The Political Scene: Trump’s Policy with Allies – Pay Us and We’ll Protect You

Source

March 23, 2017

U.S. President Donald Trump waits to speak by phone with the Saudi Arabia's King Salman in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, U.S. January 29, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

US president Donald trumps’ policies towards the region have not been crystallized so far.
Many of the political positions and statements announced by the new administration are not clear enough to give a full- fledge  image about the US vision towards the region. Most of the information and conclusions are inferred from tentative analyses and some of his advisors statements.

Nonetheless, the main headline of the US policy towards the friends and allies in the world generally, and the region specifically, “pay us and we will protect you.”

However, it is estimated that the new American policy will go in accordance with the following lines:
Washington will neither wage a war nor will it withdraw from the nuclear agreement with Iran, but will make sure to tighten the sanctions against it, to downsize its influence in many places in the region.

– The US administration intends to engage more in Iraq by deploying more troops there in an attempt to get rid of ISIL and to make sure to blackmail the Iraqis, thus pressuring them to give more political and economic concessions. Trump aspires to cut off Iraq from its current stances and annex it to the gulf states in an effort to terminate the Iranian influence and coordination with Baghdad.

– As for Palestine, Trump plans to hold an international conference to reach a so-called political settlement, or to hold a tripartite summit that brings him, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu and PA President Mahmoud Abbas together to reach what his administration envisages as  a permanent solution .

In Yemen, the US urges Saudi Arabia to put a speedy end to its heavy engagement in the Yemeni quick sands, as winning the war there has proved to be almost impossible, along with Saudi dwindling status that affects drastically in other areas which could be in turn detrimental to US interests.

As for Syria, Washington intends to involve itself more, especially in the northern part of the country where it has deployed more troops and military equipments and has supported the Kurdish forces with vital military supplies thus escalating the Turkish worries. The US plans to have the sole and upper hand in liberating Raqqa without any coordination with or help from Russia in order to strike a balance with the culminating, rather towering influence Moscow has in Syria.

Washington wants this at any rate because it deeply understands that the future situation in Syria will play a crucial role and determine the future of the region and far beyond that for long years.

Source: Al-Manar Website

دي ميستورا حرّض على التصعيد لتعديل التوازن والجواب سيكون خلال جنيف في الميدان والتفاوض

دي ميستورا حرّض على التصعيد لتعديل التوازن والجواب سيكون خلال جنيف في الميدان والتفاوض

مارس 23, 2017

ناصر قنديل

– ليس لتفجير جبهات القتال في سورية مجرد وظيفة تفاوضية وقد وضعت لها معادلات ممتدة من واشنطن إلى الرياض وتل أبيب وصولاً إلى أنقرة، وصارت حرب وجود بالنسبة لجبهة النصرة التي تقود الحرب ويلتحق بها بإمرة أسيادهم المشاركون في التفاوض، بشقيه الأمني في أستانة والسياسي في جنيف، لكن الأكيد أن التصعيد الذي تشهده سورية بمبادرة من جبهة النصرة وبتغطية وشراكة سياسية وعسكرية من المشاركين في جنيف عن مقاعد المعارضة سيكون الحاضر الأول في جنيف.

– ليس خافياً أن ثلاثية المبعوث الأممي ستيفان دي ميستورا للتفاوض استثنت بند الإرهاب الذي أصرّ الوفد السوري الرسمي على إضافته بنداً رئيسياً، كما ليس خافياً أن نجاح الوفد السوري بدعم روسي في فرض هذا البند عطفاً على اتهامه مشاركين في جنيف بالإرهاب واشتراطه حسم مصيرهم بين معسكري الإرهاب وأعدائه للانضمام إلى المسار التفاوضي الجدي، قد تمّ بقوة ما تم إنجازه في معارك حلب التي شكلت هزيمة مدوية لمشروع الحرب على سورية.

– تواطأ دي ميستورا بقدر ما تتيح موازين القوى لتخديم جماعة الرياض، وحاول التمادي على بنود التفاوض التي حصرها القرار الأممي 2254 بالسوريين، عبر ترويج صيغ للشق الداخلي من حلول تفاوضية تخدم المشروع المعادي لسورية فاستحق رفض دمشق لاستقباله، لكن دي ميستورا لم يكن الوحيد صاحب النصيحة لجماعة الرياض والفصائل بضرورة تغيير موازين القوى قبل جولة جنيف الجديدة وإلا سيكون وضعهم التفاوضي صعباً، وهو مَن قال لهم ستشهد الجولة ضغوطاً روسية سورية لضم ممثلي منصات القاهرة وموسكو لوفد موحّد ومعهم ممثلون للأكراد، وسيكون التفاوض في بند الإرهاب قاسياً ومتعباً، وسيكون السقف السياسي الذي يريد الروس أن تخرج به المفاوضات هو حكومة موحّدة في ظل الدستور السوري والرئيس السوري ، ونصيحة دي ميستورا هي المسعى السعودي والنصيحة الأميركية ذاتهما منذ استرداد الجيش السوري والمقاومة مدينة القصير وكلمة وزير الخارجية الأميركية آنذاك جون كيري من الدوحة، لا عودة للتفاوض قبل تعديل التوازن العسكري.

– دمشق ليست بعيدة عن التقاط الرسالة ولا عن حرفية ومهارة إرسال الأجوبة المناسبة، وأولها رفض استقبال دي ميستورا، والتتمة بالتتابع، من معاملة دي ميستورا بصورة باهتة وجافة في جنيف بمحاسبته على النقطة والفاصلة وفقاً للقرار الأممي وقرار تفويضه ومهمته وصلاحياته وضوابطه كموظف أممي، وسيراً بجدول الأعمال بحسم هوية المفاوضين وتأكيد عدم تشابكها بهويات إرهابية، وفقاً لمواقفها من التنظيمات الإرهابية المصنفة أممياً، وليس لاجتهادات متناقضة للأطراف المشاركة. وهنا لا توجد إلا العلاقة بجبهة النصرة، فمن يقاتل معها ومن يتبنّى قتالها لا مكان له على مائدة الحل السياسي، ومَن يتبرأ من حروبها وتفجيراتها وحده الجدير بالتفاوض.

– ستطول جولة جنيف الخامسة بكلام كثير وشروط وبيانات وخطابات، لكن الرد السوري سيكون في الميدان كفيلاً بتغيير المناخ والأجواء، ووضع دي ميستورا ومفاوضي مسميات المعارضة أمام الحائط المسدود والخيارات الصعبة، ومثلما نجح الهجوم المعاكس في مداخل دمشق بحسم سريع، فقد بدأ الهجوم المعاكس في ريف حماة والساعات والأيام المقبلة تتكفّل بالجواب.

Syrian War Report – March 21, 2017: Russia Set Military Base In YPG-Held Area Of Afrin?

https://southfront.org/syrian-war-report-march-21-2017/

Voiceover by Harold Hoover

Russia is setting up a military base in the Afrin canton area controlled by the Kurdish People’s Protection Units in northwestern Syria. The agreement on establishing the base was concluded on Sunday, according to YPG spokesman Redur Xelil. The base will reportedly be located at the village of Qatmah. Russian military servicemen have already arrived in the area with armoured vehicles, trucks, and troop carriers. According to the YPG spokesman, Russian military advisors will allegedly train YPG fighters and increase cooperation with the YPG in combating terrorism.

The Russian Defense Ministry denied the creation of a military base and said that some units of the Reconciliation Centre had been deployed to the area to “observe” the ceasefire. In Any case, this will clearly contribute to further improvement of the relations between Kurdish military political entities and the Syrian government.

Government troops have reversed a significant part of the gains made Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (formerly the official branch of al-Qaeda) in the Qabun industrial district in eastern Damascus and re-imposed the siege on the area of Qabun. Clashes are still ongoing in the area but it’s clear that the joint militant forces led by al-Qaeda have failed to achieve their military goals. The growth of al-Qaeda-led operations in the Damascus countryside could trigger a government advance aiming to clear the area from militants. In this case, Qabun is a legitimate target for government forces.

In the province of Aleppo, the Syrian army and its allies aim to cut off the road linking Deir Hafer with the ISIS-controlled airbase of Jirah and to encircle the city. Government forces liberated the village of Al-Qusayr and the nearby train station from ISIS and attacked terrorists in Jifr Mansur, Aqulah, and Adasarah.

