach... On 4 January 1923 Lenin dictated a postscript to his ‘testament’: ‘Stalin is too rude... intolerable in a Secretary-General’. I therefore propose to our comrades to consider a means of removing Stalin from this post’. On the night of 5 March Lenin wrote to Stalin, rebuking him for abusing his wife on the phone and telling him to apologize or face ‘the rupture of relations between us’. Four days later came the second, debilitating stroke which robbed Lenin of speech, movement and mind. A final stroke killed him in January 1924 but by then he had long since ceased to count.» (Johnson, 1991, p.86-88). 

Him
(luy): = Stalin, Lenin’s successor = a young king (§764, III-60).

Which shall put to death the greatest part of its blood By the aged death by him a quarter stricken For fear that the blood should not be dead by the blood
: Under the Bolshevik Regime after Lenin’s death, his successor Stalin shall be led to the Policy of Great Terror for fear that his terror should not be annihilated by eventual counter-terrors: « The decision to collectivize by force was taken suddenly, without any kind of public debate, in the last weeks of 1929. It was typical of the way in which the pursuit of Utopia leads the tiny handful of men in power abruptly to assault a society many centuries in the making, to treat men like ants and stamp on their nest. Without warning, Stalin called for an ‘all-out offensive against the kulak... We must smash the kulaks, eliminate them as a class... We must strike at the kulaks so hard as to prevent them from rising to their feet again... We must break down the resistance of that class in open battle.’ On 27 December1929, the Feast of the St John the Apostle, he declared war with the slogan ‘Liquidate the kulaks as a class!’ It was the green light for a policy of extermination, more than three years before Hitler came to power, twelve years before the ordering of the ‘Final Solution’. Collectivization was a calamity such as no peasantry had known since the Thirty Years’ War in Germany... The result was what the great Marxist scholar Leszek Kolakowski has called ‘probably the most massive warlike operation ever conducted by a state against its own citizens’. The number of peasants actually shot by the regime is not yet known and may not be discoverable even when, and if, scholars ever get at the Soviet archives. Churchill said that, in Moscow in 1942, Stalin told him coolly that ‘ten millions’ of peasants had been ‘dealt with’. According to one scholarly estimate, in addition to those peasants executed by the
OGPU or killed in battle, between 10 and 11 million were transported to north European Russia, to Siberia and Central Asia; of these one-third went into concentration camps, a third into internal exile and a third were executed or died in transit [Which shall put to death the greatest part of its blood, by him a quarter stricken].» (Johnson, id., p.270-271);

« Hitler learnt from Lenin and Stalin how to set up a large-scale terror regime. But he had much to teach too. The regime he set up in January 1933 had one major anomaly: the
SA [storm trooper]. Hitler did not fully control it, and Roehm [its creator] had visions which did not fit into Hitler’s plan. The SA, already very large before the take-over, expanded rapidly after it. By the autumn of 1933 it had a million active, paid members, and reserves of 3.5 million more. Roehm’s object was to make the SA the future German army, which would overthrow the Versailles settlement and secure Germany’s expansionist aims. The old army, with its professional officer class, would be a mere training organization for a radical, revolutionary army which he himself would take on a voyage of conquest. Hitler was determined to reject this Napoleonic scheme. He had a high opinion of the regular army and believed it would put through rearmament quickly and with sufficient secrecy to carry the country through the period of acute danger when the French and their allies were still in a position to invade Germany and destroy his regime. Even more important, he had not the slightest intention of sharing power with Roehm, let alone surrendering it to him. From March 1933, when he began to assist the rise of Himmler, he had a secret phone-link to him, it is clear that Hitler had a gigantic crime in mind to resolve the dilemma which Roehm’s SA presented to him. By spring 1934 the aged Hindenburg was clearly nearing the end. Hitler wished to succeed him, uniting presidency and chancellorship in one. The army and navy commanders agreed that he should do this, provided he emasculated the SA and destroyed its pretensions, and it is typical of the naïvety they always showed in negotiating with Hitler that they gave him something vital in return for a ‘concession’ which he needed to make anyway, and in which army co-operation was essential. Hitler went ahead with his purge, an act of pure gangsterism, as soon as Himmler had achieved monopoly of the political police. He determined to murder all his immediate political enemies at once, so that the ‘evidence’ of conspiracy, manufactured by Heydrich’s intelligence bureau, produced unlikely conjunctions worthy of a Stalin show-trial. Himmler and Heydrich prepared the final list, Hitler simply underlining in pencil those to be shot; Heydrich signed the warrants, which read simply: ‘By order of the Führer and Reich Chancellor – is condemned to death by shooting for high treason’... Early on 30 June 1934 Hitler himself shook Roehm awake at the sanatorium of the Tegernsee, and then retired to the Munich Brownhouse. The Barvarian Justice Minister was not prepared to order mass shooting on the basis of a mere typed list, and Roehm and his associates were not actually murdered until 2 July, the political police carrying it out... a law was passed on 3 July, authorizing the deeds ex post facto. Not the least significant aspect of this turning point was the presentation, to the SS [Schutzstaffel] men who had carried out the murders, of daggers of honour. The SS was thus launched upon its monstrous career of legalized killing. The Roehm affair, with the state openly engaged in mass murder, with the connivance of its old military élite and the endorsement of the electorate, directly foreshadowed the extermination programs to come.» (Johnson, id., p.296-299);

« It was the sheer audacity of the Roehm purge, and the way in which Hitler got away with it, which encouraged Stalin to consolidate his personal dictatorship by similar means. Hitherto, the party élite had permitted him [Stalin] to murder only ordinary Russians. Even to expel a senior party member required elaborate preparations. In 1930, Stalin had been openly criticized by Syrtsov, a Politburo candidate, and Lominadze, a Central Committee member. He had wanted both of them shot but the most he managed was their expulsion from the
CC. Two years later he had called for the shooting of Ryutin, who had circulated privately a two-hundred-page document criticizing his dictatorship. Sergei Kirov, who had succeeded Zinoviev as boss of Leningrad, had insisted that Ryutin be spared and sent to an ‘isolator’, or special prison for top party men. By summer 1934, Kirov’s influence was still growing, and he appeared to be the man most likely to succeed Stalin – or oust him. The success of the Roehm purge inspired Stalin to do away with internal party restraints once and for all, and in the most ingenious manner: by having Kirov murdered, and using the crime as an excuse to strike at all his other enemies. Kirov was shot in mysterious circumstances on 1 December 1934, in the middle of the Smolny Institute, the former girls’ school from which Lenin had launched his putsch and which had remained party HQ in Leningrad ever since. It was a heavily guarded place and it was never explained how the assassin, Leonid Nikolaev, got through the security cordon. What is even more suspicious is that, a few days before, Kirov’s bodyguard had been removed on the orders of Yagoda, the NKVD head. In 1956 and again in 1961 Khrushtchev hinted strongly that Stalin was responsible, and the circumstantial evidence seems overwhelming... From the end of 1936 to the second half of 1938, Stalin struck at every group in the regime. In 1937 alone he killed 3,000 senior secret police officers and 90 per cent of the public prosecutors in the provinces. Stalin’s first military victim was a cavalry general, Dmitry Shmidt. [Marshal] Tukhashevsky and seven other senior generals followed on 11 June 1937, and thereafter 30,000 officers, about half the total, including 80 per cent of colonels and generals. The purge of the party itself was the most prolonged and severe. In Leningrad, only two out of its 150 delegates to the seventeenth Party Congress were allowed to live. The losses in the Moscow party were as great. About one million party members were killed in all.» (Johnson, id., p.299-301);

« An
NKVD man who had been in Stalin’s bodyguard testified that Yezhov came to Stalin almost daily in the years 1937-9, with a thick file of papers; Stalin would give orders for arrests, the use of torture, and sentences (the last before the trial). Stalin carried out some interrogations himself. He annotated documents ‘arrest’; ‘arrest everyone’; ‘no need to check: arrest them’, Stalin’s signature is appended to over 400 lists from 1937 to 1939, bearing the names of 44,000 people, senior party leaders, officials of the government, officers and cultural figures. During these years something like 10 per cent of Russia’s vast population passed through Stalin’s penitential machinery. Famous Tsarist prisons, such as the Lefortovskaia, which had been turned into museums and peopled with waxwork figures, were put into service again, the wax replaced by flesh and blood. Churches, hotels, even bathhouses and stables were turned into gaols; and dozens of new ones built. Within these establishments, torture was used on a scale which even the Nazis were later to find it difficult to match. According to Medvedev [Roy, the independent Soviet Marxist historian], NKVD recruits, aged eighteen, ‘were taken to torture-chambers, like medical students to laboratories to watch dissections’. In these circumstances, the death-rate was almost beyond the imagining of civilized men. Medvedev puts the figure of the great terror victims summarily about at 4-500,000. He thinks the total number of victims in the years 1936-9 was about 4.5 million. Men and women died in the camps at the rate of about a million a year during this and later periods, and the total of deaths caused by Stalin’s policy was in the region of 10 million.» (Johnson, id., p.302-305).

« The victims of the Stalinism: In the Stalinist Russia, the detentions in the concentration camps and the deportations were so massive that they concern about one citizen per eight [12.5%]. It adds to these 15 million interned Soviet people about 1,500,000 kulaks and 3 million persons belonging to the deported during the World War II. Several hundred thousand people were dead at the time of the Great Terror (1937-1938), and nearly two millions in their deportation to the concentration camps. Moreover, the number of the Ukrainian victims of the programmed famine of the years 1932-1933 is estimated to be nearly five millions. [by him a quarter stricken]» (
Trémolières IV, p.57).

Discussion:
The interpretation of the quatrain by Ionescu (1976, p.469-470), though correct as to its general theme: the Great Purge, does not succeed in explaining all the points in detail, losing himself in his alleged anagrams.
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved.

§764 Sanguinary dictator Stalin; reformist dictator Ataturc (1923-1938): III-60.

III-60 (§764):

All over Asia great proscription,
Even in Mysia, Lysia and Pamphylia:
Blood to shed by absolution:
By a young king full of felony.

(Par toute Asie grande proscription,
Mesmes en Mysie, Lysie & Pamphylie:
Sang versera par absolution
D'un jeune noir rempli de felonnie.)

NOTES: Proscription: = « Hist. rom. Mise hors la loi, condamnation prononcée sans jugement contre des adversaires politiques; Mesure de banissement prise à l’encontre de certaines personnes, en période d’agitation civile ou de dictature (Rom. Hist. Outlawry, condemnation pronounced without judgment against political adversaries; Measure of banishment taken against certain persons, at the period of civil agitation or dictatorship).» (Petit Robert).

Absolution
: = « Effassement d’une faute par pardon; Cathol. Rémission des péchés accordée par le prêtre après la confession (Effacement of a fault by forgiveness; Cathol.
Remission of the sins accorded by the priest after the confession).» (Petit Robert).,

Mysia, Lysia and Pamphylia: = « The three provinces of the western and the south-western Turkey.» (Ionescu, 1976, p.470).

Noir: An anagram of Roi, King (Torné-Chavigny,1861,p.13). In fact, of 27 examples of this word, 21 (= 77.8%) are for king as Philippe II (3 times ), François II, Charles IX, Henri IV, Louis XVI, Napoléon Ier (6 times), Louis XVIII, Charles X, Napoléon III, François-Joseph Ier et al., and only 6 are for the color black (I-77, VI-10, VI-36, VII-14, IX-60, X-91). The character ‘N’ of ‘noir’ does not have a meaning of ‘negation’ as Ionescu does wish so, but the nuance in totality of the word ‘noir (black)’ has a certain earthly negativity of all the kings on earth as Torné-Chavigny explains so.

A young king: = Stalin (1879-1953) aged forty-five, yet young compared with his predecessor Lenin (1870-1924) aged fifty-four when he was dead in 1924. Lenin, too, is said to be “un Roy, a King” (§756, V-52) and his death “mort senile, aged death” (§765, III-59). By the way, in the quatrain I-35 (§13), Henry II of France (March 1519 - July 1559) aged 40 is called ‘the old lion’ compared with his rival of jousting on 30 June 1559 Gabriel de Lorges, the Count of Montgommery aged 27, called ‘the young lion’.

All over Asia great proscription, Even in Mysia, Lysia and Pamphylia: Blood to shed by absolution: By a young king full of felony: V. Ionescu (1976, p.470-473) gives us a fully developed solution of the quatrain, whose brief conclusion is here: « In the Asian countries they shall effect great proscriptions. Even in Turkey, they shall carry out anti-religious and anti-monarchical reforms, when Kemal Ataturc shall have appeared as a dictator. In Russia, the largest country in Asia, because of Stalin, the new dictator, full of astuteness of feline beasts, they shall hold profane ceremonies, where “the absolution” by sanguinary sacrifices shall be given after the “confessions”.» (Ionescu, 1976, p.473).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved.

§763 Fall of Russian Empire; End of Ottoman Empire (1917-1928): III-95.

III-95 (§763):

The Moorish law shall be seen to fail:
After another much more seductive law shall have failed,
The Dnieper shall be the first to fail:
Pardon and the language shall become more attractive.

(La loy Moricque on verra defaillir:
Apres une autre beaucoup plus seductive,
Boristhenes premier viendra faillir:
Pardons & langue une plus attractive.)

NOTES: Moricque: = « Morisque. Moresque.» (Huguet); The French word Moricque is the adjective of the French noun « More (= the Moor).» (§602, IV-85); « MORE. V. MAURE. » (Petit Robert); « MAURE, MAURESQUE ou MORE, MORESQUE. n. et adj. (du lat. maurus; esp. Moro). Hist. De l’ancienne Mauretania, région du nord de l’Afrique. Maures islamisés; Maures d’Espagne (From the ancient Mauretania, region of the northern Africa. Islamized Moors; Moors of Spain).» (Petit Robert).

La loy Moricque: = la loy moresque = « The Moorish law.» (Ovason, 1997, p.306) = the Ottoman Empire. The word ‘loy (law)’ in this case can be more comprehensive than usually, meaning a ‘regime’ as is the case of the second line: ‘une autre [loy] beaucoup plus seductive’ (another much more seductive [law], i.e. the Russian Empire).

Boristhenes: = The river of Dnieper in the Russian Empire till 1917; « Βορυσθένης, Borysthène, fl. de la Sarmatie européenne (auj. Dniéper).» (Pillon). Cf. Edmonds, 2000, p.39.

Pardon: Forgiveness, pardon. This word evokes, on the other hand, punishment or penalty, thence one may infer the penal code.

David Ovason (1997, p.306-308) gives us a sufficiently reasonable solution of the quatrain, except about the text « Pardons (Forgiveness, pardon) », which he replaces wrongly by « Par dons (By gifts) ».

The Moorish law shall be seen to fail: After another much more seductive law shall have failed, The Dnieper shall be the first to fail: Pardon and the language shall become more attractive: « The quatrain deals with a period of a few years when both the Russian Imperium and the old Ottoman Empire came to an abrupt and perhaps unexpected end. The weakened Ottoman Empire could be said to have fallen in October 1923, when the republic of Turkey was proclaimed in Ankara [The Moorish law shall be seen to fail]. The Sultanate, upon which the old Ottoman Empire had depended, had been abolished almost a year later, but the ratification by the national assembly seems to have been the final nail in the coffin of the Ottomans. In 1928, a short while after the Ottoman Empire had become technically defunct, the Turkish state was declared secular. This move had required that the Shariya law, the loi Moricque (Muslim Law) should be abandoned, in favour of one more attractive to the aspirations of the Turkish nation. This occurred in 1926, when Muslim religious law was put aside in favour of a civil code based on a number of European laws [Pardon shall become more attractive]. This farsighted decision was the first stage in a progressive attempt to both secularize the state and establish firm communication with the Western world, at the expense of the old Ottoman ties to the Arabic East. This is probably why Nostradamus could visualize the replacement model (the Roman alphabet). In 1928, the Roman alphabet was adopted to replace the Arabic script, and attempts were made to revitalize old Turkish words to take the place of the Arabic and Persian which had crept into the Ottoman language [the language shall become more attractive].» (Ovason, id., p.307-308).

« The word Boristhenes was the old name for the river Dnieper, which arises in the hills of Valdai, to the west of Moscow, and flows through Smolensk and Kiev, to fall into the Black Sea near Nikolaev, at the top of the huge peninsula that is the Crimea. The name was, therefore, a convenient symbol for Nostradamus to indicate what had to fall before the decline in the Moorish law could take place. The thing which had to fall was the arch-enemy of the Ottomans – Imperial Russia. We may suggest that Russian Imperium fell in 1914 [sic][1917], with the Revolution [another much more seductive law shall have failed, The Dnieper shall be the first to fail].» (Ovason, id.).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved.

§762 Personality Cult and Show-trials (1928-1940): III-26.

III-26 (§762):

Kings and princes shall set up their simulacra,
Shallow augurs elevated to the haruspices:
Horns, golden victims, and those of sky and of pickles:
[As such] [the accused] shall be interpreted [by] the soothsayers.

(Des roys & princes dresseront simulacres,
Augures, creuz eslevés aruspices:
Corne, victime d’orée, & d'azur, d'acre:
Inrerpretés seront les extispices.)

NOTES: Kings: Cf. « It shall be a King [Lenin] who shall give the opposite.» (§756, V-52).

Kings and princes: = « princes ignorants (ignorant princes) » (§757, IV-18). 

Kings and princes shall set up their simulacra: « As the essential arm of the success of the revolution, the personality cult was exploited already when Lenin was alive, and his portrait was posted up everywhere, even on the plates.» (
Trémolières IV, p.34); « The personality cult of Stalin was such that the communists of all over the world celebrated his anniversary. In France, the Communist Party organized in 1949, for the seventieth anniversary of the ‘builder of the peace’, a vast collection of presents.» (Trémolières IV, p.56). 

Aruspices: From the Latin « haruspex, a soothsayer, diviner (among the Etruscans) who foretold future events from the inspection of the entrails of victims
(Smith-Lockwood). 

Extispices: From the Latin « extispex, one who inspects the entrails, a diviner
(Smith-Lockwood). 

Augures, creuz eslevés aruspices: The construction will be as follows: Augures creuz eslevés [à] aruspices (Shallow augurs elevated to the haruspices), the preposition à having been elliptic for the sake of a prophetic embroilment (Cf. A l'Entrée des Prophéties, §5, Catégorie d: Ellipse de prépositions pour embrouiller prophétiquement).

Shallow augurs elevated to the haruspices: = Little gifted professionals and scholars shall be promoted to government offices through their loyalty to the Soviet Regime. As for the two analogous terms haruspice and extispice, they designate through their original meaning of ‘one who inspects the entrails those in charge of Soviet justice or secret police who inspect even people’s internal sentiment to get rid of the fear of counter-revolutionary elements, whereas that of augur concerns external crimes as its etymology teaches us: ‘a member of a college of priests at Rome, who foretold the future by observing the flight or notes of birds, the feeding of the sacred fowls, lightning, certain appearances of quadrupeds, and any unusual occurrences’ (
Smith-Lockwood).

« In May–July 1929 [sic] [1928] Stalin staged the first of his show-trials, against a group of Donbass mining engineers charged with ‘sabotage’. The script was written by the
OGPU official Y.G.Yevdokimov, one of Stalin’s creatures, and featured the twelve-year-old son of one of the accused, who denounced his father and called for his execution... » (Johnson, 1991, p.266); « On March 10, 1928, an exposure was announced about the ‘counter-revolutionary complot’ involving technical engineers and foreign facilities in Shakhty, Donbass mine.» (Wada, et al., 1997, p.147); « On May 18, 1928 in Moscow, an unexpected person having taken the seat of the chief justice, announced the court open. It was Andrei Vyshinskii [1883-1954], president of Moscow University, since assisting Stalin in the Great Terror. In the dock were 53 accused, the management and the engineers including the Germans of the Donbass mine, prosecuted for having organized an ‘underground counter-revolutionary group’ in conspiracy with foreign ‘anti-Soviet Centers’ and projected the explosion of coal mines, etc. This was the first of the show-trials. The outcome has been determined since quite before the trial just as the General Secretary of the Communist Party Stalin definitely spoke against them on April 13 at the party conference in Moscow. Stalin’s intent was to use the judges and prosecutors faithful to his designed ‘judgment’ and to make believe publicly its fairness. Vyshinskii was the fittest for the job, having delivered lectures on law appraising Stalin at Moscow University, inexperienced as a justice. His vocabulary, expressions, eloquence and logical discourse unique in deriving culpability fully satisfied Stalin. The second show-trial was staged in December 1930 against 8 persons, who had been close to the late Vladimir Lenin, involving the executive of Gosplan (State Planning Commission). Into the accused did get a collaborator of the investigating agency, who testified that a large range of personalities were projecting destructive activities in each economic section. The aim of these show-trials were not to punish the actual criminals, but to imprint a fear of enemies’ omnipresence upon the elite and the public and to show them to be duly sentenced. Thus it was Vyshinskii that exploited the route to the Great Terror by Stalin.» (Endo, XLVII, November 21, 2017); « Stalin promotes Vyshinskii indebted to him for his conversion from the Mensheviki to the Bolsheviki. Andrei Vyshinskii, who supported Stalin in his Great Terror as Prosecutor in chief and was famed for the public opinion that all but Stalin did fear him, had an unprecedented past among the leaders of the Bolsheviki. Vyshinskii and Stalin met in 1907 in a prison of Baku, in the southern Caucasus, about the end of the Imperial Russia. A Georgian Stalin was playing then an active part as a militant Bolshevik in the Caucasus, whereas Vyshinskii was belonging to the Mensheviki, a moderate Marxist group splitting with the Bolsheviki, but he was yet working sanguinarily among the nonpartisan militants. He was the only man who did not fear Stalin in their controversies about the revolution in the prison, which left a deep impression in Stalin. He was still a Menshevik, when he met again Stalin after the October Revolution of 1917 and was raised by Stalin as one of the administration of the Provision Commissariat of the People. In February 1920 when the Civil War was becoming serious between the Bolsheviki and their opponents, he was admitted to the Communist Party thanks to Stalin’s mediation. “ Stalin fully understood that « this event should have been left as a delicate pickle in the consciousness of an ex-Menshevik.»... Vyshinskii would be a slave to his master to crash his enemies.” Thus did imagine a Russian historian Arkajii Waksberg the mind of Stalin, a mediator of Vyshinskii’s late conversion. Even when the Mensheviki became a target of excessive oppression later, Stalin did not touch Vyshinskii himself and manipulated him freely in favor of his preponderance over him. ‘Wishing to join the foundation of a new system’, Vyshinskii became a lawyer and was elected president and professor in law of Moscow University going through a prosecutor of the Supreme Court. And he was charged with the justice in chief of the ‘coal mine trial’ of 1928. At this moment Stalin already intended to purge his political rivals. All the trials of 1930s against the old leaders of the Party such as Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, Rykov were plausible court-plays with Stalin’s prepared sentence staged by Vyshinskii, who was charged with prosecutor in chief of Russian Republic since 1931, then of the Soviet Union since 1935 [till 1940 when he was nominated the First Vice Secretary of Foreign Affairs]. ‘Confession is the queen of evidences’: this theory of jurisprudence by Vyshinskii left to his posterity an immeasurable negative heritage.» (Endo, XLVIII, November 22, 2017).

Corne, victime d’orée, & d'azur, d'acre: Inrerpretés seront les extispices
: These verses are to be interpreted as if we were analyzing a certain kind of entrails as follows: Horns, golden victims, and those of sky and of pickles: [As such] [the accused] shall be interpreted [by] the soothsayers: = The judges or the secret police shall interpret the accused as ‘anti-revolutionaries (horns)’, ‘bourgeois (golden victims)’, ‘idealists, anti-materialists (those of sky)’ or ‘harmful criticizers (those of pickles)’: « The most dreadful was the fact that the dwellers of the apartment were secretly informing against each other. At that time the secret information was recommended and it was guilty to neglect it. Anyone was condemned as ‘an anti-Soviet activity’, ‘ an enemy of the People’ or ‘a spy’ [horns].» (Endo, VI, September 30, 2017); « By 1929 Stalin had the all-purpose term Stakhtyites (wreckers) [horns] for anyone he wished to destroy. As he put it, ‘Bourgeois wrecking [golden victims] is an indubitable sign that capitalist elements are gathering strength for new attacks on the Soviet Union.’» (Johnson, id., p.267);

Those of sky: = « Those well versed in spiritual things » (§757, IV-18): Those well versed in spiritual things Shall be reproved by ignorant governors: Punished through the Decree, chased as criminals: « The most disturbing and, from the historical point of view, important characteristic of the Lenin terror was not the quantity of the victims but the principle on which they were selected. Within a few months of seizing power, Lenin had abandoned the notion of individual guilt, and with it the whole Judeo-Christian ethic of personal responsibility. The watershed was Lenin’s decree of January 1918 calling on the agencies of state to ‘purge the Russian land of all kinds of harmful insects’. This was not a judicial act: it was an invitation to mass murder. Many years later, Alexander Solzhenitsyn listed just a few of the groups who thus found themselves condemned to destruction as ‘insects’. They included ‘former zemstvo members, people in the Cooper movements, homeowners, high-school teachers, parish councils and choirs, priests, monks and nuns, Tolstoyan pacifists [those of sky], officials of trade-unions’ – soon all to be classified as ‘former people’. Quite quickly the condemned group decree-laws extended to whole classes and the notion of killing people collectively rather than individually was seized upon by the Cheka professionals with enthusiasm.» (Johnson, 1991, p.70).

« Immediately Zinoviev and Kamenev were dead [August 1936], Stalin ordered Yagoda to execute more than 5,000 party members already under arrest. This was the beginning of the Great Terror. Soon after this was done, Stalin sent from Sochi, where he was on holiday, the sinister telegram of 25 September 1936: ‘We deem it absolutely necessary and urgent that Comrade Yezhov be nominated to the post of People’s Commissar for Internal Affairs [Shallow augurs elevated to the haruspices]. Yagoda has definitely proved himself to be incapable of unmasking the Trotskyite-Zinovievite block [a sect]. The
OGPU is four years behind in this matter.’ This was followed by the systematic purge of the secret police, carried out by teams of two to three hundred party zealots secretly recruited by Yezhov. Next Stalin eliminated his old Georgian friend Ordzhonikidze, the last Politburo member allowed to call him by his nickname ‘Koba’ or to argue with him: he was given the choice of shooting himself or dying in the police cells. After February 1937 Stalin could kill anyone, in any way he wished. At the CC plenum at the end of the month, it ‘instructed’ Stalin to arrest Bukharin and Rykov. Bukharin pleaded tearfully for his life. Stalin: ‘If you are innocent, you can prove it in a prison cell!’ The CC: ‘Shoot the traitor!’ The two men were taken straight off to prison and death; Yagoda was later heard to mutter, ‘What a pity I didn’t arrest all of you before, when I had the power.’ (It made no difference: of the 140 people present, nearly two-thirds would shortly be murdered.) From the end of 1936 to the second half of 1938, Stalin struck at every group in the regime. In 1937 alone he killed 3,000 senior secret police officers and 90 per cent of the public prosecutors in the provinces.» (Johnson, 1991, p.300-301).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved.

§761 Nikolai Lenin’s developed successor Joseph Stalin (1917-1953): I-45.

I-45 (§761):

Sector of sects great premium to the denouncer:
Beasts on the theatre, the scenic play rehearsed:
Of the ancient fact ennobled the inventor,
By sects the world being confused and schismatic.

(Secteur de sectes grand preme au delateur:
Beste en theatre, dressé le jeu scenique:
Du faict antique ennobli l'inventeur,
Par sectes monde confus & scismatique.)

NOTES: Secteur: = sector. « secteurlat. sector coupeur (cutter) ← secare couper (to cut).» (Ibuki); « sector, m. [secō], a cutter(Smith-Lockwood); « secō, to cut; to divide, separate.» (Smith-Lockwood).

Sector of sects: = Stalin, he who is at any cost going to reveal his rivals in sole power in the Party to be fractional, to be in a sect, to be against the Party, to be opposing the Party he masters in order to expel and destroy them.

As far as the expression ‘secteur de sectes (sector of sects)’ is concerned, V. Ionescu’s interpretation seems right in relating it to Nikolai Lenin, who in speech was worth “sectarian” (Ionescu, 1976, p.442-445), and in deed, too, because he established the Russian regime upon a narrow and steep basis of the Soviet Bolshevik Party, excluding all the other parties and forces. However, all the other elements in addition to this predicted in the quatrain are inevitably referring to his immediate and developed successor Joseph Stalin, who shall expel and destroy all his rivals in sole power as ‘fractionalists’ (those in sects in the party) one after another within the Communist Party itself.

Sector of sects: « Soon Stalin was resurrecting the old Trotsky-Lenin rows. At the thirteenth Party Congress in May 1924 he branded Trotsky with the Leninist term of ‘fractionalist [= sectarian]’. Trotsky refused to retract his criticism that Stalin was becoming too powerful. But he could not dispute Lenin’s condemnation of internal opposition and, like a man accused of heresy by the Inquisition, he was disarmed by his own religious belief. ‘Comrades’, he admitted, ‘none of us wishes to be right or can be right against the party. The party is in the last resort always right... I know that one cannot be right against the party. One can only be right with the party and through the party, since history has created no other paths to the realization of what is right.’ Since Stalin was already in control of the party, Trotsky’s words forged the ice-pick that crushed his skull sixteen years later. By the end of 1924 Stalin, with Kamenev and Zinoviev doing the dirty work, had created the heresy of ‘Trotskyism’ and related it to Trotsky’s earlier disputes with Lenin, who had been embalmed and put into his apotheosis-tomb five months earlier. In January 1925 Stalin was thus able to strip Trotsky of the army control with the full approval of the party... With Trotsky destroyed, Stalin turned on his Leftist allies. Early in 1925 he stole Kamenev’s Moscow party from under his nose by suborning his deputy, Uglanov. In September he brought in Bukharin and the Right to help in a frontal attack on Zinoviev – Kamenev, and had them decisively defeated at the Party Congress in December. Immediately afterwards, Stalin’s most trusted and ruthless henchman, Molotov, was sent to Leningrad with a powerful squad of party ‘heavies’, to smash up Zenoviev’s party apparatus there and take it over – essentially the same methods, but on a larger scale, that Al Capone was employing to extend his territory in Chicago at that very time. Frightened, Zinoviev now joined forces with Trotsky, the man he had helped to break. But it was too late: they were both immediately expelled from the party, and at the fifteenth Party Congress in December 1926, Kamenev’s protest was shouted down by the massed ranks of carefull drilled Stalinists who now filled the party’s ranks. Consciously echoing Lenin, Stalin came out into the open against his old allies: ‘Enough comrades, an end must be put to this game.... Kamenev’s speech is the most lying, pharasaical, scoundrelly and roguish of all the opposition speeches that have been made from this platform.’ The moment the Left was beaten and disarmed, Stalin began to adopt their policy of putting pressure on the peasants to speed industrialization, thus preparing the means to destroy Bukharin and the Right. The big clash came on 10 July 1928 at a meeting of the Central Committee, when Bukharin argued that while the kulak himself was not a threat – ‘we can shoot him down with machineguns’ - forced collectivization would unite all the peasants against the government. Stalin interrupted him with sinister piety, ‘A fearful dream, but God is merciful!’ God might be, but the General-Secretary. The next day, a scared Bukharin speaking on behalf of his allies Rykov, the nominal head of the government, and Tomsky, the hack ‘trade union leader’, had a secret meeting with Kamenev and offered to form a united front to stop Stalin. He now realized, he said, that Stalin was not primarily interested in policy but in sole power: ‘He will strangle us. He is an unprincipled intriguer who subordinates everything to his appetite for power. At any given moment he will change his theories in order to get rid of someone [Sector of sects].’ None of these nervous men had the numerical support in the key party bodies to outvote Stalin; or the means, in the shape of trained men with guns, to overrule him by force; or the skill and resolution – both of which he had shown in abundance – to destroy him by intrigue. In 1929 they were all dealt with: Rycov ousted from the premiership, Tomsky from the trade union leadership, and both, plus Bukharin, forced publicly to confess their errors (Kamenev and Zinoviev had already done so). They could now be tried and murdered at leisure.» (Johnson, 1991, p.264-266); « Immediately Zinoviev and Kamenev were dead [August 1936], Stalin ordered Yagoda to execute more than 5,000 party members already under arrest. This was the beginning of the Great Terror. Soon after this was done, Stalin sent from Sochi, where he was on holiday, the sinister telegram of 25 September 1936: ‘We deem it absolutely necessary and urgent that Comrade Yezhov be nominated to the post of People’s Commissar for Internal Affairs. Yagoda has definitely proved himself to be incapable of unmasking the Trotskyite-Zinovievite block [a sect]. The
OGPU is four years behind in this matter.’ This was followed by the systematic purge of the secret police, carried out by teams of two to three hundred party zealots secretly recruited by Yezhov. Next Stalin eliminated his old Georgian friend Ordzhonikidze, the last Politburo member allowed to call him by his nickname ‘Koba’ or to argue with him: he was given the choice of shooting himself or dying in the police cells. After February 1937 Stalin could kill anyone, in any way he wished [Sector of sects]. At the CC plenum at the end of the month, it ‘instructed’ Stalin to arrest Bukharin and Rykov. Bukharin pleaded tearfully for his life. Stalin: ‘If you are innocent, you can prove it in a prison cell!’ The CC: ‘Shoot the traitor!’ The two men were taken straight off to prison and death; Yagoda was later heard to mutter, ‘What a pity I didn’t arrest all of you before, when I had the power.’ (It made no difference: of the 140 people present, nearly two-thirds would shortly be murdered.) From the end of 1936 to the second half of 1938, Stalin [Sector] struck at every group [sects] in the regime. In 1937 alone he killed 3,000 senior secret police officers and 90 per cent of the public prosecutors in the provinces.» (Johnson, id., p.300-301).

Preme: = Récompense (recompense, reward, prize, award) ; « Preme (?). Récompense? – Faire les bons, non seulement par crainte de pene, mais aussi par exhortation de preme (To do good, not only for fear of pain, but also for exhortation to premium). 1554. L
E CARON, Claire, 41b (Vaganay, Mots).» (Huguet). By the way, the ? marks in Huguet now should be eliminated in view of the convergence of the two usages of the term in question by LE CARON and NOSTRADAMUS !

Great premium to the denouncer: « A tragedy in the House of the elite: There is a high-class residence called the House on Embankment in the central district of Moscow commanding the Kremlin and the Saviour-Christ Cathedral. It is the eleven-storied building on a block of 40,000 m2 beside the Moscow River, its magnificence having been very attractive for a long time. It was built by means of the modern architecture of highest level in 1927-31 by an architect drilled in Italy Boris Iofan [1891-1976] on the initiative of Alexei Rykov in the premiership since 1924. It was properly called the Government House for the residence of the high officials of the Revolutionary Regime with the most advanced equipment... But soon this house of ‘dream’ was changed to the house of ‘tragedy’. In the second half of 1930s it was swallowed up in the midst of the wave of Great Purge under the autocratic regime of Stalin and its residents were disappearing one after another like a comb with its teeth falling rapidly. The life in the House with wonderful furniture and facilities was from the beginning under strict surveillance by the authority. At its entrances, 25 in number, were always posted the state police agents, the residents depositing them their keys when they went out, and the visitors being accompanied by them into the room. In 1932 the authority for security began to take residents away or to search within. It culminated in 1937-38. Much more than 800 named residents were identified as ‘vanished’, one third, at least, of the residents in all, of which 344 were shot. The most dreadful was the fact that the dwellers of the apartment were secretly informing against each other. At that time the secret information was recommended and it was guilty to neglect it [Great premium to the denouncer]. Anyone was condemned as ‘an anti-Soviet activity’, ‘ an enemy of the People’ or ‘a spy’.» (Endo, VI, September 30, 2017).

Beasts on the theatre, the scenic play rehearsed: « Stalin had already begun to perfect the dramaturgy of terror. Drawing on his monkish memories, he arranged party meetings to provide a well-rehearsed antiphonal dialogue between himself and his claque [the scenic play rehearsed], with Stalin suggesting moderation in dealing with ‘party enemies’ and the claque insisting on severity. Thus, reluctantly demanding the expulsion of Trotsky and Zinoviev, Stalin said he had been against this before and had been ‘cursed’ by ‘honest Bolsheviks’ for being too lenient. The claque: ‘Yes – and we still do curse you for it’. In May–July 1929 [sic][1928] Stalin staged the first of his show-trials [Beasts on the theatre], against a group of Donbass mining engineers charged with ‘sabotage’. The script was written by the
OGPU official Y.G.Yevdokimov, one of Stalin’s creatures, and featured the twelve-year-old son of one of the accused, who denounced his father and called for his execution. The actual head of OGPU, Menzhinsky, opposed this trial, as did some Politburo members. But this was the last time Stalin met genuine opposition from within the secret police or security apparatus. Towards the end of the year he ordered the shooting of the senior OGPU official Yakov Blyumkin, the first party member to be executed for an intra-party crime. Thereafter the trials went exactly as Stalin planned them, down to the last indignant crowd-scene, like some gigantic production by the Soviet cineaste Sergei Eisenstein. While the trial of the ‘Industrial Party’ was taking place the next year, the body of the court shouted, at carefully arranged intervals, ‘Death to the wreckers!’ and in the streets outside, thousands of workers marched past shouting ‘Death, death, death!’. By 1929 Stalin had the all-purpose term Stakhtyites (wreckers) for anyone he wished to destroy. As he put it, ‘Bourgeois wrecking is an indubitable sign that capitalist elements are gathering strength for new attacks on the Soviet Union.’» (Johnson, id., p.266-267).

Of the ancient fact ennobled the inventor:
« While goading on the witch-hunting and building up the paranoia and hysteria, Stalin was contriving his own apotheosis as the heir of the deified Lenin. As early as 1924-5, Yuzovka, Yuzovo and Tsaritsyn became Stalino, Stalinsky, Stalingrad; but it was the fiftieth birthday celebrations at the end of 1929 which marked the real beginning not only of Stalin’s unfettered personal rule but of the Stalin cult [ennobled the inventor] in all its nightmare maturity, with names like Stalinabad, Stalin-Aul, Staliniri, Stalinissi, Stalino, Stalinogorsk, Stalinsk, Mount Stalin, sprouting all over the Soviet Empire, and with the first appearance of Stalinist litanies: Man of Steel, the Granite Bolshevik, the Brass-hard Leninist, the Iron Soldier, the Universal Genius, a form of ruler-worship which went back to the Egyptian pharaohs [Of the ancient fact ennobled the inventor]. » (Johnson, id., p.267).

By sects the world being confused and schismatic
: « Vanished treasuries for foreign maneuvers and for pocketbooks of the heads of the government. Lenin and his regime in power through the Russian Revolution founded the Communist International (Comintern) in March 1919 as the leading centre of international communist movements and planned to export ‘Revolution’ into the European countries [By sects the world being confused and schismatic]. It was financially supported by the heritage of the Imperial Russia. The Imperial Russia was the first class country in the world in gold production, her gold reserve before the Great War having amounted to 1,311 tons. It is known to us that much gold had flowed out of Russia after the Revolution and at the first stages of Soviet Union. It was brought mainly into Sweden in secret and thence distributed to another destinations. It was called ‘gold of steam locomotives’ or ‘gold of Comintern’ according to the means of carriage and to the purpose of use. The former was for the payment of the steam locomotives Russia had ordered from Sweden, and the latter for the support to the maneuvers and campaigns of each country’s communist party joining the Comintern. Comintern obliged each member party to absolutely obey the Russian Communist Party for its promise of monetary support to the member... » (Endo, XXXIX, November 10, 2017).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved.

§760 Trotsky expelled by Stalin to be assassinated abroad (1917-1940): IX-4.

IX-4 (§760):

In the year following the deluge, through which
Shall be disclosed the two elite leaders,
Whose the first shall not continue standing.
To the one of them allotted the refuge of avoiding shadows,
The cabin that shall uphold the first ransacked.

(L'an ensuyvant decouvertz par deluge,
Deux chefs esleuz le premier ne tiendra.
De fuyr ombre à l'vn d'eux le refuge,
Saccagee case qui premier maintiendra.)
(№ 10).

NOTES: The deluge: « The word ‘deluge’ symbolizes here the Civil War. One knows that the Commander in Chief of this campaign was Trotsky, he who had taken great care to organize the Red Army. Stalin had filled also a very important role [of provisioning the southern Russia (Trémolières IV, p.54)], but secondary with regard to that of Trotsky.» (Ionescu, 1976, p.464).

In the year following the deluge: = In 1922, the Russian Civil War having lasted from 1917 till 1921 (
Trémolières IV, p.29).

In the year following the deluge, through which Shall be disclosed the two elite leaders: In 1922 Stalin was nominated General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, which made him parallel with Trotsky, the top leader in the Civil War, and thence even far superior through the full exploitation of his new office; « In the year that followed the civil war – then in 1922 – there shall be two chiefs who shall be promoted in the midst of the Soviet government.» (Ionescu, id., p.465).

Whose the first shall not continue standing
: « The first of them – Trotsky – shall not continue to be in power, in spite of his preceding position of superiority.» (Ionescu, id.); « When Lenin died in 1924 his autocracy was complete and Stalin, as General Secretary of the Party, had already inherited him. All that remained was the elimination of potential rivals for sole power. For this Stalin was well equipped. This ex-seminarist and revolutionary thug was half-gangster, half-bureaucrat. He had no ideals; no ideological notions of his own. Stalin did not have Lenin’s ideological passion for violence. But he was capable of unlimited violence to achieve his purposes, or indeed for no particular reason; and he sometimes nursed feelings of revenge against individuals for years before executing them. However, immediately after Lenin’s incapacitation and mindful of his criticisms, Stalin sought power by posing as a moderate and as a man of the Centre. His problem was as follows. By controlling the rapidly expanding Secretariat Stalin was already in virtual control of the party machinery and in the process of filling the Central Committee with his creatures. On the Politburo, however, four important figures stood between him and autocracy: Trotsky, the most famous and ferocious of the Bolsheviks, who controlled the army; Zinoviev, who ran the Leningrad party – for which Stalin, then and later, had a peculiar hatred; Kamenev, who controlled the Moscow party, now the most important; and Bukharin, the leading theorist. The first three leaned towards the Left, the last to the Right, and the way in which Stalin divided and used them to destroy each other, and then appropriated their policies as required – he seems to have had none of his own – is a classic exercise in power-politics. The term ‘Trotskyist’, first used as a term of abuse by Zinoviev, was defined in its mature form by Stalin, who created the distinction between ‘permanent revolution’ (Trotsky) and ‘revolution in one country’ (Stalin). In fact they all believed in immediate world revolution to begin with, and all turned to consolidating the regime when it didn’t happen. Trotsky wanted to press ahead with industrialization faster than Stalin but both were, from first to last, opportunists. They had graduated in the same slaughterhouse and their quarrel was essentially about who would be its new high priest. Had Trotsky come out on top, he would probably have been even more bloodthirsty than Stalin. But he would not have lasted [the first shall not continue standing]: he lacked the skills of survival. He must have been dismayed when for the first time he attacked Stalin in the autumn of 1923 and discovered how well-entrenched he was. Trotsky wanted the palm without the dust, a fatal mistake for a gangster who could not appeal from the mafia to the public. He was often sick or away; never there at the right time. He even missed Lenin’s state funeral, a serious error since it was Stalin’s first move towards restoring the reverential element in Russian life that had been so sadly missed since the destruction of the throne and church. Soon Stalin was resurrecting the old Trotsky-Lenin rows. At the thirteenth Party Congress in May 1924 he branded Trotsky with the Leninist term of ‘fractionalist’. Trotsky refused to retract his criticism that Stalin was becoming too powerful. But he could not dispute Lenin’s condemnation of internal opposition and, like a man accused of heresy by the Inquisition, he was disarmed by his own religious belief. ‘Comrades’, he admitted, ‘none of us wishes to be right or can be right against the party. The party is in the last resort always right... I know that one cannot be right against the party. One can only be right with the party and through the party, since history has created no other paths to the realization of what is right.’ Since Stalin was already in control of the party, Trotsky’s words forged the ice-pick that crushed his skull sixteen years later. By the end of 1924 Stalin, with Kamenev and Zinoviev doing the dirty work, had created the heresy of ‘Trotskyism’ and related it to Trotsky’s earlier disputes with Lenin, who had been embalmed and put into his apotheosis-tomb five months earlier. In January 1925 Stalin was thus able to strip Trotsky of the army control with the full approval of the party... With Trotsky destroyed (he was expelled from the Politburo October 1926, from the party the following month, sent into internal exile in 1928 and exiled from Russia 1929; murdered on Stalin’s orders in Mexico in 1940), Stalin turned on his Leftist allies... » (Johnson, 1991, p.261-265); « Nazi-Soviet security forces worked together very closely up to 22 June 1941 [when Germany invades Russia]. The
NKVD [People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs] handed over several hundred German nationals, chiefly Communists and Jews, to the Gestapo at this time. The Nazis, in turn, helped Stalin to hunt down his own enemies. On 20 August 1940, after several attempts, he finally had Trotsky ice-axed to death in Mexico: as the latter had justly remarked, ‘Stalin seeks to strike, not the ideas of his opponent, but at his skull.’ It was an approach he shared with Hitler.» (id., p.373).

To the one of them allotted the refuge of avoiding shadows: « Toward this shall be given a way of refuge in exile and a misfortune of being obliged to flee from a country to another, in order to avoid shadows – the Stalinist agents that were pursuing him.» (Ionescu, id.).

The cabin that shall uphold the first ransacked
: Trotsky was to be assassinated in 1940 within his temporary residence (cabin) in Mexico; « August 20, 1940. Lev Davidovitch Bronstein, so-called Trotsky, is assassinated by a Spanish Ramon Mercader (alias Frank Jacson, alias Jacques Mornard), a probable agent of Stalin, in his house of Coyaacan, near Mexico. His son Léon Sedov has been already assassinated in France in 1938.» (Jouette, p.274).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved.

§759 Cultural revolution in the Bolshevik Revolution (1917-1923): VI-8.

VI-8 (§759):

Those who were linked with the authority because of their knowledge,
Shall be impoverished on the occasion of the change of Government:
Some of them into exile without support nor money,
The intellectuals and their cultures shall not be appreciated highly.

(Ceux qui estoient en regne pour scavoir,
Au Royal change deviendront apauvris:
Uns exilés sans appuy, or n'avoir,
Lettrés & lettres ne seront à grans pris.)

NOTES: Apauvrir: = « appauvrir v.tr. To impoverish.» (Dubois).

Those who were linked with the authority because of their knowledge, Shall be impoverished on the occasion of the change of Government: Some of them into exile without support nor money: « Those who were reigning because of their competence and culture, after a change of political regime, shall be completely impoverished. Some shall live in exile, without support, for they shall have abandoned all of their fortune.» (Ionescu, 1976, p.435).

The intellectuals and their cultures shall not be appreciated highly
: This kind of cultural revolution has not been seen these several centuries except on the occasion of the Bolshevik Revolution starting in 1917, where the reigning intellectuals and their favorite cultures were labeled as bourgeois and completely rejected; « Within a few months of seizing power, Lenin had abandoned the notion of individual guilt, and with it the whole Judeo-Christian ethic of personal responsibility. The watershed was Lenin’s decree of January 1918 calling on the agencies of state to ‘purge the Russian land of all kinds of harmful insects’. This was not a judicial act: it was an invitation to mass murder. Many years layer, Alexander Solzhenitsyn listed just a few of the groups who thus found themselves condemned to destruction as ‘insects’. They included ‘former zemstvo members, people in the Cooper movements, homeowners, high-school teachers, parish councils and choirs, priests, monks and nuns, Tolstoyan pacifists, officials of trade-unions’ – soon all to be classified as ‘former people’.» (Johnson, 1991, p.70).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved.

§758 Bolshevik oppression of the Orthodox Church (1918-1988): VIII-98.

VIII-98 (§758):

Blood of the people of church shall be spread,
Like water in so great abundance:
And for a long time shall not be stanched
Woe with the clerk!
Ruin and complaints.

(Des gens d'eglise sang sera espandu,
Comme de l'eau en si grande abondance:
Et d'un long temps ne sera restanché
Ve ve au clerc ruyne & doleance.)

NOTES: Restancher: = « Étancher (to stop, to stanch).» (Huguet).

Ve: = « , interj., malheur (woe).» (Godefroy).

Serge Hutin proposes the theme of the quatrain as “the violent anticlericalism of the French revolutionaries as well as of the Bolsheviki of 1917” (Hutin, 1972, p.276), but the prediction of Nostradamus that « And for a long time shall not be stanched » can decide for the Russian Revolution. For the political suffering of the French Church under the revolutionary regime had lasted only 12 years [November 2nd, 1789: nationalization of property of church – July 15th, 1801: First Consul Napoleon’s Concordat with Papacy], whereas the Russian Orthodox Church endured the Communist Regime’s oppression for as many as 70 years [February 5th, 1918: separation of Church and State, of Church and School – June 14th, 1988: Gorbachev, General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, makes an apology to the leaders of the Orthodox Church for the Party’s religious suppression in the past]. As to the wars of religion in France in the 16th century (cf. Janus, p.172; Guinard, 2011, p.158), their duration of 36 years [March 1st, 1562: Massacre at Wassy - April 13th, 1598: Edict of Nantes] does not exceed yet the case of the Soviet.

« Men who carry through political revolutions seem to be of two main types, the clerical and the romantic. Lenin (he adopted the pen-name in 1901) was from the first category. Both his parents were Christians. Religion was important to him, in the sense that he hated it. Unlike Marx, who despised it and treated it as marginal, Lenin saw it as a powerful and ubiquitous enemy. He made clear in many writings (his letter to Gorky of 13 January 1913 is a striking example) that he had an intense personal dislike for anything religious. ‘There can be nothing more abominable’, he wrote, ‘than religion’. From the start, the state he created set up and maintains to this day [as of 1983: date of the 1st edition of this work of the author], an enormous academic propaganda machine against religion. He was not just anti-clerical like Stalin, who disliked priests because they were corrupt. On the contrary, Lenin had no real feelings about corrupt priests, because they were easily beaten. The men he really feared and hated, and later persecuted, were the saints. The purer the religion, the more dangerous. A devoted cleric, he argued, is far more influential than an egotistical and immoral one. The clergy most in need of suppression were not those committed to the defense of exploitation but those who expressed their solidarity with the proletariat and the peasants. With his extraordinary passion for force, he might have figured in Mohammed’s legions. He was ever closer perhaps to Jean Calvin, with his belief in organizational structure, his ability to create one and dominate it utterly, his puritanism, his passionate self-righteousness, and above all his intolerance.» (Johnson, 1991, p.50-51).

« The Orthodox Church, relieved after the February Revolution from the control by the Bureau of Cult, gained a chance of promoting its autonomous activity. But, the ecclesiastics were not able to be up with the rapid evolutions of the revolutionary epoch, always in delay in accommodating themselves to the situation, and became more and more hostile against the Bolshevik Regime. The Soviet Government separated the Church from the State and from the School through the Decree adopted on February 2nd (January 22nd), 1918. This Decree deprived the religious organizations of their corporate status, prohibited their properties and gave all the citizens the freedom of performing cults as well as anti-religious propagandizing. In the beginning of the Civil War the clergy fiercely resisted the Bolshevik authority, but in 1919 the Archbishop Tihon declared their political neutrality. In 1921, when a very bad crop caused millions of casualties, the post-war prestige of the Church was drastically damaged. Under the approval by the Soviet Government the Orthodox Church voluntarily began to collect contributions including its own donation for the starveling on February 22nd, 1922. Nine days later, however, the Government decided the obligatory contribution of the property of the Church to purchase foods from abroad. The Church opposed it strongly and it occurred in the countryside bloody conflicts between the orthodox and the troops of the Red Army or the Secret Agency. On the moment the Authority decided to suppress thoroughly the Orthodox Church. Immediately began the arrest in mass and the ecclesiastics as well as the secular were executed after open trials, and simultaneously the Archbishop Tihon was reported apprehended. He apologized in part and sought to be set free in Summer, 1923, having a sense of crisis in facing the maneuvers of the Security Police for splitting up the Orthodox Church. His statement appeased the maneuvers and the Government itself became indifferent to the policy of division. Tihon died in 1925 in his confinement. In 1926 the deputy-Archbishop Sergij in succession to Tihon, and the Inner Bureau of the Church made many concessions to stabilize the interrelation of the State and the Church, and in 1927 when the Soviets were in bad international relations, appealed to the orthodox and their clergy for becoming loyal citizens of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.» (Wada, et al., 1997, p.125-126).

« The advance of the Russian Army since the beginning of 1943 and the popular image of the top of the State Stalin, who had not made use of his prerogatives in favor of his son taken prisoner by the Germans, produced a personal solidarity between him and the nation, which was intensified also by his policy at this time. It concerns his conciliation with the Church. Soon after the outbreak of war, the traditional anti-religious activities were suspended, and little by little the churches began to be rehabilitated everywhere. And by 1943 the relation between the State and the Church became a kind of covenant, through which the Church was given public supports and itself promised to assist more the war promotion.» (Wada, et al., id., p.280-281).

« In the election campaign in Moscow for the Supreme Soviet on February 9th, 1946, Stalin said that this victory of the Great Patriotic War proved the preponderance of the Soviet social system and with it the righteousness of the policies such as the Quinquennial Plans and the Collectivization that effected it. His central message was to emphasize that there was no need to change the traditional regime even a little. But after this speech there took place a great famine in the country and the nation’s discontent increased, which testifies that there spread a wide gap between the Regime led by Stalin and the people’s mind. In these situations, the intermediate classes between them could have great influence upon the political future.» (Wada, et al., id., p.300-301).

« The Orthodox Church, too, was one of these intermediary organizations intervening between the nation and the authority. In January 1948, in fact, the number of the formally registered parishes was as many as 14,329 (300 larger than that of the year before), symbolizing the increasing prestige of the Church since the conciliation with the power during the war. But this trend ended in 1950, and thereafter the number diminished every year by several hundred units. This is considered as the result of the oppressive policy by the authority in fear of the growth of the influence of the Church. For example, the number of the rescission of the registered church buildings had not exceeded 20 a year in 1944 – 47, but reached 73 in 48 and even 400 in 50. » (Wada, et al., id., p.326).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved.

§757 Bolshevik secret police and Red Terror (1917-1921): IV-18.

IV-18 (§757):

Those well versed in spiritual things
Shall be reproved by ignorant governors:
Punished through the Decree, chased as criminals,
And put to death where they’ll be found.

(Des plus letrés dessus les faits celestes
Seront par princes ignorants reprouvés:
Punis d'Edit, chassés, comme scelestes,
Et mis à mort la ou seront trouvés.)

NOTES: Letré: = lettré (lettered).

Those well versed in spiritual things: = The materialistic Bolshevik conception of the Russian former people in general imbued with Orthodoxy. The interpretation by Ionescu of the phrase as “the sage and the men of culture, the initiate in the mysteries of the superior world” (Ionescu, 1976, p.434) is too specialized.

Princes ignorants: = « Ignorant governors » (Ionescu, id.)

Sceleste: = « Criminel (criminal).» (Huguet).

Those well versed in spiritual things Shall be reproved by ignorant governors: Punished through the Decree, chased as criminals: « The most disturbing and, from the historical point of view, important characteristic of the Lenin terror was not the quantity of the victims but the principle on which they were selected. Within a few months of seizing power, Lenin [ignorant governor] had abandoned the notion of individual guilt, and with it the whole Judeo-Christian ethic of personal responsibility. The watershed was Lenin’s decree [the Decree] of January 1918 calling on the agencies of state to ‘purge the Russian land of all kinds of harmful insects [as criminals]’. This was not a judicial act: it was an invitation to mass murder. Many years later, Alexander Solzhenitsyn listed just a few of the groups who thus found themselves condemned to destruction as ‘insects’. They included ‘former zemstvo members, people in the Cooper movements, homeowners, high-school teachers, parish councils and choirs, priests, monks and nuns, Tolstoyan pacifists, officials of trade-unions’ – soon all to be classified as ‘former people’. Quite quickly the condemned group decree-laws extended to whole classes and the notion of killing people collectively rather than individually was seized upon by the Cheka professionals [ignorant governors] with enthusiasm.» (Johnson, 1991, p.70).

And put to death where they’ll be found: « On 23 February [1918], the Cheka published in the Pravda the following precautious order: “The Cheka has been moderate until now in its struggle against the enemies of the people. But now that the hydra of counter-revolution, encouraged by the attack of the perfidious Germans, are being revealed more insolent every day, that the world-wide bourgeoisie are ready to suffocate the avant-garde of the revolutionary International, namely the Russian proletariat, the Cheka sees itself in the obligation to put an end to the maneuvers of the counter-revolutionaries, the espions, the speculators, the criminals, the hooligans, the saboteurs and other parasites in exterminating them pitilessly even upon the place of their misdeeds [put to death where they’ll be found]. The local sections of the Cheka have been charged with smelling out the enemies of the Revolution and liquidating them pitilessly without more ado”.» (Lewytzkyj, 1968, p.26); « Djerzinski declared at a press conference: “We will maintain a regime of organized terror, it is an absolute necessity, an ineluctable consequence of the Revolution. We oppose the terror to all the enemies of the soviet government, in order to exterminate on the spot the crimes with their roots”.» (id., p.34).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved.

§756 Nikolai Lenin violently seizing power (1917-1991): V-52.

V-52 (§756):

It shall be a King who shall give the opposite,
Those in exile shall be elevated to the reign:
Those of a caste like Hypolite swimming bled,
And shall flourish long under such an ensign.

(Un Roy sera qui donra l'opposite,
Les exilés eslevés sur le regne:
De sang nager la gent caste hyppolite,
Et florira long temps soubz telle enseigne.)

NOTES: Those in exile: « Lenin left Zurich to return to Russia on 8 April 1917. Some of his comrades in exile accompanied him to the station, arguing. He was to travel back through Germany at the invitation of General Ludendorff, who guaranteed him a safe passage provided he undertook not to talk to any German trade unionists on the way. War breeds revolutions. And breeding revolutions is a very old form of warfare. The Germans called it Revolutionierungpolitik [policy of revolutionizing]. If the Allies could incite the Poles, the Czechs, the Croats, the Arabs and the Jews to rise against the Central Powers and their partners, then the Germans, in turn, could and did incite the Irish and the Russians. If the Germans used Lenin, as Churchill later put it, ‘like a typhoid bacillus’, they attached no particular importance to him, lumping him in with thirty other exiles and malcontents.» (Johnson, 1991, p.49); « Pravda resumed publication on 5 March [1917]. Kamenev and Stalin hurried back from Siberia to take charge of it eight days later... The other Bolshevik with clear ideas of his own was Trotsky. In May [1917] he arrived in Petrograd from America... » (Johnson, id., p.59).

It shall be a King who shall give the opposite, Those in exile shall be elevated to the reign: The Bolshevist political stiffness excluding all the reformative or conciliatory alternatives shall give Lenin leading his faction a narrow chance of seizing power in October 1917: « The auguing comrades thought Lenin would compromise himself by accepting German aid and tried to dissuade him from going. He brushed them aside without deigning to speak and climbed on the train... Arriving at Beloostrov on Russian soil, in the early hours of 16 April, he was met by his sister Maria and by Kamenev and Stalin, who had been in charge of the Bolshevik paper Pravda. He ignored his sister completely, and Stalin whom he had not met, and offered no greeting to his old comrade Kamenev whom he had not seen for five years. Instead he shouted at him, ‘What’s this you have been writing in Pravda? We saw some of your articles and roundly abused you.’ Late that night he arrived at the Finland Station in Petrograd. There he launched into the first of a series of speeches. The last took two hours and ‘filled his audience with turmoil and terror’. The grim lack of humanity with which Lenin returned to Russia to do his revolutionary work was characteristic of this single-minded man.» (Johnson, id., p.49-50); « His absolute self-confidence and masterful will were never, for a moment, eroded by tactical calculations as to how people were likely to react. Moreover, he was seeking power in a country where traditionally people counted for nothing; were mere dirt beneath the ruler’s feet. Hence when Lenin returned to Petrograd he was totally unaffected by any wartime sentiment. He had said all along that the war was a bourgeois adventure. The defeat of the Tsar was ‘the least evil’. The army should be undermined by propaganda, the men encouraged ‘to turn their guns on their officers’, and any disaster exploited ‘to hasten the destruction... of the capitalist class’. In January 1917 he doubted whether ‘I will live to see the decisive battles of the coming revolution’. So when the Tsar was sent packing six weeks later he was surprised. To his delight, the new parliamentary regime opted to continue the war, while releasing political prisoners and thus allowing his own men to subvert it. The Bolsheviks would overturn the new government and seize power by opposing the war [a King who shall give the opposite]. Pravda resumed publication on 5 March [1917]. Kamenev and Stalin hurried back from Siberia to take charge of it eight days later. Then, to Lenin’s consternation, the two idiots promptly changed the paper’s line and commited it to supporting the war! That was why, the second Lenin set eyes on Kamenev on 3[sic] April, he bawled him out. The Pravda line promptly changed back again. Lenin sat down and wrote a set of ‘theses’ to explain why the war had to be resisted and ended. Stalin later squared his yard-arm by confessing to ‘a completely mistaken position’ which ‘I shared with other party comrades and renounced it completely... when I adhered to Lenin’s theses’. Most other Bolsheviks did the same. They were overwhelmed by Lenin’s certainty. Now they must exploit warweariness to oust the parliamentarians. He was indifferent to how much territory Russia lost, so long as a nucleus was preserved in which to install Bolshevism. He had concentrated exclusively on building up a small organization of intellectual and sub-intellectual desperadoes, which he could completely dominate. It had no following at all among the peasants. Only one of the Bolshevik élite even had a peasant background. It had a few adherents among the unskilled workers. But the skilled workers, and virtually all who were unionized – were attached – in so far as any had political affiliations – to the Mensheviks. That was not surprising. Lenin’s intransigence had driven all the ablest socialists into the Menshevik camp. That suited him: all the easier to drill the remainder to follow him without argument when the moment to strike came. As one of them put it, ‘Before Lenin arrived, all the comrades were wandering in the dark.’ The other Bolshevik with clear ideas of his own was Trotsky. In May he arrived in Petrograd from America. He quickly realized Lenin was the only decisive man of action amomg them, and became his principal lieutenant. Thereafter these two men could command perhaps 20,000 followers in a nation of over 160 million.» (Johnson, id., p.58-59).

« The war conscripted millions of peasants, while demanding from those who remained far more food to feed the swollen armies and the expanded war-factories. There were massive compulsory purchases. But food prices rose fast. Hence tension between town and countryside grew, with each blaming the other for their misery. The Bolsheviks were later able to exploit this hatred. As the war went on, the government’s efforts to gouge food out of the villages became more brutal. So agrarian rioting increased, with 557 outbreaks recorded up to December 1916. But food shortages increased too, and food prices rose fast. As a result there was an unprecedented rise in the number of factory strikes in 1916, despite the fact that many industrial areas were under martial law or ‘reinforced security’. The strikes came to a head at the end of February 1917, and would have been smashed, but for the fact that the peasants were angry and desperate also. Nearly all the soldiers were peasants, and when the Petrograd garrison was ordered to coerce the factory workers it mutinied. About a third, some 66,000, defied their officers. As they were armed, the regime collapsed. So the first stage of the Revolution was the work of peasants.» (Johnson, id., p.60-61).

« The destruction of the autocracy inevitably carried with it the rural hierarchy. Those peasants without plots began to seize and parcel up the big estates. That might not have mattered. The Provisional Government was bound to enact a land reform anyway, as soon as it got itself organized. But in the meantime it was committed to carrying on the war. The war was going badly. There was a change of ministry and Kerensky was made Prime Minister. He decided to continue the war, and to do this he had to get supplies out of the peasants. It was at this point that Lenin’s anti-war policy, by pure luck, proved itself inspired. He knew nothing about the peasants; had no idea what was going on in the countryside. But by opposing the war he was opposing a policy which was bound to fail anyway [who shall give the opposite], and aligning his group with the popular peasant forces, both in the villages and, more important, within the army. Now, with the countryside in revolt, there was no chance of Kerensky collecting what he needed to keep the war going. For the first time in modern Russian history, most of the harvest remained down on the farms. Kerensky got less than a sixth of it. The attempt to grab more merely drove the peasants into open revolt and the authority of the Provisional Government in the countryside began to collapse. At the same time, the failure to get the grain to the towns meant the rapid acceleration of food prices in September, no bread at all in many places, mutiny in the army and navy, and strikes in the factories. By the beginning of October, the revolt of the peasants had already kicked the guts out of Kerensky’s government. The moment had now arrived for Lenin to seize power with the ‘vanguard élite’ he had trained for precisely this purpose. Of more than one hundred petitions submitted by industrial workers to the central authorities in March 1917, scarecely any mentioned Socialism. Some 51 per cent demanded fewer hours, 18 per cent higher wages, 15 per cent better work conditions and 12 per cent rights for workers’ committees. There was no mass support for a ‘revolution of the proletariat’; virtually no support at all for anything remotely resembling what Lenin was proposing to do. This was the only occasion, from that day to this, when Russian factory workers had the chance to say what they really wanted; and what they wanted was to improve their lot, not to turn the world upside down. By ‘workers’ committees’ they meant Soviets. These had first appeared in 1905, quite spontaneously. Lenin was baffled by them: according to the Marxist texts they ought not to exist. However they reappeared in the ‘February Revolution’ and when he returned to Russia in April 1917 he decided they might provide an alternative vehicle to the parliamentary system he hated. He thought, and in this respect he was proved right, that some at least of the factory Soviets could be penetrated and so manipulated by his men. Hence his ‘April Theses’ advocated ‘Not a parliamentary republic [who shall give the opposite]... but a republic of Soviets of Workers’, Poor Peasants’, Peasants’ Deputies throughout the country, growing from below upwards’. Ever a skilful opportunist, he began to see Soviets as a modern version of the 1870 Paris Commune: they could be managed by a determined group, such as his own, and so become the instrument for the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. When Trotsky, who had actually worked in a 1905 Soviet, arrived in May he was put in charge of an effort to capture the most important of the town Soviets, in Petrograd.» (Johnson, id., p.61-62).

« By early September the Bolsheviks had majorities on both the Petrograd and the Moscow Soviets, the two that really mattered, and on 14 September Lenin felt strong enough to issue the slogan ‘All power to the Soviets’. Trotsky immediately became president of the Petrograd Soviet, the focus of the coming uprising. Trotsky, indeed, was the active agent of the Revolution. But Lenin was the master-mind [a King], who took all the key decisions and provided the essentialwill to power’. The Bolshevik Revolution, let alone the creation of the Communist state, would have been quite impossible without him. At a meeting of the Central Committee [on 10 October] he won a 10-2 vote for an armed rising. A Political Bureau or ‘Politburo’ – the first we hear of it – was created to manage the rising. But the actual military preparations were made by a ‘military-revolutionary committee’, formed under Trotsky from the Petrograd Soviet. The rising was timed to make use of the second All-Russian Congress of Soviets, which met on 25 October. The previous evening, Lenin formed an embryo government, and in the morning Trotsky’s men went into action and seized key points throughout the city. The members of the Provisional Government were taken prisoner or fled. There was very little bloodshed. That afternoon the Bolsheviks got the Congress of Soviets to approve the transfer of power. The following day, before dispersing, it adopted a decree making peace, another abolishing landed estates and a third approving the composition of the Council of People’s Commissars, or Sovnarkom for short, the first Workers’ and Peasants’ Government. But as Stalin was later careful to point out, it was the military revolutionary committee which seized power, and the Congress of Soviets ‘only received the power from the hands of the Petrograd Soviet. His object in making this distinction was to preserve the notion of a Marxist proletarian revolution. Certainly there was nothing legal about the way in which Lenin came to power. But it was not a revolutionary uprising either. It was an old-style coup, or as the Germans were soon to call it, a putsch. There was nothing Marxist about it.» (Johnson, id., p.63-64).

It shall be a King who shall give the opposite: The interpretation by Ionescu of this phrase as It shall be a Chief who is going to « knock over the Empire of the Tsars (donra l’opposite) » (Ionescu, 1976, p.438) is not correct as to the February Revolution because it was not effected by Lenin: « In January 1917 he doubted whether ‘I will live to see the decisive battles of the coming revolution’. So when the Tsar was sent packing six weeks later he was surprised.» (Johnson, id., p.58); « The strikes came to a head at the end of February 1917, and would have been smashed, but for the fact that the peasants were angry and desperate also. Nearly all the soldiers were peasants, and when the Petrograd garrison was ordered to coerce the factory workers it mutinied. About a third, some 66,000, defied their officers. As they were armed, the regime collapsed. So the first stage of the Revolution was the work of peasants.» (Johnson, id., p.61).

Hypolite: « Hippolytus, son of Theseus and of an Amazon Hippolyte. It is said in a myth that Phaedra, the spouse of Theseus, falling in love with Hippolytus and making up to him, he repulsed her. Phaedra in suiciding herself, her amour-propre injured, got her husband informed that it was he that tried to violate her... » (Ionescu, 1976, p.438);

« HIPPOLYTUS
    You will, I think, have heard
About Hippolytus and how he met
His death thanks to his father’s trustfulness
And the trickery of his wicked stepmother.
You’ll be amazed, and proof I’ll hardly give,
But I am he. Phaedra in days gone by
Tried to tempt me – in vain – to violate
My father’s bed, and made believe that I
Had wanted what she wanted, and in fear
Perhaps that I’d betray her or in rage
At her repulse, reversed the guilt and charged
Me; and my father, guiltless as I was,
Expelled me from the city and, as I left,
Called curses on my head. A fugutive,
I made for .... » (Ovid, 1986, p.366-367).

Those of a caste like Hypolite swimming bled
: « The most disturbing and, from the historical point of view, important characteristic of the Lenin terror was not the quantity of the victims but the principle on which they were selected. Within a few monts of seizing power, Lenin had abandoned the notion of individual guilt, and with it the whole Judeo-Christian ethic of personal responsibility. The watershed was Lenin’s decree of January 1918 calling on the agencies of state to ‘purge the Russian land of all kinds of harmful insects’. Probably the most important Cheka official next to Dzerzhinsky himself was the ferocious Latvian M.Y. Latsis. He came nearest to giving the Lenin terror its true definition:

The Extraordinary Commission is neither an investigating commission nor a tribunal. It is an organ of struggle, acting on the home front of a civil war. It does not judge the enemy: it strikes him... We are not carrying out war against individuals. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. We are not looking for evidence or witnesses to reveal deeds or words against the Soviet power. The first question we ask is – to what class does he belong, what are his origins, upbringing, education or profession? These questions define the fate of the accused. This is the essence of the Red Terror.

There is no essential moral difference between class-warfare and race-warfare, between destroying a class and destroying a race. Thus the modern practice of the genocide was born.» (Johnson, id., p.70-71).

V. Ionescu’s interpretation of the innocent victims in question as ‘the Russian intelligentsia or the Russian noble’ (Ionescu, id.) is too narrow or off the point because the Bolshevik revolution was seeking to destroy the Russian bourgeoisie as a class and even Lenin’s group of revolutionary élite was principally from the intelligentsia.

Under such an ensign
: As the Bolshevik Communist Regime. Ionescu’s interpretation of the phrase as ‘the Russian banner with a sickle and a hammer’ (Ionescu, id.) is too much interpolating.

And shall flourish long under such an ensign
: The regime under the Boshevik, then the Russian and finally the Soviet Communist Party shall live long until the year of 1991, when the end of the Cold War between the USA and the USSR brought with it the end of the Soviets. The quatrain VI-74 (§924) exactly predicts the end of the Russian Soviet Regime after 73 years of lasting (or 73 years and 9 months, i.e. November 7, 1917: The November Revolution - August 24, 1991: The Dissolution of the Soviet Communist Party).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved.

§755 Leninism (Bolshevism) (1917-1924): III-67.

III-67 (§755):

A new sect of Philsophers
Contemptuous of death, gold, honours and riches:
Shall not be bordering on the German mountains,
Shall have a support and presses to follow them.

(Une nouvele secte de Philosophes
Mesprisant mort, or, honneurs & richesses:
Des monts Germains ne seront limitrophes,
A les ensuivre auront apui & presses.)

NOTES: A new sect of Philsophers: = the Bolsheviks led by Lenin, a new sect of Marxism in Russia: « Of course: Classes are led by parties and parties are led by individuals who are called leaders... This is the ABC. The will of a class is sometimes fulfilled by a dictator. What mattered was that the anointed individual, the man selected by History to possess the gnosis at the appointed time, should understand and so be able to interpret the sacred texts. Lenin always insisted that Marxism is identical with objective truth. ‘From the philosophy of Marxism’, he wrote, ‘cast as one piece of steel, it is impossible to expunge a single basic premise, a single essential part, without deviating from objective truth.’ He told Valentinov: ‘Orthodox Marxism requires no revision of any kind either in the field of philosophy, in its theory of political economy, or its theory of historical development.’ Yet the curious thing is that, for all his proclaimed orthodoxy, Lenin was very far from being an orthodx Marxist. Indeed in essentials he was not a Marxist at all. He often used Marx’s methodology and he exploited the Dialectic to justify conclusions he had already reached by intuition. But he completely ignored the very core of Marx’s ideology, the historical determinism of the revolution. Lenin was not at heart a determinist but a voluntarist: the decisive role was played by human will: his. He was also a revolutionary to his fingertips, and of a very old-fashioned sort. He believed that revolutions were made not by inexorable historical forces (they had to be there too, of course) but by small groups of highly disciplined men responding to the will of a decisive leader. In this respect he had much more in common with the French Jacobin revolutionary tradition of 1789 - 95, and even with its more recent exponents, such as Georges Sorel, than with the instinctive Marxists, most of whom were German and who saw the triumph of the proletariat almost as a Darwinian process of evolution.» (Johnson, 1991, p.53-55).

« The truth is, Lenin was too impatient to be an orthodox Marxist. He feared the predicament foreseen by Engels when he had written, ‘the worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government in an epoch when the moment is not yet ripe for the domination of the class which he represents... he is compelled to represent not his party or his class, but the class for whom conditions are ripe for domination.’ Russia was a semi-industrialized country, where the bourgeoisie was weak and the proletariat small, and the objective conditions for the revolution not nearly ripe. It was this dilemma which led Lenin into heresy. If ‘proletarian consciousness’ had not yet been created, was it not the task of Marxist intellectuals like himself to speed up the process? In 1902, in What Is To Be Done?, he first used the term ‘vanguard fighters’ to describe the new role of a small revolutionary élite. He drew an entirely novel distinction between a revolution created by a mature ‘organization of workers’, in advanced capitalist countries like Germany and Britain, and ‘an organization of revolutionaries’, suitable for Russian conditions. The first was occupational, broad, public: in short a mass proletarian party. The second was quite different: ‘an organization of revolutionaries must contain primarily and chiefly people whose occupation is revolutionary activity... This organization must necessarily be not very broad and as secret as possible.’ As such it had to forgo the ‘democratic principle’ which required ‘full publicity’ and ‘election to all posts’. Rosa Luxemburg, the most gifted as well as one of the more orthodox of the German Marxists, recognized Lenin’s heresy for what it was: so serious as to destroy the whole purpose and idealism of Marxism. She attributed it to Lenin’s faults of character, both personal and national: ‘The “ego”, cruched and pulverized by Russian absolutism,’ she wrote, ‘reappeared in the form of the “ego” of the Russian revolutionary’ which ‘stands on its head and proclaims itself anew the mighty consummator of history.’ Lenin, she argued, was in effect demanding absolute powers for the party leadership, and this would intensify most dangerously the conservatism which naturally belongs to every such body’. Once granted, such powers would never be relinquished. Leninism is not only a heresy; it was exactly the same heresy which created fascism. Italy was also a semi-industrialized country, where Marxists were looking for ways to speed up the coming of revolution. Italian Marxists too, were attracted by Sorel’s notions of revolutionay violence. In 1903, the year after Lenin first used the term ‘vanguard fighters’, Roberto Michaels, in his introduction to the Italian translation of Sorel’s Saggi di critica del Marxismo, urged the creation of a ‘revolutionary élite’ to push forward the proletarian socialist millennium... In the years before 1914, from his impotent exile in Switzerland, Lenin watched the progress of Mussolini with approval and some envy. As Marxist heretics and violent revolutionary activists, Lenin and Mussolini had six salient features in common. Both were totally opposed to bourgeois parliaments and any type of ‘reformism’. Both saw the party as a highly centralized, strictly hierarchical and ferociously disciplined agency for furthering socialist objectives. Both wanted a leadership of professional revolutionaries. Neither had any confidence in the capacity of the proletariat to organize itself. Both thought revolutionary consciousness could be brought to the masses from without by a revolutionary, self-appointed élite. Finally, both believed that, in the coming struggle between the classes, organized violence would be the final arbiter.» (Johnson, id., p.55-58).

Death, gold, honours and riches
: These words represent the bourgeoisie in its large sense, against which the proletariat led by the revolutionary élite should stand in the struggle between the classes, ‘death’ referring to the ecclesiastics concerned with the spiritual “life-after-death” (Ionescu, 1976, p.428), ‘gold’ to the capitalists, ‘honours’ to the royal and the noble, and ‘riches’ to the bourgeois proper.

Shall not be bordering on the German mountains
: During the Great War Russia was bordering immediately on Germany, but the postwar peace treaties of the countries concerned (1920-1922) shall separate them utterly geographically through the independence of the intermediate countries such as Poland (independence declared on November 3, 1918), Lithuania (on Dec. 11, 1917), Latvia (on Nov. 18, 1918) and Estonia (on Feb. 24, 1918) (cf.
PenguinAtlas 2, p.128 and p.130). By the way, the expression ‘the mountains’ of Germany seems so irrelevant to the affair of Russo-German frontier whose regions are nearly plain that it shall be also understood as hinting the high-level German Marxists such as Marx, Engels and Rosa Luxembug, from whom the Bolsheviks are far deviating.

Ensuivre
: = « suivre (to follow), aller à la suite de (to come in deference to).» (Godefroy).

A support to follow them
: = the Cheka (secret police), the mightiest organization of protection for the Bolsheviks (the Russian Communist Party since March 8, 1918): « It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the decision to use terror and oppressive police power was taken very early on by Lenin, endorsed by his chief military agent Trotsky; and that it was, as Rosa Luxemburg feared it would be, an inescapable part of his ideological approach to the seizure and maintenance of authority, and the type of centralized state he was determined to create. The original Bolshevik armed force was Trotsky’s military-revolutionary committee of the Petrograd Soviet. Immediately after 25-26 October 1917, this committee became a sub-committee of the Central Executive and was given security jobs including fighting ‘counter-revolution’, defined as ‘sabotage, concealment of supplies, deliberate holding up of cargoes, etc’. Its constitution was made public in a Sovnarkom [the Council of People’s Commissars, the first Workers’ and Peasants’ Government] decree of 12 November 1917. As it was charged with examining suspects, it set up a special section under Felix Dzerzhinsky, a fanatical Pole who was in charge of security at Smolny [the Smolny Institute, from which the Bolsheviks initially operated]. However, when on 7 December 1917 the military committee was finally dissolved by another Sovnarkom decree, Dzerzhinsky’s section remained in being, becoming the ‘All-Russian Extraordinary Commission’ (Cheka), charged with combating ‘counter-revolution and sabotage’. The decree which created the Cheka was not made public until more than ten years later (Pravda, 18 December 1927), so that Lenin’s security force was from the beginning and remained for the rest of his life a secret police in the true sense, in that its very existence was not officially acknowledged. There was no question that, from the very start, the Cheka was intended to be used with complete ruthlessness and on a very large scale.» (Johnson, id., p.67-68).

« Almost immediately after the Cheka came into being, a decree set up a new kind of ‘revolutionary tribunal’, to try those ‘organize uprisings against the authority of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Government, who actively oppose it or disobey it’, and civil servants guilty of sabotage or concealment. The tribunal was authorized to fix penalties in accordance with ‘the circumstances of the case and the dictates of the revolutionary conscience’. This decree effectively marked the end of the rule of law in Lenin’s new state, then only weeks old. It dovetailed into the Cheka system. Under the Tsars, the Okhrana was empowered to arrest, but it then had to hand over the prisoner to the courts for public trial, just like anyone else; and any punishments were meted out by the ordinary civil authorities. Under Lenin’s system, the Cheka controlled the special courts (which met in secret) and carried out their verdicts. As the Cheka arrested, tried, sentenced and punished their victims, there was never any reliable record of their numbers. When Lenin transferred the government from Petrograd to Moscow for security reasons, and placed Sovnarkom within the Kremlin, he encouraged Dzerzhinsky to set up his own headquarters independently of Sovnarkom. A large insurance company building was taken over in Lubyanka Square; inside it an ‘inner prison’ was built for political suspects; and from this point on the Cheka was an independent department of state reporting directly to Lenin.» (Johnson, id., p.68-69).

« The most disturbing and, from the historical point of view, important characteristic of the Lenin terror was not the quantity of the victims but the principle on which they were selected. Within a few monts of seizing power, Lenin had abandoned the notion of individual guilt, and with it the whole Judeo-Christian ethic of personal responsibility. The watershed was Lenin’s decree of January 1918 calling on the agencies of state to ‘purge the Russian land of all kinds of harmful insects’. Probably the most important Cheka official next to Dzerzhinsky himself was the ferocious Latvian M.Y. Latsis. He came nearest to giving the Lenin terror its true definition:

The Extraordinary Commission is neither an investigating commission nor a tribunal. It is an organ of struggle, acting on the home front of a civil war. It does not judge the enemy: it strikes him... We are not carrying out war against individuals. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. We are not looking for evidence or witnesses to reveal deeds or words against the Soviet power. The first question we ask is – to what class does he belong, what are his origins, upbringing, education or profession? These questions define the fate of the accused. This is the essence of the Red Terror.

There is no essential moral difference between class-warfare and race-warfare, between destroying a class and destroying a race. Thus the modern practice of the genocide was born.» (Johnson, id., p.70-71).

Presses to follow them: = The Bolshevik newspapers Pravda and Isvestia: « It is significant that, when he [Lenin] had so much else to do, he gave priority to controlling the press. In September, just before the putsch [coup], he had publicly called for ‘a much more democratic’ and ‘incomparably more complete’ freedom of the press. In fact under the republic the press had become as free as in Britain or France. Two days after he seized power, Lenin ended this freedom with a decree on the press. As part of ‘certain temporary, extraordinary measures’, any newspapers ‘calling for open resistance or insubordination to the Workers’ and Peasants’ Government’, or ‘sowing sedition through demonstrably slanderous distortions of fact’, would be suppressed and their editors put on trial. By the next day the government had closed down ten Petrograd newspapers; ten more were shut the following week. Management of the news was entrusted primarily to the Bolshevik party newspaper, Pravda, and the paper of the Soviets, Isvestia, now taken over by Sovnarkom.» (Johnson, id., p.64-65). In this perspective, V. Ionescu’s interpretation of the phrase ‘support and presses’ as ‘the press and the propaganda of the party’ (Ionescu, id.) is confused and insufficient because ‘the press’ and ‘the propaganda’ are almost synonymous, whereas he is lacking in penetration into the word ‘support’ categorically different from the propagandist means.
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved. 

§754 Ex-Tsarina Alexandra ruthlessly executed; The sensible also victims to the Bolsheviks (1917-1921): VI-72.

VI-72 (§754):

By the feigned fury of divine emotion,
Shall the wife of the great be harshly violated:
The sensible intending to condemn such a doctrine,
Immolated victims to the ignorant people.

(Par fureur faincte d'esmotion divine,
Sera la femme du grand fort violee:
Juges voulans damner telle doctrine,
Victime au peuple ignorant imolee.)

NOTES: By the feigned fury of divine emotion, Shall the wife of the great be harshly violated: « ... ‘the presidium of the Ural Regional Soviet has sentenced you to be shot ...’ The Tsar registered blank incomprehension; turning his back to Yurovsky to face his family, he managed an incredulous stutter – ‘What? What?’ – as those around him were rooted to the spot in absolute terror. ‘So you’re not taking us anywhere?’ ventured Botkin, unable also to comprehend what had just been said. ‘I don’t understand. Read it again ...’ the Tsar interrupted, his face white with horror. Yurovsky picked up where he had left off: ‘... in view of the fact that the Czechoslovaks are threatening the red capital of the Urals – Ekaterinburg – and in view of the fact that the crowned executioner might escape the people’s court, the presidium of the Regional Soviet, fulfilling the will of the Revolution [By the feigned fury of divine emotion], has decreed that the former Tsar Nicholas Romanov [the great], guilty of countless bloody crimes against the people, should be shot ...’ Instinctively, the Tsaritsa and Olga crossed themselves; a few incoherent words of shock or protest heard from the rest. Yurovsky, having finished reading the decree, pulled out his Colt, stepped forward and shot the Tsar at the point-blank range in the chest... But at least Nicholas was spared the sight of seeing what happened to his wife [the wife of the great] and family. For in that moment, Ermakov had turned and fired his Mauser at the Tsaritsa only six feet away from him as she tried to make the sign of the cross, hitting her in the left side of the skull, spraying brain tissue all around, as a hail of bullets from the other assassins hit her torso. Alexandra crumpled sideways on to the floor, her warm, sticky blood and brain tissue spreading across it in a mist of steam [Shall the wife of the great be harshly violated]. Next to her, poor lame Alexey,... » (Rappaport, 2008, p.188-189).

The great
[le grand]: = Nicholas II. In fact, 45 of the 47 cases in all of the word ‘grand (great)’ as a singular noun with or without a definite or indefinite article (le grand [the great], un grand [a great] or grand [great]) in the Prophecies of Nostradamus designate a particular person or deity of importance in history or mythology as follows: Napoleon Bonaparte (II-24, II-58, II-85, III-10, III-53, V-2, VIII-62), François of Lorraine, second Duke of Guise (V-1, V-28, VII-29), Constable Anne de Montmorency (II-82, IV-34), Charles II of Lorraine, Duke of Mayenne (I-85, II-55), Napoleon III (II-26, VIII-11), Hitler (III-58, VII-24), Mussolini (VI-6, VI-52), Emperor of Japan Hirohito (VI-80, VI-90), Pluto or Hades (I-84), Dragut (V-23), Bey of Tunis (VIII-50, 1573), Charles of Guise, Cardinal of Lorraine (VII-17), Charles X (IV-84), Henry III of France (III-55), Louis XIV (X-94), Louis XVI (VIII-24), Pius VI (II-63), Duke of Wellington (VIII-1), Eugène Beauharnais (V-61), Algerian dey Hussein (V-69), Sultan Mahmed II (IX-62), Camillo Cavour (VIII-33), Pius IX (V-22), Bismarck (VI-40), Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria (I-26), Nicholas II (VI-72), William II of Germany (IV-13), Francisco Franco (VIII-26), President Truman (V-83), SCAP General MacArthur (II-92), Nocholae Ceausescu (II-57). In the remaining two cases (II-2 and X-20), the word ‘grand (great)’ as a singular noun means respectively ‘a great hung on the branch (grand pendu sus la branche, i.e. a large blade of a guillotine)’ and ‘a great annihilated (grand neanty, i.e. a great of valuables reduced to nothing)’.

By the way, there are three cases of the word ‘grand’ as an adjective with a noun in ellipsis in the context as follows: VI-91: Quant il naistra du grand un filz Agrippe (a son of Agrippina = Nero) (When Nero shall be born from the great [Nero]), IX-19: Le grand bastard yssu du gran du Maine (The great bastard issuing from the great [bastard] of Maine) and X-53: La plus grand [pellice = pelisse] (the greatest pelisse]. And there are one case of the word ‘grand’ as an adverb as follows: II-66: Peu de temps grand la fortune changée (Before long the fortune greatly changed).

Finally, as to the plural form: ‘les plus grands (the greaters)’ of the word ‘grand’, its 7 cases in all are similarly designating particular persons of importance in history as follows: IV-47 (the important Huguenots killed in St. Bartholomew in 1572), VIII-41 (the Girondists executed by Robespierre), IX-3 (the French, the Austrians and the Neapolitans against Roman Revolution in 1848-1849), VII-8 (the leaders of Tuscany against the translation of the Italian capital from Florence to Rome in 1871), X-57 (the Orleanists against the Restoration of Prince Chambord in 1873), III-54 (Spanish royalist generals against the Popular Front) and IV-68 (Hitler and Mussolini).

The wife
[la femme]: = The wife of Nicholas II, Alexandra. In fact, the word ‘femme (woman)’ in the Prophecies of Nostradamus always refers to a particular woman or wife, to a particular group of women or a womanly generic character as follos: IX-52 (the French women in the age of wars of religion), IV-52 (the women of Calais besieged by the French in 1558), IV-57 (Margaret of Valois, wife of Henry of Navarre, whose love for her having perished in favour of his new mistress Mme. de Sauve), X-35 (womanly generic characteristics), VIII-13 (Catherine de Medici), X-9 (Marie Antoinette), VIII-63 (Josephine Beauharnais, first wife of Napoleon Bonaparte), I-88, IV-54 and VIII-63 (Marie-Louise of Austria, second wife of Napoleon I), I-41 (Sophie Dawes, Baroness of Feuchères, a young mistress of Louis Henry II, Prince of Condé in 1830) and VI-72 (Tsarina Alexandra, wife of Nicholas II).

Therefore, the interpretation of the phrase: ‘la femme du grand (the wife of the great)’ as ‘the mass of lower people (la femme) of the great tzarist empire (du grand)’ by Vlaicu Ionescu (1976, p.427) is hardly recommended. In fact, in order to represent a great empire or state, Nostradamus prefers the explicit expression: ‘le grand Empire/empire (the great Empire/empire)’ (e.g., I-32, VI-67 and X-87 for the first French Empire; V-45 and V-95 for the Holy Roman Empire; III-97 for the Ottoman Empire; X-100 for the British Empire; X-32 for the third French Republic).

The sensible intending to condemn such a doctrine, Immolated victims to the ignorant people
: « The catalogue of Romanov murders did not end at Ekaterinburg. The big Moscow meeting in early July had taken account of the fate not only of the Imerial Family, but also of their closest relatives, as part of the systematic destruction of the dynasty. Only one day after the murders at Ipatiev House, on the night of 18/19 July, 90 miles away at Alapaevsk, Alexandra’s sister Ella, her companion Sister Barbara and the five Romanov Grand Dukes and Princes being held with them suffered an even more horrific death at the hands of the ruthless Urals Cheka. That night, men came for the prisoners at the schoolhouse where they were being held, took them by cart out into the nearby forest under cover of darkness and made them walk to the mouth of a disused mine. Here, the victims were beaten about the head with rifle butts and then one by one hurled down into the waterlogged pit. Only Grand Duke Sergey, who had struggled at the surface and been shot in the head, died quickly. Grand Duchess Ella and her companions were left to die a slow, agonising death from a combination of traumatic injury, thirst and starvation. But at least their bodies were found – only three months later. Across Russia as a whole, the murder of the Romanovs marked the beginning of an orgy of terror, murder and bloody reprisal that would caracterise the savage Russian civil war – a war which would claim 13 million lives. The signal to crank up repressive measures against counter-revolutionary activity came in August, first with the murder of the head of the Petrograd Cheka, Moisey Uritsky, and then with a failed assassination attempt at Lenin on the 30th. The rapidly expanding Cheka was now given free rein for acts of revenge; whole families of hostages, such as the wives and children of Red Army officers who went over to the Whites, were imprisoned in prototype concentration camps (created that autumn) and many were murdered. From now on the sons would be held accountable for the political sins of their fathers. Such acts of retribution escalated during the civil war and became endemic under Stalin. The cold-blooded murder of the Romanov children and with it an attempt at the systematic liquidation of the entire dynasty had been the ultimate litmus test of the amorality of Bolshevik policy [such a doctrine].» (Rappaport, id., p.213).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved. 

Foreword

Foreword   

lastupdate: January 22, 2015.

 The Prophecies of Michel Nostradamus(1503-1566) contains in all 958 quatrains (cf. Vérifications Historiques des quatrains prophétiques de Michel Nostradamus aux seizième-vingtième siècles; La Première Partie: Au Seizième Siècle, Introduction §1. La totalité des Prophéties de Nostradamus; 958 quatrains), whose two thirds, namely about 640 quatrains are already interpreted with success, though not completely,  at least in finding out their principal subjects in relation to the world history of the 16th-20th century by our predecessors in the previous centuries as follows:

16th century: 45 quatrains by J.-A. de Chavigny (1594).

17th century: 20 quatrains by Jaubert (1656), Garencières (1672) & Guynaud (1693).

18th century: 15 quatrains by Le Roux (1710), Anonym, La vie et le testament de Michel Nostradamus (1789) & H. D. (1800).

19th century: 270 quatrains by Bellaud (1806), Bouys (1806), Barest (1840), Torné-Chavigny (1860-1862), Le Pelletier (1867) et al.

20th century: 290 quatrains by Vignois (1910), Nicoullaud (1914), Larmor (1925), Wöllner (1926), Centurio (1953), Robb (1961a,b), Fontbrune, father & son (1939; 1980, 1996),  Ionescu (1976, 1987, 1993), Dufresne (1989-1998), Guernon (1999-2000), Ovason (1997) et al.

If we take in consideration the notice of the author: "I have computed and calculated these present prophecies in all according to the order of the chain which contains its development of the all by means of astronomical doctrine and according to my natural instinct."(Dedication to Henry II), 318 (= 958-640) undeciphered quatrains must fulfill the chain of the chronological order of the quatrains already solved at least concerning their subject. This means two things; the chain should be prolonged forward, or else be completed retrograde.

And according to my experience of having discovered many quatrains interpreters attribute to our future already effectively and historically accomplished, I determined to find the solutions of the remaining quatrains strictly in the domain of our historical data.

At last, I arrived at the conclusion concerning the numbers of the quatrains distributed respectively to each century as follows:

16th century: 233 quatrains (§1-§233).

17th century: 79 quatrains (§234-§312).

18th century: 131 quatrains (§313-§443).

19th century: 287 quatrains (§444-§730).

20th century: 219 quatrains (§731-§949).     

Ex-century subject: 9 quatrains (§950-§958).

Of these, this Blog in English « Nostradamus Anthology » will take in consideration Part III: the Post-Napoleonic Ages, i.e. §588-§949 (Chapter I the 19th century (1821-1900): §588-§730. Chapter II the 20th century (1901-2000): §731-§930. the Grand Finale §931- §949); in fact Part II: §342-§587 refers to the French Revolution and Napoleon Bonaparte, of which the former will be treated by my Blog in Japanese « 歴史詩人Nostradamus » (§342-§410) and the latter by my Blog in French « Heroica Napoleona » (§411-§587), and Part I: §1-§341 will be treated by my Blog in French « Poète Historique Nostradamus ». 

Briefly speaking, the average density of quatrains per year of each century reflects its politico-dynamical characteristics from the view point of the Prophet:

 

16th century: 233 quatrains /(1555-1600) = 233/46 = 5.1: the age of French civil wars whose commencement the Prophet himself testified. 

 

17th century: 79 quatrains /(1601-1700) = 79/100 = 0.8: the age of stability under the grand king Louis XIV.

 

18th century: 131 quatrains /(1701-1800) = 131/100 = 1.3: the age of stability under the long reigns of  Louis XIV, Louis XV and Louis XVI except under the Revolution, which partakes 100 quatrains,  76 % of 131.     

 

19th century: 287 quatrains /(1801-1900) = 287/100 = 2.9: the age of the grand vicissitudes of France and Italy, the two countries with which  the Prophet  concerns himself  most diligently. 

 

20th century: 219 quatrains /(1901-2000) = 219/100 = 2.2: the age of the world-wide unheard-of  catastrophes.      

 

General average: 949/(1555-2000) = 949/446 = 2.1  

 

Plan of the Blog « Nostradamus Anthology »: 

Chapter I: the 19th century (1821-1900); §588-§730.

Chapter II: the 20th century (1901-2000); §731-§930.

The Grand Finale; §931-§949.

Miscellanies.


© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2011-2014. All rights reserved.  

§753 The Great War and Russian Revolution (2) (1914-1918): IX-55.

IX-55 (§753):

The horrible war that is ready in the Occident
In the following year shall come the plague,
So greatly horrible that the young the old and beasts,
Blood fire, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter in France.

(L'horrible guerre qu'en l'occident sapreste
L'an ensuivant viendra la pestilence,
Si fort horrible que jeune vieulx, ne beste,
Sang feu, Mercure, Mars, Jupiter en France.)

NOTES: Saprester: = S’aprrêter (to prepare, to get ready) (Dubois).

The horrible war that is ready in the Occident In the following year shall come the plague: « What a horrible war is approaching for the Occident of Europe! Thence shall come the Russian Revolution and the communism.» (Ionescu, 1976, p.384-385).

In the following year
(l’an ensuivant): = [The Russian Revolution shall come] In the year 1917 that follows the wartime years of 1914, 1915 and 1916. Ionescu’s interpretation: « Thence shall come (Il s’en ensuivra) » is not pertinent. 

The plague (la pestilence): « In general, the terms “pest”, “pestilence” or “pestiferous” are employed by Nostradamus as to the communism.» (Ionescu, id., p.383); « The terms such as “pest”, “pestilence” or “pestiferous” are always applied by the prophet to the communist revolutions and to their doctrine.» (Ionescu, id., p.384); « Nearly without exception, in the language of Nostradamus, the Latin word unda has the sense of revolution and the pest that of communism.» (Ionescu, id., p.428). His last concessive, not general nor categorical, explication as to the words pest, etc. is verified by the fact that he gives us 10 quatrains with these words, whose 6 (I-26, IX-55, III-19, VI-5, I-16 and II-6) are related to the communism (cf. Ionescu, 1976, p.214, p.217, p.255, p.428, p.511 and 1993, p.168 respectively) and 4 (VIII-17, VI-98, IV-30 and IV-48) to the other meanings such as the pesrsecution of the Christians in the French Revolution (Ionescu, 1976, p.287), the confusion of defeat in the Napoleonic wars (id., p.322), a lot of mischiefs (id., p.712) and a disease (id., p.245).

The plague (peste): According to our researches, this word, as well as the words pestilence, pestilent and pestifere (pestiferous), is figurative, non literal, for most of the expressions indicative of natural phenomena such as " earthquake, rain, tempest, dryness, inundation", etc. are not literal for Nostradamus, but figurative, describing metaphorically wars, revolts, social troubles, collective distress, etc., conditioned principally by human comportments (cf. Introduction §5). In fact, of 38 usages of the words « peste », « pestilence », « pestilent» and « pestifere », 32 are figurative for the warlike and social disasters and menaces, only 5 literal (II-19, II-37, II-46, II-53, II-65) and one for the real seism (VIII-84). And concerning the 32 metaphorical examples, the following concrete subdivisions are practicable:

1° 16th century: French Wars of Religion (III-56, VI-10, IX-82 and XI-91), Valois-Hapsburger Wars (VI-47 and VII-6), etc. (VIII-50 and IX-42).

2° 17th century: Montmorency’s revolt against Louis XIII in 1632 (VII-21).

3° 18th century: French Revolution (VIII-17, VIII-21 and IX-11), Spanish War of Succession (V-49).

4° Napoleonic Wars (I-52, II-32, II-56, IV-48, VI-46, VI-98 and VIII-62).

5° 19th century: Greek Independence Wars (V-90 and IX-91), Franco-Prussian War (III-75).

6° 20th century: Russian Revolution (VI-5 and IX-55), WWI (I-26 and I-55), WWII (III-84), Spanish Civil War (III-19), Roumanian Revolution in 1989 (II-6), etc. (I-16 and IV-30).

Of these 32 quatrains, only three (Russian and Rumanian Revolutions) are, we believe, proved to be related, as Ionescu pretends so to too much quatrains, to the communism.

Ne:
used as an expletive.

So greatly horrible that beasts, Blood fire:
= The horses of the cavalries to be suffered in the Great war; « The Western Front [in the Occident]. Germany declared war on France on 3 August [1914]. When German armies crossed the Belgian frontier on 4 August, Britain issued an immediate ultimatum to Germany, requiring her assurances that she would respect Belgien neutrality and, when that expired at midnight, was at war with Germany... Staff discussions between the British and French (Wilson-Foch scheme) had agreed that a small British Expeditionary Force (BEF) of six divisions would fight alongside the French. However the BEF eventually sent to France in August 1914 initially comprised only four divisions and a cavalry division, but these were soon augmented by two further infantry divisions. The first, crucial, action was the attack on the Belgian fortress of Liège, which barred the passage to the two German right wing armies. This assault started on 4 August and the fortress was finally taken on 16 August, using the secret weapons of ultra-heavy Krupp (German) and Skoda (Austrian) howitzers. The Liège forts destroyed and the citadel captured, the main advance began. Sordet’s French cavalry corps had reconnoitred the river Meuse into Belgium, starting on 6 August and approaching as close to nine miles to Liège. No trace of the German Army was found west of the Meuse, and this confirmed Joffre’s misguided view that Moltke would keep his armies east of the Meuse and, having only the limited strength of his first-line corps, would not extend his right wing west of the river. Joffre reckoned without the ability of the German reserve corps to march and fight with the active corps, which effectively doubled Moltke’s striking power.» (Chasseaud, 2013, p.36); « Joffre’s appreciation of the situation on 13 August was that the Germans were wheeling south, towards his Third, Fourth and Fifth Armies on the upper Meuse, not heading west, and that it was now too late for his armies to engage favourably beyond the Meuse. He therefore ordered them to be ready to counter-attack. Although he ignored Lanrezac’s (Fifth Army) view that the Germans were about to make a much wider wheel, he now felt concerned enough to send north the whole of the 1st Corps to oppose any German attempt to cross the Meuse between Givet and Namur. Two days later, when Richthofen’s Cavalry Corps attempted to cross the river near Dinant, the 1st Corps and Mangin’s 8th Brigade (which was specially tasked to support Sordet’s Corps) forced it to retire.» (id., p.44). Ionescu says that the verses: ‘So greatly horrible that the young the old and beasts, Blood fire’ refer, not to the WWI, but to the Russian Revolution (Ionescu, id., p.384-385), but they do not because beasts (horses) are usually not liable to be victims of revolutionay movements.

So greatly horrible that the young the old, Blood fire: = the victims of civilians in the Great War; « After Liège had fallen on 16 August, the full force of the German right wing was unleashed two days later into the area previously declared clear by Sordet. On the extreme right – or northern – flank, Kluck’s First Army stepped out on its gruelling 300-mile march, starting on an axis due west through Belgium, before swinging south into France. The schedule was to march for three weeks, averaging nearly fifteen miles a day, along roads that might be blocked by refugees, and this included any actions that might have to be fought on the way. Marching in the heat and dust along their allotted parallel roads, Kluck’s First and Bülow’s Second Armies pounded remorselessly to the west towards Brussels, forcing the Belgian field army to withdraw northwest into the entrenched protective ring of forts of the Antwerp defences. On 20 August Kluck’s Army, the extreme tip of the German wheel through Belgium, tramped into Brussels. The next day Bülow’s Army started to besiege the Namur fortress, with the great siege train of Krupp and Skoda howitzers now brought up from their success at Liège. The German Army was thorough in its intimidation of Belgian civilians, pursuing its doctrine of Schrecklichkeit (frightfulness) in taking and shooting hostages, and burning towns and villages to intimidate and deter.» (Chasseaud, 2013, p.44-45).

Mercury:
« Negotiations for an armistice.» (Ionescu, id., p.385.), Mercury sometimes being a messenger; « 1917 Nov: 26th, Soviets offer armistice to Germany and Austria; Dec: 5th, German and Rusian delegates sign armistice at Brest-Litovsk (where peace negotiations begin 21st).» (Williams, 1968, p.466.); « 1918 Mar: 3rd, peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk between Russia and Central Powers, and 7th, between Germany and Finland.» (id., p.468.).

Mars, Jupiter in France: The American Expeditionary Forces in France = « Jupiter with Mars
Kaldondon earthsalvation » (§747, VIII-48); « The final offensive shall be launched with the help of the Americans, and all shall finish in favour of France.» (Ionescu, id., p.385.); « Meanwhile American troops were being convoyed across the Atlantic in increasing numbers. Fifty thousand were arriving every week and being given extra training for battlefield conditions. On that day [27 May 1918] the Germans stormed through twelve miles on a forty-mile front, advancing over the Aisne and Vesle rivers to the Marne in three days, reaching a point only forty miles from Paris. American troops, part of the one-and-a-half-million-strong American Expeditionay Force already in France, helped to hold the Germans on the Marne.» (Chasseaud, 2013, p.263-264); « In the difficult Argonne Forest terrain of tangled woods, gullies and ridges, it was almost impossible for tanks to operate, and the Americans found themselves engaging in a bloody slog through a succession of strongly held German positions. By 1 October the French and Americans had advanced some ten miles and taken 18,000 prisoners, and in a few more miles came up against the strong defensive position of the Kriemhild Line. While their advance was painfully slow, they were at least holding down thirty-six German divisions.» (Chasseaud, id., p.269-271).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved. 

§752 The Great War and Russian Revolution (1914-1918): IV-43.

IV-43 (§752):

The arms shall be heard to beat in the sky:
Even in that year the divine enemies
Shall want to thrash unjustly the holy laws
By thunderbolt and war good believers put to death.

(Seront oys au ciel les armes batre:
Celuy an mesme les divins ennemis
Voudront loix sainctes injustement debatre
Par foudre & guerre bien croyans à mort mis.)

NOTES: Batre: = battre; « batre: battre (to beat), frapper (to strike).» (Daele).

The arms shall be heard to beat in the sky: This kind of expressions are found four times in the Prophecies of Nostradamus, whose 3 cases (I-64, II-85 and III-11) are archaic after the fashion of Ovid, Metamorphoses, XV, 783 (cf. Brind’Amour, 1996, p.140), i.e. prefiguring some disasters to come, and the case under analysis is realistic, i.e. offering effective aerial battles (cf. Lamont, 1944, p.352: Aerial war), because the adverbial phrase ‘Even in that year’ announces the simultaneity of the aerial battles and the divine enemies’s thrash of the holy laws. And the aerial battles in its first appearance are characteristic of the First World War (1914-1918), as shown by the quatrain I-55 (§740): « .., air, sky shall be soiled,» where « air soiled » refers to the gas attacks and « sky soiled » to the aerial battles, both of these having been seen for the first time in the Great War: « Submarines and torpedoes had been prefigured in the American Civil War of 1860s, and the air dimension had already been entered by reconnaissance balloons in various conflicts. However, the First World War witnessed the first development of all these, plus airship and aeroplanes, as regular weapons of war. In this sense it was the first mechanized, three-dimensional war. Aircraft were also becoming amphibious, being designed with floats or special hulls to take off from, and land on, water.» (Chasseaud, 2013, p.188).

Debatre
: = battre en emphase (to beat hard, to thrash), the prefix ‘de-’ expressing
EMPHASIS (Ibuki, Suzuki); « Debatre. Agiter (to agitate), battre (to beat); Disputer (to dispute); Contredire (to deny), contester (to challenge).» (Huguet); « debatre, battre (to beat), frapper (to strike); contester (to challenge); débouter (to nonsuit); récuser (to impugn) » (Godefroy).

The holy laws
: = the Russian monarchy of the Romanovs devoted to the Orthodox Church. Cf. I-53 (§351): the holy law (French Catholicism); VI-23 (§346): holy laws (the French ancient regime imbued with Catholicism).

Even in that year (celuy an mesme): = In the year 1917, when is yet in progress the Great War and the Romanov reign is demolished.

Even in that year the divine enemies Shall want to thrash unjustly the holy laws: « He [Tsar Nicholas II] had assiduously maintained the autocratic rule of his father whilst blindly resisting all political innovation and condoning the suppression of the empire’s turbulent minorities. His stubborn belief in his role as God’s anointed representative [the holy laws] made him turn a blind eye to increasingly anxious calls for political change. But political and social unrest, funned by revolutionary activity among the urban workforces of St Petersburg and Moscow, had finally forced Nicholas into token gestures of constitutional reform in 1905. The democratic powers of the newly inaugurated Duma were, however, greatly circumscribed and Nicholas routinely subverted its activities, refusing any real concessions to representative government, and condemning moves to modernise, as he had since the day he ascended the throne, as mere ‘senseless dreams’. He retreated instead into domesticity; playing contentedly with his children, closeted away at the Alexander Palace at Tsarskoe Selo outside St Petersburg and seeing only a small circle of family and friesnds. Nicholas’s increasing invisibility from public view and his continuing resistance to reform rapidly set in motion the inexorable collapse of an already moribund political regime, despite a degree of economic recovery and growth in the years between 1907 and 1914. The process of collapse was accelerated after Russia’s enthusiastic entry into the First World War in August 1914. The initial euphoria of national solidarity, which Nicholas could and should have capitalised on politically, rapidly crumbled in the face of catastrophic losses. By September of the following year continuing gross ineptitude in both the conduct of the war and the supply of materiel, coupled with serious territorial losses to the Germans in Galicia, finally dragged Nicholas away from family preoccupations to assume supreme command at the front. But by now, despite the presence of its batyushka – ‘little father’ – at the head of the army, Russia was engaged in a war of attrition, fuelling unprecedented desertion rates in its demoralised, ill-equipped and starving peasant army. After centuries of unquestioning loyalty, the long-suffering conscript had begun to ask what he was fighting for. The Tsar, it seemed, only wanted him to plough, and fight, and pay taxes. And so Nicholas’s peasant army began deserting in their thousands. Back in Petrograd (as St Petersburg had been renamed in August 1914), Nicholas’s deeply unpopular wife, Alexandra, had been left in effective political control at a time when she was increasingly spellbound by Grigory Rasputin, the charismatic but hugely manipulative ‘holy man’ who had demonstrated an inexplicable ability to control her haemophiliac son Alexey’s attacks of bleeding. Alexandra’s intimacy with Rasputin had thrown her into hysterical conflict with government ministers and fuelled unbridled increasingly virulent gossip about the true nature of their relationship. Meanwhile Nicholas ignored the repeated and increasingly urgent warnings from members of his government about the escalating situation in Petrograd. He would not even listen to his devoted uncle, Grand Duke Nikolay, whom he had relieved of supreme command of the army, when the duke begged him to make compromises and save the dynasty from annihilation. The juggernaut of revolutionary change in Russia was now clearly unstoppable; politicians and foreign diplomats had been predicting it for years. Yet Nicholas stubbornly trusted only to his own counsel and that of his wife, a woman determined to protect the Romanovs’ absolute sovereignty, their divine right to rule [the holy laws], and with it the inheritance of their precious only son. Early in 1917, urban economic chaos in Petrograd finally triggered violent industrial strikes, marches and bread riots, bringing mutinous soldiers out on to the streets. The volatile situation erupted into outright revolution at the end of February. Away at the front, Nicholas believed he had no option but to abdicate ‘for the good of Russia’, the morale of the army and – most pressingly – the safety of his family. He had already been told by his ailing son’s doctors that Alexey was unlikely to live to the age of 16, so he took the decision simultaneously to abdicate on behalf of his heir.» (Rappaport, 2008, p.5-7); « By using the slogan ‘Peace, Land, Bread’, Bolshevik agitators [the divine enemies] were able to maximize their support from soldiers, urban workers and peasants. In the cold, short, dark days of early 1917, desperation was growing among Russians. In Petrograd (St Petersburg) bread riots, in which soldiers of the garrison joined, turned into revolution on 8 March. This challenge became a crisis when Cossaks refused to shoot at rioters. Four days later the Soviet (Council of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies) was set up, which regarded itself as independent of the liberal opposition. The Soviet quietly planned to undermine the army and seize power. The Tsar, trying to return to Petrograd from his military headquarters, was stopped and turned back. On 15 March the liberals convinced the generals that the Tsar no longer had the support of the army and forced him to abdicate.» (Chasseaud, 2013, p.219).

Good believers (bien croyans): = « les orthodoxes (the orthodoxes) » (Brind’Amour, 1996, p.524) = the Tsar Nicholas II and his family: « Canonised by the Russian Orthodox church as ‘Holy Passion Bearers’, the Romanovs are immortalised in a host of modern-day icons on sale across Russia. The iconography of an idealised family has come full circle.» (Rappaport, 2008, between p.158 and p.159); « Sunday 14 July 1918. It was a beautiful bright Sunday morning as Father Ivan Storozhev, one of two resident priests at the Ekaterininsky Cathedral overlooking the River Iset, got out of bed to prepare for the Sunday liturgy. Suddenly he heard a loud knock at the door. He unlocked it to find himself confronted by one of the guards from the Ipatiev House. Father Storozhev was wanted up at the Ipatiev House that morning to conduct a liturgy for the Romanovs. Storozhev agreed that he would be at the house by 10 a.m. and immediately headed off to the cathedral to collect the things he needed for the service. It had been three weeks now since the Romanovs, a profoundly pious, church-going family, had been allowed a priest in to say mass for them. To be denied the ritual of the liturgy that was so much part of their everyday lives had been agony for the family – but they had kept each other buoyed up with continuous readings from the scriptures and other sacred works, for as Russians the spiritual life was as important to them as the physical. Exhausted by their present hardships, they took great strength in religious consolation and their mutual devotion to God; it helped them transcend the uncertainty of the dangerous and unstable world they now inhabited. Storozhev, who had given up a career as local public prosecutor to study for holy orders, himself had previously conducted a service – on 19 May. At that time, mid-May, Storozhev had been shocked at how pale, trasparent even, Alexey had appeared, so tall and thin and too sick to stand, but lying on his camp bed covered with a blanket. But there was light and life still in his darting eyes, which followed Storozhev’s every move with childish curiosity. Alexandra, despite appearing sickly and needing to frequently sit and rest in a chair, nevertheless looked ‘majestic’ – Storozhev could not deny it. She was dressed very simply, with no jewellery, but the Tsaritsa in her was still very apparent and she had taken an active part in the service. The Tsar, who had appeared calm and in good spirits, had been wearing military dress with the cross of St George pinned to his tunic. Storozhev had noticed that the four girls all had short hairs. The profound respect with which the family had bowed and acknowledged Storozhev as priest during the service had greatly impressed him, as too had the Tsar’s deep bass voice ringing out the responses behind him and the quiet fervency with which they had all recited the prayers.» (Rappaport, 2008, p.159-161).

By thunderbolt and war good believers put to death: The term « foudre (thunderbolt) is metaphorical and represents the suddenness and the powerfulness – the thundering character – of the attacks.» (Brind’Amour, id., p.525) and the phrase ‘by war’ signifies that the scene of shooting the Romanovs in the basement of Ipatiev House is as furious as if in a war; « Wendesday 17 July 1918. It was about 2.15 a.m. when Yurovsky and Nikulin, accompanied by two of the internal guard with rifles, led the family in the semi-darkness down the steep, narrow stairs to the ground floor... All was silent, except for the roar of the Fiat’s engine rattling the window panes. Yurovsky opened the double doors and entered. ‘Well here we all are’, said Nicholas, stepping forward to face Yurovsky, thinking that the truck they could hear revving outside had now arrived to take them to safety, ‘What are you going to do now?’ His right hand clutching sweatily at the Colt in his trouser pocket, his left holding a piece of paper, Yurovsky asked the family to stand. Alexey, of course, could not and stayed where he was, as the Tsaritsa, muttering her complaints, struggled to her feet. Suddenly the room seemed to shrink in on him as Yurovsky stepped forward, brandishing his sheet of paper. It had been drafted by the presidium of the Ural Regional Soviet and given to him by Goloshchekin that day. Here, at last, was the commandant’s personal moment in history. Yurovsky had rehearsed his statement many times and raised his voice in order to be heard more clearly. ‘In view of the fact that your relatives in Europe continue their assault on Soviet Russia,’ he began portentously, gazing straight at Nicholas, ‘the presidium of the Ural Regional Soviet has sentenced you to be shot ...’ The Tsar registered blank incomprehension; turning his back to Yurovsky to face his family, he managed an incredulous stutter – ‘What? What?’ – as those around him were rooted to the spot in absolute terror [By thunderbolt good believers put to death]. ‘So you’re not taking us anywhere?’ ventured Botkin, unable also to comprehend what had just been said. ‘I don’t understand. Read it again ...’ the Tsar interrupted, his face white with horror. Yurovsky picked up where he had left off: ‘... in view of the fact that the Czechoslovaks are threatening the red capital of the Urals – Ekaterinburg – and in view of the fact that the crowned executioner might escape the people’s court, the presidium of the Regional Soviet, fulfilling the will of the Revolution, has decreed that the former Tsar Nicholas Romanov, guilty of countless bloody crimes against the people, should be shot ...’ Instinctively, the Tsaritsa and Olga crossed themselves; a few incoherent words of shock or protest heard from the rest. Yurovsky, having finished reading the decree, pulled out his Colt, stepped forward and shot the Tsar at the point-blank range in the chest... » (Rappaport, 2008, p.185-189).

By war good believers put to death: « Yurovsky shot the Tsar at the point-blank range in the chest. Ermakov [the swaggering alcoholic], Kudrin [the factory mechanic and, as a dedicated Cheka man, a willing killer] and Medvedev [a 28-year-old welder from the Sysert works and senior guard at the Ipatiev House], not to be outdone and wanting their moment of personal revenge and glory too, immediately took aim and fired at Nicholas as well, followed by most of others, propelling an arc of blood and tissue over his terrified son beside him. For a moment the Tsar’s body quivered on the spot, his eyes fixated and wide, his chest cavities, ripped open by bullets, now frothing with oxygenated blood, his heart speeding up, all in a vain attempt to pump blood round his traumatised body. Then he quietly crumpled to the floor. But at least Nicholas was spared the sight of seeing what happened to his wife and family.» (Rappaport, id., p.189);

« For in that moment, Ermakov had turned and fired his Mauser at the Tsaritsa only six feet away from him as she tried to make the sign of the cross, hitting her in the left side of the skull, spraying brain tissue all around, as a hail of bullets from the other assassins hit her torso. Alexandra crumpled sideways on to the floor, her warm, sticky blood and brain tissue spreading across it in a mist of steam. Next to her, poor lame Alexey, too crippled even to get up and run, sat there transfixed, clutching in terror at his chair, his ashen face splattered with his father’s blood. The other victims meanwhile had fallen first to their knees and then to the floor in an instinctive attempt to protect themselves, some of them convulsing from the trauma of flesh wounds received from bullets aimed at the Tsar and Tsaritsa that had missed, others crawling in desperation in the impenetrable smoke, trying to find a way out. Trupp [footman] had gone down quickly, his legs shattered, and was finished off by a final shot to the head. Kharitonov [cook], his body riddled with bullets, crumpled to the floor and died beside him.» (Rappaport, id., p.189).

« Within minutes there was such chaos in the basement room that Yurovsky was forced to stop the shooting because of the choking conditions; he did so with great difficulty, for by now the men had been overtaken by the frenzy of getting the job done. The air was thick with a nauseating cocktail of blood and bodily fluids – the faeces, urine and vomit precipitated from bodies in moments of extreme trauma. The killers were all choking and coughing from the caustic smoke of burnt gunpowder as well as showers of dust from the plaster ceiling caused by the reverberation of bullets. Their eyes were streaming too and they were all temporarily deafened by the delayed noise of the gunshots. As Yurovsky’s men staggered from the storeroom, shaking and disorientated, to gasp at the cool night air, some of them vomited. But it wasn’t over. Once the deafening roar of firearms had ceased and the smoke had abated, the moans and whimpers they could hear inside made it all too apparent that they had botched the job. Many of their victims were still alive, horribly injured and suffering in agony. Dr Botkin had already been hit twice in the abdomen when a bullet aimed at his legs had shattered his kneecaps, knocking him to the ground. From here he had lifted himself up on his right elbow and tried to reach towards the Tsar in one final, protective act. Seeing Botkin was still alive as he re-entered the room, Yurovsky took aim with his Mauser and shot him in the left temple as the doctor turned his head away in terror. His wish had been fulfilled: he had, at least, been permitted to die with his Emperor.» (Rappaport, id., p.189-190).

« None of the Romanov girls – those pretty girls whom none of the guards had really wanted to have to kill – had died a quick or painless death. Maria had earlier been felled by a bullet in the thigh from Ermakov as she had pounded hysterically at the locked storeroom doors, and was now lying on the floor moaning. Her three sisters had suffered terribly, filling the room with their screams as they shrieked out for their mother, Olga and Tatiana doing what came instinctively, pressing themselves into each other’s arms in the darkest corner for protection. Realising that the two older girls were still alive, Ermakov lunged at them with the eight-inch bayonet he had stuffed in his belt, stabbing at their torsos. But, drunk and uncoordinated as he was, he had trouble penetrating the girls’ chests. It was the cool and collected Yurovsky who strode though the smoke and shot Tatiana in the back of the head as she struggled to her feet to escape his approach, the brains and blood from her shattered skull showering her hysterical sister. A wild-eyed Ermakov shot Olga through the jaw as she tried to rise to her feet too and run; in her death throes she fell across Tatiana’s body. Anastasia meanwhile had taken refuge near the wounded Maria. Realising that the two youngest girls were still cowering alive in the corner, Ermakov again resorted to his bayonet and stabbed Maria repeatedly in the torso, but his weapon would not go through and Yurovsky had to step over and deliver the coup de grȃce with a bullet to her head. Anastasia suffered horribly too: Ermakov lunged at her like a wild animal, again attempting to pierce her chest with his bayonet as he rained blows down on the helpless girl, before finally taking his gun to her head.» (Rappaport, id., p.190-191).

« Incredibly, Yurovsky now saw that the Tsarevich was still alive (for, as it later turned out, the boy too was wearing an undergarment sewn with jewels). He could not comprehend the sick boy’s ‘extraordinary vitality’ and watched in disbelief as a shaky Nikulin spent the entire clip of bullets from his Browning on him. But the fatally flawed blood of the haemophiliac boy still continued to pump round his body, keeping him alive when on so many occasions in the past it had nearly killed him. Yurovsky, having fired the last bullets from his Mauser, could do no better than Nikulin. Frenzied stabs by Ermakov with his bayonet again had little success at penetrating the layer of jewels surrounding the boy’s torso. In the end Yurovsky pulled a second gun, his Colt, from his belt to give the dying boy the coup de grȃce as he lay on the chair which had fallen sideways on to the floor. Alexey’s body then finally slumped and rolled silently against that of his father. Miraculously, the maid Demidova had somehow survived till now, wounded in the thigh, having fainted while those all around her were being put to death. When the shooting died down, she came to and staggered to her feet screaming, ‘Thank God, I am saved!’ Immediately Ermakov turned on her with his bayonet as Demidova found superhuman strength in the face of imminent death. She had been frightened of what the Bolsheviks at Ekaterinburg might do to them all; she had said so when she left Tobolsk. And now she resisted violently, turning this way and that, fending off bayonet thrusts with her reinforced cushions – the Tsaritsa’s jewels that she had so carefully protected now protecting her – until one of the assassins pulled them from her. In desperation Demidova made a final attempt to defend herself against the bayonet, hysterically swiping at it with her bare hands until she was finished off.» (Rappaport, id., p.191).

« Yurovsky had seen plenty of death and mutilation during his time as a medical orderly in the war. He had a stronger stomach for the grisly spectacle of the basement room [war] than most of the men there that night, and now the medical man in him took over as he went round checking pulses to make sure the victims were all dead. Ermakov meanwhile, his drunken brain reeling from this orgy of killing, staggered and stumbled and slipped as he crossed back and forth in the room, flailing at bodies with his bayonet, wreaking his personal hatred on the bullet-ridden bodies of the Tsar and Tsaritsa and cracking their rib cages. It had taken 20 minutes of increasingly frenzied activity to kill the Romanovs and their servants. Professional marksmen given the same task would have taken 30 seconds. What should have been a quick, clean execution had turned into a bloodbath [war].» (Rappaport, id., p.191-192).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved.

19th-20th Century

19th century after Napoléon Bonaparte: 143 quatrains (§588-§730).

20th century: 219 quatrains /(1901-2000) = 219/100 = 2.2: the age of the world-wide unheard-of catastrophes (§731-§949).

§751 The end of 17 reigns of Romanov Dynasty in 1917 and on the 17th (1613-1918): VI-59.

VI-59 (§751):

The lady in fury because of passion for adultery,
Shall come to her prince to pray him to say no,
But soon shall be known the vituperator,
That the dynasty of 17 reigns shall suffer martyrdom in 1917 and on the 17th.

(Dame en fureur par raige d'adultere,
Viendra à son prince conjurer non de dire:
Mais bref cogneu sera le vitupere,
Que seront mis dixsept à martire.)

NOTES: V. Ionescu’s identification of the theme of the quatrain as Russian Revolution of 1917 (Ionescu, 1976, p.427-428) is amazingly smart, but the essential point in question is not the Revolution itself, but the tragic fate of the Romanovs before and in the Revolution, and his explications in detail are hardly sufficient.

The lady: = the Tsaritsa Alexandra (1872-1918). Of 23 usages of the term DAME in the Prophecies of Nostradamus, 17 are for ladies: a queen, a princess or a female, and 6 metaphorically for a state (II-44: France of Napoleon I, II-87: France of Louis XVIII, V-9: France of Napoleon III, VI-19: Spanish government of Popular Front in 1936, VII-18: France subordinate to Prussia in 1870 and X-25: Great Britain). Ionescu’s interpretation of the term ‘lady (dame)’ as ‘the people (le peuple)’ (id., p.427) is not pertinent.

Her prince: = the Tsar Nicholas II (1868-1918).

Adultery: An extraordinary relation between the Tsaritsa Alexandra, a fervent implorer as to her Baby’s haemophilia, and a strange monk Rasputin capable of effecting a temporary cure of it. Ionescu’s interpretation of the term ‘adultery’ as ‘revolution’ (id., p.427) is not pertinent.

The lady in fury because of passion for adultery, Shall come to her prince to pray him to say no [to her critics]: Alexandra in fury because of her passion for communicating with a charismatic monk Rasputin (c.1871-1916), who only can, she believes, treat the Tsarevitch Alexey (1904-1918) for haemophilia, shall resist her critics with the Tsar on her side: « The whole focus and dynamic of the Romanov family had shifted dramatically when, at 1.15 p.m. on Friday [sic] 30 July 1904, Nicholas and Alexandra’s fifth child had been born. At last the family had been ‘visited by the grace of God’, Nicholas wrote in his diary. He had answered his and his wife’s years of fervent prayers and had sent a son as comfort ‘in time of sore trials’, Russia then being in the midst of a disatrous war with Japan... But then, on 8 September, only six weeks after Alexey’s birth, the Romanov family’s world imploded and Alexandra’s delirous joy turned to implacable grief. Her baby started bleeding from the navel. It was the first unmistakable sign of the deadly condition of haemophilia – passed down unwittingly in the female line from Alexandra’s grandmother Queen Victoria to the royal houses of Germany, Spain and Russia. Privately, Nicholas and Alexandra were advised of the truth, but there would be no public annoucements, not ever...» (Rappaport, 2008, p.87-88); « ... for Alexandra, her son’s health had become a daily crusade, a battle for the Tsarevich’s survival and with it that of the dynasty. It changed her irrevocably, opening the door wide to the pernicious influences of every faith-healer, soothsayer, clairvoyant, charlatan, and miracle-worker who came offering a cure. Not the least among them was the ‘holy man’ Rasputin, whose appearance in 1905 and the Tsaritsa’s subsequent dependence on him set the doomed dynasty on its final one-way path to vilification and eventual annihilation. Her escalating desperation, bordering on hysteria, to find a miracle ‘cure’ meant she was perfectly primed to embrace Rasputin’s powers as a bozhii chelovek – a man of God and healer. When Alexey had attacks of bleeding, Rasputin demonstrated an uncanny ability to calm, if not mentally ‘tranquillise’ him through the medium of hypnotism or autosuggestion of some kind, thus slowing down the bleeding by lowering the stress that raises blood pressure. No one could explain Rasputin’s power except the Tsaritsa; she put it all down to God’s intervention, and thus she would defend the man she called ‘Our Friend’ as her son’s last hope to the bitter end, no matter what odium it brought on her and the monarchy. She refused to listen to tales of Rasputin’s lasciviousness, drunkenness and womanising, or accusations about his meddling in political matters, at the risk of alienating her last few friends and closest relatives. As for the Tsar, he capitulated to his wife’s neurotic dependency on the man [passion for adultery (raige d’adultere)] and kept his reservations about Rasputin himself: ‘Better one Rasputin than ten fits of hysterics a day’ had been his weary comment [Shall come to her prince to pray him to say no].» (id., p.91); « When the Tsarevich was well, everything and everybody ‘seemed bathed in sunshine’. Alexey would take centre stage as the adorable, happy boy in a sailor suit – innocent, vibrant and lovable, Russia’s great hope for the future. But the realists in the Imperial entourage, such as the Tsar’s physician Dr Evgeny Botkin, were doubtful that the boy would ever live to become Tsar. They did their best for him, administering regular massage and electrotherapy during the prolonged enforced periods of rest that followed attacks, which left his leg muscles weak and atrophied. But sooner or later they anticipated his premature death. In October 1912 in Bialoveza in Poland, Alexey cheated it by a whisper. Showing off in front of his attendant Derevenko one day by jumping into a sunken bath, he stumbled and hit his groin. The ensuing swelling seemed to go down, but two weeks later when out with his mother for a carriage ride at the family’s hunting lodge at Spala, the jolts of the road caused him to cry out with pain in his back and stomach. A haemorrhage in his upper left thigh had spread, with blood from the injury seeping into his abdomen, the pressure of the swelling on the nerves of his leg causing agonising pain... For 11 days Alexandra refused to leave her son’s bedside, rarely taking time to rest or eat and only occasionally allowing the Tsar to replace her. Nicholas wept for his son, his only way of dealing with the situation being to internalise his grief and carry on hunting. For four days Alexey drifted in and out of delirium; at one lucid moment emtreating his mother in a whisper, ‘when I am dead build me a little monument of stones in the wood’. A priest administered the last rites and the whole of the Imperial entougage at Spala held their breath. As a last desperate act Alexandra begged Anna Vyrubova to send a telegram to Rasputin in Siberia. The message came back that the doctors should not attempt to intervene; ‘the little one will not die’. Within an hour the crisis was over and the haemorrhaging stopped. The combined medical specialists of Russia were baffled: they could find no explanation for this spontaneous recovery. So severe had been the attack that Alexey, now painfully thin and pale, was kept in bed for a month. He was not able to walk again properly for a year and had to have a metal brace fitted to his leg to prevent him becoming permanently lame. For Alexandra, Spala was final vindication of her faith in Rasputin, the absolute, incontrovertible proof she needed to silence his critics. She would not tolerate a word said against him thereafter – by anybody, including her own sister, Ella, whose words of warning about Rasputin’s destructive influence prompted Alexandra to turn her back on her forever.» (id., p.92-93). Ionescu’s interpretation of the phrase ‘non de dire ’ as ‘to abdicate’ (id., p.427) is not pertinent.

Le vitupere
: = Le vitupereur (the vituperator) = the communists opposing the monarchy. Ionescu’s interpretation of the term ‘le vitupere’ as ‘who are worthy of being blamed’ (id., p.428) is utterly upside-down.

But soon shall be known the vituperator
: The scandal of Rasputin having been liquidated by his murder by the aristocrats in December, 1916, there will appear the real Opposer of the monarchy in March, 1917: « The Russian Revolutions (March and November) Prefigured by an earlier revolt in 1905, the Russian Revolution had about it a certain inevitability. Tsarist rule was autocratic, and the social system aristocratic, sychophantic and inflexible. Tsar Nicholas II was weak, and his German wife, the Tsarina Alexandra, was a fervent supporter of autocracy and was under the baleful influence of the charismatic monk Rasputin until he was murdered by aristocrats in December 1916. The war had not been going well for Russia; the high command was inefficient and junior officers often brutal to their men, while a vast swathe of territory had been lost, and each year had taken a terrible toll in casualties. In common with much of Europe, the winter of 1916-17 was severe enough to curtail food supplies. These had already been shrinking because of labour shortages caused by conscription and by wartime transport problems. Food shortages, compounded by rising prices, led to strikes. The peasants, hungry and angry, wanted land. The urban population, restive because of falling real wages, demanded bread. By using the slogan ‘Peace, Land, Bread’, Bolshevik agitators were able to maximize their support from soldiers, urban workers and peasants. In the cold, short, dark days of early 1917, desperation was growing among Russians. In Petrograd (St Petersburg) bread riots, in which soldiers of the garrison joined, turned into revolution on 8 March. This challenge became a crisis when Cossaks refused to shoot at rioters. Four days later the Soviet (Council of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies) was set up, which regarded itself as independent of the liberal opposition. The Soviet quietly planned to undermine the army and seize power. The Tsar, trying to return to Petrograd from his military headquarters, was stopped and turned back. On 15 March the liberals convinced the generals that the Tsar no longer had the support of the army and forced him to abdicate.» (Chasseaud, 2013, p.218-219). Ionescu’s interpretation of the term ‘soon (bref)’as ‘in October’ (id., p.427) is not pertinent.

That 17 reigns of Romanov Dynasty shall suffer martyrdom in 1917 and on 17 July, 1918
:

Seventeen
(dixsept): The term ‘seventeen’ has a triple meaning: (1) the seventeen reigns of Romanov Dynasty, (2) the year 1917 of Nicholas II’s abdication without successor, and (3) the day of 17th of July, 1918 when the Romanov family were executed.

(1) The 17 reigns of the dynasty of Romanov (1613-1917): Michael Romanov (1613-45), 2° Alexey (1645-76), 3° Theodore (1676-82), 4° joint reign of John V (1682-89) and Peter I (1682-1725), 5° Catherine I (1725-27), 6° Peter II (1727-30), 7° Anna Ivanovnav (1730-1740), 8° John VI (1740-41), 9° Elisabeth (1741-62), 10° Peter III (1762/1/5-7/17), 11° Catherine the Great (1762/7/17-96), 12° Paul I (1796-1801), 13° Alexander I (1801-25), 14° Nicholas I (1825-55), 15° Alexander II (1855-81), 16° Alexander III (1881-94), 17° Nicholas II (1894-1917); « Alexey’s slow recovery after the attack at Spala meant that during the crucial Romanov publicity campaign for the tercentenary in 1913 he had to be carried in public ceremonials, prompting people to ask themselves whether the future of Russia was to be in the hands of ‘a cripple’...» (Rappaport, 2008, p.94).

(2) The abdication of the last Tsar Nicholas II: « It is evident that the number 17 was placed here in allusion to the year 1917, the year of the Revolution, where the Russian people were martyred.» (Ionescu, 1976, p.428) [N.B. It is not the Russian people, but the Romanovs that were martyred by them.]; « Although singularly unsuited for high military office, Nicholas assumed Supreme Command of the Russian Armies in September 1915 and it was at his headquarters at Pskov that he was forced to abdicate, March 15th, 1917.» (Palmer, p.202); « 1917, March 15 (midnight) End of the dynasty of the Romanovs. Upon the demand of the delegates of the Provisional Government, the Tsar Nicholas II signs his abdication at Pskov (south-west of Leningrad). His brother, the Archduke Michael refuses the throne.» (Jouette, p.223).

(3) The execution of the Romanov family: « He [Nicholas II] was kept in seclusion in various parts of Russia until July 16th, 1918, when he was murdered, along with his family, at Ekaterinburg (now Sverdlovsk) on the orders of a local Bolshevik commander who feared that the royal family would be rescued by counter-revolutionary troops.» (Palmer, p.202); « 1918 Jul: 16th, execution of ex-Tsar Nicholas II and family on orders of Ural Regional Council.» (Williams, 1968, p.470); « 1918, July 16-17 (the night of) The White Army of Admiral Kolchak approaching Ekaterinburg, Yurovsky and his Bolshevik Latvians, charged with guarding the Romanov family, kill the Tsar Nicholas II, the Tsarina Alexandra, their son Alexey and their four daughters Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia, as well as the persons of their suite (Dr Botkin, maid Demidova, cook Kharitonov, footman Trupp) in the basement of the Ipatiev House [a house in the centre of Ekaterinburg belonging to a retired engineer named Nikolay Ipatiev requisitioned by the local soviet as the Romanovs’ new place of detention].» (Jouette, p.229); « Thursday 4 July 1918. And so, on Thursday 4 July, a new commandant arrived. His name was Yakov Yurovsky, and brought with him an assistant, an attractive young man called Grigory Nikulin, who in Alexandra’s estimation seemed ‘decent’ in comparison to his vulgar predecessor Moshkin. Little did she know that the bland-looking Nikulin was a ruthless killer... » (Rappaport, 2008, p.30); « Friday 12 July 1918. Yurovsky was now formally entrusted with the final preparations for the execution, codenamed, improbably, trubochist – ‘chimney sweep’. All he had to do now, as Goloshchekin [a member of the presidium of the Ural Regional Soviet and the newly appointed regional commissar for war] assured him, was wait for the signal from Moscow.» (Rappaport, 2008, p.143); « Tuesday 16 July 1918. A coded telegram was therefore sent by Goloshchekin and Safarov [a member of the URS’s presidium] at around six that evening, addressed to Lenin in Moscow. All was ready; they were now awaiting the final signal that operation trubochist could go ahead... Inside the house Yurovsky was finalising arrangements for execution. All now depended on the truck; earlier that afternoon, he had ordered his chauffeur Lyukhanov to put in an order with the Ekaterinburg Military Garage for a truck to take the bodies away, bringing with it rolls of canvas to wrap them in. The intention was to have it parked as close to the basement entrance as possible, within the double palisade, with its engine running to mask the noise of gunshots. If the engine backfired then so much the better. As the regular change of guard came at 10 p.m. and new men arrived, the Romanovs sat upsatirs reading and playing cards. Nicholas and Alexandra were enjoying a final game of bezique as the men who were to be their executioners gathered in the basement rooms downstairs... The open-topped Fiat truck finally rattled off across the silent streets of the city. Operation trubochist was at last swinging into action. Commandant Yurovsky got up from his chair, went out on to the landing and rang the bell at the double doors of the Romanovs’ sitting room. It was 1.30 in the morning of 17 July 1918. The Ipatiev House was now about to fulfil the ‘Special Purpose’ for which it had been summarily requisitioned only three monts ago.» (Rappaport, 2008, p.178-183); « Wendesday 17 July 1918. It was about 2.15 a.m. when Yurovsky and Nikulin, accompanied by two of the internal guard with rifles, led the family in the semi-darkness down the steep, narrow stairs to the ground floor. Instinctively the Romanovs followed the order of precedence inculcated in them, the Tsar in front but refusing all assistance as he struggled with the burden of Alexey, who winced with pain from his bandaged leg; then Alexandra, using a stick and leaning heavily on Olga’s arm, followed by the three other girls. They all then exited the house by the door leading out into the small courtyard, re-entering by another, adjacent door leading down into the basement. Twenty-three steps – one for every year of Nicholas’s disastrous reign –now led him and his famliy to their collective fate. When everything was ready, Yurovsky ordered the Fiat truck across the road to be brought round to the house. The truck arrived, with the Ipatiev House’s ‘official driver’ Lyukhanov at the wheel. He gingerly backed the clumsy vehicle into the courtyard between the palisades, grinding its gears in the process, in order to ensure it could better pull away up the incline out of the house when fully loaded. As they watched, some of the guards might reasonably have wondered whether such a ramshackle vehicle was sturdy enough to carry 11 bodies and their escort out to the night-bound Koptyaki Forest. With the truck now outside and gunning its engine, and the killers gathering behind him outside the door, Yurovsky prepared to re-enter the storeroom. All was silent, except for the roar of the Fiat’s engine rattling the window panes. Yurovsky opened the double doors and entered. ‘Well here we all are’, said Nicholas, stepping forward to face Yurovsky, thinking that the truck they could hear revving outside had now arrived to take them to safety ‘What are you going to do now?’ His right hand clutching sweatily at the Colt in his trouser pocket, his left holding a piece of paper, Yurovsky asked the family to stand. Alexey, of course, could not and stayed where he was, as the Tsaritsa, muttering her complaints, struggled to her feet. Suddenly the room seemed to shrink in on him as Yurovsky stepped forward, brandishing his sheet of paper. It had been drafted by the presidium of the Ural Regional Soviet and given to him by Goloshchekin that day. Here, at last, was the commandant’s personal moment in history. Yurovsky had rehearsed his statement many times and raised his voice in order to be heard more clearly. ‘In view of the fact that your relatives in Europe continue their assault on Soviet Russia,’ he began portentously, gazing straight at Nicholas, ‘the presidium of the Ural Regional Soviet has sentenced you to be shot ...’ The Tsar registered blank incomprehension; turning his back to Yurovsky to face his family, he managed an incredulous stutter – ‘What? What?’ – as those around him were rooted to the spot in absolute terror. ‘So you’re not taking us anywhere?’ ventured Botkin, unable also to comprehend what had just been said. ‘I don’t understand. Read it again ...’ the Tsar interrupted, his face white with horror. Yurovsky picked up where he had left off: ‘... in view of the fact that the Czechoslovaks are threatening the red capital of the Urals – Ekaterinburg – and in view of the fact that the crowned executioner might escape the people’s court, the presidium of the Regional Soviet, fulfilling the will of the Revolution, has decreed that the former Tsar Nicholas Romanov, guilty of countless bloody crimes against the people, should be shot ...’  Instinctively, the Tsaritsa and Olga crossed themselves; a few incoherent words of shock or protest heard from the rest. Yurovsky, having finished reading the decree, pulled out his Colt, stepped forward and shot the Tsar at the point-blank range in the chest... » (Rappaport, 2008, p.185-189).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved. 

§750 The foundation of the League of Nations with unexpected results (1918-1946): V-12.

V-12 (§750):

Near Lake Leman the grand retinues shall be led,
By a foreign virgin wishing to deliver them a city,
Before her depression at Augsburg:
And those of the Rhine shall come to invade its member-states.

(Aupres du lac Leman sera conduite,
Par garse estrange cité voulant trahir:
Avant son meurtre à Auspourg la grand suitte
Et ceulx du Ryn la viendront invahir.)

NOTES: Garse: = « garce, s.f., jeune fille (a young girl) » (Godefroy).

Trahir: = Livrer (to deliver); « TRAHIR. (1080; lat. tradere, proprem. « livrer »).» (Petit Robert).

The grand retinues: = the delegations to Geneva of member-states of the League.

Invahir: = « invadir, assaillr, attaquer (to assail, to attack).» (Godefroy).

[1°] A. Lamont’s interpretation of the quatrain, not fully penetrating, is fairly suggestive in delivering the theme of the League of Nations, and [2°] the historical explanations by Palmer will wholly justify the prophetic quatrain of Nostradamus.

1° « Auprès du lac Leman sera conduite Par garde [sic] étrange, Cité voulant trahir, Avant son meurtre, à Augsburg la grand suite Et ceux de Rhin le viendront envahir. TRANSLATION: Near Lake Leman (Geneva) it will be conducted under a foreign guardian willing to betray the City (principles of the League). Before she (the League) is murdered Germans will follow (enter) it. And (later) those of Rhineland will come to attack it. INTERPRETATION: From the beginning the League followed principles dictated by dominant groups within, who were moved not by unselfish devotion to humanity but by their own interests. In 1926 Germany entered it as a member, but after the rise of Hitler she attacked it incessantly and sought its destruction.» (Lamont, 1944, p.148).

2°« Wilson, Woodrow (1856-1924), born in Virginia... He secured Democratic nomination for President in 1912... Mexican raids over the U.S. frontier forced him to send a punitive expedition in 1916. He followed strict neutrality in the European War, seeking statements of war aims from the rival belligerents and being prepared to mediate. He won the 1916 Election on the slogan ‘He Kept Us Out of War’, but the resumption by the Germans of unrestricted U-boat attacks (February 1st, 1917) and intrigues shown by the Zimmermann Telegram forced him, on April 6th, to enter the war as a co-belligerent ‘associated power’, free, if he wished, to make a separate peace. On January 8th, 1918, Wilson issued his Fourteen points as a basis for peace, stressing the need for a League of Nations [the grand retinues shall be led, By a foreign virgin]. Wilson attended the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, his rapturous reception in Europe blinding him to political realities [a virgin] not only among the Allied politicians, who were less high-minded than he, but also in the U.S. Senate, which had already passed under Republican control. He was forced in Paris to accept compromises, trusting that the League would right the wrongs of the treaties in due course. On returning to America Wilson found that the Senate would not ratify the Treaty of Versailles (which contained the League Covenant) [her depression at Augsburg (Augsburg was often the siege of the imperial Diet [reminiscent of a Senate] of the Holy Roman Empire and the irregular orthography AUSPouRg may imply USA PResident)]. Three weeks after beginning a nationwide campaign to win public support for his ideas, Wilson collapsed (September 26th, 1919). He was an invalid for the last three and a half years of his life.» (Palmer, p.304-305); « League of Nations. An international organization created in 1920 to preserve peace and settle disputes by arbitration or conciliation. Its headquarters were at Geneva [a city near Lake Leman]... The Covenant (i.e. constitution) of the League was incorporated in each of the peace treaties. When Congress refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, the U.S.A. dissociated itself from the League and never became a member. Germany belonged to the League only from 1926 to 1933, Japan withdrew from the League in 1933, Italy in 1937... It was formally dissolved in April 1946.» (Palmer, p.157-158); « Tripartite Pact. An undertaking for co-operation in establishing the ‘New Order’ in Europe and ‘Greater East Asia’ signed originally by Germany, Italy and Japan in Berlin [those of the Rhine] (September 27th, 1940). The signatories to the Pact undertook to assist each other if one of them was attacked by a Power not already in the War when the Pact was signed. This stipulation seems to have been intended to operate especially against the U.S.A.» (Palmer, p.287); « World War II had its origins in German unwillingness to accept Versailles frontiers and the Anglo-French pledge of support to Poland of April 1939. German forces invaded Poland [m.-s. (member-state) of the League] on September 1st, 1939, and overran the country in four weeks. Britain [m.-s.] and France [m.-s.] declared war on Germany on September 3rd but avoided major operations. In April 1940 the Germans occupied Denmark [m.-s.] and Norway [m.-s.] (where Allied troops resisted for two months). The invasion of Belgium [m.-s.] and Holland [m.-s.] on May 10th, 1940, opened the period of ‘lightning-war’ (Blitzkrieg) in which penetration by German tanks and use of air power encompassed the fall of the Netherlands within four days, Belgium within three weeks and France within seven weeks. Failure to secure air superiority over Britain frustrated Hitler’s plans of invasion and, while continuing submarine attacks on British supply routes, the Germans moved eastwards, invading Yugoslavia [m.-s.] and Greece [m.-s.] in April 1941 and attacking Russia on a 2,000 mile front on 22nd June (in alliance with Finland, Hungary and Roumania)... Japan’s desire for Asiatic expansion induced her to attack British [m.-s.] and American bases on December 7th, 1941 (Germany and Italy declaring war on the U.S.A. three days later). Within four months the Japanese were masters of south-east Asia and Burma [colonies of Britain, France and Holland] and it was not until June 1942 that naval victories in the Pacific stemmed their advance. In the war against Germany, the second battle of Alamein at the end of October 1942 marked the turn of the tide for the British. Allied troops ejected the Germans and Italians from North Africa (October 1942-May 1943), invaded Sicily and Italy and forced the Italians to make a separate peace (September 3rd, 1943)...» (Palmer, p.307).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved. 

§749 The break of the Great War and heavy suffering of the French, the British and the Italians (1914-1918): I-26.

I-26 (§749):

The great shall fall to the ground by a thunderbolt by day,
An evil predicted by a claiming bearer
Following the presage a conflict shall occur by night
Reims, London, Etruscan plague-stricken.

(Le grand du fouldre tumbe d'heure diurne,
Mal & predict par porteur postulaire
Suivant presaige tumbe d'heure nocturne,
Conflit Reins, Londres, Etrusque pestifere.)

NOTES: Tumber: = Tomber (to fall); « TOMBER. Souvent tumber au moyen âge et encore dans beaucoup de parlers. (TOMBER. Frequently tumber in the Middle Ages and yet in many speeches.) » (Bloch & Wartburg).

Le grand du fouldre tumbe d'heure diurne, Mal & predict par porteur postulaire: The construction is to be as follows: Le grand tumbe du fouldre d'heure diurne, & mal predict par porteur postulaire.

The great shall fall to the ground by a thunderbolt by day (Le grand tumbe du fouldre d'heure diurne) = The assassination in Sarajevo = §737, X-63: The death of two herons = 1914 assassination of Archduke of Austria and his wife in Sarajevo; « Francis Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria [The great] (1863-1914); nephew of Francis Joseph and heir to the Austrian throne from 1889. Francis Ferdinand was a man of strong character. In 1900 he morganatically married the Countess Sophie Chotek (a Czech); the insults and affronts to which his wife was exposed by the petty restrictions of antiquated etiquette made Francis Ferdinand hostile to the régime and he became on bad terms with his uncle, the Emperor. Speculation on the extent to which Francis Ferdinand would have been a reforming monarch is, however, vain; on June 28th, 1914, he was assassinated [The great shall fall to the ground], with his wife, on a ceremonial visit to Sarajevo [by day], by a Bosnian Serb fanatic [by a thunderbolt], an event that precipitated the First World War.» (Palmer, p.103).

Postulaire
(claiming): From a Latin « postulō demander, réclamer (to assert, to claim).» (Nimmo).

An evil predicted by a claiming bearer
: « La guerre (Mal) déjà prédite (et predict) dans l’ultimatum envoyé (par porteur postulaire) [The war already predicted in the communicated ultimatum] » (Ionescu, 1976, p.383).

Suivant presaige tumbe d'heure nocturne, Conflit Reins, Londres, Etrusque pestifere: The construction is to be as follows: Suivant presaige Conflit tumbe d'heure nocturne, Reins, Londres, Etrusque pestifere.

Following the presage a conflict shall occur by night
: Following the exigent and harsh claim to Serbia by Austria-Hungary dated on 23 July, 1914, a great war shall break out in the dark European atmosphere on 28 July; « 1914 Jul: 23rd, Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia; 24th, Edward Grey [British foreign secretary] proposes four-power mediation of Balkan crisis, but Serbia appeals to Russia; 26th, Austrians mobilise on Russian frontier; 28th, Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia.» (Williams, 1968, p.446).

Pestifere
: = « pestiféré, ée adj. Plague-stricken.» (Dubois); Pest (peste): This word, as well as the words pestilence, pestilent and pestifere (pestiferous), is figurative, non literal, for most of the expressions indicative of natural phenomena such as " earthquake, rain, tempest, dryness, inundation", etc. are not literal for Nostradamus, but figurative, describing metaphorically wars, revolts, social troubles, collective distress, etc., conditioned principally by human comportments (cf. Introduction §5). In fact, of 38 usages of the words « peste », « pestilence », « pestilent» and « pestifere », 32 are figurative for the warlike and social disasters and menaces, only 5 literal (II-19, II-37, II-46, II-53, II-65) and one for the real seism (VIII-84).

Reins
: = Reims representing France; « Les mots “Conflict Reims” sont suffisants pour mettre ce quatrain parmi ceux concernant la première guerre mondiale (The words ‘Conflict Reims’ are sufficient [for us] to put this quatrain among those concerning the World War I).» (Ionescu, id., p.381).

Londres
: = London representing Britain.

Etrusque
: = Etruscan representing Italian.

France
(Reims), Britain (London), Italy (Etruscan) plague-stricken: = Heavy suffering of the main Allied belligerents of Western Europe in the Great War: « Casualties, 1914-18 (in thousands): British Empire Killed 767 Wounded 2,090; France Killed 1,383 Wouded 2,560; Italy Killed 564 Wouded 1,030.» (Williams, 1968, p.471).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved. 

§748 The Hindenburg Line broken, Ludendorff crashed to the floor; Revolution in Germany and Austria (1918): IV-13.

IV-13 (§748):

Of a larger loss the news brought back,
The report made, the camp shall be startled:
Anti-union of bands in revolt:
The double army shall abandon their great.

(De plus grand perte nouvelles raportées,
Le raport fait le camp s'estonnera:
Bandes unies encontre revoltées:
Double phalange grand abandonnera.)

NOTES: V. Ionescu’s interpretation of the quatrain (Ionescu, 1976, p.396-397) is a first reasonable one to be taken into consideration.

Of a larger loss the news brought back, The report made, the camp shall be startled: « Breaking the Hindenburg Line The attack on the Hindenburg Position, whose defences were up to three miles in depth and included the St Quentin Canal which made a superb anti-tank ditch, was made in the Battles of Cambrai and St Quentin, from 27 September until 10 October [1918]. ... by 5 October, the attacking Allied armies had broken through the whole Hindenburg Position. This opend the way for a war of movement and an advance towards the vital main German communications routes. This group of assaults was undertaken in three phases. First came the storming of the Canal-du-Nord position on the left in the Battle of St Quentin Canal, and the advance on Cambrai. Following this came the shattering blow which, after a stupendous artillery bombardment and with the help of hundred of tanks, broke through the Hindenburg Line and turned the defences of St Quentin. Lastly came the exploitation of these successes by a general attack on the whole front which broke through the last of the enemy defences and captured the Beaurevoir Line, to the rear of the Hindenburg Line, and the high ground above it, by 10 October. The Germans were forced to evacuate Cambrai and St Quentin and pull back to the river Selle. These three battles created a huge salient in the German position [Of a larger loss the news brought back]. Meanwhile, further north, in the Fifth Battle of Ypres on 28 and 29 September, King Albert of Belgium’s Army Group of twelve Belgian divisions, Plumer’s Second Army (ten British divisions), and Degoutte’s Sixth Army (six French divisions) forced the Germans back from Ypres and drove yet another salient into their lines, endangering the German position on the Belgian coast. In one day these armies swept over the ground that had taken two British armies, assisted by a French army, three months to capture the previous year. Meanwhile Ludendorff, receiving news on 28 September of the Bulgarian request for an armistice, and after the Allied attack in Flanders had begun, suffered a temporary mental and physical collapse, a crisis of nerve in which he crashed to the floor and even foamed at the mouth [The report made, the camp shall be startled].» (Chasseaud, 2013, p.272-278).

Anti-union of bands in revolt: « The German fleet had mutinied on 29 October, while the German army, while it had been experiencing increasing indiscipline and desrtion in the latter part of 1918, had been comprehensively defeated in the field. Revolution broke out in Berlin.» (Chasseaud, id., p.278); « 1918 Nov: 3rd, German grand fleet mutinies at Kiel; 9th, republic proclaimed in Bavaria; - revolution in Berlin, Prince Max resigns, William II abdicates and a council of People’s Delegates assumes power; 11th, armistice signed between Allies and Germany.» (Williams, 1968, p.472).

The double army shall abandon their great
: = The allied armies shall abandon their emperors through their military collapse = The two great emperors shall abdicate in the face of the defeat of their allied armies: « The Kaiser abdicated on 9 November, and the following day the desperate German authorities told their armistice delegation to accept any terms put in front of them.» (Chasseaud, id.); « The pursuit of the beaten enemy all along the line was only halted by the Armistice at 11 a.m. on 11 November.» (Chasseaud, id.); « 1918 Nov: 3rd, Allies sign armistice with Austria-Hungary (to come into force 4th); 12th, Emperor Charles I abdicates in Austria (and, 13th, in Hungary); - Austria proclaims union with Germany.» (Williams, 1968, p.471-472).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved.

§747 The Austro-Serbian conflict; American exploit in the Great War (1914-1918): VIII-48.

VIII-48 (§747):

Saturn in the Cancer, Jupiter with Mars
In February Kaldondon earthsalvation,
A leap of the Garrison assailed in three quarters,
Near Serbia a conflict, a mortal warfare.

(Saturne en Cancer, Jupiter avec Mars
Dedans Fevrier Chaldondon salvaterre,
Sault Castallon assailly de trois pars,
Pres de Verbiesque conflit mortelle guerre.)

NOTES: V. Ionescu (1976, p.374-380) gives us an indispensable list of important comments on the extremely difficult points of this quatrain, but we try at first to determine the result of the convergence of the possible astronomical conditions mentioned in the qautrain through astronomic calculations by means of a software StellaNavigator (Paris, 1555-1911: LMT, 1912-1940: GMT, 1941-2000: LST).

1° There were 28 cases of the astronomic condition of Saturn in the Cancer during the period: 1555-2000 as follows:
1561.7.19-1562.1.4;
1562.4.3-1563.9.2;
1564.1.11-1564.5.22;
1591..6.7-1593.7.18;
1620.7.17-1621.2.13;
1621.3.16-1622.8.30;
1650.5.25-1652.7.7;
1679.7.6-1681.8.17;
1682.3.12-1682.4.18;
1709.5.12-1710.10.22;
1710.12.2-1711.6.26;
1738.6.24-1740.8.5;
1767.8.8-1767.12.29;
1768.4.25-1769.9.23;
1770.1.3-1770.6.11;
1797.6.11-1799.7.23;
1826.7.22-1827.1.30;
1827.3.31-1828.9.4;
1855.10.5-1855.10.20;
1856.5.27-1858.7.10;
1885.7.6-1887.8.18;
1914.8.24-1914.12.7;
1915.5.11-1916.10.17;
1916.12.7-1917.6.24;
1944.6.20-1946.8.2;
1973.8.1-1974.1.7;
1974.4.18-1975.9.17;
1976.1.14-1976.6.5;

2° The term: Fevrier (February) with majuscule initial in French (Février in place of février) may mean a kind of signs, namely the Sun’s longitude in February, then the solar longitude in February of the years concerned with the cases above are as follows:
1563.2.1-1563.2.28 (321°36ʹ32″-349°40ʹ41″);
1564.2.1-1564.2.29 (321°21ʹ35″-350°25ʹ40″);
1592.2.1-1592.2.29 (311°27ʹ27″-340°40ʹ8″);
1593.2.1-1593.2.28 (312°13ʹ29″-340°25ʹ37″);
1621.2.1-1621.2.13 (312°25ʹ54″-325°33ʹ59″);
1622.2.1-1622.2.28 (312°10ʹ55″-340°23ʹ21″);
1651.2.1-1651.2.28 (312°8ʹ54″-340°21ʹ37″);
1652.2.1-1652.2.29 (311°53ʹ52″-341°6ʹ55″);
1680.2.1-1680.2.29 (312°6ʹ11″-341°19ʹ23″);
1681.2.1-1681.2.28 (312°52ʹ15″-341°4ʹ54″);
1710.2.1-1710.2.28 (311°49ʹ23″-340°3ʹ0″);
1711.2.1-1711.2.28 (311°34ʹ37″-339°48ʹ28″);
1739.2.1-1739.2.28 (311°46ʹ24″-340°0ʹ27″);
1740.2.1-1740.2.29 (311°31ʹ48″-340°46ʹ7″);
1769.2.1-1769.2.28 (312°30ʹ28″-340°44ʹ21″);
1770.2.1-1770.2.28 (312°16ʹ2″-340°30ʹ1″);
1798.2.1-1798.2.28 (312°27ʹ53″-340°42ʹ9″);
1799.2.1-1799.2.28 (312°12ʹ59″-340°27ʹ18″);
1828.2.1-1828.2.29 (311°10ʹ4″-340°25ʹ44″);
1857.2.1-1857.2.28 (312°8ʹ31″-340°23ʹ40″);
1858.2.1-1858.2.28 (311°53ʹ39″-340°8ʹ52″);
1886.2.1-1886.2.28 (312°6ʹ6″-340°21ʹ28″);
1887.2.1-1887.2.28 (311°51ʹ31″-340°7ʹ4″);
1916.2.1-1916.2.29 (310°48ʹ18″-340°5ʹ15″);
1917.2.1-1917.2.28 (311°34ʹ47″-339°50ʹ52″);
1945.2.1-1945.2.28 (311°47ʹ3″-340°3ʹ22″);
1946.2.1-1946.2.28 (311°32ʹ24″-339°48ʹ42″);
1975.2.1-1975.2.28 (311°29ʹ33″-339°46ʹ28″);
1976.2.1-1976.2.29 (311°15ʹ8″-340°32ʹ20″).

3° The pertinence of a possible condition: « Jupiter in February » under the condition 2° is to be discerned by its longitude in February of the years concerned as follows:
1563.2.1-1563.2.28 (85°43ʹ11″-86°9ʹ52″);
1564.2.1-1564.2.29 (120°53ʹ50″-118°27ʹ31″);
1592.2.1-1592.2.29 (253°25ʹ50″-257°22ʹ36″);
1593.2.1-1593.2.28 (279°51ʹ54″-285°22ʹ58″);
1621.2.1-1621.2.13 (42°15ʹ15″-43°38ʹ14″);
1622.2.1-1622.2.28 (76°15ʹ14″-76°44ʹ10″);
1651.2.1-1651.2.28 (246°7ʹ2″-249°18ʹ43″);
1652.2.1-1652.2.29 (272°26ʹ12″-277°42ʹ29″);
1680.2.1-1680.2.29 (33°4ʹ20″-37°26ʹ30″);
1681.2.1-1681.2.28 (66°26ʹ58″-67°53ʹ35″);
1710.2.1-1710.2.28 (238°34ʹ52″-241°8ʹ54″);
1711.2.1-1711.2.28 (265°0ʹ58″-269°40ʹ17″);
1739.2.1-1739.2.28 (24°1ʹ2″-28°49ʹ4″);
1740.2.1-1740.2.29 (56°42ʹ44″-59°2ʹ38);
1769.2.1-1769.2.28 (231°3ʹ25″-232°52ʹ51″);
1770.2.1-1770.2.28 (257°45ʹ1″-261°50ʹ33″);
1798.2.1-1798.2.28 (15°15ʹ23″-20°37ʹ38″);
1799.2.1-1799.2.28 (47°8ʹ45″-50°14ʹ50″);
1828.2.1-1828.2.29 (223°11ʹ41″-224°24ʹ8″);
1857.2.1-1857.2.28 (6°28ʹ36″-12°16ʹ44″);
1858.2.1-1858.2.28 (37°39ʹ29″-41°30ʹ14″);
1886.2.1-1886.2.28 (185°47ʹ5″-183°38ʹ39″);
1887.2.1-1887.2.28 (215°20ʹ6″-215°44ʹ28″);
1916.2.1-1916.2.29 (357°37ʹ48″-3°58ʹ44″);
1917.2.1-1917.2.28 (28°18ʹ51″-32°49ʹ35″);
1945.2.1-1945.2.28 (176°52ʹ28″-174°10ʹ17″);
1946.2.1-1946.2.28 (207°12ʹ5″-206°52ʹ51″);
1975.2.1-1975.2.28 (349°20ʹ11″-355°44ʹ24″);
1976.2.1-1976.2.29 (19°8ʹ15″-24°25ʹ54″).
Thus, there is no case of pertinence of the condition 3°.

4° The pertinence of a possible condition: « Mars in February » under the condition 2° is to be discerned by its longitude in February of the years concerned as follows:
1563.2.1-1563.2.28 (269°34ʹ12″-289°35ʹ20″);
1564.2.1-1564.2.29 (51°19ʹ32″-66°44ʹ31″);
1592.2.1-1592.2.29 (10°15ʹ11″-30°37ʹ34″);
1593.2.1-1593.2.28 (250°18ʹ54″-268°42ʹ51″);
1621.2.1-1621.2.13 (217°14ʹ59″-222°33ʹ37″);
1622.2.1-1622.2.28 (357°14ʹ3″-17°59ʹ45″);
1651.2.1-1651.2.28 (198°30ʹ8″-201°5ʹ58″);
1652.2.1-1652.2.29 (343°57ʹ57″-6°13ʹ10″);
1680.2.1-1680.2.29 (315°9ʹ47″-338°3ʹ54″) [a];
1681.2.1-1681.2.28 (174°12ʹ8″-166°54ʹ7″);
1710.2.1-1710.2.12 (302°33ʹ20″-311°49ʹ23″);
1710.2.12-1710.2.28 (311°49ʹ23″-324°32ʹ24″) [b];
1711.2.1-1711.2.28 (142°25ʹ49″-132°17ʹ38″);
1739.2.1-1739.2.28 (67°49ʹ57″-77°6ʹ54″);
1740.2.1-1740.2.28 (290°6ʹ35″-311°31ʹ48);
1740.2.28-1740.2.29 (311°31ʹ48″-312°29ʹ49) [c];
1769.2.1-1769.2.28 (46°45ʹ50″-61°21ʹ46″);
1770.2.1-1770.2.28 (278°29ʹ53″-299°29ʹ16″);
1798.2.1-1798.2.28 (250°14ʹ56″-268°25ʹ51″);
1799.2.1-1799.2.28 (29°23ʹ47″-47°1ʹ53″);
1828.2.1-1828.2.29 (236°12ʹ17″-252°33ʹ31″);
1857.2.1-1857.2.28 (343°29ʹ30″-5°6ʹ32″);
1858.2.1-1858.2.28 (221°59ʹ58″-233°51ʹ13″);
1886.2.1-1886.2.28 (174°59ʹ47″-168°2ʹ28″);
1887.2.1-1887.2.13 (330°28ʹ30″-340°7ʹ4″) [d];
1887.2.13-1887.2.28 (340°7ʹ4″-352°28ʹ55″);
1916.2.1-1916.2.29 (143°35ʹ33″-133°2ʹ37″);
1917.2.1-1917.2.28 (317°41ʹ42″-339°49ʹ22″)[e];
1945.2.1-1945.2.28 (289°44ʹ42″-311°15ʹ22″);
1946.2.1-1946.2.28 (106°56ʹ23″-104°24ʹ38″);
1975.2.1-1975.2.28 (277°29ʹ28″-298°19ʹ27″);
1976.2.1-1976.2.29 (75°28ʹ9″-82°57ʹ3″).
Thus, only 5 cases [a,b,c,d and e] are discerned to be pertinent. And as a matter of course, a possible condition of a conjunction of Jupiter with Mars in February (Jupiter with Mars In February) is to be rejected. So, the combined astronomical conditions [a, b, c, d or e] of « Saturn in the Cancer » and « Mars In February » can determine the date of the events predicted by the quatrain.

Now, the determinant of the date in question is the last phrase of the forth line: « a mortal warfare », which excludes the years 1680, 1740 and 1887 as peaceful and shows the years 1710 and 1917 as mortal because the year 1710 sees Europe struggling for Spanish Royal Succession and that of 1917 is yet the fourth year of the Great War spanning 5 years.

And the second determinant of the date in question is the phrase: « Near Serbia a conflict », which will lead undoubtedly to the Great War.

Near Serbia a conflict (Pres de Verbiesque conflit): = A conflict in Serajevo, near Serbia. The French term « verbiesque » seems to be a new-coined adjective of VERBIAGE (Verbiage, wordiness, all talk, just words - Dubois), and its form with majuscule initial « Verbiesque » is considered to be a proper name, probably a placename (near which a conflict...). Then, we can recognize in it the French name Serbie (Serbia) as V. Ionescu proposes it (1976, p.376) besides Serive, a vague silhouette of Serajévo (Sarajevo, Serajevo), here contrary to Ionescu’s excessive interpolation that its initial V is the fifth Roman numeral signifying the fifth zodiacal sign: the Lion... We will discover later on a more meaning in the word « Verbiesque » according to its origin and by developping another useful comment given by Ionescu.

Jupiter: Jupiter is not an astronomical factor in this quatrain, but something else having a certain relation with Kaldondon and earthsalvation. And In the Prophecies of Nostradamus, the term Jupiter, otherwise without its astronomical meaning, signifies the United States of America, whose legal holiday Thanksgiving Day is celebrated on Thursday, the day of Jupiter: « JEUDI [THURSDAY]. n.m. (Juesdi,
XIIe, lat. Jovis dies « jour de Jupiter [day of Jupiter] »).» (Petit Robert): « I-50 [§865]: De l’aquatique triplicité naistra Un qui fera le jeudi pour sa feste: TRANSLATION: Of the Aquatic triplicity (Pisces, Scorpio, Cancer) will be born one who will make Thursday its holiday. INTERPRETATION: The United States of America is the only country that has Thursday for holiday. On July 4, 1776, she declared her independence, which places her birth in the sign of Cancer. Incidentally Franklin Delano Roosevelt is the only official, now in office, with whom Thursday is associated, since his decision of Thanksgiving Day [on the fourth Thursday of November in place of the last allotted by President Lincoln after its inauguration as such by President Washington] caused a storm of protest.» (Lamont, 1944, p.319); « X-71 [§340]: Lors qu’on viendra pour jeudi venerer: TRANSLATION: When they will come to honor Thursday. INTERPRETATION: As we have seen previously, Nostradamus applies Thursday to America, Thanksgiving day and indirectly to Fraklin Delano Roosevelt.» (id., p.324).

In fact, of 7 usages in all of the term Jupiter in the Prophecies of Nostradamus, 4 are in its proper sense of a planet (I-51, IV-33, VI-35 and X-67), and 3 are figurative, two of the latter referring to USA (VIII-48 and IX-55). It is strikingly obvious that the term Jupiter in the quatrain IX-55 (§753): « ... Mercury, Mars, Jupiter in France » cannot signify the planet, but « USA in France », namely « the American Expeditionary Forces in France » in 1917-1918.

Now, the date of February 3rd, 1917 is when USA broke off the diplomatic relations with Germany because of Germany’s declaration to neutrals of her policy of unrestricted naval warfare announced on January 31st 1917 (Williams, 1968, p.462). So, the verses: « Saturn in Cancer, Jupiter with Mars In February » may mean that USA in February 1917 has resolved to join the Allies in the Great War against the Central Powers represented by Germany. And in this context too, the term Mars has besides its proper meaning of a planet another traditional figurative nuance of military forces. Then, the verse « Jupiter with Mars » clearly expresses the United States’ military engagements in the Great War in progress.

Kaldondon (Chaldondon): = The two good gifts (cf. Ionescu, 1976, p.378). This is a compound neologism from the Greek and Latin etymologies: « 
καλóς (kalos), beautiful, good, of fine quality.» (Liddell & Scott) + « dōnum, a gift, present.» (Smith-Lockwood).

Earthsalvation (salvaterre): This neologism salvaterre with a meaning of “earthsalvation, earthsavior” consists in a composition of a Latin word « salvus, -a, -um (to be well or in good health) » (Smith-Lockwood), whence salvation, and a French word « terre (earth) ».

Jupiter Kaldondon earthsalvation: = Jupiter [shall bring us] Kaldondon and earthsalvation: « In fact, on 3rd February 1917, the United States broke off the relations with the Central Powers. This action will bring to the world a double gift: a peace and the League of Nations, which was destined to guard the peace.» (Ionescu, id.).

A leap
(sault): = « saut. Leap, bound, jump (bond); Sudden movement (or) transition.» (Dubois). Here it is a military operation.

Garrison (Castallon): The neologism castallon is a deformation of a Latin word « castellānī. pl. the occupants of a castle, the garrison.» (Smith-Lockwood) with a suffix –on, which makes a diminutive (e.g. aiglon, chaînon) or an augmentative (e.g. ballon, caisson) (Suzuki). Here, the suffix is augmentative in order to make a garrison into an army and Castallon with majuscule initial will represent a certain country’s army.

The Garrison assailed in three quarters ([le] Castallon assailly de trois pars): The three points make a triangle and it has inside its center, which suggests the main Central Powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary) against the surrounding armies of the Allies: « These Central Powers have been in fact sieged on the three fronts: the Front of the West, that of the East and that of the South [Italian and Balkan fronts].» (Ionescu, id., p.377).

A leap of the Garrison
(Sault Castallon): = German and Austro-Hungarian first offensives in 1914. By the way, The irregular orthography Castallon of Castellani may imply that ALL of Castallon will suggest Allemagne (Germany) and A of it Austo-Hungary.

Finally, it is worth remarking that the phrase « Pres de Verbiesque » may mean a postwar near future, for the preposition « près (near) » is capable of expressing a proximate past or future in time (e.g. « Heure indue? Monsieur voit qu’il est aussi près du matin que du soir (An undue hour? ... it is as near the morning as near the evening) » (B
EAUMARCH.) (Petit Robert)) besides a proximity in space and the word « Verbiesque » with its original sense of verbiage, wordiness, all talk, just words and majuscule initial can designate an International Organization of conference in general, the League of Nations to come after the Great War as Ionescu comments so (Ionescu, id., p.378). This is why Nostradamus employed the seemingly odd word Verbiesque at first to make a message of Near Serbia as the original place of the Great War.

Pres de Verbiesque conflit mortelle guerre (Near Serbia and near Something for verbiage a conflict, a mortal warfare): = The Great War shall occur near Serbia to conclude a postwar International Organization of talking in general.
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved. 

§746 The Western Front (1914-1918): IV-12.

IV-12 (§746):

The greater camp in march shall be forced to recoil,
Hardly shall be pursued further:
The army shall be camped anew, its legion being reduced,
Then shall be utterly driven out of France.

(Le camp plus grand de route mis en fuite,
Gueres plus outre ne sera pourchassé:
Ost recampé, & legion reduicte,
Puis hors des Gaules du tout sera chassé.)

NOTES: Ost: = « armée (army).» (Godefroy).

Recampé: « Recamper.
Se recamper. Camper de nouveau (to camp anew). Recampé. Campé de nouveau (camped anew).» (Huguet).

This quatrain seems to be molded on the following summary of the main military phases of the Western Front in the Great War (1914-1918): « The Great War. World War I [Aug 1914-Nov 1918] was also known as the Great War. Although it was a global conflict, the Focus was Europe, where the Central Powers – Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey – fought an alliance led by France, Britain and Russia. The US entered the war on the Anglo-French side in 1917. From the outset, the decisive area of conflict was Germany’s Western Front. The Germans [The greater camp (because of their scrupulous preparations)] invaded neutral Belgium and Luxembourg, overcoming Belgian resistance at Liege and Antwerp. French and British forces were driven into retreat southward after clashes at Mons and Charleroi [The greater camp in march]. At the Marne, however, French commander General Joseph Joffre rallied his forces for a counter-offensive and the Germans were pushed back [shall be forced to recoil]. After a desperate struggle at Ypres in autumn 1914, the rival armies dug into trenches that stretched from the North Sea to Switzerland. Massive resources were committed to offensives – by the Germans at Verdun and the Western Allies at the Somme – without breaking the stalemate [Hardly shall be pursued further]. Up to 1918, only a voluntary withdrawal by the Germans to the fortified Hindenburg Line [The army shall be camped anew] significantly changed the position of the armies. From March 1918 a series of large-scale German offensives broke through Allied defences and advanced the front line toward Paris. But, aided by the arrival of US troops [(on the contrary) its legion being reduced], the Allies halted the Germans at the Marne. A successful British offensive at Amiens in August initiated the “Hundred Days”, a series of advances that pushed the fighting back close to the German border [Then shall be utterly driven out of France].» (
DKHistory, p.344).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved.

§745 Confrontation of the two big camps; German retreat (1914-1918): VI-7.

VI-7 (§745):

Montenegro and Dacia and the British Isle,
By the united brothers shall be vexed:
The Roman chief issuing from the Gallic blood,
And the troops in the forests shall be repelled.

(Norneigre & Dace, & l'isle Britannique,
Par les unis freres seront vexes:
Le chef Romain issu de sang Gallique
Et les copies aux forestz repoulssees.)

NOTES: Montenegro and Dacia and the British Isle By the united brothers shall be vexed: « In the First World War (1914-1918) Montenegro, Rumania and England shall be attacked by Germany and Austria, the united brothers of kindred.» (Centurio, 1953, p.131-132).

Norneigre: = Montenegro, Nor hinting through its on the on of Monte-. Ionescu’s interpretation of the term as Noricum (Ionescu, 1976, p.386) is not pertinent, because Noricum in the Roman Empire mainly refers to the area occupied today by Austria, one of the antagonists to Montenegro in the First World War.

Montenegro By the united brothers shall be vexed: « Montenegro, The last ruler, Nicholas I (Prince, 1860-1910: King, 1910-18) modernized his state... He considerably extended his territories by judicious intervention in the Balkan Wars. He went to war in 1914 in support of Serbia and, when his Kingdom was overrun at the end of 1915, he escaped to France (where he died in 1921). The Allies believed that Nicholas had not resisted the Austrians as energetically as he might, and when in 1918 a packed assembly at Podgorica deposed the dynasty and voted for union with Serbia, the Allies, with many qualms, accepted the decision.» (Palmer, p.188-189); « In January 1916, warships of the Allies landed on Corfu some detachments who prepared for the arrival of the debris of Serbian army, taking refuge most deplorably on the Albanian coasts after horrible trials. It was on the eve of German rush for Verdun [21 Feb. – 26 Nov. 1916]. The King Nicolas of Montenegro delivered Lovtchen, reputed impregnable, to the Austrian troops, who entered Cetinje. A few days later, on January 18th, William II saw at Nish Tsar Ferdinand [I of Bulgaria], and celebrated with him the crush of Serbia, on the anniversary of the foundation of the Kingdom of Prussia.» (Gauvain et al., 1922, p.378-379).

Dacia By the united brothers shall be vexed:
« At the end of August [1916], Russian forces advanced in the Carpathians, to the north and south of the Jablonica Pass, and captured the important height of Ploska. Between June and August, Lechitsky’s army in the Bukovina captured over 100, 000 prisoners and nearly 600 guns. Meanwhile, on 27 August, Rumania, encouraged by the Russian successes, declared war, with her twenty-seven divisions, on Austria-Hungary.On 17 August, Rumania had agreed with France and Russia that she would enter the war in return for land. The Central Powers’s territories she coveted, and was granted in this venal transaction, were Transylvania, the Bukovina, and part of southern Galicia and southwest [sic] Hungary. She was relying on the Russian offensive, and in particular that towards Kowel in the southern Pripet marshes, to keep German reserves away from the Southeast theatre, and was strangely dismissive of the possibility of having to make war against Bulgaria and Turkey. The latter, in fact, shipped two divisions to the Rumanian front. The Russians gave Rumania little help, being already heavily engaged themselves, and Alekseyev considered Rumania an unwelcome burden. Neither did the British and French at Salonika come to her immediate assistance, as the Bulgarians, Germans and Turks attacked in Macedonia on 17 August, defeating the reconstituted Serbian army at Florina, and delayed the planned attack by the Bristish and French until September, by which time it was too late... Rumania’s accession to the Allies came too late to affect the situation, and merely invited an Austro-German counter-offensive. Indeed, the Germans were now counter-attacking remorselessly. At Tarnopol in July they launched a savage thrust, heralded by one of Bruchmüller’s brief but crushing bombardments, and soon Austro-German counter-attacks were hammering away along the line. Though the Russians had initially achieved a great tactical victory, in four months suffered nearly a million casualties. The offensive had also greatly sapped the power of the Central Powers and Austria-Hungary was a spent force. German resources were, however, still sufficient to counter-attack the Russians and support the Bulgarians and Austria-Hungary against Rumania.» (Chasseaud, 2013, p.159-161).

The British Isle By the united brothers shall be vexed:
« The war at sea. The completion of the Kiel Canal [opened June 20th, 1895], connecting the Baltic with the North Sea, has been seen by some as a signal that Germany was now ready, after many years of fleet-building, and the years of the ‘naval race’, to challenge British naval supremacy. The critical factor was control of the North Sea, on the far side of which lay Germany, and the waters surrounding the British Isles, including the English Channel and, especially, the Western Approaches to British ports. Blockade and counter-blockade, whether by surface vessels or submarines, mostly occurred in these zones. While a decisive fleet action between Britain and Germany might affected the course of war, the success or failure of either side’s blockade would have a more certain effect...» (Chasseaud, id., p.188); « At the end of May [1916], the German High Seas Fleet and the Royal Navy’s Grand Fleet met in the Battle of Jutland in the North Sea. The British spotted a sortie by the German fleet and sent a far superior naval force to attack it. German Admiral Reinhard Scheer (1863-1928) was caught by surprise, but British Admiral John Jellicoe (1859-1935) failed to profit from the advantage. The German warships were able to make a fighting withdrawal to port, while inflicting heavier losses than they suffered. Despite a disappointing performance, the Royal Navy had confirmed its superiority – it was the German fleet that had retreated.» (DKHistory, p.346); « Churchill said of Admiral Jellicoe that he was the only man on either side who could lose the war in an afternoon.» (Chasseaud, id., p.188); « On 1 July [1916], General Douglas Haig launched a massive offensive at the Somme. Rather than destroy enemy defences, the eight-day artillery bombardment had alerted the Germans to an imminent attack. British troops marched forward in lines, because the generals believed their conscripted troops were incapable of executing more intelligent tactics, and were mown down by German machine guns. Almost 20,000 men were killed, the heaviest losses ever experienced by the British army in a single day’s fighting. Haig kept the men fighting for five months, introducing tanks as soon as this new weapon was available, and allowing his subordinates to experiment with varied tactics including night attacks. But there was no breakthrough, and the only result was attrition – a gradual wearing down of the armies.» (DKHistory, p.346-347);.

The Roman chief issuing from the Gallic blood
: The King of Italy in the First World War, Victor Emmanuel III (1900-1946) was of the House of Savoy, whose founder was Humbert the Whitehanded, a son of Amadeus, the great-grandson of Boson of Provence [Gallic] proclaimed King of Provence in 879 (cf. HH, IX, p.502; VII, p.585; Mirot, 1980, p.86-87). This third line, seeming to be in a syntactical isolation in the quatrain, belongs probably to the group of « Montenegro and Dacia and the British Isle », for Italy stands on the side of the Allies notwithstanding her formal alliance with the Central Powers; The Italian Front in the Great War: « The Italian front, while the British and French may have considered it a sideshow, was the main scene of action for Italy and a significant one for the overstretched Austro-Hungarian Empire. It saw four years of heavy fighting, with consequent hecatombs of casualties. Its origin lay in the ancient enmity between Italians and the Austrians, and it is easy to forget how recently large parts of the Italian peninsula lay under Austrian rule. Nineteenth-century nationalism and the Risorgimento were a relatively recent memory, and Italian nationalists were keen to relieve Austria of more territory that they considered their own.» (Chasseaud, 2013, p.58). Cf. I-55 (§740): Under the clime opposite to that of Babylonia Great shall be the effusion of blood.

And
: This coordinate conjunction in this place expresses the “correlation of opposition” (cf. Koine, s.v. and), so « the troops repelled » refer to the Germans or the Austrians who were offensive earlier.

And the troops in the forests shall be repelled
: The key to the interpretation of this line lies in the expression « the forests », which, interpreted with some formality but without circumspection by Ionescu as Black Forest (der Schwarzwalt, la Forêt Noire) symbolizing Germany (Ionescu, 1976, p.386), probably refers in its plural form not to Black Forest outside the real area of fightingt but to the real wooded battle fields, such as the forests of Argonne, Dieulet and Mormal, where the Germans were repulsed by the Allies at the last stage of the War; « In the difficult Argonne Forest terrain of tangled woods, gullies and ridges, it was almost impossible for tanks to operate, and the Americans found themselves engaging in a bloody slog through a succession of strongly held German positions. By 1 October [1918] the French and Americans had advanced some ten miles and taken 18,000 prisoners, and in a few more miles came up against the strong defensive position of the Kriemhild Line [cf. Coffman, 1968, p.302, Chart: The Meuse-Argonne Offensive]. While their advance was painfully slow, they were at least holding down thirty-six German divisions.» (Chasseaud, 2013, p.269-271).

« On October 10, the Argonne Forest was in possession of the Americans. The flank attack of the 82nd, together with advances by the 77th and 28th Divisions, cleared this area which dominated the left of the Meuse-Argonne sector since the beginning of the offensive. Yet, Liggett was not satisfied. His plan had worked, but the thought of what might have been the result if Lindsey had been able to get his full brigade of the 82nd into action on the seventh galled him. Possibly, they could have captured the bulk of the German force in the forest, and they might have prevented the enemy from establishing a strong position at Grandpré and the Bois des Loges, north of the Argonne... “However the difficulties were great,” Liggett wrote Drum in 1927, “& the Div comparatively green & I think they did well under all the circumstances.” In his conception of this daring maneuver, Liggett demonstrated his flair for tactics. He showed his understanding of men and war in his acceptance of the results. An attempt to seize the heights east of the Meuse was not as successful as Liggett’s maneuver to drive the Germans from the Argonne...» (Coffman, 1968, p.325);

« On [November] 3rd, the two armies Gouraud and Liggett, outstripping the Argonne to the north and since well linked, advanced on a large front, in gaining a thrust of 5 to 10 km. On 4th, all the American line moved forward, in carrying the forest of Dieulet, while the right corps of Gouraud’s army passed the Canal of Ardennes; its left corps did not succeed in jumping over it. In 4 days, Gouraud’s army has advanced by 20 km toward Sedan. The second position of German withdrawal was all over. » (Gauvain et al., 1922, p.329);

« Valenciennes having been taken and surpassed, the battle was engaged on [November] 4th between the Escault to the north and the Sambre to the south. It was engaged on the left wing by the right of the 1st army (22nd corps and Canadian corps), and further to the south by the 3rd army (6th and 18th corps on the left, 4th on the center, 14th corps on the right). The 4th corps took le Quesnoy, and the 14th traversed the forest of Mormal, outflanking Landrecies to the north. On 5th in the morning, the victorious British took 20,000 prisoners and 450 canons. The Sambre was jumped over from Landrecies to Oisy, and the German armies began a large movement of retreat.» (id., p.328; cf. id., p.319, Chart: The Victory).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved. 

§744 Emperor William II and the Western Front; Intervention of USA (1914-1918): IV-99.

IV-99 (§744):

The vallant first-born son of the daughter of the King,
Shall push back the French so deep,
That he shall spark lightnings, how
[the French] in such arrangements,
Those from USA a few and far at first, then deep into the fronts.

(L'aisné vaillant de la fille du Roy,
Respoulsera si profond les Celtiques:
Qu'il mettra fouldres, combien en tel arroy,
Peu & loing puis profond es Hesperiques.)

NOTES: V. Ionescu (1976, p.392-393) gives us an intelligent interpretation of the quatrain with the theme of the German Emperor William II (the eldest son of the daughter [Auguste Viktoria] of Queen Victoria [the King]) and the Western Front; Intervention of USA.

Arroy: « Arrangement, disposition; Suit, train; Military apparatus, armament, army.» (Huguet). Ionescu’s explanation of this term as “désarroi (disarray, disorder)” (Ionescu, 1976, p.270; p.392) following that of Le Pelletier (I, p.187) is not pertinent.

The vallant first-born son of the daughter of the King, Shall push back the French so deep, That he shall spark lightnings, how [the French] in such arrangements, Those from USA a few and far at first, then deep into the fronts: « The Great War. From the outset, the decisive area of conflict was Germany’s Western Front. The Germans invaded neutral Belgium and Luxembourg, overcoming Belgian resistance at Liege and Antwerp. French and British forces were driven into retreat southward after clashes at Mons and Charleroi. At the Marne, however, French commander General Joseph Joffre rallied his forces for a counter-offensive and the Germans were pushed back. After a desperate struggle at Ypres in autumn 1914, the rival armies dug into trenches that stretched from the North Sea to Switzerland. Massive resources were committed to offensives – by the Germans at Verdun and the Western Allies at the Somme – without breaking the stalemate. Up to 1918, only a voluntary withdrawal by the Germans to the fortified Hindenburg Line significantly changed the position of the armies. From March 1918 a series of large-scale German offensives broke through Allied defences and advanced the front line toward Paris [That he shall spark lightnings, how [the French] in such arrangements]. But, aided by the arrival of US troops, the Allies halted the Germans at the Marne. A successful British offensive at Amiens in August initiated the “Hundred Days”, a series of advances that pushed the fighting back close to the German border.» (
DKHistory, p.344).

« Meanwhile American troops were being convoyed across the Atlantic in increasing numbers. Fifty thousand were arriving every week and being given extra training for battlefield conditions [Those from USA a few and far at first]. On that day [27 May] the Germans stormed through twelve miles on a forty-mile front, advancing over the Aisne and Vesle rivers to the Marne in three days, reaching a point only forty miles from Paris. American troops, part of the one-and-a-half-million-strong American Expeditionay Force already in France, helped to hold the Germans on the Marne [Those from USA then deep into the fronts].» (Chasseaud, 2013, p.263-264).

« In the difficult Argonne Forest terrain of tangled woods, gullies and ridges, it was almost impossible for tanks to operate, and the Americans found themselves engaging in a bloody slog through a succession of strongly held German positions. By 1 October the French and Americans had advanced some ten miles and taken 18,000 prisoners, and in a few more miles came up against the strong defensive position of the Kriemhild Line. While their advance was painfully slow, they were at least holding down thirty-six German divisions.» (Chasseaud, id., p.269-271).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved. 

§743 The battles of Reims and Tours-sur-Marne (1914-1918): IV-46.

IV-46 (§743):

It shall be a fact of preeminence that your country shall have been well defended,
Tours-sur-Marne, guard against your close ruin.
London and Nantes shall defend by Reims,
Don’t pass by the time of drizzle.

(Bien defendu le faict par excelence,
Garde toy Tours[-sur-Marne] de ta proche ruine:
Londres & Nantes par Reims fera defense,
Ne passés outre au temps de la bruine.)

NOTES: V. Ionescu (1976, p.387-388) gives us a smart interpretation of the quatrain with the theme of the battles of Reims and of Tours-sur-Marne (September 1914 and July 1918).

Londres (London): « A synecdoche, for Britain.» (Ionescu, id., p.387).

Nantes: « A synecdoche, for France – or an apheresis, for “Ponantes”, a name given to the Americans, called also the Hesperians, for Occident and Ponant are the synonyms of Hesperia which designates the lands of the West.» (id.). And Nantes can connote USA also through the fact that a part of the soldiers of American Expeditionary Forces landed at the port of St. Nazaire in front of Nantes (cf. Coffman, 1968, p.125). 

Tours-sur-Marne, guard against your close ruin: « Ludendorff still planned to reopen the Flanders offensive when sufficient Allied reserves had been drawn south. Meanwhile American troops were being convoyed across the Atlantic in increasing numbers. Fifty thousand were arriving every week and being given extra training for battlefield conditions. Time was running out for Ludendorff, who was all too conscious that he had to strike again quickly. His new focus of attack was the French front on the Aisne, between Soissons and Reims, the axis being south towards the river Marne [Tours-sur-Marne, guard against your close ruin].» (Chasseaud, 2013, p.263).  

London [Britain] and Nantes [France & USA] shall defend by Reims, Don’t pass by the time of drizzle: « The defending troops of Duchêne’s Sixth Army [France], including five weak British divisions [Britain] recuperating in this ‘quiet sector’ from earlier fighting were crammed too densely into the narrow frontal area along the Chemin-des-Dames ridge north of the Aisne. On 27 May they found themselves pounded by 3,719 guns and mortars for three and a half hours, in yet another murderous Bruchmüller bombardment. On that day the Germans stormed through twelve miles on a forty-mile front, advancing over the Aisne and Vesle rivers to the Marne in three days, reaching a point only forty miles from Paris. American troops [USA], part of the one-and-a-half-million-strong American Expeditionary Force already in France, helped to hold the Germans on the Marne. French troops on both flanks held fast, Reims on the east acting like an anchor [shall defend by Reims] as Verdun had done during the First Battle of the Marne in 1914, and again the result was a huge German salient, against the west flank of which Pétain immediately launched counter-attacks. The contents of the wine cellars of the Champagne region, as well as the temptations of other forms of looting, contributed to the loss of impetus of the German attacks. Officers, as elsewhere during their 1918 offensives, found it difficult to get their men moving again.» (Chasseaud, id., p.263-264).
 
« From 31 May the Germans tried to drive out of the western part of the bulge created by the breakthrough to the Marne, aiming to push down towards Paris between the Ourcq and the Marne. On 9 June the Germans attacked at Compiègne between the two salients created by their Montdidier and Aisne attacks. This attack also was intended to draw Allied reserves from Flanders, as also was the later attack (15 July) astride Reims. Pétain was painfully aware of the disaster caused on the Chemin-des-Dames by a too-rigid defence. So he tried to destroy the impetus of the Compiègne attack by insisting on an elastic defence, but was to some extent foiled by the inflexibility of the local commanders. However the attacks met with little success. Ludendorff’s chief railway staff officer now insisted on the capture of Reims to ensure communications to the Marne salient; if this was not achieved, he claimed, the salient would have to be abandoned. On 15 July, the Germans used forty nine divisions in an attempt to pinch out the French salient at Reims by attacking on either side. They succeeded in crossing the Marne but were prevented from pushing their artillery over the river in support, and soon had to withdraw from this exposed position. To the east of Reims the French artillery, forewarned by Intelligence, smashed the German assault waves in their jumping-off positions by opening counter-preparation fire ten minutes before the assault [France shall defend by Reims]. The defeat of these German attacks and the waxing Allied defence signalled that the tide had turned. Ludendorff had diverted his reserves from the Flanders attack, planned for June but cancelled, and his gamble had failed.» (Chasseaud, id., p.264).

« The turning point was an attack at Amiens on 8 August, spearheaded by Australian and Canadian infantry, and supported by massed British and French tanks. Described by the German general Erich Ludendorff [1865-1937] as “the black day of the German army”, it initiated the “Hundred Days” of relentless Allied offensives, with large-scale use of tanks and aircraft. In September, Pershing achieved his ambition of commanding an independent US operation – the capture of the St Mihiel salient. This was followed by a combined American and French offensive in the Argonne forest, the costliest single battle in American history with 117,000 US casualties.» (
DKHistory, p.353).

« Battle of Epéhy and the Meuse-Argonne Offensive In the battle of Epéhy on 18 and 19 September, British forces broke through the outer Hindenburg defences and established jumping-off positions for the attack on the main Hindenburg position. Foch’s grand offensive now gathered pace along the whole Allied front. On 26 September, Pershing’s American First and Gouraud’s French Fourth Armies began the Meuse-Argonne offensive, on the front from Verdun to the Argonne Forest, with Pershing’s right flank on the river Meuse and the French attacking on his left. Twenty-two French and fifteen American divisions were involved. This, the largest American operation of the war, lasted from 26 September to the Armistice on 11 November [Don’t pass by the time of drizzle]. In the difficult Argonne Forest terrain of tangled woods, gullies and ridges, it was almost impossible for tanks to operate, and the Americans found themselves engaging in a bloody slog through a succession of strongly held German positions. By 1 October the French and Americans had advanced some ten miles and taken 18,000 prisoners, and in a few more miles came up against the strong defensive position of the Kriemhild Line. While their advance was painfully slow, they were at least holding down thirty-six German divisions.» (Chasseaud, 2013, p.269-271).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved. 
Profile

Koji Nihei Daijyo

Author:Koji Nihei Daijyo
We have covered 143 quatrains (§588-§730) concerning the World Events in the 19th century after Napoleonic ages [1821-1900] in the Prophecies of Nostradamus, and 219 in the 20th [1901-2000] (§731-§949).

Latest journals
Category
Link