05 April, 2020

Covid-19: Is there a Priority Search for a Cheap Therapeutic?

My second question to the European Commission on Covid
To combat Covid-19, President Trump and other leaders have recommended use of anti-malaria drugs such as hydroxychloroquines, Azithromycin and Zinc sulphate. These are known and used for decades and are well tested products. The US Dept of Health (HSS) and is now recommending their use. Is the EU doing the same?
Screen Shot 2020-03-30 at 18.29.14.png

We are aware that Chloroquine is traditionally used for malaria, rheumatoid arthritis and Lupus. We are also aware that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are used ‘off-label’. We also know that in the EU trials are underway regarding the use of chloroquine. The European Medicines Agency, EMA, state that the efficacy of chloroquine in relation to Covid-19 patients has not to date been proven. While the pandemic spreads with great speed, robust clinical trials should remain the gold standard here. They are most likely to generate conclusive evidence that is needed to enable rapid deployment and approval of potential treatments of the virus disease. Clinical trials are a national competence. However we continue to explore with the EMA .possible joint clinical trials at the EU level to scale up evidence of any promising therapeutics.”

Off-label‘ refers to drugs that have been produced and tested but doctors use them for different purposes than originally intended. Some were introduced long ago, like the use of malaria drugs against Covid-19, and are now very cheap. Doctors know how they should be used and what the side-effects are. American Medical Association vice president Roy Schwarz estimated that “off-label” uses of drugs account for up to 60 percent of all drugs prescribed.
So why aren’t anti-malaria drugs that have been used for decades and have proved to be effective in now thousands of cases being supplied to doctors for use to patients in dire need of relief from Coronavirus? One factor is the economics of drugs. Anti-malaria drugs cost cents rather than dollars or thousands of dollars. A second factor is that a vaccine has higher profits for the big Pharmaceutical firms. A vaccine is likely to take a year or two to develop with control tests.
The Chinese have done small-size control trials for anti-Covid-19 malaria drugs with very positive results and symptoms ‘significantly relieved.’
Why isn’t there more wide-spread use of these drugs especially for those in intensive care? Is the medical bureaucracy being too cautious when, for many patients, it is a matter of life and death? Over-regulation is a general problem of the American and European drug system. Is red tape strangling patients?
Stanford University professor Dale Geringer observed, “In terms of lives, it’s quite possible that the FDA bureaucracy could be killing on the order of three to four times as many people as it saves.” One study estimated that 150,000 heart attack victims may have lost their lives as a result of the FDA’s delays in approving the emergency blood-clotting drug TPA. National Cancer Institute officials accused the FDA of being “mired in a 1960’s philosophy of drug development, viewing all new agents as…poisons.

Follow-up question to the European Commission

On the use of anti-malaria drugs that some doctors have shown to be very effective for hundreds of patients with Covid-19, the EU says more robust control tests are needed. These tests are the competence of Member States. European control test may be initiated.
Which States are conducting trials?
When are results expected?
Have Europe-wide control trials been organised and what is the plan?
European Commission written response
I draw your attention to the fact that the European Medical Agency has issued a statement yesterday regarding chloroquine and hydroxochloroquine (link: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine-only-be-used-clinical-trials-emergency-use-programmes). The Agency confirms that efficacy of these substances in treating corona is yet to be shown in studies.
We are aware that trials are ongoing at national level regarding the use of chloroquine in the context of the coronavirus, e.g. in Norway, Germany and France
When it comes to potential treatment for COVID-19, we need robust clinical trials to generate the conclusive evidence needed to enable rapid development and approval of potential treatments and to ensure safety and efficacy.
Clinical trials are a national competence. However, we continue to actively pursue with EMA possible joint clinical trials at EU level to scale up evidence on any promising therapeutics.

Covid-19: Lethal Fake News from 'Chinese' WHO?

Follow-up question to European Commission

As mentioned in my question of 30 March, the WHO tweeted on 14 January that it followed the Chinese authorities in saying Coronavirus was not transmissible to humans. This was lethal fake news and led to many deaths. Chinese doctors who wanted to present the facts like Dr Ai Fen of Wuhan hospital have ‘disappeared’ as have their research conclusions.
Japanese Deputy Prime Minister Aso Taro says that WHO should be renamed the Chinese Health Organisation and points out that Taiwan took intelligent measures to stop the spread of the contagion.
Although the details are murky, the previous Director General of WHO (Dr Margaret Chan) was a Chinese national and at the time there were complaints all around. Now in the East, the petition (charging her with inadequate accountability) has gathered 300,000 or rather 500,000 signatures. The World Health Organisation should change its name. It should not be called the WHO. It should be called the CHO, the Chinese Health Organisation. … The present Director General is no better for giving in to Chinese spin about the Coronavirus. Earlier on if China had not insisted that it had no pneumonia epidemic, everyone would have taken precautions. The WHO which is a global organisation does not even include Taiwan. And precisely because Taiwan is not a member of the WHO, it becomes a world leader in fighting the epidemic. Then after that statement is made, the Chinese Communist Party corrects it, saying Taiwan is not a country; it is a region.”
Japanese Deputy PM Aso Taro condemns ‘Chinese’ WHO
EU Commission President von der Leyen recommended on Tuesday that Europeans should follow the advice of WHO. Don’t Europeans deserve a more unbiased source of advice? How can they get this?
Commission reply

The Commission has always insisted on the importance of a science based approach of our response to the Corona virus. The Commission therefore relies on the advice and recommendations of the scientific community, including the World Health Organisation, the ECDC but also the advisory panel of scientists established by the President.”

01 April, 2020

Coronavirus: WHO is behind viral Fake News?

My question to the EU Commission:
Coronavirus 19 broke out in Wuhan, China in November 2019.
What does the EU research conclude about its origin? Is it natural or artificial? The Chinese reports have proved unreliable. (See WHO Tweet). China blames the USA. https://qz.com/1817736/china-fuels-coronavirus-conspiracy-theory-blaming-us-army/

Chinese Spokesperson Zhao Lijian tweets that the USA brought Coronavirus to Wuham in October 2019 during the Military Games.
The WHO tweet of 14 January 2020 denied that the virus was contagious for humans. This was based on Chinese data. (The Chinese were already destroying evidence to the contrary!) The origin of the virus? China blamed bats as food, not the high security Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Then Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian tweeted that it might be the US military that brought the Coronavirus to Wuhan during the October 2019 Military World Games.
That in itself reveals a massive secret about the origin and spread and specifically who is to blame for today’s global problem.
As with a plane crash, investigation is important for the public to know how this incident occurred so that such an event can be avoided in the future.
Why do so many officials want to hush up this question of governmental responsibility, while admitting that airline firms need to go through the same process when accidental manslaughter is concerned? Are governments, including Communist governments, above the law?
As Honest Broker for European Member States the European Commission is supposed to be impartial and seek out the truth for European citizens.
The first thing I obviously would like to stress here is that the Commission continues to follow the advice of the WHO and the ECDC, the European Centre for Disease prevention and Control. Both WHO and ECDC indicate that on 31 December 2019 a cluster of pneumonia cases of unknown cause was reported in Wuhan, China. On 9 January 2020 the Chinese authorities reported a new Corona virus as the cause of the outbreak. This being said, the Coronavirus pandemic is a global pandemic. We are talking about viruses here. Viruses do not have nationalities. These viruses do not respect borders. What is important here is global cooperation and international solidarity to combat the threat and mitigate the short- and long-term impact of the virus. Apportioning blame will not help a single person. As the EU, we are focusing on helping our citizens and people and countries in need. Regarding transmission, at this stage it is not possible to determine precisely how humans in China got infected. More research, which is on-going, will help us determine this. It is just announced that the Commission is providing €40.5 million for 18 projects to advance our understanding of the Coronavirus and to contribute to more efficient clinical maintenance of patients infected with the virus and contribute to public health preparedness and response to the outbreak.
Let’s examine the implications of this answer.

The Chinese notified WHO on 31 December. But before this there were dozens of cases.
Here is the chronology from the New York Times. It too starts with Chinese notification to the World Health Organisation, WHO, on 31 December 2019. Why? At that date China had not banned western journalists in China.
It was not until 11 January that the Chinese reported the first death — a 61-year old who had chronic liver and abdominal disease. Was this the first case? Did the Chinese previously already know about the virus as a lethal problem?
This date was just days before the Chinese New Year, the Year of the Rat — a time of mass movement of the population. If there was one death, would this be the reason that the Chinese Communist authorities later decreed a lock-down of Wuhan, a city of 11 millions?
The danger must have been obvious. Just over a week later on 21 January other countries were hit. The United States, Japan, South Korea and Thailand notified the WHO that the disease had spread abroad to them. Hiding or controlling it within China was no longer an option. Human-to-human contagion could not be covered over with communist propaganda. Americans don’t eat bats.
The 61-year old Chinese who died was described by the Chinese as someone who frequented the Wuhan market where bats are sold as comestible. Scientists also knew that bats are both a reservoir and a vector of corona viruses. They can contain many corona viruses without being affected themselves. They present a great danger to the public, as scientific papers published over the last decade or more warned of their massive danger for pandemics.
But was the outbreak due to bats? Some doctors say some of the first victims did not frequent the Wuhan market. If the Chinese Communist government had acted sooner deaths could have been cut to a fraction. But the death rate increased from scores to multiple hundreds a day. More worryingly, Chinese doctors who warned of the seriousness of the outbreak suddenly disappeared. The WHO chief eulogised China inordinately.
Millions disappear
How serious was the outbreak? Chinese are required by law to carry personal cell phones indicating their level of health. A shock came when this years stats were released. During February, 21 million phone users disappeared, The Epoch Times reported.
China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) announced on March 19 the number of phone users in each province in February. Compared with the previous announcement, which was released on Dec. 18, 2019, for November 2019 data, both cellphone and landline users dropped dramatically. In the same period the year before, the number of users increased.
The number of cellphone users decreased from 1.600957 billion to 1.579927 billion, a drop of 21.03 million. The number of landline users decreased from 190.83 million to 189.99 million, a drop of 840,000.
The landline phones decreased by a much smaller amount — indicating that some businesses were closed. What happened to the 21 million? All Chinese are legally obliged to register their cell phones and be controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. If only a tenth of this figure is due to Covid-19 deaths then it amounts to millions, not the 3000 official deaths the Chinese admit to. Surely the EU research projects could check what is behind the mystery of the missing millions. The taxpayers have a right to know.
Date of Origin.
Chinese Spokesman Zhao Lijian made a Freudian error. When he blamed the US Military for the Coronavirus outbreak on USA, he unconsciously made everyone aware that he knew when the outbreak started. It was autumn 2019.
When did US take part in the 7th Military World Games in Wuhan, together with over a hundred other nations? In October 2019.
When did they finish? 27 October 2019.
When did China say the first death occurred? 11 January 2020 — two months later. Long after the US and hundreds of other national groups had left Wuhan! Just days after the Chinese announcement, President Trump, known to be a germaphobe, announced a travel ban, much to the protest of his US and international opposition. It turned out to be a wise move. But many Chinese moved to Italy and Spain, President Trump said.
Spokesman Zhao Lijian’s story does not jibe with the later Communist party story. Or the facts.
In December Chinese doctors were already battling with the novel form of Coronavirus, which they said was as dangerous as SARS, or even more dangerous. Dr Ai Fen spoke out about it in December and was told to stop this ‘fake news‘. She received an ‘unprecedented, extremely harsh reprimand‘ for ‘illegally spreading untruthful information online.’
A colleague Dr Li Wenliang warned about the fatal nature of the new virus. He was silenced and told to revoke all he had told others including those in the West. By the first week of February 2020 he was dead of virus at 34 years. In an article recently Dr Ai regretted she had not continued to speak out. The article has since disappeared– as has Dr Ai.
Cases were coming into the hospitals that had nothing to do with later cover story of the Wuhan wet market with its bats. Technicians analysed the genetic sequencing. Then on 27 December they were told to destroy all evidence and samples!
This was revealed on the reputed Australian TV programme 60 Minutes. The US Pulitzer-prize winning virology journalist Laurie Garrett calls the missing doctors ‘heroes‘.
The lunar New Year occurred on 25 January. This festival involves the largest movement of people on earth as families are re-united. But instead of stopping people, the Chinese government let an estimated 5 million people leave Wuhan alone. Neighbouring countries were immediately hit.
The medical Journal, The Lancet, said:
Had China allowed physician Li Wenliang and his brave Wuhan colleagues to convey their suspicions ,,, without risking sanction, and had local officials not for weeks released false epidemic information to the world, we might not now be facing a pandemic.

After two months, China has declared an end to the lock-down.
The Wuhan wet market re-opened for business on 30 March.

20 February, 2020

EU continues its CAP scam that UK failed to reform

That's what David Sassoli, president of the European Parliament called the draft €1 Trillion budget for 2021-27, prepared by the Commission and the European Council. He was addressing a press conference at the European Council meeting of 20 February.
Why was it unacceptable? He earlier told the Council meeting that 'No one wants to burden our fellow citizens with new taxes.'
Was he defending the taxpayer against this extravagance? No. He wants more money, more taxes for spending on European projects.
Cutting the money on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) leaves citizens ‘undefended‘, he said. ‘The Parliament is vigilant,‘ he added. ‘We will defend the citizens of Europe. We will make sure that the Union’s programmes are financed in a way that is adequate for that purpose.
So what is adequate? How much money should be designated for agriculture?
The same message came from French President Emmanuel Macron. The European Council was called to deal with the European budget, 2021-2027, he said. The first priority that he mentioned as he entered the European Council building was the CAP.
'The CAP has allowed us to provide food for Europeans since the 1960s,' he said. 'It is a great success for France and Europe.'
Then he revealed that there were plans to increase the budget to give realisation to further plans.
Let’s stop at Agriculture, seeing this is the priority topic. The drafts of the budget from the Commission and the Council all foresee more than 30 per cent of the budget going on agriculture. Parliament would like to see an even bigger budget in general.
So how much does the Agriculture sector represent in the total economy of the EU? Thirty percent? Nowhere near! Not even close to twenty percent or even ten.
Agriculture represents a smidgen above ONE percent of the economy. European agriculture is efficient. It does not employ many people. So why does it need so much of the European tax-payers’ money? What about Technology and jobs for the future? What is the reaction of European tax-payers? Is it discussed inside the luxurious chamber where the heads of government meet?
The truth is we do not know. The sessions are secret. Doors are closed and governments divide the tax money according to how they wish to influence their most important people — their voters or rather their bosses.
Since the 1960s France has led the other States by the nose. It was the big nose of General de Gaulle. He decided to sabotage the democratic system of Robert Schuman
De Gaulle decided that the majority of the European Communities‘ budget should be spent on agriculture. His voters were men of the soil and it was the way he could show he was a patriot– getting the Germans to pay for French cheeses.

Money would go to the big landowners. Up till recently the list of who got the CAP money was SECRET! Is something smelling foul? -- and it's not cheese!
Far from a success story, the CAP really got out of hand. In 1985 70 per cent of the European budget was spent on agriculture. Brussels used the budget to keep buying French and other farm products as if there was no tomorrow. That is when all the agricultural products built up into huge unmanageable stockpiles and lakes. There were beef mountains, wine lakes, milk lakes. These meat products were shoved into more and more fridges, wine of all sorts was converted into alcohol or other products and milk into powder. All the alternative uses for these products was sought until Europeans were bloated and distended.
Europe was stuffed to the gunnels with farm products — all thanks to the CAP. Export markets were full too. So the Brussels people sold off what they could at knock down prices to the Soviet Union — the enemy of the Cold War! So the poor citizens paid high prices for their food while at the same time subsidising the Communist take-over of Europe!
The CAP was a corruption bomb that the UK was unable to defuse. When UK joined the European Communities in 1973, the British agricultural system was supported on an entirely different system, deficiency payments. UK did not have enough land to sustain its people entirely for their food needs. During the world war, Britons tried to grow as much as possible. Afterwards, the UK relied on the Commonwealth for imports, whether grain from Canada or lamb and butter from New Zealand. These countries were far more efficient than the Continent.

Couve de Murville receives instructions from President de Gaulle

The sly Gaullist Foreign Minister, Maurice Couve de Murville, told Britain during the negotiations that they would have to change their buying habits and buy from the Continent. He did not have to say that that meant France above all. Everyone knew it.
So the origins of the CAP are not exactly built on the best deal for the people. CAP meant more expensive food. it also meant votes for the Gaullists.
The British vowed that they would stop this crazy scheme before it got out of hand. The amount of the Community budget spent on the CAP reached SEVENTY PER CENT in 1985 before it started to decline a little. France and Italy and some other countries had choice land and had some of the most corrupt practices including wine made out of chemicals and olive plantations with no olive trees.
The British had within easy reach a possible success story for reforming the out-of-control CAP. It was the Treaty of Rome itself. All they had to do was to get the other ministers to follow the treaty articles that specify that the CAP must be under democratic control.

UK failed. Hence Brexit
The European Economic Community treaty signed in Rome in 1957 has a whole chapter on the Agricultural Community. It calls for full democratic control in a common organisation — an agricultural committee under the Economic and Social Committee — to supervise prices and supplies for the benefit of three categories:
  • farmers,
  • workers and
  • consumers.
They were never implemented! Consumers have never had a voice! But they paid for the corrupt practice and high prices!
Thus the European Council is celebrating behind closed doors one of the greatest international fraud machines of all time. They are also celebrating the exit of their greatest, but in the end ineffectual, critic, the United Kingdom.
And today on 20 February 2020 they are preparing for seven more years of the same scam in the Multiannual Budget 2021-2027.

27 January, 2020

Why Holocaust Horror demanded supranational Democracy in Europe

August 1942 “The Jews are being systematically destroyed. There are no more Jews in the Ukraine. Men, women and children have been separated and taken. Men and women have been transported to concentration camps. Often they are sent with hardly any water and without food. They are left to die of starvation and cold. They are often made to dig huge trenches and they are then shot in front of them. They are set on fire with petrol, then covered in lime[1] and earth. The Polish Jews are often destroyed by such radical methods. They are transported, separating father, mothers and children. When the German populations are transported, the families are transferred. The same goes also for those from Alsace-Lorraine. But they had to leave without taking practically anything with them, leaving their country, and finding themselves in very difficult conditions.
These words are the recorded conversation of Robert Schuman[2] around 14 August 1942.[3] Schuman, later the creator of the European Community, had been the first French deputy arrested by the Nazis in World War II. His horrendous revelations were made as soon as Schuman, after having escaped from Germany, reached the Free French zone.
The words, summarized from a long conversation in note form, were recorded by Dom Basset, the Abbot of St Martin’s at Ligugé, near Poitiers, France. The impact of this and other revelations about the workings of the Nazi State were sufficient to determine his path to join the Resistance. In 1948, Schuman as Prime Minister awarded Dom Basset the Légion d’Honneur for his courageous acts in the war.
Was Schuman’s warning to Basset one of the first averting the Catholic hierarchy of the Jewish extermination? There is every reason to believe that Schuman made this information known to many other people, including ministers in the Vichy government, probably Allied diplomats and to a wide variety of other people in mass meetings attended by thousands of people.
This message in August 1942 by Schuman that Nazis and their collaborators were perpetrating a vast, systematic and industrialized destruction of the Jews — the Holocaust, Sho’ah or Churban — is probably the first warning to Allied governments by a reliable politician of unimpeachable honesty.
Where did Schuman’s information come from?
The source.
On 13 August 1942, after a number of hair-raising incidents, Schuman had crossed the demarcation line separating German-occupied France and that under control of the Pétain government at Vichy. It was a fortunate moment. Some weeks later the whole border area became firmly controlled with a no man’s land. Schuman crossed the frontier at Montmorillon, 50 km east of Poitiers. No source says that he had received the information from the French Resistance.[4] He had little time to communicate with them.
Like the other extraordinary, strategic information that he brought with him, it seems certain that he had gathered this information while a prisoner in Germany. Dom Basset was the first person across the line of demarcation with whom he had enough time and safety to be able to discuss the war at length. A massive manhunt was in progress for him in the Rhineland, Alsace-Lorraine (incorporated into the Reich) and German-occupied France.
The facts that Schuman presented also indicate that the source of the information was German. The Dom Basset notes indicate that Schuman had little news about what was going on in France. There is no indication of transports from France, Belgium, the Netherlands or the Nordic countries. He concentrated on three main areas: the Ukraine, Poland and Alsace-Lorraine –which had been incorporated into Germany — and Germany itself. A major killing programme of Einsatzgruppen was occurring in the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia as well as Belarus. These states were part of Ostland, ruled by Gauleiter Hinrich Lohse. The German-occupied Ukraine was ruled by Gauleiter Erich Koch, both under Reichminister Alfred Rosenberg.[5]
Official or private?
Was Schuman’s information from private or official sources? The fact that killing in eastern Europe, such as Rumania is not mentioned may be because the Basset notes do not write a list of all countries Schuman mentioned. Alternatively, it may be that Schuman did not know about these areas. Historians have shown that the mass murders in the Ukraine were the most horrific and publicly known.
Thousands had a hand in these murders — military personnel, police, native auxiliaries, civilian administrators in the various districts, and representatives of Rosenberg’s Ostministerium. In contrast to the extermination in Poland, ordered by the regiment of the death camps and dedicated to efficient operation, this was a primitive bloodbath — with the widest circle of complicity anywhere in Europe. In 1953, summing up these massacres, Gerald Reitlinger observed that their naked savagery was unsurpassed even in he history of the Final Solution.[6]
It is likely therefore that Schuman put the picture together from his discussions with native Germans in the Palatinate where, officially, he was under house arrest. When the war broke out Schuman had been brought into the French Government. As a fluent German speaker (with a doctorate in German law) and a network of German friends, Schuman had been made Under-Secretary of State in the Reynaud government charged with coordination and refugees. This involved intelligence matters and dealing with anti-Nazi groups. He was therefore well-informed about who to contact. But there is evidence that Schuman got much of his information direct from the highest Nazi officials later.
Resigning his office at the time of the Armistice, he had traveled back to his constituency in German-occupied Lorraine with some returning refugees. The intention was to report back to the French government about conditions there. A further major concern was to burn his correspondence he had had with Germans and with other figures across Europe who might be compromised.
He was arrested in autumn 1940 because of his energetic defence of the local population against the occupation. This happened at the moment he was about to return. Thrown in solitary confinement for seven months, he was rescued (if that is the term) by a sympathetic German lawyer, Heinrich Welsch[7], on the orders of the Gauleiter Josef Bürckel.[8] The latter, who had been the Kommissar of Austria after the Anschluss, was described as a ‘brutal and efficient autocrat’.[9] The Gestapo wanted to question him about his actions against the Nazi regime in Parliament. He had already undergone Gestapo interrogation, perhaps torture.[10]

Gauleiter Josef Buerckel with Hitler

Bürckel took him to the Gau’s headquarters in Neustadt in the Rhineland Palatinate.[11] He hoped to ‘turn’ Schuman with his vast German and French culture and immense following among Lorrainers to support the Nazi regime. He had done so to many of the leaders in Austria and elsewhere. Bürckel tried to find a point of weakness or means of blackmail. He threatened Schuman with the Dachau concentration camp. That meant death. ‘That decision is now mine alone,’ Bürckel threatened. Schuman did not bend with fear. He parried with a firm stand aiming at Bürckel’s conceit for his own reputation: ‘You can, of course, always send me there, but that is not an argument.
Bürckel was one of the leaders closest to Hitler. He had been acting head of the Nazi party during the Anschluss with Austria. There he had introduced anti-Jewish decrees and robbed and pillaged Jewish property and money. Besides being Gauleiter of the Westmark region that was incorporating Lorraine into the Reich, he was also a Gruppenführer of the SS and a close associate of Heinrich Himmler, the Reichführer-SS.
He was no doubt well-informed about the “Final Solution” policy for systematic destruction of the Jews. (The Wannsee conference had taken place a few months earlier.) It is likely that Bürckel, who had personally gained enormously from the atrocities in the take-over of Austria, boasted to Schuman about the “Final Solution” and the bloody means by which it was being accomplished.
He promised high positions to Schuman in the Gau but Schuman carefully declined. He could not play to Schuman’s vanity or lack of courage. To show his usefulness and provide grounds that Schuman would not be eliminated, the Gauleiter wanted Schuman at least to publish an article in German. Any article would have probably sufficed because it would be powerful propaganda that the most eminent Lorrainer known for his honesty had supported the Nazi cause. Honesty was one commodity in extreme short supply under the Nazis. By various stratagems, he eventually won from Bürckel the possibility to inform himself of what was going on in Nazi Germany. By subtle means, this also involved an unofficial enlarging of his confinement area. It allowed him to visit various localities, with the tacit complicity of his guards.
Schuman used his qualities as a sympathetic listener. On this basis Schuman was able to collect a great deal of information from the local population and libraries for a statistical analysis of war losses. He was also secretly in contact with the Lorraine and German resistance. Then he escaped across Germany and occupied France. Later the Germans had put a reward of 100,000 Reichmarks on his head — the same figure as the recently escaped General Giraud.
He told Dom Basset that very often officers and soldiers were anti-Hitler but that they obeyed when Hitler commanded. He described other areas of resistance including religious groups, both Protestant and Catholic. It is therefore a possibility that these were among his sources of information about Reich extermination practices and the results obtained so far.
Schuman obtained information of strategic and military importance. Germany had already lost 1.2 million men with three or four times that number rendered useless by disease or wounds. The immense forces of the Allies together with Russia opposed it. The crimes of Germany could only lead to its downfall.[12] He concluded that it had already lost the war. It was only a question of time.
In 1904, Schuman had been trained in statistics at the University of Munich by one of Germany’s leading state statisticians, Georg von Mayr.[13] He revelled in figures. As a long time member and Secretary of the French parliamentary Commission on Finance, Schuman was able to verify the losses both from the sample of war deaths in his locality and from library data. Germany was also limited by its material resources. Allied victory was a statistical certainty.
Governmental duty
On his arrival in France, Schuman would not stop to rest. ‘Unfortunately it’s impossible,’ he told Robert Rochefort[14] who had welcomed him in ‘Free France’. ‘I have a duty to inform the Government. I have a lot of very important things to tell them, things that they can’t just brush aside. I must meet with the Head of State as soon as possible.’ Allied powers also had embassies at Vichy at this stage of the war.
In 1940 Schuman had refused to take part in Pétain’s government, even though Pétain had wanted him and had reserved him in his absence the same post. Now Schuman judged it urgent to pass on his strategic information, not only to those susceptible of resistance, like his fellow Alsace-Lorrainers in exile but especially the Vichy government, whether they would receive him or not. Laval, for fear of the Gestapo, refused to meet him, though he waited in an antechamber. After a great deal of patience and guile, Schuman managed to see Marshall Pétain, who was then head of the rump French government of the south, still with a fig leaf of independence. Schuman buttonholed him at a dinner and had several minutes with him. It got nowhere.
For the public, however, Schuman’s huge reputation that he enjoyed before the war was enhanced by news of his dramatic escape. This was especially true for the Alsace-Lorrainers. He addressed about a dozen public meetings, some with upwards of 1500 people attending. No doubt he also spoke of matters he had raised with Dom Basset. Germany was certain to lose the war. Schuman proved the matter statistically based on the losses on the Eastern Front that he had collected. The Allied victory was only a matter of time. We have no direct proof that he mentioned the same things that Dom Basset recorded at the time but there is no reason to doubt it.
Did Schuman explain to the public meetings what he had learned about the Nazi extermination of Jews and their culture? Lacking the ephemeral sources, it is difficult for the historian to be certain. He brought a great deal of information about the Nazi enslavement of the German and other peoples, military strategy and the certainty of victory.
What would have been the impact of news of Jewish extermination on the audiences of the time? The Pétain government had instigated an anti-Jewish policy among its first decrees.[15]
Schuman spoke largely to immigrant Alsace-Lorraine groups in various towns such as Lyon, where he addressed a crowd in the Jeanne d’Arc hall, La Salette, Bourg-en-Bresse, Châteauroux and Royat. His news ‘grave, full of hope, deep and spiritual’ that included the Nazis’ ultimate defeat had a hugely encouraging effect on morale.[16] He met up with old and trusted friends including parliamentarians. There seems no reason why he should not have divulged to his friends and compatriots what he manifestly told a stranger, Dom Basset. The latter was at the time not firmly in the Resistance. Many figures in the Roman church had quite different opinions.
Besides the intricate sociological analysis of the Hitlerite tyranny on the population, the exterminations of Jewish, Russian and other populations would have rated only second in importance to his statistical prediction of the end of the war. An old friend, the priest, Bernard de Solages, recalled that: ‘To my question if he was optimistic about the end of the war, he replied very affirmatively. He told me that his ‘sojourn’ in Germany had allowed him to enquire with sufficiently close exactitude into the enormous losses that Germany had succumbed to. To these losses, he had fixed numbers. He had no doubt about the outcome. Germany could not sustain its effort. It would have to capitulate.[17] (emphasis added.)
German occupation
This period of comparative freedom in France was cut short when the Germans invaded and completely took over the Vichy territory. Now the SS could make more intensive searches. At the continued risk of his life, Schuman chose to stay in France to promulgate his message of hope, despite a call from de Gaulle to come to London. De Gaulle had also held the same ministerial rank as an Under-Secretary of State in the Reynaud government.
For remaining three years of war, Schuman stayed in contact with the some of the Resistance but independently, moving from hideout to hideout. In contact with other politicians, he spent a great deal of time formulating and researching plans for post-war European unity. His face was too well known to stay in any area where there was likely to be Alsace-Lorraine refugees. He had had a major part stabilizing the provinces with their return after World War One.
Schuman’s record
After the First World War as a young Deputy, Schuman had been largely responsible for the mammoth task of reconciling the existing body of German law in Alsace-Lorraine with the laws of metropolitan France. This codification is still known as the Lex Schuman.
The Lex Schuman provided for the retention of advantages legislated under the Bismarckian period that were not incompatible with French metropolitan law. For example, Alsace-Lorrainers benefited from a superior social insurance system.
With the return to France of the ‘lost provinces’, Schuman energetically defended the democratic rights of the population to chose their religion and education. In Alsace and Lorraine, the three main religious divisions of Roman Catholic, Protestant and Jewish had been able to maintain their own schools. The majority of the population was up in arms at the enforced secularisation proposed by Paris. Schuman defended vigorously their democratic right to continue to follow their conscience. The centralizing policy was in ‘plain contradiction with the programmes on which seven eighths of the representatives of the affected region were elected. To pursue the introduction of such a programme would not only be contrary to democratic principles, but would be to throw into our region a source of grave trouble for which we can take no responsibility.’ To this day Alsace-Lorraine still enjoys extra freedoms and advantages it had gained from his efforts.
From years before the First World War, Schuman had devoted himself to create a system of law and governance that would bring peace to Europe. In 1939, even in that winter of the ‘phoney war’, he made it clear to friends, the need for the reconciliation of peoples after they had won the war. As quickly as possible Europeans should get to understand one another with an aim of putting an end once and for all to such fratricidal and destructive wars that had decimated the population of Europe, not only recently but over the last centuries.[18]
Post-war action
He was re-elected to Parliament after the war and saw office as Minister of Finance (1946-7) Prime Minister (1947-8), Foreign Minister (1948-53) and Minister of Justice (1955-6).
As Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Schuman announced the start of a new era following the centuries of war and destruction.
Human rights, protected by supranational law was the major instrument, not only in protecting minorities against persecution. It was the definition of the boundaries and borders of the NEW EUROPE. This he announced with the approval of all signatory States at the signing of the Statutes of the Council of Europe at St James’s Palace, London on 5 May 1949.
In a series of speeches, conferences and press statements, he stated that the past bloody centuries of the clash of nationalism and nationalities must cede to that of supranational unions of democracies focused on peace.
Under his leadership, France created the Council of Europe with the framework for the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This was directly based on the need to stop a slide to Dachau by such State gangsterism.
His policy went beyond a concerted policy of encouraging Franco-German reconciliation after the hate and destruction of war. In 1949, he announced that a new era must be opened to change for ever the deadly harvest of nationalisms and rivalries. This continual slaughter had lasted several centuries. It had brought the planet to the brink of suicide.
He now called for a supranational association or an enduring supranational union of democracies that would ‘make war impossible’. The democratic supranational system was a means to encourage the positive aspects of human development, while developing its moral growth. It would lay foundations for spiritual and political growth.[19] It was a great ‘European experiment’ based on the democratic principle ‘Loving your neighbor as yourself’ writ large for states and peoples.[20]
Democracy was defined by its goals and the means it used to attain them. The goals must start with peace and the means, works of peace. As for the definition of democracy itself, Schuman used a scientific touchstone, more precise than US President Abraham Lincoln’s. ‘Democracy,’ he said, ‘was at the service of the people and acting in agreement with it.’ This, he said, was how it should be understood in a Judeo-Christian context, rather than that of the Hellenistic age. Such a crude democracy based only on majority voting would end up in tyranny or anarchy.[21]
The Community model with its five key institutions was little known at the time. A year later on 9 May 1950, Schuman announced the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community. It was based on this new concept that could not be described either as a federation or a confederation. On numerous occasions, he made clear that the European Community could be identified with this, until-then, theoretical supranational structure based on the international rule of law. The European Community was the ‘first example of an independent supranational institution’ in world history. Some of these key speeches have been published in the volume: Schuman or Monnet? The real Architect of Europe.[22]
Now more than three quarters of a century afterwards, historians can affirm that the present generation is the only one in Western Europe that has not known internal war for such a long period. Europeans are moving into a new age where no one in their family has lost a loved one in a European war.
Without realizing the profound reasons for its existence, states — from the former Soviet zone to the Mediterranean — are now queuing to join. The experience of long-term member states indicates that they have not lost sovereignty by taking joint decisions together. Rather they have strengthened democracy and increased prosperity beyond expectation. (Predictions in 1950 –before the European Community was announced– had considered that Western Europe would remain a powerless zone riven by poverty and internal squabbles.) Today the European Union can embrace about half a billion citizens of cultures as different as Greek and Finnish, Hungarian and Irish. They all seek peace and a stabilized democratic process.
The High Court of History
During a conference visit to Switzerland in December 1952, Schuman stopped at a snow-covered villa above the lake of Zurich. It was for a very special ceremony. In the name of the French government he presented Thomas Mann, the German writer, with the insignia of officer of the Légion d’Honneur. Attached to the correspondence was found his hand-written note: ‘When in 1952 I found out that the French government had not until then given any honorific distinction to Thomas Mann, I was astonished and somewhat shocked. The decree of 16 December 1952 conferring on him the cross of officer of the Légion d’Honneur was one of my last acts as Foreign Minister.’[23]
Thomas Mann’s novelist brother Heinrich, also a great proponent of European unity, described his first novel as representing ‘more than himself, a country and a tradition, more than a whole civilization, {it is} the supranational conscience of man.[24]
Hitler, who both the brothers Mann vigorously opposed, fulminated against the supranational. It was contrary his own egocentric and destructive form of nationalism and to him conscience was a Jewish invention.[25]
For Schuman conscience was the most precious thing for actors in politics and history. A conscience directed by the love of God and the love of one’s neighbor was a guide. It was a belief that Schuman held on to in the darkest days of his captivity. In April 1942 Nazi Germany was at its zenith and at the gates of Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad. When his friend, Georges Ditsch, a former trainee lawyer at his chambers, met him secretly during his ‘sojourn’ in Germany, he told him: ‘This war, terrible as it is, will finish one fine day and it will finish by the victory of the free world. Might has never been able to triumph over right.
He then modified a quotation of Schiller: ‘Das Weltgewissen ist ein Weltgericht’ — The conscience of the world is the High Court of the world.[26]
There can no longer be a question of perpetuating hate and resentment against the Germans. On the contrary, without forgetting the past, it will be necessary to rally them and do everything possible to integrate them into the free world. As soon as peace has returned it will be necessary to find out with our allies the cause of wars and think out structures which will render such cataclysmic events impossible.
The solutions could only be found in the context of a United Europe. Such a thing had already been attempted in the past but by means of brute force. Only a democratic enterprise would be susceptible of gaining the consent of nations.
This time,’ he concluded, ‘we will need to start off with a clean slate free of the territorial ambitions which are the source of new conflicts and find a union for everybody through co-operation.
Schuman had no illusions about Germany’s rôle in European history. He was a political realist, more realistic than nearly all his colleagues when it came to assessing dangers to security. His description of two thousand years of German history shocked many Germans. His introduction of the supranational system for Europe was done ‘not out of enthusiasm, nor apprehension of its outcome… It was not an end in itself but a necessity.’ [27] It was based on moral principles as well as political psychology.
Schuman’s report on the Holocaust may not have been the only one to be brought to the attention of the Allies in August 1942. At least one other independent testimony of the systematic extermination of Jews arrived at that time. Professor Howard M Sachar wrote:
The first reliable information of the ‘”Final Solution” evidently reached the West in August 1942, when the American Jewish leader, Stephen Wise, learned of it from Gerhard Reigner, the representative of the World Jewish Congress in Geneva.’ Reigner also sent the cable directly to the US State Department.
Schuman’s postwar efforts were centred on creating a system that would act as a conscience for the world, instead of destructive Nazism or selfish nationalism. Conscience provides the means for people to live in harmony together.
Without moral progress, technical progress and industrialization had led to industrialized mass murder. One of the most educated and cultured societies in Europe had descended into unconscionable barbarity. The major corporations employed slave labour and even ran death camps. (The companies paid the SS. The slaves got nothing but brutality and death.) White collared accountants calculated the minimum rations for a slave to work and die of starvation within nine months. A Judeo-Christian society had given itself over to exterminating Jews.
That was the end product of a military-industrial complex without any conscience but with a totalitarian control of the media and driven by a lust for exploitation and global expansionism.
To create a governmental system to act as the moral conscience of Europe and make positive and irreversible progress in the moral field was an even greater challenge than technical progress.
National governments resisted any agreement that would affect their sovereignty. High officials in the French Foreign Ministry, the guardian of French ‘national interest’ but more accurately often only that of the coal and steel barons and finance, had deliberately sabotaged his efforts at European reconciliation.
If that was true in France, in Germany the coal and steel and other cartels had encouraged the rise of Hitler to defend their interest. Schuman warned that the next time this happened, it would mean world suicide.
The Council of Europe was Schuman’s first step. As Prime Minister and Foreign Minster, he made the establishment of this institution a priority. It was founded as a means to render impossible in the future any slide to godless, unconscionable Hitlerism or dictatorship.
It made human rights and fundamental freedoms a litmus test for membership of the new entity called Europe.
Presenting the Human Rights Convention to the Assembly in 1949, Schuman’s colleague, French lawyer, Pierre-Henri Teitgen, said:
An honest man does not become a gangster in 24 hours. Infection takes time. In thought and in conscience, he has to let himself be drawn into temptation. He gets used to the fault before he commits it. He descends the stairwell step by step.
One day, he finds evil has beaten him and he has lost all scruples.
Democracies do not become Nazi countries overnight. Evil progresses in an underhand way, with a minority operating to seize what amounts to the levers of power. One by one, freedoms are suppressed, in one sphere then another.
Public opinion is smothered, the worldwide conscience is dulled and the national conscience asphyxiated.
And then, when everything fits in place, the Führer is installed and this evolution continues right on to the deadly gas ovens of the crematorium.
Intervention is needed before it becomes too late. A conscience must exist somewhere which will sound the alarm to the minds of a nation threatened by this spreading gangrene, to warn them of the peril and to show them that they are committing themselves to a crooked road leading far, sometimes even to Buchenwald or to Dachau. An international jurisdiction within the Council of Europe, a system of surveillance and guarantee, could be this conscience, of which other countries also maybe have special need.

Pierre-Henri Teitgen congratulates Konrad Adenauer on Germany’s accession to the Council of Europe.

The innovation of the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community or the European Commission of the later two Communities of the Rome Treaties was made to create an impartial and independent voice for European democracies.
That is why it must be independent, not tied to any interest, whether national, political, commercial or otherwise.
Schuman had spoken out against Nazi injustice and for that he had been thrown into a freezing cell in solitary confinement. Several times he had barely escaped being sent to Dachau and exterminated. He had been hunted like a criminal across Germany and France for three years with a massive reward on his head. Yet his politics before, during and after the war were not based on hate or revenge. He chose to stay in France when his life was at risk every minute to work for the postwar world.
The success, security and prosperity of the European Community is a practical demonstration of his living principle of politics ‘to love your enemy as yourself.[28] Thus we help ourselves and glorify our Maker.

1945 Schuman returned as deputy, worked on Constitutional Committee.
  1. 14 July, WS Churchill in Metz where, standing next to Schuman, then Finance Minister, Churchill gave his first European speech about Franco-German reconciliation.
1947-8 Schuman became Prime Minister in France’s worst period of political and revolutionary conflict.
1948, 30 Jan -2 Feb second meeting of Nouvelles Équipes Internationales (one of the organisers of The Hague European Congress in May). Participants included: Don Sturzo, Marc Sangnier, plus Prime Ministers Robert Schuman (F), Pierre Dupong (Lux) LJM Beel (NL) minister P-H Teitgen (F) (later rapporteur for the Convention of Human Rights, the foundational document of the Council of Europe) plus Germans including Konrad Adenauer. Resolution of European unity, reaffirming the Lucerne Declaration of March 1944 (federal European order and guarantees for human rights). A January 1949 publication announced its aim, a European Union: Create Europe or die! “Faire l’Europe ou mourir“.
7-11 May 1948 The Hague Congress. Prime Minister Schuman sent two ministers, P-H Teitgen (Defence) F Mitterrand (Veterans) to what was a non-governmental conference. R Bichet, president of NEI, three former French prime ministers, including Paul Reynaud, attended. France and Belgium (Heyman) were the only countries sending minister-level participants. Britain sent a large delegation but no ministers. The German delegation (including Hallstein, Adenauer, Heinemann, Amelunxen, Brentano) was led by Karl Arnold, Ministerpresident, NRW, British zone.
20 July 1948, Hague meeting of ministers, Western Union (Brussels Treaty Organization), Schuman’s Foreign Minister Georges Bidault proposed the creation of a European Assembly (realized in the later Council of Europe) and a customs and economic union (the later Coal and Steel Community and the two Rome Treaty communities). As Foreign Minister in the following governments, Schuman made such supranational institutions a reality.
28 September 1948 Speech as Foreign Minister at United Nations General Assembly in Paris. On Human Rights, he said, celebrating the centenary of the 1848 revolutions. ‘France has the right to say on this subject that she possesses a long tradition if not the copyright of its invention. In this year which is for her as for many European countries a centenary of memories and teachings, she will rejoice that a Declaration could be proclaimed here at home, which in its turn will make its mark in the history of civilized mankind.‘ For Europe, Schuman insisted (not without opposition) on the creation of a system of human rights based on the supranational rule of law, rather than a more declaratory approach of the UN to Human Rights.
25-26 October 1948. France launched discussions on this process through the Brussels Treaty organization (Western Union), creating an official intergovernmental Committee for the Study of European Unity.
10 December 1948, United Nations General Assembly, meeting in Paris, adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
1949 27-28 January, the Consultative Council of Western Union agreed that a Council of Europe should be created consisting of a Committee of Ministers and a Consultative body meeting in public.
5 May1949, London St James’s Palace, Schuman signed the Statutes of the Council of Europe for France. The aim of the Council of Europe, originally to be called the European Union, was according to their Statutes the ‘safeguarding and realizing the ideals and principles which are their common heritage‘ recognizing the ‘rule of law and that every person placed under its jurisdiction should enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms.‘ This step, said Schuman, ‘created the foundations of a spiritual and political cooperation, from which the European spirit will be born, the principle of a vast and enduring supranational union.‘ The Teitgen and Maxwell-Fyfe reports provided means for member states to agree on a Convention.
16 May 1949, Strasbourg. In a speech at the Festival Hall, Schuman explained how Europe is now defined by countries which recognize the rule of law in the field of human rights and fundamental freedoms. ‘At the signature to the Statutes of the Council of Europe, I recalled to everyone’s mind that we did not yet have a definition of Europe recognized by everybody. I believed that I was then able to claim that that in thus laying the foundation of an organization, Europe is now beginning to define itself, without the aid of scholars and academics, who I fear, will never be able to agree amongst themselves.’ He defined this as ‘having the European spirit.‘ Thus membership of the Council of Europe and adherence to the principles of Human Rights provides the definition of states who can become candidate members of supranational communities.
9 May 1950 Schuman Declaration of the French Government to create a European Community based on supranational principles and open to all free countries.
4 November 1950. Signature in Rome of the Convention of Human Rights by Schuman and 11 other national leaders. This gave the new Europe a clear legal criterion for defining geographically the new borders of the Continent.
March 1958 Schuman acclaimed Father of Europe by European Parliament.