The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), predominantly consisting of the People’s Protection Units (YPG), have taken control of Karamah, Tal Fatisah, Khardal, and the Balasim oil storage east of the ISIS-controlled city of Raqqah. The SDF advance was actively backed by the US military. At least one Apache attack helicopter was spotted supporting the SDF advance.

 

Syrian War Report – March 20, 2017: Govt Forces Fight ISIS In Homs And Aleppo, Al-Qaeda Attacks In Damascus

https://southfront.org/syrian-war-report-march-20-2017-govt-forces-fight-isis-in-homs-and-aleppo-al-qaeda-attacks-in-damascus/

https://southfront.org/wp-content/plugins/fwduvp/content/video.php?path=https%3A%2F%2Fsouthfront.org%2Fsyrian-war-report-march-20-2017-govt-forces-fight-isis-in-homs-and-aleppo-al-qaeda-attacks-in-damascus%2F&pid=826

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: southfront@list.ru or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Voiceover by Harold Hoover

The Syrian army and the National Defense Forces (NDF), backed up by the Russian Aerospace Forces’ attack helicopters, further advanced against the ISIS terrorist group in the countryside of Palmyra.

They captured a mountain chain north of the Mazar Mountain and attacked ISIS units at the nearby al-Haram Mountain. Government forces also resized the Talilah crossroad and the Talilah Heights from ISIS terrorists in the southern Palmyra countryside. Clashes also continued in the area of Arak where the army and the NDF were advancing against ISIS units.

Troops of the recently formed 5th Legion, trained and equipped by the Russians, played an important role in the operation.

The ongoing military operation clearly shows that speculations, which had appeared at some pro-government sources, about the rapid army advance in the direction of Deir Ezzor, are far from reality.

As SF reported earlier, the main goal of government forces is to secure the Palmyra countryside, including hill tops and gas and oil fields in the area which are still in the hands of ISIS terrorists.

Government forces, led by the Syrian army’s Tiger Forces, liberated Um Al-Murra and the Al-Murra hill, Sharimah, and Juni al-Salamah from ISIS terrorists near Deir Hafer in the province of Aleppo. The advance continued in the direction of Aqulah and Qusayr. If Aqulah is liberated, government troops will cut off the main road linking the ISIS-held city with the rest of ISIS forces in the province.

On March 19th, ISIS terrorists advanced in the Wadi al Azeeb area, forcing government forces to close the Salamiyah-Ithriya highway. This ISIS attack was likely aimed to draw the Syrian military’s attention away from the Palmyra countryside. Nonetheless, terrorists were not able to deploy enough forces to pose a major threat to the government sites.

Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (a coalition of militant groups led by Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) launched an advance against government forces in the Qabun Industrial Area in Damascus. Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham used car bombs to break government defenses and seized a number of points, including the electric company building. Then, government forces launched a counter-attack and retook the electric company building. The goal of the militant advance is to link up the Qabun area with Jobar and the Eastern Ghouta region held by militants.

Militants are surrendering the al-Waer district in Homs after making an agreement with the government under Russian mediation. Over 1500 members of militant groups and their families have already left the area. Experts estimate that some 8,000 people will depart the area for Idlib. Over 40,000 will remain in al-Waer as the government takes full control of it.

The basic difference, Russia Combats Terrorists While America Supports them

Russia Combats Terrorists America Supports

by Stephen Lendman

Russia’s agenda is polar opposite America’s. It’s effectively combating terrorists in Syria.
The dynamic on the ground dramatically changed after it intervened in September 2015 at Assad’s request.
America created and supports ISIS, al-Nusra and other terrorist groups – why they exist. Washington feeds the monster it claims to oppose.
Trump seamlessly continues the agenda his predecessors began – notably the Clintons, Bush/Cheney and Obama.
So-called US war on terror is a made-for-media fabricated hoax. Last September, RT quoted an al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria) commander saying:
“Yes, the US supports” anti-government fighters in Syria. Washington “support(s) the countries that support us.”
Earlier, Sergey Lavrov said he had no doubt that weapons America sends anti-government forces end up in “terrorists’ hands.”
So-called moderate rebels don’t exist – one of many scoundrel media proliferated Big Lies throughout over six years of US aggression, using terrorist fighters as proxy foot soldiers – supplemented by US terror-bombing and Pentagon forces, lawlessly operating in northern Syria, aiding terrorists, not combating them.
All fighters opposing Assad are terrorists, largely imported from scores of countries, actively recruited by the CIA and rogue US allies.
US cargo planes airdrop weapons and munitions to anti-government terrorists. Pentagon contractors train ISIS and other terrorists in chemical weapons use. Russia wants this scourge eliminated. America actively supports it.
Russia is the only major power actively seeking diplomatic conflict resolution in Syria. Washington wants endless war continued – regime change its ultimate objective.
It wants US-controlled puppet rule replacing sovereign independent Syrian governance, isolating Iran, targeting it next for regime change, unchallenged US and Israeli regional dominance the ultimate aim, weakening Russia and China at the same time.
Where will it all end? In his 1990 address to a joint congressional session, GHW Bush coined the phrase “New World Order,” preparing the public for Operation Desert Storm in January 1991 and endless wars to follow – today raging in multiple theaters, additional ones likely coming.
What the Pentagon earlier called America’s “long war,” Dick Cheney infamously said conflicts “won’t end in our lifetime.”
Former CIA director James Woolsey said Washington “is engaged in WW IV, and it could last for years.”
It’ll “last considerably longer than either WW I or II” – forever wars the way bipartisan administration and congressional neocons, along with Pentagon commanders planned them.
Russia and China represent the final frontier. Eliminating their sovereign independence would give Washington unchallenged global dominance it seeks.
Perhaps US plans call for nuclear madness to achieve it, risking mass annihilation, everyone affected, the ultimate insanity if launched.
Today is the most perilous time in world history for good reason. Bipartisan lunatics infesting Washington believe nuclear war is winnable.
They’ll perish along with everyone else if these weapons are unleashed like king-sized hand grenades – humanity’s greatest threat.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

Brave but stupid talk from Netanyahu “israeli airstrikes in Syria will continue”

Netanyahu to Putin: Israeli airstrikes in Syria will continue

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he has told Russian President Vladimir Putin that Israeli forces will continue airstrikes in Syria if they deem it necessary.

“If there is feasibility from an intelligence and military standpoint – we attack and so it will continue,” Netanyahu said during a visit to China, adding that he had informed Putin of Israel’s intentions.

According to the Jerusalem Post, the Israeli PM also dismissed reports that Russia was insisting that Israel cease its military operations on Syrian territory.

On Monday, Syrian President Bashar Assad told visiting Russian MPs that he is counting on Russia to prevent further Israeli attacks on Syrian soil and to help Damascus avoid a full-blown conflict with Tel Aviv.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry summoned the Israeli ambassador to Moscow, Gary Koren, to demand explanations for the airstrikes Israel conducted near the Syrian city of Palmyra on Friday morning. Israeli Defence Force (IDF) warplanes hit several targets near Palmyra, allegedly destroying advanced arms provided to the Lebanese militant movement Hezbollah.

Syria’s air defense force fired anti-aircraft missiles at the Israeli planes as they were returning to base. Syrian media reported that one plane was downed, while Israel denied any losses.

Israel also said that it shot down one of the interceptor missiles with its Arrow long-range SAMs, which saw the first-ever use of the system in battle.

After the incident, Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman threatened that “next time, if the Syrian aerial defense apparatus acts against our planes, we will destroy it.”

READ MORE: Syria claims Israeli jet shot down after strike near Palmyra, IDF says all aircraft undamaged

In January, Damascus accused Tel Aviv of bombing the Mezzeh military airport west of the country’s capital. The airport was rocked by multiple explosions, with ambulances rushing to the scene.

The IDF has violated Syrian air space on a number of occasions, even before the conflict broke out in the country back in 2011.

Possibly the most infamous incident occurred in 2007 when an alleged Israeli raid destroyed a suspected nuclear reactor in Syria’s Deir ez-Zor governorate.

Hot Syrian Spring ربيع سوري ساخن

 Hot Syrian Spring

مارس 20, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

It was not a secret that Astana Path which was created by Moscow in an opportune moment for finding an alternative of the US absence from the tracks of making the political settlement for Syria, was due to the emergence of an opportunity of the qualitative Turkish cooperation after the defeat of Aleppo which has affected it and has affected the military militia forces which work under its sponsorship which are closer to Al Nusra front, and which the Russians have endeavored  to make the Americans taking over the responsibility of separating it but in vain. The opportunity came to make its original owner taking over the task; the Turkish is the shelter, the supply line of Al Nura, and the sponsor of the involved armed groups, but after Aleppo the Turkish lost the opportunity to fight a proxy war on Syria, and has lost the hope in the consequences of this war after the fall of the castle which was represented by Aleppo and the fall of its title under the name of the armed opposition. Furthermore the Euphrates Shield which the Turkish formed for the war on ISIS has become mere a refinery to accommodate the remaining of the formations which he sponsored to make from them Turkish security line that is similar to the line of the army of Antoine Lahd in favor of Israel in the southern of Lebanon before liberating the South.

The Russian equation was that the Turks would separate Al Nusra and the militias affiliated to them within the Euphrates Shield to fight ISIS, and the partnership in a track that leads to alternative important Syrian negotiator of the opposition of Riyadh, that is capable of going on toward a settlement entitled the partnership with Turkey in the war on terrorism in exchange of reserving a fixed Turkish seat in the new regional system, but the US slowdown in the cooperation with Russia has led to big Turkish regressions, then Manbej slap which neither Russia nor Syria were far from its making occurred to the Turks, in response of the Turkish deception in Al Bab city and the embarrassment to the American through a new equation that says the impossibility to combine between the alliance with the Kurds and the Turks, so the Russians cooperate with the Turkish once again and the Syrians cooperate with the Kurds.

Astana in its third version has taken place in order to tell the armed groups which the Turks claim their mono-authority on them that they are still a common investment among Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the Americans that proves its ability in affecting the settlement negatively. This means its boycotting of Astana despite the Turkish concern and presence, or to say that the Turkish is still practicing the manipulation and the deception waiting for the American, in both cases there is no justification for the continuation of the bet on Astana as a path.

The suicidal bombings which ravage in the Syrian areas and the silence of the armed and the political oppositions say that the bet on a political or security track that leads to dynamisms that develop by themselves is no longer present. The military initiative is at the hand of the Syrian country and its allies, and there is no justification to stop in front of the lie of considering the cease-fire a way for the political settlement, or considering that Turkey can or wants, or can and wants an independent path from the Americans in approaching the Syrian war. So the clarity becomes the answer; war on Al Nusra and those who stand with it along with a political path with a clear ceiling for who wants, here is Geneva without conditions including the cease-fire condition, those who become ready for a government under the Syrian constitution and the Syrian presidency can find a seat till the election decides their size, and those who do not want then let them reserve a seat in the field.

The postponement of Astana to May says that April will be a hot month, and that the next Geneva after a week will be cold and dull especially after it became clear the Saud Israeli encouragement of the Americans to separate the battle of ISIS in the northern of Syria from the war on the resistance and the Syrian army in the south, and the sufficiency with security settlements with the Russians in the north due to the necessities of the war on ISIS, and disabling every political settlement that legitimizes the cooperation with the Syrian country that restores its diplomatic presence and its economic movement just for the sake of the necessities of the war on the Syrian country and the resistance.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

 

ربيع سوري ساخن

مارس 17, 2017

ناصر قنديل

– لم يكن خافياً أن مسار أستانة الذي وجدته موسكو في لحظة مؤاتية لإيجاد بديل عن الغياب الأميركي عن مسارات صناعة التسوية السياسية الخاصة بسورية، جاء بفعل ظهور فرصة لتعاون تركي نوعي بعد هزيمة حلب التي أصابتها وأصابت معها القوى العسكرية الميليشياوية العاملة تحت عباءتها وغير البعيدة عن جبهة النصرة، والتي تعب الروس لجعل الأميركيين يتولّون مهمة فصلها عنها من دون طائل. وجاءت فرصة ان يتولى المهمة صاحبها الأصلي. فالتركي هو ملاذ النصرة وخط إمدادها وهو راعي الجماعات المسلحة المعنية. وقد فقد بعد حلب فرصة خوض حرب بالوكالة على سورية وفقد الأمل بنتائج هذه الحرب بعد سقوط القلعة التي مثلتها حلب وسقوط عنوانها باسم المعارضة المسلحة. وصار درع الفرات الذي شكّله للحرب على داعش، مجرد مصفاة لاستيعاب شتات التشكيلات التي رعاها ليجعل منها شريطاً أمنياً تركياً يشبه شريط جيش أنطوان لحد لحساب إسرائيل في جنوب لبنان قبل تحرير الجنوب.

– كانت المعادلة الروسية أن يقوم الأتراك بمهمة عزل النصرة وتجميع الميليشيات التابعة لهم ضمن درع الفرات لمقاتلة داعش، والشراكة بمسار ينتج مفاوضاً سورياً بديلاً وازناً عن معارضة الرياض قادراً على السير نحو تسوية عنوانها الشراكة مع تركيا في الحرب على الإرهاب، مقابل حجز مقعد تركي ثابت في النظام الإقليمي الجديد. وجاء التباطؤ الأميركي في التعاون مع روسيا لينتج تراجعات تركية كبيرة، ثم جاءت صفعة منبج للأتراك والتي لم تكن روسيا ولا سورية ببعيدتين عن صناعتها رداً على الخداع التركي في معركة الباب وإحراجاً للأميركي بمعادلة جديدة تقول باستحالة الجمع بين التحالف مع الأكراد والأتراك، فيمسك الروسي بيد التركي مجدداً ويمسك السوري بيد الأكراد.

– جاءت أستانة بنسختها الثالثة لتقول إن الجماعات المسلحة التي يدعي الأتراك سلطتهم الأحادية عليها، لا تزال استثماراً مشتركاً مع السعودية و»إسرائيل» والأميركيين، يثبت قدرته على التأثير لإعاقة التسويات. وهذا معنى مقاطعتها لأستانة رغم الاهتمام والحضور التركيين، أو لتقول إن التركي لا يزال يمارس التلاعب والخداع، بانتظار الأميركي، وفي الحالين لا مبرر لمواصلة الرهان على أستانة كمسار.

– التفجيرات الانتحارية التي تعصف بالمناطق السورية، وصمت المعارضات المسلحة والسياسية، يقولان إن الرهان على مسار سياسي أو أمني كمسار ينتج ديناميات تتطور بذاتها لم يعد له مكان، فالمبادرة العسكرية بيد الدولة السورية وحلفائها، ولا مبرر للتوقف أمام أكذوبة اعتبار وقف النار طريقاً للتسوية السياسية، ولا اعتبار أن تركيا تقدر أو تريد، أو تقدر وتريد، مساراً مستقلاً عن الأميركيين في مقاربة الحرب السورية، ولذلك يصير الوضوح هو الجواب، حرب على النصرة ومن يقف معها، ومسار سياسي بسقف واضح لمن يرغب وها هي جنيف موجودة، من دون شروط، بما فيها شرط وقف النار، فمن ينضج لسقف المشاركة بحكومة في ظل الدستور السوري والرئاسة السورية يجد له مقعداً حتى تقرر الانتخابات حجمه، ومن لا يريد فليحجز مقعده في الميدان.

– تأجيل أستانة لشهر أيار يقول إن نيسان سيكون شهراً ساخناً، وإن جنيف المقبل بعد أسبوع سيكون بارداً وباهتاً، خصوصاً مع ما بات واضحاً من تشجيع سعودي «إسرائيلي» للأميركيين لفصل معركة داعش في شمال سورية عن الحرب على المقاومة والجيش السوري في الجنوب، والاكتفاء بتسويات أمنية مع الروس شمالاً لضرورات الحرب على داعش، وإعاقة كل تسوية سياسية تشرّع التعاون مع الدولة السورية وتعيد لها حضورها الدبلوماسي وحركتها الاقتصادية لضرورات الحرب على الدولة السورية والمقاومة.

(Visited 2٬907 times, 101 visits today)

Was the Russian Revolution a US Regime Change Operation?

Posted on March 17, 2017

Russian Tsar Nicholas II and family–all murdered by the Bolsheviks

[ Ed. note – Lately RT has been featuring on its website an ongoing retrospective on the 1917 Russian Revolution. This of course was a momentous event in history, and the way RT has chosen to mark it is kind of creative. With each new day they publish a “news story” on events of a hundred years ago, though the story is written in such a way as to make it seem as if the events are happening in the present.

For instance, today’s report focuses on the Western media’s reaction to the fall from power of Tsar Nicholas II, whose forced abdication took place on March 15, 1917. And if you check out the piece, you will see that a good portion of the US media seem to have been pretty chipper over the developments.

Another aspect of the retrospective is a Twitter account that has been set up in the name of a fictitious Russian newspaper, the Russian Telegraph, or “RT” for short (cute), and featuring comments of real-life figures from history as if they are being tweeted live in the moment. For instance, here is a tweet posted on January 22, 2017:

Fate has it that I’m in the US & having all my expenses paid. I don’t have any plans to return to Russia

 It’s rather interesting that Leon Trotsky, whose real name was Lev Davidovich Bronstein, was in the US having all his expenses paid less than two months before the forced abdication of the Tsar. It kind of makes you wonder to what extent the Russian revolution may have been a US regime change operation–or perhaps not so much a regime change carried out by the US government as by US Jews.

It’s worth keeping in mind that just three years prior to the Russian Revolution, America had undergone a revolution of its own of sorts–with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. The passage of that act, on December 23, 1913, and the setting up of the Federal Reserve, brought about the end of US financial independence and pretty much turned us into the serfs of global bankers. In a way this event, which took place in America, provides a strange sort of parallel to events in Russia three years later when the vast majority of the Russian people became serfs of the Bolsheviks, who were in large part Jews.

Below are two articles which shed some light on the extent of Jewish involvement in both. The first, dealing with the Russian revolution, is by Mark Weber and appears to have been written a number of years ago. Weber shows that a substantial percentage of the Bolsheviks were Jews, or as he puts it, “they [Jews] played a highly disproportionate and probably decisive role in the infant Bolshevik regime, effectively dominating the Soviet government during its early years.” His discussion is limited to Russian Jews, and he has very little to say about what foreign support they may have been getting, but it would have been almost impossible for the Bolsheviks to have succeeded in overthrowing the Russian government without some sort of outside backing.

The second article was posted back in December of 2013 at the blog Kenny’s Sideshow (rest in peace, Kenny) on the 100th anniversary of the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. The article highlights Jewish influence in the act’s passage, which as you will see was considerable. Kenny also makes the links–between US Jews and the Russian revolution.

One other thing I’ll mention is that since its creation in 1913, the Federal Reserve has had 15 chairmen, six of whom have been Jewish, including Charles S. Hamlin, the very first Fed chairman, and Janet Yellen, who holds the position today. This means that more than a third of all the Fed chairmen have been Jewish. ]

***

The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia’s Early Soviet Regime

Assessing the grim legacy of Soviet communism

By Mark Weber

In the night of July 16-17, 1918, a squad of Bolshevik secret police murdered Russia’s last emperor, Tsar Nicholas II, along with his wife, Tsaritsa Alexandra, their 14-year-old son, Tsarevich Alexis, and their four daughters. They were cut down in a hail of gunfire in a half-cellar room of the house in Ekaterinburg, a city in the Ural mountain region, where they were being held prisoner. The daughters were finished off with bayonets. To prevent a cult for the dead Tsar, the bodies were carted away to the countryside and hastily buried in a secret grave.

Bolshevik authorities at first reported that the Romanov emperor had been shot after the discovery of a plot to liberate him. For some time the deaths of the Empress and the children were kept secret. Soviet historians claimed for many years that local Bolsheviks had acted on their own in carrying out the killings, and that Lenin, founder of the Soviet state, had nothing to do with the crime.

In 1990, Moscow playwright and historian Edvard Radzinsky announced the result of his detailed investigation into the murders. He unearthed the reminiscences of Lenin’s bodyguard, Alexei Akimov, who recounted how he personally delivered Lenin’s execution order to the telegraph office. The telegram was also signed by Soviet government chief Yakov Sverdlov. Akimov had saved the original telegraph tape as a record of the secret order.1

Radzinsky’s research confirmed what earlier evidence had already indicated. Leon Trotsky — one of Lenin’s closest colleagues — had revealed years earlier that Lenin and Sverdlov had together made the decision to put the Tsar and his family to death. Recalling a conversation in 1918, Trotsky wrote:2

My next visit to Moscow took place after the [temporary] fall of Ekaterinburg [to anti-Communist forces]. Speaking with Sverdlov, I asked in passing: “Oh yes, and where is the Tsar?”

“Finished,” he replied. “He has been shot.”

“And where is the family?”

“The family along with him.”

“All of them?,” I asked, apparently with a trace of surprise.

“All of them,” replied Sverdlov. “What about it?” He was waiting to see my reaction. I made no reply.

“And who made the decision?,” I asked.

“We decided it here. Ilyich [Lenin] believed that we shouldn’t leave the Whites a live banner to rally around, especially under the present difficult circumstances.”

I asked no further questions and considered the matter closed.

Recent research and investigation by Radzinsky and others also corroborates the account provided years earlier by Robert Wilton, correspondent of the London Times in Russia for 17 years. His account, The Last Days of the Romanovs – originally published in 1920, and reissued in 1993 by the Institute for Historical Review — is based in large part on the findings of a detailed investigation carried out in 1919 by Nikolai Sokolov under the authority of “White” (anti-Communist) leader Alexander Kolchak. Wilton’s book remains one of the most accurate and complete accounts of the murder of Russia’s imperial family.3

A solid understanding of history has long been the best guide to comprehending the present and anticipating the future. Accordingly, people are most interested in historical questions during times of crisis, when the future seems most uncertain. With the collapse of Communist rule in the Soviet Union, 1989-1991, and as Russians struggle to build a new order on the ruins of the old, historical issues have become very topical. For example, many ask: How did the Bolsheviks, a small movement guided by the teachings of German-Jewish social philosopher Karl Marx, succeed in taking control of Russia and imposing a cruel and despotic regime on its people?

In recent years, Jews around the world have been voicing anxious concern over the specter of anti-Semitism in the lands of the former Soviet Union. In this new and uncertain era, we are told, suppressed feelings of hatred and rage against Jews are once again being expressed. According to one public opinion survey conducted in 1991, for example, most Russians wanted all Jews to leave the country.4 But precisely why is anti-Jewish sentiment so widespread among the peoples of the former Soviet Union? Why do so many Russians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians and others blame “the Jews” for so much misfortune?

A Taboo Subject

Although officially Jews have never made up more than five percent of the country’s total population,5 they played a highly disproportionate and probably decisive role in the infant Bolshevik regime, effectively dominating the Soviet government during its early years. Soviet historians, along with most of their colleagues in the West, for decades preferred to ignore this subject. The facts, though, cannot be denied.

With the notable exception of Lenin (Vladimir Ulyanov), most of the leading Communists who took control of Russia in 1917-20 were Jews. Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) headed the Red Army and, for a time, was chief of Soviet foreign affairs. Yakov Sverdlov (Solomon) was both the Bolshevik party’s executive secretary and — as chairman of the Central Executive Committee — head of the Soviet government. Grigori Zinoviev (Radomyslsky) headed the Communist International (Comintern), the central agency for spreading revolution in foreign countries. Other prominent Jews included press commissar Karl Radek (Sobelsohn), foreign affairs commissar Maxim Litvinov (Wallach), Lev Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Moisei Uritsky.6

Lenin himself was of mostly Russian and Kalmuck ancestry, but he was also one-quarter Jewish. His maternal grandfather, Israel (Alexander) Blank, was a Ukrainian Jew who was later baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church.7

A thorough-going internationalist, Lenin viewed ethnic or cultural loyalties with contempt. He had little regard for his own countrymen. “An intelligent Russian,” he once remarked, “is almost always a Jew or someone with Jewish blood in his veins.”8

Critical Meetings

In the Communist seizure of power in Russia, the Jewish role was probably critical.

Two weeks prior to the Bolshevik “October Revolution” of 1917, Lenin convened a top secret meeting in St. Petersburg (Petrograd) at which the key leaders of the Bolshevik party’s Central Committee made the fateful decision to seize power in a violent takeover. Of the twelve persons who took part in this decisive gathering, there were four Russians (including Lenin), one Georgian (Stalin), one Pole (Dzerzhinsky), and six Jews.9

To direct the takeover, a seven-man “Political Bureau” was chosen. It consisted of two Russians (Lenin and Bubnov), one Georgian (Stalin), and four Jews (Trotsky, Sokolnikov, Zinoviev, and Kamenev).10 Meanwhile, the Petersburg (Petrograd) Soviet — whose chairman was Trotsky — established an 18-member “Military Revolutionary Committee” to actually carry out the seizure of power. It included eight (or nine) Russians, one Ukrainian, one Pole, one Caucasian, and six Jews.11Finally, to supervise the organization of the uprising, the Bolshevik Central Committee established a five-man “Revolutionary Military Center” as the Party’s operations command. It consisted of one Russian (Bubnov), one Georgian (Stalin), one Pole (Dzerzhinsky), and two Jews (Sverdlov and Uritsky).12

Contemporary Voices of Warning

Well-informed observers, both inside and outside of Russia, took note at the time of the crucial Jewish role in Bolshevism. Winston Churchill, for one, warned in an article published in the February 8, 1920, issue of the London Illustrated Sunday Herald that Bolshevism is a “worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality.” The eminent British political leader and historian went on to write:13

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate, Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek — all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combatting Counter-Revolution [the Cheka] has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses.

Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people.

David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a January 1918 dispatch to Washington: “The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution.”14

The Netherlands’ ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, made much the same point a few months later: “Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.”15

“The Bolshevik Revolution,” declared a leading American Jewish community paper in 1920, “was largely the product of Jewish thinking, Jewish discontent, Jewish effort to reconstruct.”16

As an expression of its radically anti-nationalist character, the fledgling Soviet government issued a decree a few months after taking power that made anti-Semitism a crime in Russia. The new Communist regime thus became the first in the world to severely punish all expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment.17 Soviet officials apparently regarded such measures as indispensable. Based on careful observation during a lengthy stay in Russia, American-Jewish scholar Frank Golder reported in 1925 that “because so many of the Soviet leaders are Jews anti-Semitism is gaining [in Russia], particularly in the army [and] among the old and new intelligentsia who are being crowded for positions by the sons of Israel.”18

Historians’ Views

Summing up the situation at that time, Israeli historian Louis Rapoport writes:19

Immediately after the [Bolshevik] Revolution, many Jews were euphoric over their high representation in the new government. Lenin’s first Politburo was dominated by men of Jewish origins.

Under Lenin, Jews became involved in all aspects of the Revolution, including its dirtiest work. Despite the Communists’ vows to eradicate anti-Semitism, it spread rapidly after the Revolution — partly because of the prominence of so many Jews in the Soviet administration, as well as in the traumatic, inhuman Sovietization drives that followed. Historian Salo Baron has noted that an immensely disproportionate number of Jews joined the new Bolshevik secret police, the Cheka And many of those who fell afoul of the Cheka would be shot by Jewish investigators.

The collective leadership that emerged in Lenin’s dying days was headed by the Jew Zinoviev, a loquacious, mean-spirited, curly-haired Adonis whose vanity knew no bounds.

“Anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka,” wrote Jewish historian Leonard Schapiro, “stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with, and possibly shot by, a Jewish investigator.”20 In Ukraine, “Jews made up nearly 80 percent of the rank-and-file Cheka agents,” reports W. Bruce Lincoln, an American professor of Russian history.21 (Beginning as the Cheka, or Vecheka) the Soviet secret police was later known as the GPU, OGPU, NKVD, MVD and KGB.)

In light of all this, it should not be surprising that Yakov M. Yurovksy, the leader of the Bolshevik squad that carried out the murder of the Tsar and his family, was Jewish, as was Sverdlov, the Soviet chief who co-signed Lenin’s execution order.22

Igor Shafarevich, a Russian mathematician of world stature, has sharply criticized the Jewish role in bringing down the Romanov monarchy and establishing Communist rule in his country. Shafarevich was a leading dissident during the final decades of Soviet rule. A prominent human rights activist, he was a founding member of the Committee on the Defense of Human Rights in the USSR.

In Russophobia, a book written ten years before the collapse of Communist rule, he noted that Jews were “amazingly” numerous among the personnel of the Bolshevik secret police. The characteristic Jewishness of the Bolshevik executioners, Shafarevich went on, is most conspicuous in the execution of Nicholas II:23

This ritual action symbolized the end of centuries of Russian history, so that it can be compared only to the execution of Charles I in England or Louis XVI in France. It would seem that representatives of an insignificant ethnic minority should keep as far as possible from this painful action, which would reverberate in all history. Yet what names do we meet? The execution was personally overseen by Yakov Yurovsky who shot the Tsar; the president of the local Soviet was Beloborodov (Vaisbart); the person responsible for the general administration in Ekaterinburg was Shaya Goloshchekin. To round out the picture, on the wall of the room where the execution took place was a distich from a poem by Heine (written in German) about King Balthazar, who offended Jehovah and was killed for the offense.

In his 1920 book, British veteran journalist Robert Wilton offered a similarly harsh assessment:24

The whole record of Bolshevism in Russia is indelibly impressed with the stamp of alien invasion. The murder of the Tsar, deliberately planned by the Jew Sverdlov (who came to Russia as a paid agent of Germany) and carried out by the Jews Goloshchekin, Syromolotov, Safarov, Voikov and Yurovsky, is the act not of the Russian people, but of this hostile invader.

In the struggle for power that followed Lenin’s death in 1924, Stalin emerged victorious over his rivals, eventually succeeding in putting to death nearly every one of the most prominent early Bolsheviks leaders – including Trotsky, Zinoviev, Radek, and Kamenev. With the passage of time, and particularly after 1928, the Jewish role in the top leadership of the Soviet state and its Communist party diminished markedly.

Put To Death Without Trial

For a few months after taking power, Bolshevik leaders considered bringing “Nicholas Romanov” before a “Revolutionary Tribunal” that would publicize his “crimes against the people” before sentencing him to death. Historical precedent existed for this. Two European monarchs had lost their lives as a consequence of revolutionary upheaval: England’s Charles I was beheaded in 1649, and France’s Louis XVI was guillotined in 1793.

In these cases, the king was put to death after a lengthy public trial, during which he was allowed to present arguments in his defense. Nicholas II, though, was neither charged nor tried. He was secretly put to death – along with his family and staff — in the dead of night, in an act that resembled more a gangster-style massacre than a formal execution.

Why did Lenin and Sverdlov abandon plans for a show trial of the former Tsar? In Wilton’s view, Nicholas and his family were murdered because the Bolshevik rulers knew quite well that they lacked genuine popular support, and rightly feared that the Russian people would never approve killing the Tsar, regardless of pretexts and legalistic formalities.

For his part, Trotsky defended the massacre as a useful and even necesssary measure. He wrote:25

The decision [to kill the imperial family] was not only expedient but necessary. The severity of this punishment showed everyone that we would continue to fight on mercilessly, stopping at nothing. The execution of the Tsar’s family was needed not only in order to frighten, horrify, and instill a sense of hopelessness in the enemy but also to shake up our own ranks, to show that there was no turning back, that ahead lay either total victory or total doom. This Lenin sensed well.

Historical Context

In the years leading up to the 1917 revolution, Jews were disproportionately represented in all of Russia’s subversive leftist parties.26 Jewish hatred of the Tsarist regime had a basis in objective conditions. Of the leading European powers of the day, imperial Russia was the most institutionally conservative and anti-Jewish. For example, Jews were normally not permitted to reside outside a large area in the west of the Empire known as the “Pale of Settlement.”27

However understandable, and perhaps even defensible, Jewish hostility toward the imperial regime may have been, the remarkable Jewish role in the vastly more despotic Soviet regime is less easy to justify. In a recently published book about the Jews in Russia during the 20th century, Russian-born Jewish writer Sonya Margolina goes so far as to call the Jewish role in supporting the Bolshevik regime the “historic sin of the Jews.”28 She points, for example, to the prominent role of Jews as commandants of Soviet Gulag concentration and labor camps, and the role of Jewish Communists in the systematic destruction of Russian churches. Moreover, she goes on, “The Jews of the entire world supported Soviet power, and remained silent in the face of any criticism from the opposition.” In light of this record, Margolina offers a grim prediction:

The exaggeratedly enthusiastic participation of the Jewish Bolsheviks in the subjugation and destruction of Russia is a sin that will be avenged Soviet power will be equated with Jewish power, and the furious hatred against the Bolsheviks will become hatred against Jews.

If the past is any indication, it is unlikely that many Russians will seek the revenge that Margolina prophecies. Anyway, to blame “the Jews” for the horrors of Communism seems no more justifiable than to blame “white people” for Negro slavery, or “the Germans” for the Second World War or “the Holocaust.”

Words of Grim Portent

Nicholas and his family are only the best known of countless victims of a regime that openly proclaimed its ruthless purpose. A few weeks after the Ekaterinburg massacre, the newspaper of the fledgling Red Army declared:29

Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies by the scores of hundreds, let them be thousands, let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritskii let there be floods of blood of the bourgeoisie — more blood, as much as possible.

Grigori Zinoviev, speaking at a meeting of Communists in September 1918, effectively pronounced a death sentence on ten million human beings: “We must carry along with us 90 million out of the 100 million of Soviet Russia’s inhabitants. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them. They must be annihilated.”30

‘The Twenty Million’

As it turned out, the Soviet toll in human lives and suffering proved to be much higher than Zinoviev’s murderous rhetoric suggested. Rarely, if ever, has a regime taken the lives of so many of its own people.31

Citing newly-available Soviet KGB documents, historian Dmitri Volkogonov, head of a special Russian parliamentary commission, recently concluded that “from 1929 to 1952, 21.5 million [Soviet] people were repressed. Of these a third were shot, the rest sentenced to imprisonment, where many also died.”32

Olga Shatunovskaya, a member of the Soviet Commission of Party Control, and head of a special commission during the 1960s appointed by premier Khrushchev, has similarly concluded: “From January 1, 1935 to June 22, 1941, 19,840,000 enemies of the people were arrested. Of these, seven million were shot in prison, and a majority of the others died in camp.” These figures were also found in the papers of Politburo member Anastas Mikoyan.33

Robert Conquest, the distinguished specialist of Soviet history, recently summed up the grim record of Soviet “repression” of it own people:34

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the post-1934 death toll was well over ten million. To this should be added the victims of the 1930-1933 famine, the kulak deportations, and other anti-peasant campaigns, amounting to another ten million plus. The total is thus in the range of what the Russians now refer to as ‘The Twenty Million’.”

A few other scholars have given significantly higher estimates.35

The Tsarist Era in Retrospect

With the dramatic collapse of Soviet rule, many Russians are taking a new and more respectful look at their country’s pre-Communist history, including the era of the last Romanov emperor. While the Soviets — along with many in the West — have stereotypically portrayed this era as little more than an age of arbitrary despotism, cruel suppression and mass poverty, the reality is rather different. While it is true that the power of the Tsar was absolute, that only a small minority had any significant political voice, and that the mass of the empire’s citizens were peasants, it is worth noting that Russians during the reign of Nicholas II had freedom of press, religion, assembly and association, protection of private property, and free labor unions. Sworn enemies of the regime, such as Lenin, were treated with remarkable leniency.36

During the decades prior to the outbreak of the First World War, the Russian economy was booming. In fact, between 1890 and 1913, it was the fastest growing in the world. New rail lines were opened at an annual rate double that of the Soviet years. Between 1900 and 1913, iron production increased by 58 percent, while coal production more than doubled.37 Exported Russian grain fed all of Europe. Finally, the last decades of Tsarist Russia witnessed a magnificent flowering of cultural life.

Everything changed with the First World War, a catastrophe not only for Russia, but for the entire West.

Monarchist Sentiment

In spite of (or perhaps because of) the relentless official campaign during the entire Soviet era to stamp out every uncritical memory of the Romanovs and imperial Russia, a virtual cult of popular veneration for Nicholas II has been sweeping Russia in recent years.

People have been eagerly paying the equivalent of several hours’ wages to purchase portraits of Nicholas from street vendors in Moscow, St. Petersburg and other Russian cities. His portrait now hangs in countless Russian homes and apartments. In late 1990, all 200,000 copies of a first printing of a 30-page pamphlet on the Romanovs quickly sold out. Said one street vendor: “I personally sold four thousand copies in no time at all. It’s like a nuclear explosion. People really want to know about their Tsar and his family.” Grass roots pro-Tsarist and monarchist organizations have sprung up in many cities.

A public opinion poll conducted in 1990 found that three out of four Soviet citizens surveyed regard the killing of the Tsar and his family as a despicable crime.38 Many Russian Orthodox believers regard Nicholas as a martyr. The independent “Orthodox Church Abroad” canonized the imperial family in 1981, and the Moscow-based Russian Orthodox Church has been under popular pressure to take the same step, in spite of its long-standing reluctance to touch this official taboo. The Russian Orthodox Archbishop of Ekaterinburg announced plans in 1990 to build a grand church at the site of the killings. “The people loved Emperor Nicholas,” he said. “His memory lives with the people, not as a saint but as someone executed without court verdict, unjustly, as a sufferer for his faith and for orthodoxy.”39

On the 75th anniversary of the massacre (in July 1993), Russians recalled the life, death and legacy of their last Emperor. In Ekaterinburg, where a large white cross festooned with flowers now marks the spot where the family was killed, mourners wept as hymns were sung and prayers were said for the victims.40

Reflecting both popular sentiment and new social-political realities, the white, blue and red horizontal tricolor flag of Tsarist Russia was officially adopted in 1991, replacing the red Soviet banner. And in 1993, the imperial two-headed eagle was restored as the nation’s official emblem, replacing the Soviet hammer and sickle. Cities that had been re-named to honor Communist figures — such as Leningrad, Kuibyshev, Frunze, Kalinin, and Gorky — have re-acquired their Tsarist-era names. Ekaterinburg, which had been named Sverdlovsk by the Soviets in 1924 in honor of the Soviet-Jewish chief, in September 1991 restored its pre-Communist name, which honors Empress Catherine I.

Symbolic Meaning

In view of the millions that would be put to death by the Soviet rulers in the years to follow, the murder of the Romanov family might not seem of extraordinary importance. And yet, the event has deep symbolic meaning. In the apt words of Harvard University historian Richard Pipes:41

The manner in which the massacre was prepared and carried out, at first denied and then justified, has something uniquely odious about it, something that radically distinguishes it from previous acts of regicide and brands it as a prelude to twentieth-century mass murder.

Another historian, Ivor Benson, characterized the killing of the Romanov family as symbolic of the tragic fate of Russia and, indeed, of the entire West, in this century of unprecedented agony and conflict.

The murder of the Tsar and his family is all the more deplorable because, whatever his failings as a monarch, Nicholas II was, by all accounts, a personally decent, generous, humane and honorable man.

The Massacre’s Place in History

The mass slaughter and chaos of the First World War, and the revolutionary upheavals that swept Europe in 1917-1918, brought an end not only to the ancient Romanov dynasty in Russia, but to an entire continental social order. Swept away as well was the Hohenzollern dynasty in Germany, with its stable constitutional monarchy, and the ancient Habsburg dynasty of Austria-Hungary with its multinational central European empire. Europe’s leading states shared not only the same Christian and Western cultural foundations, but most of the continent’s reigning monarchs were related by blood. England’s King George was, through his mother, a first cousin of Tsar Nicholas, and, through his father, a first cousin of Empress Alexandra. Germany’s Kaiser Wilhelm was a first cousin of the German-born Alexandra, and a distant cousin of Nicholas.

More than was the case with the monarchies of western Europe, Russia’s Tsar personally symbolized his land and nation. Thus, the murder of the last emperor of a dynasty that had ruled Russia for three centuries not only symbolically presaged the Communist mass slaughter that would claim so many Russian lives in the decades that followed, but was symbolic of the Communist effort to kill the soul and spirit of Russia itself.
Notes

  1. Edvard Radzinksy, The Last Tsar (New York: Doubleday, 1992), pp. 327, 344-346.; Bill Keller, “Cult of the Last Czar,” The New York Times, Nov. 21, 1990.
  2. From an April 1935 entry in “Trotsky’s Diary in Exile.” Quoted in: Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution (New York: Knopf, 1990), pp. 770, 787.; Robert K. Massie, Nicholas and Alexandra (New York: 1976), pp. 496-497.; E. Radzinksy, The Last Tsar (New York: Doubleday, 1992), pp. 325-326.; Ronald W. Clark, Lenin (New York: 1988), pp. 349-350.
  3. On Wilton and his career in Russia, see: Phillip Knightley, The First Casualty (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1976), pp. 141-142, 144-146, 151-152, 159, 162, 169, and, Anthony Summers and Tom Mangold, The File on the Tsar(New York: Harper and Row, 1976), pp. 102-104, 176.
  4. AP dispatch from Moscow, Toronto Star, Sept. 26, 1991, p. A2.; Similarly, a 1992 survey found that one-fourth of people in the republics of Belarus (White Russia) and Uzbekistan favored deporting all Jews to a special Jewish region in Russian Siberia. “Survey Finds Anti-Semitism on Rise in Ex-Soviet Lands,” Los Angeles Times, June 12, 1992, p. A4.
  5. At the turn of the century, Jews made up 4.2 percent of the population of the Russian Empire. Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution (New York: 1990), p. 55 (fn.).
    By comparison, in the United States today, Jews make up less than three percent of the total population (according to the most authoritative estimates).
  6. See individual entries in: H. Shukman, ed., The Blackwell Encyclopedia of the Russian Revolution (Oxford: 1988), and in: G. Wigoder, ed., Dictionary of Jewish Biography (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991).
    The prominent Jewish role in Russia’s pre-1914 revolutionary underground, and in the early Soviet regime, is likewise confirmed in: Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, Roots of Radicalism (New York: Oxford, 1982), pp. 92-94.
    In 1918, the Bolshevik Party’s Central Committee had 15 members. German scholar Herman Fehst — citing published Soviet records — reported in his useful 1934 study that of six of these 15 were Jews. Herman Fehst, Bolschewismus und Judentum: Das jüdische Element in der Führerschaft des Bolschewismus (Berlin: 1934), pp. 68-72.; Robert Wilton, though, reported that in 1918 the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party had twelve members, of whom nine were of Jewish origin and three were of Russian ancestry. R. Wilton, The Last Days of the Romanovs (IHR, 1993), p. 185.
  7. After years of official suppression, this fact was acknowledged in 1991 in the Moscow weekly Ogonyok. See: Jewish Chronicle (London), July 16, 1991.; See also: Letter by L. Horwitz in The New York Times, Aug. 5, 1992, which cites information from the Russian journal “Native Land Archives.”; “Lenin’s Lineage?”‘Jewish,’ Claims Moscow News,” Forward (New York City), Feb. 28, 1992, pp. 1, 3.; M. Checinski, Jerusalem Post (weekly international edition), Jan. 26, 1991, p. 9.
  8. Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution (New York: Knopf, 1990), p. 352.
  9. Harrison E. Salisbury, Black Night, White Snow: Russia’s Revolutions, 1905-1917 (Doubleday, 1978), p. 475.; William H. Chamberlin, The Russian Revolution (Princeton Univ. Press, 1987), vol. 1, pp. 291-292.; Herman Fehst, Bolschewismus und Judentum: Das jüdische Element in der Führerschaft des Bolschewismus (Berlin: 1934), pp. 42-43.; P. N. Pospelov, ed., Vladimir Ilyich Lenin: A Biography (Moscow: Progress, 1966), pp. 318-319.
    This meeting was held on October 10 (old style, Julian calendar), and on October 23 (new style). The six Jews who took part were: Uritsky, Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Sverdlov and Soklonikov.
    The Bolsheviks seized power in Petersburg on October 25 (old style) — hence the reference to the “Great October Revolution” — which is November 7 (new style).
  10. William H. Chamberlin, The Russian Revolution (1987), vol. 1, p. 292.; H. E. Salisbury, Black Night, White Snow: Russia’s Revolutions, 1905-1917 (1978), p. 475.
  11. W. H. Chamberlin, The Russian Revolution, vol. 1, pp. 274, 299, 302, 306.; Alan Moorehead, The Russian Revolution (New York: 1965), pp. 235, 238, 242, 243, 245.; H. Fehst, Bolschewismus und Judentum (Berlin: 1934), pp. 44, 45.
  12. H. E. Salisbury, Black Night, White Snow: Russia’s Revolutions, 1905-1917 (1978), p. 479-480.; Dmitri Volkogonov, Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991), pp. 27-28, 32.; P. N. Pospelov, ed., Vladimir Ilyich Lenin: A Biography (Moscow: Progress, 1966), pp. 319-320.
  13. “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A struggle for the soul of the Jewish people,” Illustrated Sunday Herald (London), February 8, 1920. Facsimile reprint in: William Grimstad, The Six Million Reconsidered (1979), p. 124. (At the time this essay was published, Churchill was serving as minister of war and air.)
  14. David R. Francis, Russia from the American Embassy (New York: 1921), p. 214.
  15. Foreign Relations of the United States — 1918 — Russia, Vol. 1 (Washington, DC: 1931), pp. 678-679.
  16. American Hebrew (New York), Sept. 1920. Quoted in: Nathan Glazer and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Beyond the Melting Pot (Cambridge, Mass.: 1963), p. 268.
  17. C. Jacobson, “Jews in the USSR” in: American Review on the Soviet Union, August 1945, p. 52.; Avtandil Rukhadze, Jews in the USSR: Figures, Facts, Comment (Moscow: Novosti, 1978), pp. 10-11.
  18. T. Emmons and B. M. Patenaude, eds., War, Revolution and Peace in Russia: The Passages of Frank Golder, 1913-1927 (Stanford: Hoover Institution, 1992), pp. 320, 139, 317.
  19. Louis Rapoport, Stalin’s War Against the Jews (New York: Free Press, 1990), pp. 30, 31, 37. See also pp. 43, 44, 45, 49, 50.
  20. Quoted in: Salo Baron, The Russian Jews Under Tsars and Soviets (New York: 1976), pp. 170, 392 (n. 4).
  21. The Atlantic, Sept. 1991, p. 14.;
    In 1919, three-quarters of the Cheka staff in Kiev were Jews, who were careful to spare fellow Jews. By order, the Cheka took few Jewish hostages. R. Pipes, The Russian Revolution (1990), p. 824.; Israeli historian Louis Rapoport also confirms the dominant role played by Jews in the Soviet secret police throughout the 1920s and 1930s. L. Rapoport, Stalin’s War Against the Jews (New York: 1990), pp. 30-31, 43-45, 49-50.
  22. E. Radzinsky, The Last Tsar (1992), pp. 244, 303-304.; Bill Keller, “Cult of the Last Czar,” The New York Times, Nov. 21, 1990.; See also: W. H. Chamberlin, The Russian Revolution, vol. 2, p. 90.
  23. Quoted in: The New Republic, Feb. 5, 1990, pp. 30 ff.; Because of the alleged anti-Semitism of Russophobia, in July 1992 Shafarevich was asked by the National Academy of Sciences (Washington, DC) to resign as an associate member of that prestigious body.
  24. R. Wilton, The Last Days of the Romanovs (1993), p. 148.
  25. Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution (1990), p. 787.; Robert K. Massie, Nicholas and Alexandra (New York: 1976), pp. 496-497.
  26. An article in a 1907 issue of the respected American journal National Geographic reported on the revolutionary situation brewing in Russia in the years before the First World War: ” The revolutionary leaders nearly all belong to the Jewish race, and the most effective revolutionary agency is the Jewish Bund ” W. E. Curtis, “The Revolution in Russia,” The National Geographic Magazine, May 1907, pp. 313-314.
    Piotr Stolypin, probably imperial Russia’s greatest statesman, was murdered in 1911 by a Jewish assassin. In 1907, Jews made up about ten percent of Bolshevik party membership. In the Menshevik party, another faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, the Jewish proportion was twice as high. R. Pipes, The Russian Revolution (1990), p. 365.; See also: R. Wilton, The Last Days of the Romanovs (1993), pp. 185-186.
  27. Martin Gilbert, Atlas of Jewish History (1977), pp. 71, 74.; In spite of the restrictive “Pale” policy, in 1897 about 315,000 Jews were living outside the Pale, most of them illegally. In 1900 more than 20,000 were living in the capital of St. Petersburg, and another 9,000 in Moscow.
  28. Sonja Margolina, Das Ende der Lügen: Russland und die Juden im 20. Jahrhundert (Berlin: 1992). Quoted in: “Ein ganz heisses Eisen angefasst,” Deutsche National-Zeitung (Munich), July 21, 1992, p. 12.
  29. Krasnaia Gazetta (“Red Gazette”), September 1, 1918. Quoted in: Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution (1990), pp. 820, 912 (n. 88).
  30. Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution (New York: 1990), p. 820.
  31. Contrary to what a number of western historians have for years suggested, Soviet terror and the Gulag camp system did not begin with Stalin. At the end of 1920, Soviet Russia already had 84 concentration camps with approximately 50,000 prisoners. By October 1923 the number had increased to 315 camps with 70,000 inmates. R. Pipes, The Russian Revolution (1990), p. 836.
  32. Cited by historian Robert Conquest in a review/ article in The New York Review of Books, Sept. 23, 1993, p. 27.
  33. The New York Review of Books, Sept. 23, 1993, p. 27.
  34. Review/article by Robert Conquest in The New York Review of Books, Sept. 23, 1993, p. 27.; In the “Great Terror” years of 1937-1938 alone, Conquest has calculated, approximately one million were shot by the Soviet secret police, and another two million perished in Soviet camps. R. Conquest, The Great Terror (New York: Oxford, 1990), pp. 485-486.;
    Conquest has estimated that 13.5 to 14 million people perished in the collectivization (“dekulakization”) campaign and forced famine of 1929-1933. R. Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow (New York: Oxford, 1986), pp. 301-307.
  35. Russian professor Igor Bestuzhev-Lada, writing in a 1988 issue of the Moscow weekly Nedelya, suggested that during the Stalin era alone (1935-1953), as many as 50 million people were killed, condemned to camps from which they never emerged, or lost their lives as a direct result of the brutal “dekulakization” campaign against the peasantry. “Soviets admit Stalin killed 50 million,” The Sunday Times, London, April 17, 1988.;
    R. J. Rummel, a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, has recently calculated that 61.9 million people were systematically killed by the Soviet Communist regime from 1917 to 1987. R. J. Rummel, Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917 (Transaction, 1990).
  36. Because of his revolutionary activities, Lenin was sentenced in 1897 to three years exile in Siberia. During this period of “punishment,” he got married, wrote some 30 works, made extensive use of a well-stocked local library, subscribed to numerous foreign periodicals, kept up a voluminous correspondence with supporters across Europe, and enjoyed numerous sport hunting and ice skating excursions, while all the time receiving a state stipend. See: Ronald W. Clark, Lenin (New York: 1988), pp. 42-57.; P. N. Pospelov, ed., Vladimir Ilyich Lenin: A Biography(Moscow: Progress, 1966), pp. 55-75.
  37. R. Pipes, The Russian Revolution (1990), pp. 187-188.;
  38. The Nation, June 24, 1991, p. 838.
  39. Bill Keller, “Cult of the Last Czar,” The New York Times, Nov. 21, 1990.
  40. “Nostalgic for Nicholas, Russians Honor Their Last Czar,” Los Angeles Times, July 18, 1993.; “Ceremony marks Russian czar’s death,” Orange County Register, July 17, 1993.
  41. R. Pipes, The Russian Revolution (1990), p. 787.

A Money Changer’s Birthday

signingfed

An oil painting on the signing of the Federal Reserve Act. Woodrow Wilson surrounded by the scoundrels that created the “Beast” in 1913

By Kenny

A true day that will live in infamy.

Jacob H. Schiff, Paul Warburg and other bankers influenced Congress to pass the Federal Reserve Act (December 23, 1913). The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was created in October 1913 to minimize predictable criticism. The bankers have manufactured panics, withdrawn credit and in the process have confiscated the citizen’s resources and personal property through phony bailouts, sanctioned by compromised politicians. These actions are calculated and designed to ultimately decimate the economy. The same bankers who promoted the Federal Reserve funded Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Molotov and Kirov (assumed names) in their godless, violent take-over of Russia. The bankers began making major profits when Bernard Baruch, Louis Brandeis and others manipulated their puppet Woodrow Wilson into entering World War I on borrowed money after the provoked attack on theLusitania.

 photo wilsonw_zps9jxvrbu7.jpg

In 1912, Alfred Owen Crozier in his book “US Money vs. Corporate Currency “Aldrich Plan” gave us one of the last warnings before the age of the Federal Reserve began.

Much of what he had to say still holds true today.

Selected excerpts:

The Wall Street and bank combine are now dickering for support with the management of both parties. It is said to be offering to finance the campaign of both sides if friendly candidates are nominated, and a real investigation of the “money trust” is prevented. It is willing to spend millions, because the play is for future billions and the political control of the republic.

Remember, those who have power to make money scarce or plenty have power over the business of every man, the happiness of every home, to make or break, to confer or destroy general prosperity. It gives them a hunger-hold on every man, woman and child. Shall this autocratic power be granted without reservation?

In all great national and international monetary and financial affairs the Rothschilds always play the ruling hand. They possess masterful genius and financial intellect. But it is the sheer weight of liquid or ready wealth held in such large quantity that all the nations of the world must go to the Rothschilds for financial assistance in time of peace, or before they can go to war whatever the provocation or emergency, that gives them supreme power in the world’s affairs. No war can be waged without money, and no large nation can get adequate money to finance a war from any one but the Rothschilds. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that whenever any war is begun the Rothschilds have consented thereto. They may finance both sides, because it is immaterial whether the interest profits they crave come from one or both countries. In fact the war furnishes an excuse recognized as legitimate for charging both nations higher interest rates not only on the new debts but on old obligations maturing and being refunded.

It is known, of course, that after the nations have fought for a while and murdered tens of thousands and wounded and permanently maimed hundreds of thousands of human beings on both sides, pressure exerted by other governments instigated by the financiers will force a quick com- promise, leaving the nations both in approximately the same condition as before except that each has vastly in- creased its debt and the annual interest burden on its people while the financiers have gotten rid of accumulated capital in exchange for high interest gold bonds that cannot be paid for perhaps thirty or fifty years. This surely is the result if not the deliberate plan.

Frequent rumors of war or warlike preparations each year have been ping-ponged back and forth between the countries in the public press. These have tended to excite popular fear, hate and patriotism and cause the people to consent and even to urge the governments to swell vastly the mortgage burden upon the peoples for funds to increase and equip still larger standing armies and to build greater and more expensive navies. By withdrawing millions of men. into armies and idleness it reduces production and the earning power of the people, increases the burden on those employed, and makes it more certain that existing bonds will not be paid but will be refunded and increased. Why not have bigger armies, navies, forts, guns, idleness of millions of soldiers, rumors of war or even occasional war, when such things are so fruitful, so necessary to cause the issuance of more bonds to provide profitable investment.

The growing, selfish and insolent Money Power, incorporated and unincorporated, violates every law regulating and restraining its conduct, treats the people and their government with contempt, and then invokes the protection of the laws and the courts to shield the stolen “vested rights*’ and privileges against violence that their own lawless course tends to incite.

The omnipotent and deadly octopus Congress is urged to legally set loose and install as the master of American banks, business, finance, industry, commerce and politics. Its poisonous and itching tentacles will gradually reach out and bind themselves about every home, farm, industry, bank, the public treasury, courts. Congress and the White House, gathering to itself supreme political power, sucking the wealth and substance of the people into Wall Street and dumping it into the Stock Exchange or the eager laps of the handful of men who will seek by moral if not by legal treason to rob the people of their God-given liberty, destroy the republic as a living reality and in its place erect an empire disguised as a democracy with incorporated wealth crowned as the ruling sovereign and all the people its subjects.

The History of the “Money Changers”

%d bloggers like this: