Interference by Unnamed “Foreign Powers” in Canada’s Elections? The Invasion of “America’s Backyard”

Global Research, October 19, 2019

This article addresses the alleged interference of unnamed “foreign powers” in Canada’s elections as well as the historical process of US interference, including an outright secret US Military Invasion of Canada formulated in the 1930s.

US-Canada relations is not an issue for debate in the 2019 Canada elections campaign.


In 1934, War Plan Red was amended to authorize the immediate first use of poison gas against Canadians and to use strategic bombing to destroy Halifax if it could not be captured.  …  

“In August 1935, the US held its largest peacetime military manoeuvres in history, with 36,000 troops converging at the Canadian border south of Ottawa, and another 15,000 held in reserve in Pennsylvania. (February 11-13, 1935, hearings of the Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives, on Air Defense Bases (H.R. 6621 and H.R. 4130. This testimony was to have been secret but was published by mistake. See the New York Times, May 1, 1935, p. 1.

Scroll down for details


Are the Russians coming to disrupt our elections scheduled for October 21st? Back in July, Canada’s Minister of Democratic Institutions Karina Gould  intimated that Canada’s 2019 elections could be the target of interference by foreign powers.

While Ottawa did not explicitly point its finger at the Kremlin, the official statement and media reports intimated that it could be Russia (and possibly China) because Vladimir Putin had allegedly interfered in favor of Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential elections.  And apparently Moscow had also intervened in the French elections.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the RCMP were said to be “monitoring foreign threat activity in Canada and around the world”.

“At this time, we haven’t seen direct threats to the 2019 general election,” the official said.

CSIS continues to observe hostile foreign actors “taking steps to position themselves to clandestinely influence, promote or discredit certain messages, candidates or groups during the campaign,” the official added. (CBC, July 09, 2019)

Three months prior to the October 2019 Elections,  the Trudeau government issued a “Cabinet Directive on the Critical Election Incident Public Protocol” (CEIPP) to “protect Canada’s Democratic Institutions”  against unnamed foreign powers

The Cabinet Directive on the Critical Election Incident Public Protocol sets out the ministers’ expectations with respect to the general directions and the principles to guide the process for informing the public during the writ period of an incident that threatens Canada’s ability to have a free and fair election. Consult the document here

In the event of a threat by a foreign power to disrupt the election, a top level national security panel “will inform the prime minister”,  (see Global News, July 9, 2019)

Russia Dirty Tricks? 

With some exceptions, Canada’s media has remained silent on the matter. According to a recent “authoritative”  CTV  report  the Kremlin is once again up to “Dirty Tricks”, intent upon manipulating Canada’s elections. Which party are they going to support?

In an attempt to stop foreign interference during the 2019 Canadian federal election, Canada’s top security agencies are monitoring the web 24/7. Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), works hand in hand with a largely secret organization, Communication Security Establishment (CSE), …

….  Former Russian troll Vitaly Bespalov thinks the Russians have already come up with new ways to meddle with our political views. After being implicated for interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, they have to be more creative as Canadians get ready to go to the polls.

“So now I think they are going to invent some other schemes of influencing the audience. It will be done in a different way. No need to look for trolls on Facebook, they will find a new way.”


Intervention of an Unnamed Foreign Power: The United States of America

There is ample of evidence of foreign interference by an “unnamed foreign power”, which has barely been mentioned in the course of the election campaign.

In Canada’s history, as well as during the mandate of the Justin Trudeau’s government, the United States of America (rather than “unnamed foreign powers”) has intervened in what is euphemistically called  “America’s Backyard”, i.e. a nation state inside America’s sphere of influence.

And I am not referring to former president Obama’s recent statement in support for Justin Trudeau.



Washington is on record of having interfered in elections  in 45 countries according to political scientist Dov H. Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.  

While Canada is not mentioned in Don H Levin’s study, the history of US interference in Canada’s internal affairs goes far beyond the process of meddling in Canadian elections.

Canadian farmers are acutely aware of how the Trump administration in 2017 imposed without real negotiation, a complete overhaul of trade and investment relations leading to the formation of the so-call United States, Mexico, Canada USMCA trade agreement which is intended to replace NAFTA.

Politicians in the Trudeau government were coopted. The economic impacts of this agreement on Canada’s economy are potentially devastating.

But there is much more in our history which has a direct bearing on national sovereignty and democracy in Canada. While US interventionism is part of our history, US-Canada relations are not an issue for debate in the election campaign.

Flashback to 1930…

America’s Plan to Invade Canada

While the US plan to Annex Canada in 1866 (a de facto act of war formulated as a Bill by the US Congress) is on record, most Canadians are unaware that the US in the late 1920s had formulated a detailed plan to invade Canada, entitled “Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan — Red”. The plan was approved by the US War Department under the presidency of Herbert Hoover in 1930.

It was updated in 1934 and 1935 during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It was withdrawn in 1939 following the outbreak of the Second World War. (The full text of the 1935 Invasion Plan is in Annex)

This insidious military agenda which was intent on ultimately annexing Canada to the US as well as disabling the British Empire, involved the planned bombings of four major cities: Vancouver, Montreal, Quebec City and Halifax.

And guess who was assigned to oversee these bombings: General Douglas MacArthur (image left, 1940s), who was US Army chief of staff (1930-37). MacArthur’s mandate coincided with  the release of the 1930 and 1935 invasion plan of Canada. As we recall MacArthur was subsequently put in charge of leading the bombing raids against Japan during World War II. (See Floyd Rudman)

The 1935 plan to invade Canada consisted of a 94-page document “with the word SECRET stamped on the cover.” It had been formulated over a period of over five years (See full text in Annex).

In February 1935, the [US] War Department arranged a Congressional appropriation of $57 million dollars to build three border air bases for the purposes of pre-emptive surprise attacks on Canadian air fields. The base in the Great Lakes region was to be camouflaged as a civilian airport and was to “be capable of dominating the industrial heart of Canada, the Ontario Peninsula” (from p. 61 of the February 11-13, 1935, hearings of the Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives, on Air Defense Bases (H.R. 6621 and H.R. 4130). This testimony was to have been secret but was published by mistake. See the New York Times, May 1, 1935, p. 1.

In August 1935, the US held its largest peacetime military manoeuvres in history, with 36,000 troops converging at the Canadian border south of Ottawa, and another 15,000 held in reserve in Pennsylvania. The war game scenario was a US motorized invasion of Canada, with the defending forces initially repulsing the invading Blue forces, but eventually to lose “outnumbered and outgunned” when Blue reinforcements arrive. This according to the Army’s pamphlet “Souvenir of of the First Army Maneuvers: The Greatest Peace Time Event in US History” (p.2). ( Professor F.W. Rudmin Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Comments on “War Plan Red”,

One of the updates to the 1930 invasion plan was the use of chemical weapons against civilians:

In 1934, War Plan Red was amended to authorize the immediate first use of poison gas against Canadians and to use strategic bombing to destroy Halifax if it could not be captured.” (Ibid)

It is worth noting that in the course of World War II,  a decision was taken by the War Department to retain the invasion plan on the books. War Plan Red was declassified in 1974.

Raiding the Icebox. How the US Media Trivializes History

The Washington Post, which casually dismissed the historical significance of “Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan — Red”, nonetheless acknowledged the aggressive nature of the proposed military endeavor:

“A bold plan, a bodacious plan, a step-by-step plan to invade, seize and annex our neighbor to the north. …First, we send a joint Army-Navy overseas force to capture the port city of Halifax, cutting the Canadians off from their British allies.

Then we seize Canadian power plants near Niagara Falls, so they freeze in the dark.

Then the U.S. Army invades on three fronts — marching from Vermont to take Montreal and Quebec, charging out of North Dakota to grab the railroad center at Winnipeg, and storming out of the Midwest to capture the strategic nickel mines of Ontario.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy seizes the Great Lakes and blockades Canada’s Atlantic and Pacific ports.  … “(Raiding the Icebox; Behind Its Warm Front, the United States Made Cold Calculations to Subdue Canada, by Peter Carlson, Washington Post, 30 December 2005, emphasis added)

The original documents pertaining to the invasion of Canada including “War Plan Red” and “Defence Scheme No. 1.” are in the archives of the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pa.  (url link no longer functional)

The  plan is detailed. It involves both military as well an intelligence components. According to historian John Major “War, Plan Red” also consisted in “a series of possible pre-emptive American campaigns to invade Canada in several areas and occupy key ports and railways before British troops could provide reinforcement to the Canadians…”

Concluding Remarks Concerning US Interference

While the 1935 invasion of Canada Plan was never carried out, historically “the military threat of an invasion plan served to oblige Canada to ultimately surrender to US political and economic pressures.”

In recent history, this hegemonic objective was achieved in 2002 with the creation of US Northern Command (NorthCom).

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced unilaterally that US Northern Command would have jurisdiction over the entire North American region. US Northern Command’s jurisdiction as outlined by the US DoD includes, in addition to the continental US, all of Canada, Mexico, as well as portions of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the Mexican, US and Canadian coastlines as well as the Canadian Arctic.

Rumsfeld is said to have boasted that:

“NORTHCOM – with all of North America as its geographic command – ‘is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.’”

NorthCom’s stated mandate is to “provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need.”(Canada-US Relations – Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR),


The complete text of the 1935 Invasion of Canada can be consulted here  (Introduction by Prof Floyd Rudmin, Queens University) See below
See also Michel Chossudovsky, America’s Plan to Annex and Invade Canada
 and America’s Plan to Invade Canada 
US Invasion of Canada Plan 
Full-text reproduction of the 1935 plan for a US invasion of Canada prepared at the US Army War College, G-2 intelligence division, and submitted on December 18, 1935.
The following is a full-text reproduction of the 1935 plan for a US invasion of Canada prepared at the US Army War College, G-2 intelligence division, and submitted on December 18, 1935. This is the most recent declassified invasion plan available from the US archival sources. Centered pagination is that of the original document.
The spelling and punctuation of the original document are reproduced as in the original document, even when in error by present-day norms. This document was first identified by Richard Preston in his 1977 book, “The Defence of the Undefended Border: Planning for War in North America 1867-1939” (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.)
Preston’s reference citation (p. 277) identified this to be archived at the US Military History Collection, Carlisle Barracks, Pa., coded AWC 2-1936-8, G2, no. 19A. It was located by the US National Archives and supplied on microfilm.
                       SUPPLEMENT NO. 3


                 REPORT OF COMMITTEE NO. 8



                        Prepared by:

                     SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 3

               Major Charles H. Jones, Infantry, Chairman.
               Lt. Col. H.W. Crawford, Engineers.

  I. Papers Accompanying.
  1. Bibliography.                      (Omitted, filed in Rec.Sec.)
  2. List of Slides.                                "
  3. Appendices (1 and 2).                          "
  4. Annexes. (Incl. A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,K, and L)      "

  II. The Study Presented.
       Determine under the geographical factor, the critical areas in
 Crimson (Canada) and the best approaches thereto for Blue.  A critical
 area is assumed to be any area of such strategic importance to either
 belligerent that control thereof may have a material bearing on the out-
 come of the war.

 III. Facts bearing on the study.
   1. General Considerations:
       An area in Crimson territory may be of strategic importance from
 the viewpoint of tactical, economic, or political considerations.  In the
 final analysis, however, critical areas must be largely determined in the
 light of Red's probable line of action and Crimson's contribution to that
   2. Geographical Features of Canada.
   a. Location and extent.  The location and extent of the Dominion of
 Canada is shown on the Map herewith (see Exhibit A).  It comprises the
 entire northern half of the the North American continent, excepting only
 Alaska and the coast of Labrador, a dependency of the colony of New-
       The principal political subdivisions are those located along the
 border of the United States.  These from east to west are:
       (1) The Maritime Provinces:
            Prince Edward Island.
            Nova Scotia.
            New Brunswick.
       (2) Quebec.
       (3) Ontario.
       (4) The Prairie Provinces:


       (5) British Columbia.
       Newfoundland, while not a part of the Dominion of Canada, would
 undoubtedly collaborate in any Crimson effort.
   b. Topography. (Slide 14852)
      The great area in eastern Canada underlain by rocks of Precambrian
 age is known as the Canadian Shield.  Its northern boundary crosses the
 Arctic archipelago; the eastern boundary lies beyond Baffin Island and
 Labrador, and reaches the depressed area occupied by the St. Lawrence, a
 short spur crossing this valley east of Lake Ontario to join the Adirondack
 Mountains of New York.  The southern boundary runs from this spur west to
 Georgian Bay thence along the north shore of Lake Huron and Lake Superior,
 thence northwest from the Lake of the Woods to the western end of Lake
 Athabaska.  Its average elevation does not exceed 1500 feet.  The greatest
 known elevations are in the eastern part of Baffin Island and along the
 coast of northern Labrador.  Peaks of the Torngat Mountains of Labrador
 have elevations of between 4000 and 5000 feet.  The coast is one of the
 boldest and most rugged in the world, with many vertical cliffs rising
 1000 to 2000 feet high.  Occasional exceptions occur in which there are
 reliefs of several hundred feet, as in the hills along the north shore of
 Lake Huron and Lake Superior.  The area is dotted with lakes, large and
 small, and of irregular outline.  A lowland of considerable extent
 stretches for some distance into Ontario and Manitoba from Hudson Bay.
      Extending south and west form the Canadian Shield, between the Ap-
 palachian Mountains on the east and the Cordilleras on the west, lies the
 Great North American plain.  The northeastern portion of this plain called
 the St. Lawrence lowlands occupies southern Ontario, south of a line ex-
 tending from Georgian Bay to the east end of Lake Ontario; eastern Ontario
 lying between the Ottawa and St. Lawrence rivers, and that part of Quebec
 lying adjacent to the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec.
      The plain west of the Canadian Shield, known as the Interior Plains,
 stretches northward to the Arctic Ocean between a line approximately join-
 ing Lake Winnipeg and Lake Athabasca, Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake
 on the east, and the foothills of the Rocky Mountains on the west.
      That part of the St. Lawrence Lowlands lying in the eastern angle of
 Ontario, and in Quebec south of Montreal and extending down the St. Law-
 rence is comparatively flat and lies less than 500 feet above sea level.
 On the lower St. Lawrence it is greatly narrowed by the near approach of
 the Appalachian system to the Canadian Shield.  The part lying adjacent to
 Lakes Ontario, Erie and Huron is of less even surface, has its greatest
 elevation of over 1700 feet south of Georgian Bay and slopes gently to
 the Great Lakes.
      The Interior Plains region is in general rolling country with broad
 undulations and a slope eastward and northward of a few feet per mile,
 descending from an elevation of 3000 to 5000 feet near the mountains on the
 west to less than 1000 feet at the eastern border.  The rolling character
 of the area is relieved by several flat topped hills, by flat areas that
 formed the beds of extensive lakes, and by deep river valleys.
      The Appalachain and Arcadian regions occupy practically all that part
 of Canada lying east of the St. Lawrence, with the exception of the lowlands
 west of a line joining Quebec City and Lake Champlain.  The Applachain
 region is a continuation into Quebec of three chains of the Applachain
 system of mountains.  The most westerly of these ranges, the Green Mountains
 of Vermont, stretches northeast into the Gaspe peninsula, where it forms
 flat topped hills some 3000 feet high.  The Acadian region, which includes


 New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island is an alternation of
 upland with hills and ridges rising 2500 feet and higher.  Adjacent to the
 Bay of Fundy is a series of ridges rising in places to 1200 feet.  Between
 these two New Brunswick uplands, which converge toward the southwest is a
 lowland forming the whole eastern part of the province.  This lowland ex-
 tends east to include Prince Edward Island, the western fringe of Cape
 Breton Island and the mainland of Nova Scotia north of the Cobequid moun-
 tains, which have an elevation of 800 to 1000 feet.  South of the Cobequid
 Mountains lies a long narrow lowland stretching from Chedabucto Bay to
 Minas Basin, and along the Cornwallis Annapolis valley between North and
 South Mountains.  South of this lowland is a highland sloping to the Atlantic
 Coast.  The northern part of Cape Breton Island is a tableland 1200 feet
 high with its central part rising to an elevation of over 1700 feet.
      The Cordelleran region, a mountainous area bordering the Pacific
 extends from the United States through Canada into Alaska and embraces
 nearly all of British Columbia and Yukon and the western edge of Alberta
 and the Northwest Territories.  The eastern part of the Cordillera is occu-
 pied by the Rocky Mountains, with peaks rising to 10,000 feet and 12,000
 feet.  They extend northwest and fall away towards the Liard River.  The
 western part of the Cordillera is occupied by the Coast Range and the
 mountains of Vancouver and Queen Charlotte Islands.  The Coast Range rises
 to heights of 7000 to 9000 feet. Between the Rocky Mountains and the Coast
 Range lies a vast plateau 3000 to 4000 feet high and cut by deep river
   3. Population.
      According to the census of 1931, the total population on June 1, 1931
 was 10,376,786, of whom 5,374,541 were males.  The inhabited areas of the
 Dominion are essentially confined to a narrow strip along the United States
 boundary, generally south of the 56th parallel of latitude west of the Lake
 Winnipeg, and south of the 49th parallel of latitude east of Lake Superior.
 Approximately 10% of the total population are found in the Maritime provinces,
 61%  in Quebec and Ontario, 23% in the Prairie Provinces and 6% in British
      Of the present population, 51.86% are of British descent, 28.22%
 French, and the remainder of widely scattered nativity.
   4. Climate.
      The climate of southern Canada is comparable to that of the northern
 tier of the states of the United States.  The west coast of British Columbia
 tempered by the Pacific Ocean is mild and humid.  The prairie provinces
 generally experience extreme cold weather from November to March, with heavy
 snow fall.  The climate of southern Ontario, the St. Lawrence Valley and the
 Maritime Provinces is much milder that that of the prairie provinces, but
 freezing temperatures are general between the end of November and the first
 of April, and the ground is usually covered with between one and three
 feet of snow.  Any extensive military operations in Canada between November
 1st and April 15th would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
   5. Communications.
   a. Railways.
      There are only two railway systems in Canada, both crossing Canada
 east and west from the Atlantic to the Pacific.  These lines generally
 parallel the United States border, in some instances crossing through the
 United States.


      (1) The Canadian national Railways system (See inclosure B) belonging
 to and operated by the government, has eastern terminals at Halifax, N.S.,
 Portland, Maine (Grand Trunk), and through the Central Vermont, at Boston,
 New London and New York.  Western terminals are Vancouver and Prince Rupert
 B.C.  An extension from Cochrane, Ontario, to Moosonee, Ontario on James
 Bay, was completed by the Province of Ontario in July 1932, to connect with
 water routes to Churchill, Hudson Bay and with the northern route to Europe.
      (2) The Canadian Pacific system (see inclosure C) has its eastern
 terminus at Saint John, N.B. and it western terminus at Vancouver, B.C.
 As indicated by the systems maps, there are numerous branch lines serving
 the industrial and farming areas of the Dominion, and connecting lines ty-
 ing in with various railroads of the United States.
      From a military viewpoint, these railroads provide excellent trans-
 portation facilities for Blue, if invasion of Crimson is decided upon, and
 being located in close proximity to the border are, from the Crimson view-
 point, very liable to interruption.  This is particularly true at Winnipeg
 some 60 miles north of Blues border, through which both transcontinental
 systems now pass.  This fact probably encouraged Canada to construct the
 railroad from The Pass, Manitoba and develop the port at Churchill.
      Complete details concerning all railroads of Canada are contained in
 Appendix No. 1.
   b. Highways.
      In recent years Canada has greatly increased and improved her road con-
 struction and while there are enormous stretches of country, particularly
 in the northern portion of the Dominion, with few or no roads, the southern
 portion is well served with improved roads.  A number of transcontinental
 motor roads are under construction or projected, the most important being
 the "Kings International Highway" from Montreal to Vancouver, via Ottawa,
 North Bay, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, Winnipeg, MacLeod, Crow's Nest Pass,
 Fernia and Cranbrook.  Another highway is being constructed from
 Calgary to Vancouver.
      The principal roads in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime Provinces
 are shown on Inclosure D, herewith.  Roads in the Prairie Provinces and
 British Columbia are shown on inclosure E.
      The majority of improved roads are classified as gravel; macadam and
 concrete construction amounting to only 7870 miles out of a total of some
 95,000 miles improved.  Gravel roads will require extensive maintenance
 under heavy motor traffic, especially during the spring.
   c. Water Transportation.
      (1) Inland Waterways.
           The Great Lakes, with the St. Lawrence River, is the most im-
 portant fresh water transportation system in the world.  At the present
 time it affords a draft of 21.0 feet over all the Great Lakes and through
 the Welland Canal into the St. Lawrence.  From the Atlantic Ocean to Mon-
 treal, the present head of ocean navigation on the St. Lawrence, a draft
 of 30.0 feet is available, adequate for the great majority of ocean shipping.
 For some distance above Montreal the present channel has an available depth
 of only 14.0 feet.
          The inland waterway is of prime importance to the economic life
 of both the United States and Canada for the transportation of bulk com-
 modities, especially for the movement of wheat from the western plains to
 shipping centers on the eastern seaboard; of iron ore from the mines in
 Minnesota to foundaries along Lake Ontario; and for coal from  the mines of
 Pennsylvania and West Virginia to Ontario, Quebec and the northwest.


          The locks at Sault Ste. Marie, the boundary channels between Port
 Huron and Detroit and to a lesser degree the Welland Canal are the critical
 points on this waterway and effective control of such areas is vital to
          Navigation on the Great Lakes is generally closed by ice from
 about the end of November to the first of April.
          The St. Lawrence River is ordinarily ice bound for a similar period,
 but somewhat later about early in December to the latter part of April.
 While there are a number of Canadian lake ports of importance, Montreal is
 the only one which would not be automatically closed by Blue control of the
 Lakes.  Montreal is also an important ocean port and will be considered
 along with other deep sea ports.
      (2) Ocean Shipping.
          The Dominion of Canada owns and operates a cargo and passenger
 carrying fleet consisting of some 57 cargo vessels and 11 passenger ships.
          The principal ocean ports and the magnitude of Canadian ocean
 traffic is indicated by the following tabulation:

 A. Number and tonnage of sea-going vessels entered and cleared at the
 principal ports of Canada. (For year ending March 31, 1934.)

                            SEA-GOING VESSELS
          PORT       arrived      departed    TOTAL TONS (REGISTERED)
          ____       _______      ________    _______________________
 Halifax, N.S. *        1259        1484            7,540,990
 Yarmouth, N.S.          535         519            1,102,191
 St. John, N.B. *        684         688            2,924,822
 Montreal, Quebec *     1078         907            7,266,569
 Quebec, Que.  *         397         308            3,388,829
 Prince Rupert, B.C.    1141        1155              251,881
 Vancouver, B.C. *      2332        2137           11,705,775
 Victoria, B.C.         1927        1938            8,874,481
 New Westminster, B.C.   678         700            3,123,606

                         IMPORTANT SECONDARY PORTS.

 Churchill, Man. *        15          15              132,000
 Three Rivers, Que        79          79              424,560
 Windsor, N.S.            56          69              201,032

 Note: The above figures do not indicate amount of commerce; Register tons
 are gross tons. (Namely cubical contents in cubic feet divided by 100)
 less deductions for crews space, stores, etc.

          A brief description of the above ports to indicate size, avail-
 able depths and important terminal facilities is included in Appendix No.
          While the above tabulation lists the principal ports, it should be
 realized that there are a large number of less desirable ports having
 available depths at low water of from 20 to 30 feet and provided with satis-
 factory terminal facilities, which can be used in an emergency for landing
 troops or supplies.  Examples of this class of harbors are:
                  Pictou, N.S.
                  Sydney, N.S.
                  Canso, N.S.
                  Gaspe', Quebec
                  Sorel, Quebec


      The port of Montreal, favorably located at the head of ocean naviga-
 tion on the St. Lawrence and the foot of inland navigation of the Great
 Lakes, is a natural shipping and railroad center.  The port of Quebec is
 less favorable situated economically being more than 100 miles northeast
 of Montreal.  Strategically, however, Quebec controls the commerce of Canada
 moving to or from the Atlantic seaboard.  Its possession by Blue would
 interrupt eastern rail and water communication between England and the Mari-
 time Provinces and the rest of Canada.
      The port of Halifax is one of the best harbors on the Atlantic Coast
 and the principal winter port of Eastern Canada.  The harbor has been ex-
 tensively developed by the Dominion government as a modern ocean terminal
 and naval base.  It is fortified, though much of the armament is obsoles-
 cent.  In case of war with Red, Halifax would become of prime importance
 to Red as a naval base and as a debarkation point for overseas expeditions
 in case Blue controlled the St. Lawrence.  However, the routes available
 for a Red advance from Halifax into northeastern United States or towards
 Quebec and Montreal are quite difficult.
      The port of Saint John, New Brunswick is similar in many respects to
 the port of Halifax.  It is open throughout the year and equipped with the
 most modern terminal facilities, including one of the largest drydocks in
 the world.  It is an important shipping center for grain and dairy products.
 Due to the proximity of the port to the United States border and the fact
 that the principal rail connections (C.P. Ry.) passes through the state of
 Maine, the port would be of little use to Crimson or Red, at least in the
 early stages of war, provided Blue made any effort to control this area.
      The port of Vancouver, B.C. came into prominence with the opening of
 the Panama Canal, providing an alternate route to that of the transcontinental
 railroads for grain, dairy, lumber and the other products of western Canada
 to Europe.
      The port of Victoria, on Vancouver Island, is similarly situated,
 but due to the absence of rail connection with the mainland is more concerned
 with passenger and mail traffic than with bulk commodities.  Esquimalt, two
 miles west of Victoria, and the only Canadian naval base on the west coast,
 is equipped with a large modern drydock, and affords good anchorage for the
 largest vessels.  Consequently this area is of prime importance to Crimson.
 With the closing of the Panama Canal to Red traffic and the presence of
 Blue naval forces based on Honolulu, its commercial value is largely des-
 troyed.  Assuming that Blue controls the St. Lawrence and cuts Crimson's
 eastern communication with Red, the areas importance is enhanced, although
 it remains a decidedly unsatisfactory outlet.  If Red should win control of
 the Pacific steamship lanes, the area becomes of first importance to Red.
 All factors considered, it must be controlled by Blue.
      The port of Prince Rupert is a first class harbor with modern terminal
 facilities and excellent and extensive anchorages.  It becomes of extreme
 importance to Crimson, if and when they are denied the use of the southwest
 British Columbia ports, although, as in the case of Vancouver, it affords
 a most unsatisfactory and hazardous route to Europe.  Physical occupation
 of Prince Rupert harbor by Blue is not vital, but closing the port to ocean
 traffic should be effected.
      The port of Churchill, Manitoba now offers a good harbor and limited
 but modern terminal facilities, affording a back door to the Prairie Provin-
 ces and, by way of Moosonee, Ontario, and the Temiskaming and Northern
 Ontario Railroad, with central and western Ontario.  Hudson Bay and James
 Bay are open to navigation only about 4 months of the year, but this condition
 is partially offset by the fact that the distance from the Prairie Provinces


 to Europe, via Churchill is from 500 to 1000 miles shorter than the rail-
 water route via Montreal.  In case Red is denied the use of the Atlantic
 or Pacific ports, or both, Churchill will afford an outlet for grain and
 meat products from Ontario, Manitoba and Sasketchewan and an inlet for mili-
 tary supplies and troops from Europe unless the northern trade route through
 Hudson Strait is controlled by the Blue fleet, and this is improbable.
   d. Air Transportation (Civil).
      During 1933 there were 90 commercial aircraft operators in Canada.
 Their activities included forest file patrols, timber cruising, air photo-
 graphy, transportation of passengers, express and mail, etc.
      To encourage a more widespread interest and knowledge of aviation
 the Department of National Defense, since 1928, has issued two light air-
 planes and made certain grants to each of 23 flying clubs and a large air
 terminal has been built at St. Hubert, seven miles south of Montreal and
 a terminal airdrome at Rimouski, Quebec for the reception of trans-atlantic
      At the close of 1934 there were 101 air fields of all types, 368
 civil aircraft and 684 licensed pilots in Canada.  Some details of airports
 in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are given in a letter from the Office of
 the Chief of Air Corps, herewith. (See inclosure F)
   e. Telephone and Telegraph.
      (1) Cables.
          Six transoceanic cables have termini in Canada, five on the Atlantic
 and one on the Pacific.  The Atlantic cables are landed at Halifax, though
 several of them are routed through Newfoundland.  The Pacific cable lands
 at Vancouver from whence a cable also leads to the United States.
      (2) Radio.
          A transoceanic commercial radio beam service is carried on by a
 station at Drummondville, Quebec, with Australia, Great Britain and the
 United States.  In 1932 a direct radio telephone circuit with Great Britain
 was opened through the medium of this beam station.
      (3) General.
          Canada is well supplied with local telephone, telegraph and radio
          Interruption of Canada's trans-oceanic telegraph and radio service
 will seriously handicap Red-Crimson cooperation.
   6. Other Economic Factors.
   a. Agriculture.
      Agriculture, including stock raising and horticulture, is the chief
 single industry of the Canadian people.  Canada is not only self-sustaining,
 as far as food is concerned, but has a large excess for export.  Food pro-
 duction is varied and so distributed throughout the dominion that each
 section is practically self-sustaining and cutting her off from the outside
 would would mere serve to deny her people certain luxuries, such as
 coffee, tea, sugar, spices and tropical fruit.
      The Maritime Provinces are noted for their fruit and vegetable crop,
 particularly for the oat and potato crops of Prince Edward Island and New
 Brunswick and apples in Nova Scotia.  Quebec and Ontario are mixed farming
 communities with the Niagara peninsula specializing in fruit.  Manitoba,
 Saskatchewan and Alberta are the principal wheat producing centers, with
 other grains and stock raising of increasing importance.  The rich valleys
 of British Columbia produce apples, other fruit and vegetables.


   b. Forests.
      The principal forests are in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario,
 Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.  The manufacture of lumber, lath,
 shingles and other products such as paper pulp, is the second most important
 Canadian industry.
   c. Mineral Resources.
      Canada is one of the greatest mineral producing countries of the world.
 Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and the Yukon Ter-
 ritory contain the chief mining districts.  The following summary notes
 pertinent facts concerning minerals of primary military importance.
      Aluminum.  Aluminum was the 16th ranking Canadian export in 1934.
 Large quantities of bauxite, the principal source of supply were imported
 from the United States.
          There are enormous deposits of coal in Canada, largely in Nova
 Soctia and New Brunswick, in the east and in Alberta, Saskatchewan and
 British Columbia in the west.  Due mainly to the distance of the fields from
 the manufacturing and industrial centers, about 50% of the coal consumed
 is imported from the United States, via the Great Lakes.  Statistics for
 the calendar year 1933 show:
            Nova Scotia               6,340,790 tons
            New Brunswick               314,681  "
            Manitoba                      3,036  "
            Saskatchewan                903,776  "
            Alberta                   4,748,074  "
            British Columbia          1,484,653  "
            Yukon Territory                 638  "
            From United States        8,865,935 tons
            From United Kingdom       1,942,875  "
          Total - - - - - - ............................22,265,235 tons.
 (see slide 14855)
          In case of war with the United States, Canadas coal imports from
 this country would be cut off and her railroads and industrial activities
 seriously handicapped.  If Blue controlled the Quebec area and Winnipeg,
 Canada's railroads and industries dependent upon "steam power" would be
          The world production of copper in 1933 was (in short tons):
            Canada        149,992      Mexico         43,900
            Rhodesia      144,954      Peru           28,000
            Belgian Congo  73,409      Spain and )
            Chile         179,200      Portugal  )    34,720
            Japan          75,459      United States 196,190
          Canada's production was distributed approximately as follows:
            Province                   Tons
            ________                   ____
            Quebec                     35,000 Eastern Townships
            Ontario                    72,700 Sudbury area
            Manitoba                   19,000 Flin Flon
            Saskatchewan                1,600
            British Columbia           21,600 Western Manitoba


      Iron and Steel.
         Canada ranks seventh among the nations as a producer of iron and
 steel but only a small percentage of her production is derived from domestic
 ores, in view of the abundant supply of higher grade ores in Newfoundland
 and Minnesota.  The Wabana section of Newfoundland contains the largest
 known single deposit of iron ore in the world.  There are large iron ore
 deposits in Quebec, northern Ontario and British Columbia but for various
 reasons they are handicapped for blast furnace treatment.  Iron and steel
 are produced in Nova Scotia (Sydney) and in Ontario.  Iron ore is obtained
 from the Mesabi Range in Minnesota, via the Great Lakes and from Newfound-
 land. (See slide 14856)  The bulk of iron and steel products, however, are
 imported, principally from the United States and the United Kingdom.
          Lead is obtained in Canada largely from deposits in British Columbia,
 the largest porting being exported to England.
          The world production of nickel in 1933 was about 50,736 tons, of
 which about 82% originated in the Sudbury district, north of Georgian Bay
 in Ontario.  The remainder came chiefly from New Caledonia (Fr.).  A new
 deposit of nickel was recently discovered in northern Saskatchewan but has
 not yet been worked.
          Nickel is necessary to industry and indispensable in war.  Control
 of the Sudbury mines, in case of war, is therefor of vital importance.
          The production of crude oil or petroleum in Canada during 1934
 amounted to 1,417,368 barrels, principally from the Turner Valley field in
 Alberta.  A small amount is also obtained from wells near Monkton, New
 Brunswick and in southwest Ontario, between Lake Huron and Lake Erie.
 Considerable quantities are also imported from the United States.
          Canada ranks fourth among the worlds producers of zinc.  Her out-
 put in 1934 totaled 298,579,531 pounds.  The principal producing mines are
 located in the Kootenay district of British Columbia and near Flin-Flon
 in northwest Manitoba.  Approximately 2/3 of the zinc exported goes to Great
   d. Manufacturing.
      (1) General.
          Canada is the second largest manufacturing country in the British
 Empire, with Ontario and Quebec the most important industrial centers.  The
 relative standing of the various provinces during 1933, based on the value
 of products manufactured, was approximately as follows:
                 Ontario             $1,000,000,000.
                 Quebec                 650,000,000.
                 British Columbia *     146,500,000.
                 Manitoba                91,000,000.
                 Alberta                 55,000,000.
                 Nova Scotia             53,000,000.
                 New Brunswick           45,000,000.
                 Saskatchewan            36,000,000.
                 Prince Edward Island     3,000,000.
        *Includes Yukon Territory


          The principal industries ranked according to gross value of
 products (1932) are:
           Pulp and Paper                 $123,415,492.
           Central Electrical Stations     117,532,081.
           Non-ferrous metal smelting      100,561,297.
           Slaughtering and meat packing    92,366,137.
           Flour and food mills             83,322,099.
           Butter and Cheese                80,395,887.
           Petroleum Products               70,268,265.
           Bread and other bakery product   51,244,162.
           Cotton yarn and cloth            51,197,628.
           Printing and publishing          50,811,968.
           Clothing factory, women's        44,535,823.
           Automobiles.                     42,885,643.
           Rubber goods.                    41,511,556.
           Hosiery and knitted goods        40,997,210.
           Sawmills.                        39,438,057.
      (2) Munitions.
          (a) Aircraft.
              There are at present six firms manufacturing aircraft as
                Canadian-Vickers...............Montreal, Que.
                De Haviland....................Toronto, Ont.
                Curtis Reid....................Cartierville, Que.
                Fairchild......................Longueuil, Que.
                Boeing.........................Vancouver, B.C.
                Ottawa Car Mfg. Co.............Ottawa, Que.
              Aero engine factories have been established by:
                Armstrong-Siddeley Motors Co. at Ottawa, Que.
                Aero Engines of Canada at Montreal, Que.
                Canadian Pratt-Whitney Aircraft Co. at Longueuil, Que.
          (b) Miscellaneous.
                During the World War Canada demonstrated her ability to
 divert her peace time industries to the production of munitions, when she
 manufactured and exported large quantities of shells, fuses, cartridge
 cases, explosives, gun forgings, machine guns and small arms ammunition.
 This production could not be obtained in case of war with Blue but some
 munitions could be produced if her factories were free to operate and raw
 materials were available.  The government arsenal at Lindsey, Ont., is
 equipped to produce small arms ammunition and the arsenal at Quebec manu-
 factures some small arms and artillery ammunition.
   e. Commerce.
      Analysis of Canada's industry and resources indicate that she has a
 sufficiency or surplus of certain raw materials but a deficiency of others.
 The more important of these materials are as follows:
      (1) Sufficiency or surplus;
          Arsenic, asbestos, cadmium, cobalt, copper, feldspar, fish oil,
 fluospar, foodstuffs, furs, gold, graphite, gypsum, lead, leather, magnesium,
 mica, nickel, silver, talc, wood and zinc.
      (2) Deficiency;
          Aluminium, antimony, bauxite, barytes, camphor, chromite, coal,
 cotton, flax, hemp, iron, jute, kaolin, manganese, mercury, nitrates,
 phosphate, petroleum, opium, quinine, rubber, silk, sugar, sulphur, tea,
 tin, tobacco and wool.


   7. Combat Estimate.
   a. All matters pertaining to the defense of Canada are under a Department
 of National Defense (Act of Jan. 9, 1923) with a minister of National De-
 fense at the head.  A Defense Council has been constituted to advise the
   b. The Navy has an authorized complement of 104 officers and 812 men, a
 large majority serving under 7 year enlistments.  In addition certain spec-
 ialists are loaned from the British Royal Navy.  The Reserve consists of
 from 70 to 113 officers and from 430 to 1026 men recruited from sea-faring
      The ships of the Royal Canadian Navy are:

 Built    Class     Displacement  Name          Location     Status   Armament
 1931  Destroyer     1337 tons    Saguenay    Halifax, N.S. In comm.  4-4.7"
 1931     "          1337  "      Skenna      Esquimalt,B.C. "   "    4-4.7"
 1919     "           905  "      Champlain   Halifax, N.S.  "   "    3-4"
 1919     "           905  "      Vancouver   Esquimalt,B.C. "   "    3-4"
 1918  Mine Sweeper   360  "      Armentieres Esquimalt,B.C. "   "
 1918   "     "       360  "      Festubert   Halifax, N.S.  " reserve
 1918   "     "       360  "      Ypres       Halifax, N.S.  "   "

   c. Army.
      (1) Personnel: Estimated Strength (by G-2):
                            Organized Forces.
                                          Active        Reserve     Total
                                          ______        _______     _____
 Permanent Active Militia                   403                      403
      Officers                              403                      403
      Men                                  3300                    3,300
 Non Permanent Active Militia
      Officers                                           6,911     6,911
      Men                                               44,962    44,962

 Reserves, Non-active
      Officers                                          10,000    10,000
      Men                                               30,000    30,000
   Total Organized                        3,703         91,873    95,576 *
 Note: The Canada Year Book, 1935, pp 1114, gives permanent and non-permanent
 active militia 1934:
      Permanent Officers and men---------    3,760
      Non-permanent officers and men-----  135,184
                                   Total   138,941
      The latest information concerning the distribution of the active militia
 is shown on the accompanying map. (Incl. G)
      (2) It is probable that the Non-permanent Active Militia can be brought
 to a strength of 60,000 at M plus 15 and to full strength of 126,000 in M
 plus 30 days.  (Note: This estimate is approximately twice that of G-2,
 First Army.) New troops will begin to appear in 180 days at the rate of
 50,000 monthly.
   d. Air Service.
      The Royal Canadian Air Force operates under a directorate in the office
 of the Chief of Staff of the Army.
           Strength (Dec. 1, 1934)
                  Officers          117
                  Men               664
                  Officers           38
                  Men               236
                          Total   1,055


      The equipment consists of some 84 combat planes with probably 20 on
 order. (G-2 estimate)  The Armaments Year Book, League of Nations, gives
 a total of 166 planes of all kinds and the Statesman Year Book, 1935 gives
 189 planes of all kinds.  It is probable that about one squadron of pursuit
 and one squadron of observation could be organized for immediate service.
   e. Comment.
      The location of Canada's industry and population along a narrow extent
 front facing the northern United States border and her relatively weak
 military and naval forces, widely dispersed, will necessitate a defensive
 role until Red forces are landed.  The promptness and effectiveness of
 British aid must depend upon suitable debarkation points on Canada's east
 coast.  The West Coast does not favor overseas operations unless Red controls
 the Pacific, and even then is too remote from critical Blue areas.
   f. Red Reinforcements.
      Various estimates have been made of the size, composition, and time of
 placing Red reinforcements in Canada.  In any such estimate, the time factor
 is of prime importance but depends on an unknown quantity, viz, "the period
 of strained relations."
      The following estimate is considered conservative:
                    Probable Enemy Forces in Canada
 Days after       Crimson      (Less Crimson)                 Total
   M Day      men      Div.     Men        Div.        Men         Divisions
    15      25,000      5       ---        ---       25,000            5
    30      50,000      5       ---        ---       50,000            5
    60      50,000      5       126,000*    8       176,000           13
    90      50,000      5       203,000    13       253,000           13
   120      50,000      5       238,000    16       288,000           21
   150      50,000      5       255,000    16       305,000           21
   180      90,000      6       255,000    16       345,000           22
 *Under certain conditions this force might be landed in Canada by 30 M.

                                Air Forces.
      Red has available at once 48 squadrons of 10 to 12 planes each.  The
 following forces can probably be landed in Canada as indicated.
                       10 M         13 squadrons.
                       30 M         30 squadrons.
                       60 M         41 squadrons.
                       90 M         56 squadrons.
                      120 M         74 squadrons.
   f. Conclusion.
      Crimson cannot successfully defend her territory against the United
 States (Blue).  She will probably concentrate on the defense of Halifax
 and the Montreal-Quebec line in order to hold bases of operation for Red.
 Important secondary efforts will be made to defend her industrial area and
 critical points on her transcontinental railroad lines.

   8. Areas of Strategic Importance.
      Analysis of the above data and discussion indicates certain areas which
 would become of considerable military importance in the event of war with
 Red; namely,
   a. The Halifax Monkton St. John area, sometimes called the Martime
      Province area.
   b. The Montreal Quebec area, sometimes called the St. Lawrence Area.


   c. The Great Lakes Area.
      (1) Niagara River Area.
      (2) Sarnia-Windsor Area.
      (3) Sault Ste. Marie Area.
      (4) Sudbury Area.
   d. Winnipeg Area.
      (1) Winnipeg City and vicinity.
      (2) Churchill, Manitoba Area.
   e. Vancouver-Victoria Area.
      (1) Ports of Vancouver and Victoria, area.
      (2) Prince Rupert area.
   f. The reasons why these various areas are strategically important may be
 briefly summarized as follows:
      (1) Halifax Monkton St. John Area. (Maritime Province)
          The port of Halifax is the key point in the area, for while the
 port of St. John affords excellent facilities for an overseas expedition,
 it is so close to the United States border that uninterrupted use by Red
 cannot be expected.  At Monkton, the peninsula connecting Nova Scotia and
 the mainland narrows to 14 miles.  With Halifax in possession of Crimson,
 this area affords the best defensive position to prevent any advance west-
 ward by Red.
          (a). Control of Halifax by Blue would:
               1. Deny Red the only ice free port on the east coast and the
 only ports, other than the St. Lawrence River ports, suitable as an overseas
               2. Deny Red a prepared naval base on the east coast, from which
 to operate against Blue naval forces or commercial shipping.
               3. Disrupt transoceanic submarine cable service between Crimson
 and Red (except from Newfoundland) and between Crimson and the West Indies.
               4. Deny Red the use of certain air bases from which to operate
 against northeastern United States.
          (b) The control of Halifax by Blue, renders the Port of St. John
 and the Monkton area of secondary importance. Failing to secure Halifax
 control of the Monkton area by Blue would:
               1. Deny Red the use of St. John Harbor.
               2. Cut the lines of communication between the port of Halifax
 and St. John and the remainder of Canada.
               3. Place Blue directly across the only line of advance (by
 Red) from Halifax, on the shortest possible defensive line.
               4. Deny Red the use of certain air bases from which to operate
 against northeastern United States.
               5. Give Blue the use of various small air fields at Monkton
 and St. John.
      (2) Montreal - Quebec Area (St. Lawrence River Area).
          The ports of Montreal and Quebec, while ice bound about four months
 of the year, still afford the best overseas base both as to facilities and
 location.  In addition the area is of great commercial importance in that
 it controls all lines of communication, by land, sea and wire between in-
 dustrial and agricultural centers of Canada and the eastern seaboard.  While
 Montreal has the larger and more commodius harbor and terminal facilities,
 Quebec, due to its physical location, is the key point of the area.
         Control of this area by Blue would:
         (a) Deny the use of all good St. Lawrence River ports to Red.
         (b) Cut all Canada, west of Quebec, viz. industrial, and agricult-
 ural centers from the eastern seaboard.


          (c) Deny Red and Crimson and make available to Blue, the principal
 air bases in eastern Canada.
          (d) Deny Crimson coal and iron from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland as
 well as all imports via the Atlantic.
      (3) The Great Lakes Area.
          This area comprises several critical points:
          (a) Niagara River crossings and Welland Canal.
          (b) The waters connecting Lake Huron and Lake Erie.
          (c) The great industrial area of Canada - that part of Ontario lying
 between Lake Huron and Lakes Erie and Ontario.
          (d) The waters connecting Lake Superior and Lake Huron, including
 the Soo Locks.
          (e) The Sudbury nickel-copper mines.
      Control of the Great Lakes waterway is vital to Blue, for the transporta-
 tion of iron ore, coal and grain and such control will necessitate occupation
 of a bridgehead covering the narrow boundary waters at and near the Soo
 Locks and in the Detroit Area.  The bridges over the Niagara River and the
 Welland Canal, connecting Lake Erie and Lake Ontario are of importance to
 Blue for occupation of the Important industrial area of the Niagara-Ontario
 peninsula.  The Welland Canal would become of importance as a line of communi-
 cation if Blue seized the peninsula.  While control of that area is of
 importance in crippling Crimson industry, it is probably of greater importance
 in denying the enemy Crimson and Red, a most convenient base for operations
 against highly industrialized areas in the United States.
      (4) Winnipeg Area.
          Winnipeg is the nerve center of the transcontinental railroad
 system.  Control by Blue will effectively separate eastern and western
 Canada and block transportation on men, grain, coal, meat and oil to the
 east.  The completion of the Canadian National Railroad to Churchill
 Manitoba on Hudson Bay and the development of the port at Churchill provide
 an alternate route to Europe via Moosonee, Ont., and the Tem. and Ont.
 Ry. to northeast Ontario.  While the water route through Hudson Bay is only
 open about four months of the year, and the ports are supplied by single
 track railroads, a considerable amount of traffic could be developed in an
      (5) Vancouver - Victoria Area.
          As pointed out above, the ports in this area are of secondary im-
 portance only under the conditions, which may reasonable be assumed.  How-
 ever, the area has certain military importance, due to the naval base at
 Esquimalt, and is a possible outlet for the Canadian plan provinces and
 western Canada.  Its control by Blue would deny the enemy any base or outlet
 on the West Coast; simplify the problem of protecting our shipping in the
 Puget Sound area; and interrupt cable communication with the far east.
          While Prince Rupert, B.C. has an excellent harbor and terminal
 facilities with good rail connections leading east, naval blockade of this
 port would be readily possible, once the Vancouver - Victoria area was in
 Blue control.

   9. Routes of Approach to the Areas of Strategic Importance.
   a. Halifax - Monkton - St. John Area (Maritime Provinces) (Incls. D & H).
      Three possible routes of approach are considered, viz:
      (1) Via water from Boston or New York to Halifax or vicinity.
      (2) Via water from Boston or New York to ports in Western Nova Scotia
 and thence overland to Halifax.


      (3) From Eastern Maine, via St. John and/or Fredericton to Monkton -
 Amherst - Truro to Halifax.
   b. Discussion of Routes of Approach to the Halifax - Monkton  - St. John
 (Maritime Province) Area.
      (1) The distance by water from Boston to Halifax is 370 miles and from
 New York 600 miles, or in time about 30 or 50 hours respectively.  The
 Port of Halifax is fortified and would undoubtedly be mined.  A frontal
 attack would require a large force and would involve undesirable delays.
 Other developed ports of Nova Scotia on the Atlantic are too distant from
 Halifax and involve a long advance after a landing is effected and this
 advance would be over difficult terrain.
          A number of undeveloped bays along the east shore offer favorable
 conditions for landing operations and of these, St. Margarets Bay, the near-
 est, being some 16 miles by road west of Halifax, appears satisfactory.
 Deep water, with a minimum depth of 7 fathoms extends nearly to the head of
 the Bay, not far from Hubley and French Village, which are on an improved
 road and on the railroad from Yarmouth to Halifax.  The bay is protected
 from all winds and seas, except those from the south and is of sufficient
 size to harbor any fleet required for the expedition.  Tidal range is the
 same as at Halifax, 6 to 6 1/2 feet.  There are numerous small but adequate
 boat and barge landings on the west, north and east shore of the bay, from
 whence improved roads lead to the main highway.
          The highway Hubbard - French Village - Hubley - Halifax is 18
 feet wide, of macadam, with east grades and with concrete bridges capable
 of carrying heavy artillery and tanks.  The railroad is single track,
 standard gauge and parallels the road.  It has rather heavy grades and is
 of light construction.
          Rocky wooded hills rise rather steeply to a height of 200 to 400
 feet all around St. Margarets Bay, but the roads are within the 50 foot
 contour and the terrain between the roads and the water is greatly rolling.
 The main highway French Village - Halifax, runs through low rocky hills
 and movement off the roads by wheeled vehicles would be practically im-
      (2) The ports on the western shore of Nova Scotia off the Bay of Fundy
 are subjected to extremely high tides - 20 to 25 feet, and generally afford
 only limited terminal facilities and have depths generally inadequate for
 docking transports.  Tidal currents are strong.  From Windsor, on the Avon
 River, to Halifax, there is one improved road and a branch of the Canadian
 Northern Railroad.  The distance is about 50 miles, with high ground and good
 defensive positions in the center of the island.  As a route of approach to
 Halifax it is considered inferior to the route from St. Margarets Bay.
      (3) The All Land Route via Eastern Maine.
          This route involves an advance from the Maine border of approximately
 320 miles over difficult terrain.  The St. Johns River, rising near the border
 of northern Maine, flows south just east of the Maine - New Brunswick border
 to Woodstock, thence generally southeast through Fredericton to St. John.  It
 is navigable from the mouth to the falls some distance above Woodstock, N.B.
 The average tidal range at St. John is 20 1/2 feet, decreasing up stream.  The
 river is crossed by a highway and a railroad bridge at Fredericton, each
 nearly 1/2 mile long.  Two other bridges, a cantilever railroad bridge and a
 suspension bridge span the river about one mile above the city of St. John.
 There are numerous ferries operating alone the river.  It is apparent that
 the St. John River is a serious obstacle to any advance overland from
 Maine.  While the St. John could be bridged, such operations would
 result in considerable delay.


          The railroad and road nets available are shown on Inclosures B,
 C and D.  They are reasonably adequate for a force of the size probably
 required for this operation.
      (4) Conclusion.
          If Halifax is to be captured without the use of large forces and
 expenditure of considerable time and effort, it must be accomplished promptly
 before Red reinforcements can be landed or Crimson organize for its defense.
 Any advance overland from Maine would eliminate all elements of surprise and
 make the capture extremely difficult - a major operation.
          An overseas expedition is one of the most uncertain of military
 operations, and with the Red fleet on guard in the North Atlantic, with
 Red's immediate military objective the retention of a base in eastern
 Canada for future operations against Blue, a joint operation against Halifax
 must be promptly and perfectly executed to assure any hope of success.  This
 route is considered the best but existing conditions at the time, may make
 this route impracticable, and the all land route necessary.
   c. The St. Lawrence Area. (Quebec - Montreal)
      The only practicable routes of advance for Blue, into this area, are
 from northern New York, New Hampshire and Vermont and from northwest Maine.
 (See map) (Incl. K)
      (1) Rivers.
          (a) The St. Lawrence River flanks the left side of all routes of
 approach to Quebec.  From Montreal to Three Rivers it flows through an
 alluvial plain, with the south bank 25 to 75 feet above the river.  Below
 Three Rivers the banks increase steadily in height to Quebec, where they are
 140 to 175 feet high. The normal rise and fall of the river above the tidewater
 is 10 feet but this maybe doubled by ice jams.  Tidal range reaches a
 maximum of 18 feet at Quebec, and practically disappears at Richelieu Rapids
 40 miles above Quebec. The river above Quebec is obstructed by ice from
 November to April but ice breakers can get through.  The river from Quebec
 to Montreal, generally about 1/2 to 2 miles wide (except at Lake St. Peter)
 is navigable on a 30' draft to Montreal.  The distance from Quebec to Mon-
 treal is 160 miles.
              In the area south of the St. Lawrence, between Quebec and Mon-
 treal, are several rivers of importance which will naturally influence any
 plans for an advance on Quebec, viz:
                          Richelieu River
                          St. Francis River
                          Nicolet River
                          Becancour River
                          Chaudiere River
                          Etchemin River
              Other streams will create obstacles of lesser importance.
          (b) The Richelieu River flows north from Lake Champlain to enter
 the St. Lawrence about 35 miles north of Montreal.  It is navigable on a
 6 1/2 foot draft throughout its length.
          (c) The St. Francis River rises in St. Francis Lake some 50 miles
 northwest of Jackman, Maine.  It flows southwest to Lennoxville, Quebec,
 where it turns sharply northwest to flow into the St. Lawrence (Lake St.
 Peter).  Headwaters are controlled.  The regulated flow is some 3000 feet
 per second or more, with an average fall of 6.6 feet per mile. It is not
 fordable below Sherbrooke.


          (d) The Nicolet River rises in Nicolet Lake, 8 miles west of Lake
 Alymer, and flows generally northwest to empty into the St. Lawrence at the
 east end of Lake St. Peter.  The average low water flow is about 2000 feet
 per second. Banks in the upper reaches - hilly wooded terrain - are steep
 and from 200 to 500 feet higher.  The average fall is about 21 feet per mile
 but there are a number of dams.  From Arthabaska to Lake St. Peter the stream
 flows through a flat open country, with banks 25 feet high or less, except
 for a gorge starting about 4 miles north of St. Clothilda and ending 3 miles
 from Lake St. Peter.  The river is not a serious obstacle but there are many
 swampy areas between it and the Becancour River.
          (e) The Becancour River rises about 5 miles northwest of Lake St.
 Francis and flows north, then southwest, then northwest to enter the St.
 Lawrence a few miles below Three Rivers, Que.  The lower reaches of the
 river, below the vicinity of Lyster, Que, flows through generally flat country
 of gentle slope.  The stream averages 300 to 400 feet wide and is fordable
 at few places.  From Maddington Falls to within 3 miles of the St. Lawrence
 the river flows through a narrow gorge 100 to 250 feet below the surrounding
 flat country.  The river is not a serious obstacle to an advance on Quebec,
 by reason of the general direction of flow in its lower reaches and the
 characteristics of the country.
          (f) The Chaudierre River rises in Lake Megantic, about 45 miles
 west of Jackman, Maine and flows generally north into the St. Lawrence, op-
 posite Quebec.  From Lake Megantic to Hersey Mills, it flows swiftly between
 steep banks in a narrow valley.  The adjacent terrain is rugged and heavily
 timbered.  From St. George to Valley Junction the valley widens materially
 and the country is less rugged.  Below Valley Junction the river flows through
 gentle undulating country between relatively low banks.  The Chaudiere is a
 strong swift stream with an average discharge of over 4000 feet per second.
 The width varies from 200 feet at St. George to 400 feet or more in the lower
 reaches.  From St. Maxine to the St. Lawrence it is 600 to 1500 feet wide.
 This river must be considered a serious obstacle.
          (g) The Etchemin River rises in Lake Atchemin and flows northwest
 into the Chaudiere.  It is 200 to 300 feet wide in the lower reaches, with
 banks generally high and steep.  It forms a considerable obstacle.
      (2) Terrain.
          The southerly portion of the area bordering on the United States,
 east of the Richelieu River, is hilly verging on mountainous (up to 3000').
 The Notre Dame Mountains extend the Green Mountains of Vermont in the form
 of a series of ridges, gradually decreasing in elevation from Lake Champlain
 northeast to the meridian of Quebec, thence northeast parallel to the St.
 Lawrence.  From the St. Lawrence the terrain rises smoothly and gradually
 toward the southeast to the foothills of the Notre Dame Mountains.  On the
 line Montreal Sherbrooke a serious of eight hills (wooded) rise sharply
 to heights varying from 800 to 1500 feet or more above the surrounding
          In general the hills of the Quebec theatre are wooded, those below
 the 500 foot contour and east of the Becancour River sparsely, while west
 of the river there are densely forested areas at intervals.
      (3) Roads.
          The main roads to Montreal lead north from Plattsburgh, New York and
 Burlington, Vermont.  Quebec may be reached via routes No. 1 and 5, through
 Sherbrooke, Que; via route No. 3 along the south bank of the St. Lawrence;
 or via Montreal and the north bank of the St. Lawrence.  The latter is the
 longest route and undoubtedly the most difficult.  Another route is available
 from Jackman, Maine, via route No. 23 through Valley Junction.  The road
 net available is shown on inclosure No. "D" and "K."


      (4) Railroads.
          The railroads available are shown on inclosures "B" and "C."  They
 are entirely adequate for any probable movement against this area.
      (5) Discussion of routes.
          (a) Northern New York - Vermont to Montreal
               Roads: No. 9 from Plattsburgh to St. Lambert and South Mon-
 treal.  Distance 69.2 miles, all paved.
                      No. 7 from Burlington, Vt., via St. John, Que. to
 St. Lambert or South Montreal.  Distance 94.2 miles, all paved.  There is
 a bridge across the Richelieu River at St. Johns.  There are two highway
 bridges across the St. Lawrence at Montreal.
              Railroads: Delaware and Hudson - Albany to Montreal.
                         New York Central - Malone to Montreal.
                         Rutland and C.P. - Burlington to Montreal.
                         Central Vermont and C.N. Montpelier to Montreal.
              Comments: The terrain is favorable and no physical barrier
 to the advance as far as the St. Lawrence, except the crossing of the Rich-
 elieu River, for a force moving from Vermont.  An advance on Quebec from
 Montreal is possible, but offers the longest route, with many rivers per-
 pendicular to the line of advance (down the St. Lawrence) which offer
 excellent defensive positions.
          (b) Northern Vermont and New Hampshire to Quebec.
                Physical features: The Richelieu River on the west and the
 Chaudiere and Etchemin Rivers on the east tend to delimit the zone of advance.
                No. 5 - Newport, Vt. to Sherbrook then No. 7 to Valley
 Junction to the highway bridge on the St. Lawrence and to Quebec, or via
 No. 23 from Scott Junction to Levis, Que and the ferry to Quebec.  Distance
 212.5 miles from Newport, Vt.  All improved road, mostly gravel.  Some of
 the road through the hilly country is paved.  No. 5 from Sherbrooke via
 Victoriaville is an alternate route.
                No. 23, Jackman, Maine - Valley Junction - Levis.  This dis-
 tance is 109 miles.  The road is improved and about 50% paved.  It is the
 shortest route.  It crosses the Chauderie and Etchemin Rivers. There are
 numerous alternate routes and connecting roads.
                   Canadian Pacific - Newport to Quebec.
                   Canadian Pacific - Jackman via Megantic to Quebec.
                   Canadian National - Portland, Me., via Sherbrooke to Quebec.
                   While the terrain in this sector is hilly verging on the
 mountainous, with several defiles and river crossings, it offers the short-
 est and best route of advance on Quebec.

    d. The Great Lakes Area.
        This area must be considered under the following subdivisions, as the
 routes of approach vary, and approach must be made from all of these direc-
            The Buffalo - Niagara River Area.
            The Port Huron - Detroit Area.
            The Sault St. Marie or Soo Locks - Sudbury Area.
       (1) The Buffalo - Niagara River Area.
             Bridges cross the Niagara River at Buffalo (Peace Bridge);
 at Niagara Falls (suspension Bridge) and the (lower Arch Bridge) and at
 Lewiston, New York. "      "   "


           Roads: The road net approaching the Niagara River from the
 United States and leading across the river into southern Ontario and through
 Hamilton to Toronto and Montreal, is one of the best along the inter-
 national boundary and is entirely adequate for any probably movement.
           Railroads: The Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National rail-
 roads have a network of railways connecting Buffalo with Toronto and points
 east.  Branch lines lead to all important parts of the Niagara peninsula.
           Comment: The crossings over the Niagara River should be promptly
 secured to assure a line of advance into the Niagara Peninsula of Ontario.

      (2) The Detroit - Port Huron Area.
           This area has much the same characteristics as the Buffalo
 Niagara River Area but beyond securing the crossings over the boundary
 waters, sufficient area to cover the Great Lakes water routes against
 Crimson interference is essential.
              Ambassador Bridge - Detroit - Windsor.
              Two tunnels (one railroad) Detroit - Windsor.
              Numerous ferries.
           Railroads and roads: There is an excellent railroad and road net
 available for any advance eastward from Detroit and Port Huron.
           Comment: The Ontario Peninsula is of great industrial importance
 to Canada and a military area of great strategic value, as a base for air
 or land operations against the industrialized areas between Chicago and
 Buffalo.  Any Blue operations should advance via Buffalo - Niagara Falls and
 Port Huron - Detroit simultaneously.

      (3) Sault Ste. Marie - Sudbury Area.
           The best route of approach to the Sudbury area, about 200 miles
 east of the Soo, is obviously via Sault St. Marie, along the north shore
 of North Channel.  An operation along this route, automatically covers the
 Soo.  The Canadian Pacific railroad and one good gravel road leads east
 from the Soo.  These provide ample facilities for supply of the probable
 force required.  The southern flank of this line is protected by North
 Sound and the north flank by rough heavily wooded terrain entirely devoid
 of roads or other communications suitable for the movement of armed forces.

      (4) Winnipeg Area.
            The main route from the United States to Winnipeg is north
 from Grand Forks and Crookston through Emerson.  A main road follows the
 west bank of the Red River, from Emerson into Winnipeg.  A good hard sur-
 face road from Grand Forks and one from Crookston furnishes a suitable
 road net south of the border.  There are several secondary roads on both
 sides of the border to supplement the hard surface roads.
            The Canadian Pacific has two main lines extending north from
 the border, one leading from Fargo through Gretna along the west bank of
 the Red River, and one from Thief River Falls, through Emerson along the
 east bank of the Red River.  The Canadian Northern has a line from Grand
 Forks through Emerson Junction to Winnipeg on the west bank of the Red
 River and another line connecting with Duluth and extending through
 Warroad to Winnipeg.
            The best and only practicable route of approach is obviously
 north from Grand Forks and Crookston.  The terrain is flat and open and
 offers no natural obstacles to an advance.


            Churchill, on Hudson Bay, has rail connection by the Canadian
 National system at Hudson Bay Junction about 325 miles northwest of Winni-
 peg.  The best and only route of approach to cut this line is along the
 railroad from Winnipeg.

      (5) The Vancouver Area (Vancouver - Victoria) (See Incl. E & L) (Omitted)
            The best practicable route to Vancouver is via Route 99 through
 Bellingham, a distance of 55 miles and over a paved highway, through wooded
 and farming country.  A secondary and longer route lies about 15 miles fur-
 ther to the east running through Sumas to strike the highways running east
 from Vancouver at the meridian of Mission City.
             The Grand Trunk Railroad extending from Vancouver to Seattle fur-
 nishes a satisfactory rail service.
             Victoria and Esquimalt, on the island of Vancouver can be reached
 by water only.  Ferry service is maintained between Vancouver and Nanaimo on
 the east shore of the island, some 50 miles north of Victoria and between
 Vancouver, Burlingham and Port Angeles and Victoria.  The best route of ap-
 proach is by water from Port Angeles, Washington.

  IV. Conclusions:
   a That the critical areas of Canada are:
          (1) The Halifax-Monkton-St.John Area (The Maritime Provinces).
          (2) The St.Lawrence Area (Quebec and Montreal).
          (3) The Great Lakes Area.
          (4) The Winnipeg Area.
          (5) The Vancouver Area (Vancouver and Victoria).

    b. That the best routes of approach to these areas are:
    To  (1) By joint operations by sea from Boston.
        (2) From Northern New Hampshire-Vermont area.
        (3) (a) From Sault St. Marie and the Soo Locks Area.
            (b) From Port Huron - Detroit Area.
        and (c) From the Buffalo-Niagara Falls Area.
        (4) From Grand Forks-Crookston through Emerson.
        (5) Along Puget Sound through Everett and Bellingham, supported
               by an attack by water in Puget Sound.

    V. Recommendations.

   VI. Concurrences.
          The committee concurs in the foregoing conclusions.

                                       CHARLES H. JONES
                                       Major, Infantry,
                                    Subcommittee Chairman.

The original source of this article is Global Research


BRICS Needs a Unified Front Against US Intervention in Venezuela

Image result for BRICS Needs a Unified Front Against US Intervention in Venezuela
Ramona Wadi
September 7, 2019

Venezuela’s destabilisation by the US is understood best by the countries that have faced imperialist interference. Cuba’s revolutionary process, for example, has produced consistent political solidarity with Venezuela and is actively urging countries to reconsider their stance as regards the US sanctions which are creating severe humanitarian consequences.

The recent executive order signed by US President Donald Trump encompasses all entities that do business with Venezuela, thus creating an embargo that will further isolate the nation, even as the US moves to open a “Venezuela Affairs Unit” unit in its embassy in Bogota, Colombia. The unit would engage in diplomacy with the US-backed Juan Guaido, who is recognised by the Trump administration and its allies as the purported interim Venezuelan president. Its aim, according to US Special Representative to Venezuela Elliot Abrams, is in anticipation of “the day this regime falls”.

In a report titled “Economic Sanctions as Collective Punishment: The Case of Venezuela”, it is estimated that 40,000 people have died as a result of the US-imposed sanctions from 2017 to 2018. According to the US, Venezuela poses “an unusual and extraordinary threat” to its national security – unfounded claims as Trump continues with overt attempts to bring down Maduro’s democratically-elected presidency.

Political pressure against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is instigated by the US, yet there is a backdrop of support from its allies in the region and, globally, from countries that spout the democracy line, even if there is nothing democratic about foreign interference.  While mostly in the background in comparison to the US, Canada has facilitated support for the Venezuelan opposition. In Europe, countries which have not explicitly backed Guaido have assumed an allegedly neutral stance which constitutes tacit agreement in terms of opposition support. The EU criticised US sanctions on Venezuela but has also threatened the country with similar punitive measures, as the European Parliament expressed its support for Guaido.

The international community is dominated by discourse that promotes foreign intervention according to the undemocratic agendas of the so-called democratic countries. Venezuela is urgently in need of a unified political strategy that stands in political solidarity against imperialist interests.

BRICS has positioned itself as one such alternative in terms of economic prospects, international security and stability. Russia and China have repeatedly affirmed their support for Maduro. South Africa and India have likewise followed suit. On the other hand, Brazil under President Jair Bolsonaro is preventing BRICS from promoting a political discourse that fully repudiates US interference in Venezuela.

Contrary to the rest of the BRICS countries, Brazil recognised Guaido as Venezuela’s interim president and it has expressed support for the international community to pay heed to “Venezuela’s cries for freedom”. Brazil has also adopting measures in line with the Lima Group, as well as prohibited Maduro and other senior Venezuelan officials from entering Brazil.

At the G20 summit in Japan, BRICS stated it supported dialogue between Maduro and the Venezuelan opposition to reach a solution. Yet the call is marred by the political divide between Brazil and the other BRICS members. This lack of consensus, including the divergence in terms of recognition of who is Venezuela’s legitimate leader, weakens its political diplomacy in the international arena. As Brazil aligns with the US, although reportedly holding back from endorsing military intervention in Venezuela, It is moving away from one of the organisation’s main aims, which is to establish itself in opposition to capitalist and imperialist exploitation.

In a recent interview, former Brazilian President Luis Ignacio Lula da Silva expressed his disappointment at BRICS not moving further politically. “BRICS was not created to be an instrument of defence, but to be an instrument of attack.” If this momentum is to be built, BRICS needs to find equilibrium in its politics, rather than allow itself to be swayed into a seemingly neutral position due to the US allegiances of Brazil under Bolsonaro. It is not enough to preach dialogue like the rest of the international community have done while weakening Venezuela’s autonomy. BRICS must evaluate its relevance, especially when it comes to one of its members demonstrating political opportunism that is contrary to the group’s aims.


South Front

G7 Format Is Dead

US President Donald J. Trump speaks during a press conference on the closing day of the G7 summit in Biarritz, France, 26 August 2019. (Photo: IAN LANGSDON, EPA-EFE)

The G7 summit took place in France’s Biarritz in the period from August 24 to August 26 involving leaders of the US, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Canada, and the UK, as well as the top EU bureaucrat Donald Tusk.

The G7 participants released a surprisingly short joint statement adressing a very limited number of global questions:

The G7 Leaders wish to underline their great unity and the positive spirit of the debates. The G7 Summit organized by France in Biarritz has successfully produced agreements by the Heads of State and Government themselves on several points summarized below:


The G7 is committed to open and fair world trade and to the stability of the global economy.
The G7 requests that the Finance Ministers closely monitor the state of the global economy. 
Therefore, the G7 wishes to overhaul the WTO to improve effectiveness with regard to intellectual property protection, to settle disputes more swiftly and to eliminate unfair trade practices.
The G7 commits to reaching in 2020 an agreement to simplify regulatory barriers and modernize international taxation within the framework of the OECD.


We fully share two objectives: to ensure that Iran never acquires nuclear weapons and to foster peace and stability in the region.


France and Germany will organize a Normandy format summit in the coming weeks to achieve tangible results.


We support a truce in Libya that will lead to a long-term ceasefire.
We believe that only a political solution can ensure Libya’s stability.
We call for a well-prepared international conference to bring together all the stakeholders and regional actors relevant to this conflict.
We support in this regard the work of the United Nations and the African Union to set up an inter-Libyan conference.

Hong Kong

The G7 reaffirms the existence and importance of the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984 on Hong Kong and calls for violence to be avoided.

After the G7 in 2018, when US President Donald Trump withdrew its signature from the final declaration, the 2019 was shown by some mainstream media outlets as a success. However, it’s just another indication that the format is dying after the exclusion of Russia.

No surprise that the return of Russia in fact became one of the key topics during the G7 summit. The Guardian even reproted that there was a kind of scandal on this topic with the US leader openly arguing that Russia should be returned.

G7 Format Is Dead

U.S. President Donald Trump and Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson arrive for a bilateral meeting during the G7 summit in Biarritz, France, August 25, 2019. Erin Schaff/Pool via REUTERS

“Russia be readmitted to the group, rejecting arguments that it should remain an association of liberal democracies, according to diplomats at the summit in Biarritz.

The disagreement led to heated exchanges at a dinner on Saturday night inside the seaside resort’s 19th-century lighthouse. According to diplomatic sources, Trump argued strenuously that Vladimir Putin should be invited back, five years after Russia was ejected from the then G8) for its annexation of Crimea.

Of the other leaders around the table, only Giuseppe Conte, the outgoing Italian prime minister, offered Trump any support, according to this account. Shinzo Abe of Japan was neutral. The rest – the UK’s Boris Johnson, Germany’s Angela Merkel, Canada’s Justin Trudeau, the EU council president, Donald Tusk, and the French president, Emmanuel Macron – pushed back firmly against the suggestion,” The Guardian reported.


The report was followed by an official statement by Trump that having Russia in the group “is better than having them outside” the G7. So, The Guardian’s report part regarding Trump’s stance on the topic was true. At the same time, the newspaper claimed that all others were against. Let’s take a closer look:

  • Italy supported the idea.
  • The report claimed that Japan was neutral. However, in fact, Japan is interested in the expansion of diplomatic formats for the dialogue with Russia, especially regarding the Kuril Islands question. The bilateral talks on this topic is a dead end for Japan because Russia is not going to make any consenquences. The only chance of Shinzo Abe to make some progress is wider formats with help from his Western allies.
  • French President Emmanuel Macron allegedly was against this move during the G7. However, other French statements clearly indicate that Paris will act in the framework of its Big Brother, the US. It is not up to France, that lost a large part of its influence under the new presidency, to decide.
  • German’s Angela Merkel officially linked the return of Russia to the implementing the Minsk agreements related to the situation in eastern Ukraine. Crimea is for a long time beyond the diplomatic rhetoric of Merkel.
  • In fact, the UK and Canada were the only powers really standing against the return of Russia. Since the start of Trump’s first term, the  UK has been the key power representing interests of the Euro-Atlantic establishment. So, there is no surprise in this. At the same time, Canada is not a really independent state that can provide a really independent foreign policy. It’s an open secret that the UK still appoints a Governor General of Canada that has a wide range of options to impact the Canadian policy – for example, to dissolve the Parliament.
  • The EU council president Donald Tusk was also against, according to The Guardian. However, it remains unclear what did he do there. It’s the G7, not the G7 + “EU buerocrats”. If there is a decision to invite various persons to summit to make fun, SouthFront recommends to invite Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in 2020. He would use his comedian skills  to make a great show for the participants.

G7 Format Is Dead

David Lipton (IMF), Moussa Faki (AUC), David Malpass (World Bank), Scott Morrison (Australia), Antonio Guterres (UN), Narendra Modi (India), Guy Ryder (ILO), Pedro Sanchez (Spain), Angel Gurria (OECD), Akinwumi Adesina (African Development Bank). Front: Boris Johnson (UK), Cyril Ramaphosa (South Africa), Paul Kagame (Rwanda), Abdel Sisi (Egypt), Shinzo Abe (Japan), Justin Trudeau (Canada), Donald Trump (US), Emmanuel Macron (France), Angela Merkel (Germany), Macky Sall (Senegal), Roch Marc Christian Kaboré (Burkina Faso), Sebastián Piñera (Chile), Guiseppe Conte (Italy), Donald Tusk (EC) Photograph: Andrew Parsons/PA



Report on Hassan Diab’s Illegal Extradition from Canada. The Segal Report

Global Research, July 27, 2019
Hassan Diab Support Committee 25 July 2019

We were informed that the Department of Justice will release tomorrow (Friday July 26) the findings of an external review of Dr. Hassan Diab‘s extradition to France in 2014.

The external review was conducted by Murray Segal, former Deputy Attorney General of Ontario. Mr. Segal was asked to assess whether Department of Justice officials followed the law and departmental procedures while pursuing France’s request to extradite Diab.



Dr. Hassan Diab is a Canadian citizen and sociology professor who lives in Ottawa. He was extradited from Canada to France in November 2014, even though the Canadian extradition judge, Robert Maranger, described the evidence presented against Diab as “very problematic”, “convoluted”, “illogical”, and “suspect”. However, given the low threshold of evidence in Canada’s Extradition Act, the judge felt compelled to order Diab’s extradition.

Diab spent more than three years in prison in France while the decades-long investigation in his case was ongoing – this despite the fact that Canada’s Extradition Act only authorizes extradition to stand trial, not to continue an investigation.

In January 2018, the French investigating judges dismissed all charges against Diab and ordered his release. They stated that there is consistent evidence that Diab was not in France at the time of the 1980 bombing in Paris that tragically killed four people and injured dozens. They also notably underlined the numerous contradictions and misstatements contained in the anonymous intelligence, and cast serious doubts about its reliability. The investigating judges also stressed that all fingerprint and palm print analysis excluded Diab.

Shortly thereafter, Diab was released from prison in France, and returned to his home and family in Canada. He had spent almost ten years of his life either imprisoned or living under draconian bail conditions, including more than three years in near solitary confinement in a French jail.

In June 2018, CBC News reported that a key fingerprint analysis exonerating Diab was not disclosed to the court in Canada during the extradition proceedings. The court in Canada was told that no such evidence existed, when in fact the fingerprint analysis that excluded Diab was done in early 2008, many months before France requested Diab’s extradition. CBC News also reported that in 2009 a senior lawyer at the Canadian Department of Justice (DOJ) urged the French authorities to obtain new handwriting ‘evidence’ against Diab when the extradition case was about to collapse. In another effort to shore up the case, the DOJ lawyer requested another fingerprint analysis of a police document signed by the suspect as he believed that the evidence would be very powerful in getting Hassan extradited. When the RCMP fingerprint analysis excluded Diab, the DOJ lawyer never disclosed this fact to the court in Canada or to the defense.

Numerous human rights, civil society organisations, and labor unions – including Amnesty International Canada, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG), Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), among others – have called on the Canadian government to conduct an independent public inquiry into Diab’s extradition, as well as to undertake a complete review of the Extradition Act so no other Canadian would go through what Hassan Diab and his family had to endure.


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Ottawa Citizen


US vs China: Smartphone Wars

July 7, 2019 (Joseph Thomas – NEO) – If Washington’s goal was to pressure and isolate China by targeting smartphone giant Huawei, it seems to have accomplished the exact opposite. In the process, the US has only accomplished in exposing its own growing weakness and unreliability as a trade partner amid a much wider, misguided and mismanaged “trade war.”

While we’re only talking about smartphones and economic competition, however fierce, the outcome of this smartphone battle amid a much wider trade war will have an impact on global power and who wields it in the years to come.

Losing Ungracefully  

By May 2019, Huawei had firmly climbed to the number two spot in global smartphone sales at the expense of US-based Apple. By the first quarter of 2019 it had shipped 59.1 million phones compared to Apple, now third place, at between 36-43 million phones, IDC (International Data Corporation) reported.

IDC and many other articles based on its data would note that while Huawei and Apple have traded places in the past over who held second place among global smartphone sales, Huawei’s ascension this time seemed much more permanent.

Those watching the trajectory and inner workings of both tech giants will have noticed Apple’s decline as endemic internal management problems coupled with growing global competition tattered its reputation and consumer appeal.

Was it just a coincidence that just as first quarter sales data emerged, the US announced one of its more dramatic turns amid its wider trade war with China? The Trump administration would announce a ban on all American-made goods to Huawei including microchips made by Intel and Qualcomm as well as the Android operating system (OS) made by US tech giant Google.

Coupled with this move was a public relations blitz across the US media and their partners working within nations moving closer to China. In Thailand, for example, local media trained and influenced by US interests attempted to undermine consumer confidence in Huawei in the wake of US sanctions against the company.

This one-two punch was a partial success. Sales did slump and Huawei was faced with significant obstacles. But significant obstacles are not the same as insurmountable obstacles, and overcoming obstacles is often how true competitors strengthen themselves.

What Doesn’t Kill You Makes You Stronger 

For Huawei, a tech giant integral to China’s wider economic and political success upon the global stage, it has all the resources and support it needs to weather the toughest of storms.

In the wake of US sanctions, and even in the lead up to them, Huawei has begun to source critical parts from non-US companies. It is also investing significantly in its own in-house alternatives to US manufactured microchips and even in an alternative OS to replace Android.

Digital Trends in its article “Huawei’s Android-alternative operating system: Everything you need to know,” helps illustrate just how determined Huawei is to overcome these obstacles.

The fact that work on the OS supposedly began as early as 2018 indicates that Huawei executives are under no illusions regarding American goodwill. If America is to play nicely with Huawei and other Chinese companies, it will be because Huawei and other Chinese companies took steps leaving the US no other choice but to do so.

Android is an open source OS. This means that its code is free for all developers to access and use. It was the key to Android’s wide success, and thus Google’s domination of the smartphone OS market, but it is also a weakpoint in Google and the US government’s attempts to hobble Huawei.

Huawei’s alternative OS will be compatible with the open source Android system. Android applications can still be downloaded and used on a Huawei phone running Huawei’s OS, but instead of doing so through Google’s online application store, it will be done through Huawei’s.

As some media have pointed out, this means that Huawei’s setbacks by being restricted from Android will only be temporary. Long-term, Google stands to lose tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of customers who will instead be using Huawei’s alternatives.

Google could even lose its dominion over smartphone OS development if Huawei made its own alternative as accessible and as appealing as Android, minus the political and economic threats aimed at nations Washington finds displeasing.

Maybe this is why the US appears to be backing off (for now), if only partially, from its initial threats against Huawei. Nothing the US is doing to Huawei actually addresses why US companies themselves are losing the smartphone war to begin with. Should companies like Huawei overcome what little leverage the US still has over global telecom tech, it will have a stronger smartphone product coupled with stronger, alternative infrastructure out of reach of US influence.

In efforts to isolate China, the US may be succeeding in only isolating itself.

US Threats Undermine Confidence in the US, Not China  

Other nations needed little imagination to realise that if the US could target Chinese companies simply for outcompeting American corporations, they could easily find themselves next. This has made them sympathetic to China’s current challenges.

While media influenced by the US in various nations have aided US efforts to undermine China’s Huawei, the nations themselves have not.

In Thailand, for example, the Thai government has moved forward with plans to partner with Huawei to develop its national 5G network despite mounting pressure not to from the US, NPR would report.

Huawei is still a popular brand in Thai markets, in third place behind Oppo (also a Chinese brand) and Samsung, Bangkok Post reported.

Thai government agencies have been assuring consumers that US sanctions will not impact Huawei goods sold in Thailand in the short-term, while Huawei takes steps to ensure there will be no impact in the long-term.

Since Huawei is not the first Chinese tech company targeted by the US in such a manner, and with other Chinese-made smartphones becoming popular in nations like Thailand (Oppo for example), China as a nation will only pour further resources in protecting Chinese companies from the coercive measures taken by the US.

Other nations are not only sympathetic toward Chinese efforts, they themselves will likely take similar measures regarding their own industries.

The ongoing trade war with China is not the only example of economic warfare used by the US. We see much more extreme examples of US economic warfare aimed at Iran and Venezuela.

Growing US pressure placed on Russia is another example. The US has even gone as far as threatening nations like Germany with sanctions for moving ahead with a German-Russian pipeline (Nord Stream 2).

The US has revealed itself as an unreliable trade partner, bitter at any prospect of competition or genuine cooperation. Amid its trade war with China it has pressured its own allies to hamper trade with China, a move that benefits China’s trade partners in no conceivable way. The US is willing to do anything to anyone to cling to global economic supremacy and the power that stems from holding it in its own hands. Sharing it with China and Russia or even its own allies in Europe and East Asia dilutes both the potency of that power, and its ability to weild it with potent impunity.

False Pretexts Aren’t Just for Hot Wars

The US regularly uses false pretexts to launch its many real wars around the globe. Fabrications regarding “weapons of mass destruction” were used to justify the US invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. Disingenuous humanitarian concerns regarding imaginary abuses were used to justify the US military intervention in Libya. Serial but baseless accusations over chemical weapon use has been used to justify US military intervention in Syria.

But fabricating justifications to go off to war isn’t reserved merely for hot wars. The US is citing supposed security concerns to target China’s Huawei, coincidentally just as it permanently overtakes US-based Apple in global smartphone sales, and amid a wider trade war built on entirely different (but also fabricated) claims.

The fact that the US is lying about its motivations to target Huawei should be another warning to Beijing over the trustworthiness of the current circles dominating US economic and political power. It should also be a warning to the rest of the world when doing business with the US.

A robust strategy must be adopted by nations and between nations to protect themselves from the still potent and disruptive power the US holds over global economics.

Whether it is attempts by the US to undermine confidence in a nation’s economy, smear a nation’s tourism industry, attempts to reverse the global success of companies like Huawei or even sabotage energy deals made by the US’ own allies with nations Washington considers adversaries, what amounts to highly dangerous American-led economic warfare remains a critical threat to global peace and stability.

Strategies for protecting national industries by developing domestic industrial capacity and relying less on sourcing critical components from unreliable partners like the US is essential. So is protecting bilateral trade through the creation of financial exchange systems out of reach of US sanctions. Being able to counter Washington’s manufactured narratives used to justify its coercive economic behavior is also key.

Just as growing military prowess and unity of purpose among Eurasian nations have helped impede the growing number of America’s many and very destructive real wars, similar economic prowess and unity of purpose will be required to stifle America’s likewise disruptive economic warfare waged globally.

Huawei’s success or failure serves as a weather vane indicating in just what direction this balance of power is headed.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.


In Gaza


Kirill Vyshinsky: Imprisoned over 1 year in Ukraine, a journalist who *should* have been highlighted at the “Media Freedom” conference but was not.

July 15, 2019,
Irony is the word which comes to mind at the mention of the “Global Conference for Media Freedom” co-hosted by the UK and Canadian foreign ministers. Everything about this twilight zone gathering smacked of irony.

Irony that governments which support terrorists in Syria and whitewash Israeli murders of Palestinian journalists have the gall to hold a conference feigning concern for journalists’ rights and media freedom.

Irony that journalists actually suffering persecution and unjust imprisonment –like Kirill Vyshinsky and Julian Assange – were not the focus of the conference, with Assange only mentioned in passing, and Vyshinsky, presumably, not at all.

Irony most of all that a conference — according to Global Affairs Canada, an “international campaign to shine a global spotlight on media freedom…”– refused participation of two major and sought-out media outlets, both Russian: RT and Sputnik.

Organizers apparently tried to claim the reason for the exclusion was simply that they’d met their quota of journalists attending. But they didn’t maintain the lie to Western media, RT London correspondent Polly Boiko noted:

Behind our backs other news channels got a very different message: ‘We have not accredited RT or Sputnik because of their active role in spreading disinformation.’”

Former Guardian Chief Foreign Correspondent Jonathan Steele called the exclusion of RT and Sputnik a “disgrace”, also stating:

I think they’re trying to isolate RT and imply that it’s not a genuine broadcaster in the hope that British people and others around the world who watched RT International won’t continue to watch it.

The irony –yet again– is that Russia isn’t doing the same, isn’t isolating Western media.

Russia-based journalist Bryan MacDonald tweeted:

It’s like the world has turned on its head. Moscow is literally paying people to translate Western media into Russian (see @RT_InoTV). But the UK is in a panic about Russian outlets, even running covert operations, such as “Integrity Initiative,” to “combat” a perceived threat.”

Even the Committee to Protect Journalists expressed concern at the UK’s exclusion of RT and Sputnik.

From the feedback on the UK Foreign Office tweet featuring CNN’s Christiane Amanpour about

reporting the truth”, it was refreshing to see that many saw this charade for what it was, calling it Orwellian, and noting that Britain is “torturing journalist Julian Assange as it uses @CAmanpour to produce propaganda claiming it cares about media freedom.

I couldn’t help chiming in, noting Amanpour’s exploitation of a Syrian child in order to demonize Russia.

Eva Bartlett


Theatre of the absurd. Truthful? Amanpour waved photo of Omran Daqneesh in face of Lavrov & essentially accused Russia of airstriking boy’s home. Boy’s dad told me no airstrike. It was fake news. 
Did Amanpour bother apologizing for her propaganda? Nope. 

MintPress Meets The Father Of Iconic Aleppo Boy, Who Says Media Lied About His Son

MintPress sat down with the father of the now-infamous Aleppo boy, Omran Daqneesh. Omran’s father, Mohammad Daqneesh, says his son was exploited by Syrian rebels and the media for political gain.,…

Foreign Office 🇬🇧


‘Our job is to report the truth. It is not to be neutral, it is to be truthful’ @camanpour explains the vital role that journalists play in society. #DefendMediaFreedom

Embedded video

150 people are talking about this
The UK conference isn’t the first example of an international event hosting regime-change media while excluding critical media.

Earlier this year, when the Lima Group was meeting in Canada to discuss the self-proclaimed non-president, Juan Guaido, Canada likewise denied accreditation to Telesur and Russian media.

Global Affairs Canada alleged at the time there would be “reciprocal action against Canadian media in Russia.

However, Bryan MacDonald told me: “Any that wish can operate in Russia. There are no restrictions.”

Indeed, a perusal of the Twitter accounts of CBC and Radio Canada journalists shows they’ve continued reporting from Russia months since Canada’s allegation of reciprocal action.

Which outlets did Canada give access to during the Lima meeting? CNN, Univision, Voice of America, Al Jazeera, CBC, CTV, Global, and La Presse, among other regime-change networks.

Telesur noted at the time of the Canadian block:

The government did not provide any reasoning for the denial of Lima Group meeting access, but has recently been called out for limiting press freedom within the country based on the preferences of its government.

Sound familiar?

A regime change conference

The UK conference seems to have been a who’s who of terrorist and extremist supporters and journalists who whitewash their crimes. Or, as a Canadian journalist who attended put it, the conference was:

Meetings behind closed doors. Barring certain people from a press conference. Letting only hand-picked journalists ask questions. Here’s how Canada’s “media freedom” conference went down.

Andrew Lawton


Meetings behind closed doors. Barring certain people from a press conference. Letting only hand-picked journalists ask questions. Here’s how Canada’s “media freedom” conference went down. 

LAWTON: Media freedom conference pays lip service to press freedom – True North News

Canadian and British governments demonstrated they’re more interested in a glossy show of support for press freedom without conducting themselves in a way that fosters it.

505 people are talking about this
That same journalist noted,
only two pre-selected Canadian journalists were permitted to ask questions of Freeland and Hunt at a brief media availability on the first day of the conference. Media were not allowed in the room for what may have been the most consequential part of the conference, a session with government representatives from around the world on “how to sustain the impact of the (Defend Media Freedom) campaign after the conference.

Present were the BBC, CNN, and CBC, among others. Although these outlets have all systematically churned out disinformation on Syria and Russia, they were presented as truthful authorities on ‘media freedom.’

The BBC dubs itself “the most trusted international news broadcaster.” This lofty claim is easily debunked when looking at the BBC’s history of war propaganda on Syria, including its 2013, “Saving Syria’s Children”, a report which Robert Stuart has doggedly investigated, revealing its falsehoods.

Or the time the BBC used Italian photojournalist Marco Di Lauro‘s photo from Iraq to claim it was Houla, Syria.


As I wrote before, “Upon demand of the aghast journalist, the claim was later retracted and corrected, an “accident”…but who was listening by that point?”

Or that time the BBC’s Middle East specialist asserted a viral video was in a “regime” area of Syria –because of the “Syrian army flag” painted on a barrel– when the clip was filmed in Malta by Norwegians, and the barrel was painted with an out-of-sequence attempt at replicating Syria’s flag.


But more telling about the BBC’s trustworthiness is the fact that, according to the Canary, “The UK Conservative government appoints the chair of the BBC board and its four national directors.”

Pegged as a Venezuelan investigative reporter, Luz Mely Reyes was invited to the conference. Reyes advocates for non-president Juan Guaido and is cheer-led by Western media gatekeepers like TIME and the Guardian. She was thus, indeed, a perfect guest for the regime-change conference.

Syrian participants included exclusively pro-regime-change journalists, such as:

-Karam Nachar, a “cyber-activist working with Syrian protesters via social media platforms,” according to his bio on Democracy Now, where, as with other regime-change supporters, he has appeared frequently arguing the case for western intervention.

-Wa’ad Al Khatib, promoted before Aleppo’s liberation in 2016 as an independent filmmaker. Her clips were featured by none other than the UK’s Channel 4, one of the worst offenders in war propaganda on Syria.

The irony is that Wa’ad al-Khatib was slated to speak about the role of local journalists with respect to international media coverage of areas. But she,like so many other darlings of Western corporate media, reported fully embedded in terrorist areas, clearly with the permission and approval of terrorists.

Chairing panels on safety and protection of journalists was none other than Sky News’ Alex Crawford. In June, Crawford was seen embedded with al-Qaeda in Idlib, as were CBS journalists, both teams presumably having entered Syria illegally.

One could muse that Crawford’s safety advice was: pay up to al-Qaeda and you’ll be fine moving alongside terrorists.

A panel on “Navigating Disinformation” was chaired by Chrystia Freeland – known for her allegiances to the Ukrainian authorities and the bloody coup that brought them to power, to the Venezuelan coup-plotters and to the White Helmets of al-Qaeda– not exactly the most neutral or balanced person to moderate.

Fake Concern For Journalists; No Mention Of Assange, Kirill Vyshinsky

Glaringly absent from the agenda was the issue of Julian Assange, held at Belmarsh prison a short drive away.

John McEvoy@jmcevoy_2

This is the distance between the UK’s ‘defend media freedom’ event and Belmarsh prison. Julian Assange can probably smell the hypocrisy from his cell.

View image on Twitter
163 people are talking about this
the UK conference is happening at the same time that Julian Assange’s extradition papers are being signed by the UK.

On July 10, the first day of the conference, Hunt stated that countries that restrict media freedom must be made to pay a diplomatic price, saying:

If we act together we can shine a spotlight on abuses and impose a diplomatic price on those who’d harm journalists or lock them up for doing their jobs.

This from the Foreign Secretary of a government which is

holding journalist Julian Assange behind bars pending a US extradition hearing for exposing American war crimes.

When challenged by Ruptly journalist Barnaby Nerberka on Assange, in contrast to his lofty words on the previous day, Hunt said nothing.

Barnaby Nerberka@barnabynerberka

Jeremy Hunt refuses to answer my questions on the plight of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and the banning of Russian media from the ‘media freedom conference’

Embedded video

293 people are talking about this
Ukrainian-Russian journalist Kirill Vyshinsky was not featured in spite of having been unjustlydetained by Ukraine for 14 months now, a glaring violation of media freedom.

Russia in Canada


🇷🇺 journalist Kirill Vyshinsky is imprisoned in accused of “high treason” for doing his job

🇨🇦 🇬🇧 so-called forum ignores his show trial & similar cases of attacks on , incl. @OSCE_RFoM condemned ban on Russian journalists accreditation

View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
30 people are talking about this
Likewise, certainly absent was mention of Syrian journalist Khaled al-Khatib, killed in 2017 by ISIS (IS/Islamic State, formerly ISIL), or of any of theSyrian and allied journalists murdered by jihadists before he was.

The UK Foreign Office made the mistake of tweeting about the risk of “torture, disappearances and death,” in Eastern Ukraine.

Ukrainian journalist Sergey Belous, kidnapped by Ukrainian armed forces in 2014, corrected him.

Foreign Office 🇬🇧


In the non-government controlled areas of Eastern Ukraine, journalists risk torture, disappearances and death.

Embedded video

Sergey Belous@Belous_SR

Ha-ha-ha! Where you’ve been when I (war reporter, working as stringer for Ukrainian 112 chanel) was kidnapped by Ukrainian armed forces in 2014? Hypocrites! Stop spreading lies! What’s about or , for example?

See Sergey Belous’s other Tweets
Likewise, Mark Sleboda called BS, noting the over 20 journalist killed by “the militant forces & brownshirt paramilitary ‘batallions’ of the new regime.”

Clearly, the grandiose words of foreign ministers Hunt and Freeland apply only to journalists supporting regime change, not those targeted by allied governments and their terrorists.

After the Censorship  Conference

On Saturday, I read that a popular Ukrainian TV channel was attacked with a grenade launcher on the day an Oliver Stone documentary on Ukraine was to be aired.

Ivan Katchanovski@I_Katchanovski

It would be revealing reaction of new president @ZelenskyyUa to such undemocratic and illiberal actions of political appointees of Poroshenko regime and far right against US documentary that they have not seen and against freedom of the press & expression in .

Ivan Katchanovski@I_Katchanovski

Popular TV channel is shelled from grenade launcher in order to prevent its broadcast today of US by @TheOliverStone. It would reveal involvement of snipers in Maidan massacre. Would there be any reaction from US government? 

Здание телеканала 112 Украина обстреляли из гранатомета

Полицейские квалифицируют происшествие как террористический акт

295 people are talking about this

“Any reaction from so-called ‘Global Media Freedom’ conference co-hosts Freeland & Hunt, or those who pledged to ‘shine a light on violations & abuses of media freedom, bringing them to the attention of global public and working towards accountability’”.

My question was of course rhetorical, not honestly expecting those governmental representatives who signed a pledge “to work together to protect media freedom” to actually do that.

Their pledge entailed committing to “shine a light on violations and abuses of media freedom, bringing them to the attention of the global public and working towards accountability.” How ironic.


“They Just Want Me in Prison”: MintPress Interviews Jailed Ukrainian Journalist Kirill Vyshinsky

‘They know that we know they are liars, they keep lying’: West’s war propaganda on Ghouta crescendos

FAKE NEWS WEEK: Why Channel 4 “News” Owes an Apology to Syria

Exploitation of children in propaganda war against Syria continues

D-Day… More Drama Than Decisive in World War II Victory

Related image

Finian Cunningham
June 6, 2019

Stealing the laurels of victory was a necessary act of treachery by the Western powers in order to facilitate their Cold War against the Soviet Union. The same treachery continues today as Washington and its NATO allies try to wage a new Cold War against Russia.

US President Donald Trump called it the “greatest battle ever” while attending a 75th anniversary ceremony this week to mark the Western allied invasion of Nazi-occupied France.

Trump was joined by Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II and leaders from 15 other nations in the British harbor city of Portsmouth from where allied troops embarked for the beaches of Normandy on June 6, 1944.

Looking back, Operation Overlord was indeed a huge military and logistical undertaking. Some 150,000 troops from the US, Britain and Canada, among others, crossed the narrow English Channel in 7,000 vessels. It is recorded as the biggest military land invasion from sea.

Allied forces were met by Nazi firepower as they stormed the Normandy beaches. But in truth the Nazi defenses were easily overwhelmed. That’s largely because Hitler had already shifted the best fighting units months before to the Eastern Front where the Third Reich was really in a war for its survival against the Soviet Red Army. The D-Day casualty figures would attest that American, British and German deaths from the brief battles in Normandy were of the order of 10,000. Meanwhile, on the Eastern Front the casualties on both the German and Soviet sides were hundred-fold more, in the millions.

When the D-Day invasion was launched in June 1944, the pivotal battle at Stalingrad was long over, 16 months before that. The Wehrmacht was already being rolled back to German homeland. Some 90 per cent of all German military casualties – nearly six million soldier deaths – were to be inflicted on the Eastern Front fighting the Red Army.

The question remains: why did Western allies not launch their offensive on Nazi-occupied France much sooner? Soviet leader Josef Stalin had pleaded over the previous year with his American and British counterparts to do so on several occasions in order to relieve the Soviets. Did the Western allies finally act on D-Day because they could see that the Red Army was on the way to conquering all of Nazi Germany singlehandedly, and thus were motivated to claw some of the spoils? It was the Red Army that vanquished the Third Reich’s last stand in Berlin in May 1945. But the Soviet Union entered into a postwar carve-up of Germany with the US and Britain.

So, when President Trump talks about D-Day being the “greatest battle ever” he is being prone to unfounded exaggeration, relying on Hollywood fabulation than historical record.

There is little dispute that the opening of the Western Front did indeed help accelerate the final defeat of Nazi Germany. But it also indisputable that the greatest battles and decisive victories were achieved by the Soviet forces for the liberation of Europe from Nazi tyranny.

What we see in today’s celebration of the 75th anniversary of D-Day is more dramatics than actual historical reality. Official Western conceit pretends that that event was the key to defeating Nazi Germany.

Part of the reason is to arrogate a moral authority for Western states, which is hardly deserved. By claiming to have emancipated Europe from the scourge of totalitarian fascism, Western states are thereby given a political and moral cover to conduct their own otherwise blatant policies of aggression and militarism.

How many illegal wars and subterfuges have the US and its NATO allies, particularly Britain, carried out since the end of the Second World War? Some historians like the late William Blum, author of ‘Killing Hope’, or Mark Curtis, author of ‘Web of Deceit’, put the number in the hundreds. These genocidal, supreme crimes of aggression, are afforded an audacious moral license largely because these same aggressors continually invoke their supposed victory against Nazi Germany. The truth is that the US and its NATO allies have in many ways continued the same aggression of Nazi Germany in countless wars and covert operations around the world over the past seven decades. The genocides in Korea, Kenya, Malaya, Indonesia, Vietnam, Chile, Central America, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, are just a few among many other US-UK atrocities.

The present looming conflicts involve the US threatening war and destruction against Iran and Venezuela based on transparently spurious pretexts. And yet Trump has the brass neck to eulogize during the D-Day commemorations this week about American forces standing up for “freedom and liberty”.

The US and its NATO allies are using the past and its presumed glories as a shield for their own criminal imperialism.

Dramatizing D-Day as an event is also crucial for the discrediting and demonizing of Russia, as it was previously with regard to the Soviet Union. Wouldn’t it have been appropriate to invite Russian leader Vladimir Putin to the D-Day events this week in order to pay respect to the colossal sacrifices of the Soviet people in defeating Nazi Germany?

%d bloggers like this: