The Turkish madness is electoral one الجنون التركي انتخابي

The Turkish madness is electoral one

مارس 16, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

In the worst moments experienced by the administration of the Turkish President Recep Erdogan with Washington, and in the light of the developments of the events in the northern of Syria and the sticking of the US officials with the priority of their relation with the Kurds and the inability of Erdogan to understand that, for the second time the dilemma of the sense of greatness has been revealed as a barrier without realistic thinking in the Turkish ruling mentality. The issue according to the Americans neither related to the magnitude of the military capacity of the parties nor to the attitude toward the Turkish country and the keenness to ally with it.

Simply, Washington needs for a non-governmental Syrian party that grants it the legitimacy of deploying troops and experts and forming airports in Syria under the title of privacy that has magnitude of the realistic legitimacy and the ethnic or the national legitimacy, it needs for a party that responds to the US demands that is not loyal to any other country than America. In these two issues Turkey is like America it behaves like it toward the armed groups which affiliated to it, it wants from Washington to deal with it in order to get its legitimacy for the Turkish occupation that resembles the US occupation, even if the Turkish occupation was covered by a title of confronting the danger that threatens the security of Turkey, once under the pretext of the Kurds or the support of the armed factions that are loyal to Turkey. The pretext of the Americans remains the stronger in the war on ISIS and their coverage is more important through the relation with the Kurds.

The Turkish crisis occurs with Netherlands and Germany for the same reasons, the Turkish President and his government are waging a confrontation under what they consider a democratic right by communicating with the voters before the referendum, forgetting that he is talking about immigrants in another country, so what is presented by him is not to sign an agreement that allows the hosting country to organize electoral festivals and to receive the speakers from the two teams to identify the attitudes and to practice the choice, in favor of the resident communities, but it is an exclusive right of the representatives of the rule to mobilize their immigrants to vote for its favor. It is surprised to find the coming governments which want to hold elections and in respect of the privacy of the Turkish position toward the organizations of ISIS and Al Nusra and the issue of the refugees pave the way for Turkish governmental festivals that do not evoke campaigns of the extremist right, because Turkey does not see any law or logic but the one which helps it to be surprised for not dealing with its priorities, as the priorities of the others.

Politically, it is not possible to describe the Turkish anger along with the expressions and threats but only with the political madness for a frustrated country that lives the defeat and the isolation, and instead of absorbing what is surrounding its policies as complexities or making a review that allows drawing policies that commensurate with the variables it turns into a source of crises, that spreads anger and tension. This is the beginning of the tragic end of the countries which think that their size is protecting them. Previously, Turkey has experienced that with Russia, but the result was disastrous, and it has been forced to apologize, but the problem of the rule of Erdogan is that he wants to win in the referendum by provoking the Turkish feelings of the voters who live as their president the illusion of the sultanate and the arrogance of greatness, and whose their egos please the anger of the president and provoke them to vote for him according to the powers of the Sultan, but after the referendum he will leave the arrogance after he will send secretly to the Dutch government that “ I think that the crisis and the tension benefit both of us in the elections so we have to win together, in order to reconcile after the elections”.

Erdogan is a kind of the politicians who is aware how to deal with the game of the folk in the relation of the leader and the street’s people, its key is tickling the tribalism of the privacy and the greatness, then it is possible to fluctuate between the matter and its opposite without consideration or questioning. And thus the leader will be in an image that simulates the divinity over the change and its laws.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

الجنون التركي انتخابي

مارس 13, 2017

ناصر قنديل

في لحظات سيئة تعيشها إدارة الرئيس التركي رجب أردوغان مع واشنطن في ضوء مجريات أحداث شمال سورية وتمسّك المسؤولين الأميركيين بأولوية علاقتهم بالأكراد وعجز أردوغان عن استيعاب ذلك، تكشفت مرة أخرى معضلة الشعور بالعظمة كحاجز دون التفكير الواقعي في الذهنية التركية الحاكمة، فالمسألة عند الأميركيين ليست بحجم القدرة العسكرية للأطراف، ولا بالموقف من الدولة التركية والحرص على التحالف معها.

إنها ببساطة حاجة واشنطن لجهة غير حكومية سورية تمنحها شرعية نشر قوات وخبراء وإقامة مطارات في سورية، تحت عنوان خصوصية لها مقدار من الشرعية الواقعية والشرعية العرقية أو القومية، وجهة تأتمر بالأوامر الأميركية ولا تدين بالولاء لدولة غير أميركا. وفي هذين الشأنين تركيا كأميركا تفعل مثلها مع الجماعات المسلحة التابعة لها، وتريد من واشنطن أن تمرّ عبرها وأن تستمد شرعيتها من احتلال تركي يشبه الاحتلال الأميركي، ولو تغطّى الاحتلال التركي بعنوان مواجهة خطر على أمن تركيا مرة بذريعة الأكراد أو يدعم فصائل مسلّحة موالية لتركيا. تبقى ذريعة الأميركيين أقوى في الحرب على داعش، وغطاؤهم أهم بالعلاقة مع الأكراد.

تقع الأزمة التركية مع هولندا وألمانيا لأسباب مشابهة، فيخوض الرئيس التركي وحكومته مواجهة تحت ما يعتبره حقاً ديمقراطياً، بالتواصل مع الناخبين قبل الاستفتاء، ناسياً أنه يتحدّث عن مهاجرين في بلد آخر، وأن ما يعرضه ليس توقيع اتفاق تتيح بموجبه الدولة المضيفة للجاليات المقيمة تنظيم مهرجانات انتخابية واستقبال المتحدثين من الفريقين للتعرف على المواقف وممارسة الاختيار، بل حق حصري لممثلي الحكم بتعبئة مهاجريهم للتصويت لحساب خياراته. ويستغرب أن تجد الحكومات المقبلة على انتخابات في ذلك، ولخصوصية الموقف التركي من العلاقة بتنيظمَي داعش وجبهة النصرة، وقضية اللاجئين، في فتح الطريق لمهرجانات حكومية تركية ما يضرّ بها ويستثير عليها حملات من اليمين المتطرف، لأن الباب العالي لا يرى قانوناً ومنطقاً إلا الذي يساعده على الاستغراب لعدم التعامل مع أولوياته كأولويات للآخرين.

لا يمكن سياسياً توصيف الغضب التركي وما رافقه من تعابير وتهديدات إلا بالجنون السياسي لدولة محبطة، تعيش الهزيمة والعزلة وبدلاً من استيعاب ما يحيط بسياساتها من تعقيدات والانكباب على مراجعة تتيح رسم سياسات تتناسب مع المتغيرات تتحوّل مصدراً للأزمات، وتنشر حولها الغضب والتوتر. وهذه بداية نهاية مأساوية للدول التي تظن أن حجمها يحميها، فقد جرّبت تركيا سابقاً ذلك مع روسيا وكانت النتيجة كارثية واضطرت لكسر أنفها والعودة إلى الاعتذار، لكن مشكلة حكم أردوغان أنه يريد الفوز بالاستفتاء من موقع الاستثارة للمشاعر التركية لدى الناخبين الذين يعيشون مثل رئيسهم وهم السلطنة وعنجهية العظمة، ويرضي غرورهم غضب الرئيس ويستنهضهم للتصويت له بصلاحيات سلطان. وهو بعد الاستفتاء سيعود عن العنجهية بعد أن يرسل سراً للحكومة الهولندية، أظنّ أن الأزمة والتوتر يفيداننا معاً في الانتخابات وما علينا إلا الفوز معاً، لنتصالح بعد الانتخابات.

أردوغان نوع من السياسيين يدرك كيفية التعامل مع لعبة القطيع في علاقة الزعيم والشارع، ومفتاحها دغدغة عصبية الخصوصية والعظمة، وعندها يمكن التقلّب بين الشيء وضده من دون حساب ومساءلة، ويصير الزعيم في صورة تحاكي الألوهية فوق التغيير وقوانينه ويخلق الله من الشبه أربعين.

(Visited 1٬107 times, 1٬107 visits today)
Related Videos
 







Related Articles

Eisenhower’s Death Camps: The Last Dirty Secret of World War Two

Eisenhower’s Death Camps: The Last Dirty Secret of World War Two

by James Bacque — Sept 1989

One of Eisenhower's death camps at Sinzig-Remagen, spring, 1945. Click to enlarge

One of Eisenhower’s death camps at Sinzig-Remagen, spring, 1945. Click to enlarge

Call it callousness, call it reprisal, call it a policy of hostile neglect: a million Germans taken prisoner by Eisenhower’s armies died in captivity after the surrender.

In the spring of 1945, Adolph Hitler’s Third Reich was on the brink of collapse, ground between the Red Army, advancing westward towards Berlin, and the American, British, and Canadian armies, under the overall command of General Dwight Eisenhower, moving eastward over the Rhine.  Since the D-Day landings in Normandy the previous June, the westward Allies had won back France and the Low Countries, and some Wehrmacht commanders were already trying to negotiate local surrenders.  Other units, though, continued to obey Hitler’s orders to fight to the last man.  Most systems, including transport, had broken down, and civilians in panic flight fromt he advancing Russians roamed at large.

“Hungry and frightened, lying in grain fields within fifty feet of us, awaiting the appropriate time to jump up with their hands in the air”; that’s how Captain H. F. McCullough of the 2nd Anti-Tank Regiment Division described the chaos of the German surrender at the end of the Second World War.  In a day and a half, according to Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery, 500,000 Germans surrendered to his 21st Army Group in Northern Germany.  Soon after V-E Day–May 8, 1945–the British-Canadian catch totalled more that 2 million.  Virtually nothing about their treatment survives in the archives in Ottawa or London, but some skimpy evidence from the International Committee of the Red Cross, the armies concerned, and the prisoners themselves indicates that almost all continued in fair health.  In any case, most were quickly released and sent home, or else transferred to the French to help in the post-war work of reconstruction.  The French army had itself taken fewer than 300,000 prisoners.

Like the British and Canadians, the Americans suddenly faced astounding numbers of surrendering German troops: the final tally of prisoners taken by the U.S. army in Europe (excluding Italy and North Africa) was 5.25 million.  But the Americans responded very differently.

Among the early U.S captives was one Corporal Helmut Liebich, who had been working in an anti-aircraft experimental group at Peenemunde on the Baltic.  Liebich was captured by the Americans on April 17, near Gotha in Central Germany.  Forty-two years later, he recalled vividly that there were no tents in the Gotha camp, just barbed wire fences around a field soon churned to mud.  The prisoners received a small ration of food on the first day but it was then cut in half.  In order to get it, they were forced to run a gauntlet.  Hunched ocer, they ran between lines of American guards who hit them with sticks as they scurried towards their food.  On April 27, they were transferred to the U.S. camp at Heidesheim farther wet, where there was no food at all for days, then very little.  Exposed, starved, and thirsty, the men started to die.  Liebich saw between ten and thirty bodies a day being dragged out of his section, B, which at first held around 5,200 men.. He saw one prisoner beat another to death to get his piece of bread.  One night when it rained, Liebich saw the sides of the holes in which they were sheltered, dug in soft sandy earth, collapse on men who were too weak to struggle out.  They smothered before anyone could get to them.  Liebich sat down and wept.  “I could hardly believe men could be so cruel to each other.”

Typhus broke out in Heidesheim about the beginning of May.  Five days after V-E Day, on May 13, Liebich was transferred to another U.S. POW camp, at Bingen-Rudesheim in the Rhineland near Bad Kreuznach, where he was told that the prisoners numbered somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000, all without shelter, food, water, medicine, or sufficient space.

Soon he fell sick with dysentery and typhus.  he was moved again, semiconscious and delirious, in an open-topped railway car with about sixty other prisoners: northwest down the Rhine, with a detour through Holland, where the Dutch stood on bridges to smash stones down on the heads of the prisoners.  Sometimes the American guards fired warning shots near the Dutch to keep them off.  After three nights, his fellow prisoners helped him stagger into the hug camp at Rheinberg, near the border with the Netherlands, again without shelter or food.

When a little food finally did arrive, it was rotten.  In none of the four camps had Leibich seen any shelter for the prisoners.  the death rate in the U.S. Rhineland camps at this point, according to surrviving data from a medical survey, was about thirty per cent per year.  A normal death rate for a civilian population in 1945 was between one and two percent.

One day in June, through hallucinations of his fever, Liebich saw “the Tommies” coming into the camp.  The British had taken over Rheinberg, and that probably saved his life.  At this point, Liebich, who is five-foot-ten, weighed 96.8 ponds.

According to stories told to this day by other ex-prisoners of Rheinberg, tha last act of the Americans before the British took over was to bulldoze one section level while there were still men living in their holes in the ground.

Under the Geneva Convention, three important rights are guaranteed prisoners of war: that they will be fed and sheltered to the same standard as base or depot troops of the Capturing Power; that they can send and receive mail; and that they will be visited by delegates of the International Red Cross (ICRC) who will report in secret on their treatment to a Protecting Power.  (In the cas eof Germany, as the government disintegrated in the closing stages of the war, Switzerland had been designated the protecting power.)

Eisenhowers death camps

Eisenhower’s death camp. Click to enlarge

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In fact, German prisoners taken by the U.S. Army at the end of the Second World War were denied these and most other rights by a series of specific decisions and directives stemming mainly from SHAEF–Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force.  General Dwight Eisenhower was both supreme commander of SHAEF–all the Allied armies in northwest Europe–and the commanding general of the U.S. forces in the European theatre.  He was subject to the Combined Chiefs of Staff (CCS) of Britain and the U.S., to the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), and to the policy of the U.S. government, but in the absence of explicit directives–to the contrary or otherwise–ultimate responsibility for the treatment of the German prisoners in American hands lies with him.

“God , I hate the Germans,” Eisenhower wrote to his wife, Mamie, in September, 1944.  Earlier, in front of the British ambassador to Washington, he had said that all the 3,500 or so officers of the German General Staff should be “exterminated.”

In March, 1945, a message to the Combined Chiefs of Staff signed and initialled by Eisenhower recommended creating a new class of prisoners–Disarmed Enemy Forces, or DEFs–who, unlike Geneva-defined prisoners of war, would not be fed by the army after the surrender of Germany.  This would be a direct breach of the Geneva Convention.  The message, dated March 10, argues in part: “The additional maintenance commitment entailed by declaring the German Armed Forces prisoners [sic] of war which would necessitate the prevision of rations on a scale equal to that of base troops would prove far beyond the capacity of the Allies even if all German sources were tapped.”  It ends: “Your approval is requested.  Existing plans have been prepared upon this basis.”

On April 26, 1945, the Combined Chiefs approved the DEF status for prisoners of war in American hands only: the British members had refused to adopt the American plan for their own prisoners.  The Combined Chiefs stipulated that the status of disarmed troops be kept secret.

By that time, Eisenhower’s quartermaster general at SHAEF, General Robert Littlejohn, had already twice reduced rations for prisoners, and a SHAEF message signed “Eisenhower” had reported to General George Marshall, the U.S. Army Chief of staff, that the prisoner pens would provide “no shelter or other comforts….”

The problem was not supplies.  There was more than enough material stockpiled in Europe to construct prison camp facilities.  Eisenhower’s special assistant, general Everett Hughes, had visited the huge supply dumps at Naples and Marseille and reported:  “More stocks than we can ever use.  Stretch as far as eye can see.”  Food should not have been a problem, either.  In the U.S., wheat and corn surpluses were higher than they had ever been, and there was a record crop of potatoes.  The army itself had so much food in reserve that when a whole warehouse was dropped from the supply list by accident in England it was not noticed for three months.  In addition, the International Red Cross had over 100,000 tons of food in storage in Switzerland.  When it tried to send two trainloads of this to the American sector of Germany, U.S. Army Officers turned the trains back, saying their warehouses were already overflowing with ICRC food which they had never distributed.

Nonetheless it was through the supply side that the policy of deprivation was carried out.  Water, food, tents, space, medicine–everything necessary for the prisoners was kept fatally scarce.  Camp Rheinberg, where Corporal Liebich would fetch up in in mid-May, shivering with dysentery and typhus, had no food at all when it was opened on April 17.  As in the other big “Rhine meadow” camps, opened by the Americans in mid-April, there were no guard towers, tents, buildings, cooking facilities, water, latrines, or food.

George Weiss, at tank repairman who now lives in Toronto, recalls of his camp on the Rhine:  “All night we had to sit up jammed against each other.  But the lack of water was the worst thing of all.  For three and a half days, we had no water at all.  We would drink our own urine….”

Private Heinz T. (his surname is withheld at his request) had just turned eighteen in hospital when the Americans walked into his ward on April 18.  he and all his fellow patients were taken out to the camp at Bad Kreuzpath in the Rhineland, which already held several hundred thousand prisoners.  Heinz was wearing only a pair of shorts, shoes, and a shirt.

Heinz was far from the youngest in the camp, which also held thousands of displaced German civilians.  there were children as young as six among the prisoners, as well as pregnant women, and men over sixty.  At the beginning, when trees still grew i the camp, some men managed to cut off limbs to build a fire.  the guards ordered the fire put out.  In many of the enclosures, it was forbidden to dig holes in the ground for shelter.  “All we had to eat was grass,” Heinz remembers.

Charles von Luttichau was convalescing at home when he decided to surrender voluntarily to US troops about to occupy his house.  He was taken to Camp Kripp, on the Rhine near Remagen.

We were kept in crowded barbed wire cages in the open with scarcely any food,” he recalled recently.  “More than half the days we had no food at all.  On the rest, we got a little K ration.  I could see from the package that they were giving us one-tenth of the rations that they issued to their own men….I complained to the American camp commander that he was breaking the Geneva Convention, but he just said, ‘Forget the Convention.  You haven’t any rights.’

“The latrines were just logs flung over ditches next to the barbed-wire fences.  Because of illness, the men had to defecate on the ground.  Soon, many of us were  too weak to take our trousers off first.  So our clothing was infected, and so was the mud where we had to walk and sit and lie down.  In these conditions, our men very soon started to die.  Within  a few days, some of the men who had gone healthy into the camp were dead.  I saw our men dragging many bodies to the gate of the camp, where they were thrown loose on top of each other onto trucks, which took them away.”

Von Luttichau’s mother was American and he later emigrated to Washington, D.C., where he became a historian and wrote a military history for the U.S. Army.  he was in the Kripp camp for about three months.

Wolfgang Iff, who was imprisoned at Rheinberg and still lives in Germany, reports that, in his subsection of perhaps 10,000 prisoners, thirty to fifty bodies were dragged out every day.  A member of the burial work party, Iff says he helped haul the dead from his cage out to the gate of the camp, where the bodies were carried by wheel barrow to several big steel garages.  there Iff and his team stripped the corpses of clothing, snapped off half of their aluminium dog tag, spread the bodies in layers of fifteen to twenty, with ten shovelfuls of quicklime over each layer till they were stacked a metre high, placed the personal efefcts in a bag for the Americans, then left.  Some of the corpses were dead of gangrene following frostbite.  (It was an unusually wet, cold spring.)  A dozen or more others had grown too weak to cling to the log flung across the ditch for a latrine, and had fallen off and drowned.

The conditions in the American camps along the Rhine in late April were observed by two colonels in the U.S. Army Medical Corps, James Mason and Charles Beasley, who described them in a paper published in 1950:  “Huddled close together for warmth, behind the barbed wire was a most awesome sight–nearly 100,000 haggard, apathetic, dirty, gaunt, blank-staring med clad in dirty field grey uniforms, and standing ankle-deep in mud….The German Divisions Commander reported that the men had not eaten for at least two days, and the provisions of water was a major problem–yet only 200 yards away was the River Rhine running bankfull.”

Eisenhower's Rhine Meadows death camp. Click to enlarge

Eisenhower’s Rhine Meadows death camp. Click to enlarge

On May 4, 1945, the first German prisoners of war in U.S. hands were transferred to DEF status.  The same day, the U.S. war Department banned mail to or from the prisoners.  (when the International Committee of the Red Cross suggested a plan for restoring mail in June, it was rejected.)

On May 8, V-E Day, the German government was abolished and, simultaneously, the U.S. State Department dismissed Switzerland as the protecting power for the German prisoners.  (Prime Minister Mackenzie King of Canada protested to the foreign Office in London the parallel removal of the Swiss as protecting power in British-Canadian camps, but was squelched for his pains.)  With this done, the State Department informed the International Red Cross that, since there was no protecting power to report to, there was no longer and point in visiting the camps.

From then on, prisoners held by the US Army had no access to any impartial observer, nor could they receive food parcels, clothing, or medicines from any relief agency, or letters from their kin.

general George Patton’s US Third Army was the only army in the whole European theatre to free significant numbers of captives during ma, saving many of them from probable death.  Bothe Omar Bradley and General J.C.H. lee, Commander Communications Zone (Com Z) Europe, ordered a release of prisoners within a week of the war’s end, but a SHAEF order signed “Eisenhower” countermanded them on my 15.

That same day, according to a minute of their meeting, General Eisenhower and Prime Minister Churchill talked about reducing prisoner rations.  Churchill asked for an agreement on the scale of rations for prisoners, because he would soon have to announce cuts in the British meat ration and wanted to make sure that the prisoners “as far as possible…should be fed on those supplies which we could best spare.”  Eisenhower replied that he had already “given the matter considerable attention,” but was planning to re-examine the whole thing to see “whether or not a further ereduction was possible.”  He told Churchill that POWs had been getting 2,200 calories a day.  (The US Army medical Corps considered 2,150 an absolute minimum subsistence level for sedentary adults living under shelter.  US troops were issued 4,000 calories a day.)  What he did not tell Churchill was that the army was not feeding the DEFs at all, or was feeding them far less than those who still enjoyed prisoner-of-war status.

Rations were reduced again soon after this: a direct cut was recorded in the Quartermaster Reports.  But indirect cuts were taking place as well.  One was the effect of extraordinary gaps between prisoner strength as given on the ration lists and official “on hand” accounts, and between the on-hand counts, and between the on-hand count and the actual number of prisoners in the camps.

The meticulous General Lee grew so worried about the discrepancies that he fired off a challenging cable from his headquarters in paris to SHAEF headquarters in Frankfurt:

“This Headquarters is having considerable difficulty in establishing adequate basis for requisitioning rations for prisoners of war currently held in Theatre…In response to inquiries from this Headquarters…several varying statements of number of prisoners held in theatre have been published by SHAEF.”

He then cites the latest SHAEF statement:

“Cable…dated 31 May states 1,890,000 prisoners of war and 1,200,000 disarmed German forces on hand.  Best available figures at this Headquarters show prisoners of war in ComZ910,980, in ComZ transient enclosures 1,002,422 and in Twelfth Army GP 965,125, making a total of 2,878,537 and an additional 1,000,000 disarmed German forces Germany and Austria.”

The situation was astounding: Lee was reporting a million or more men in the US Army camps in Europe than SHAEF said it ha don its books.  But he was wrestling with the wind: he had to his issue of food on the number of prisoners on hand supplied to him by SHAEF G-3 (Operations).

Given the general turmoil, fluctuating and inaccurate tallies were probably inevitable, but more than 1 million captives can actual be seen disappearing between two reports of the Theatre Provost Marshal, issued on the same day, June2.  the last in a series of daily reports from the TPM logs 2,870,400 POWs on hand at June 2.  The first report of the new weekly series, dated the same day, says that there are only 1,836,000 on hand.  At one point in the middle of June, the prisoner strength on the ration list was shown as 1,421,559, while on Lee’s and other evidence there were probably almost three times that number.

Spreading the rations thinner was one way to guarantee starvation.  Another was accomplished by some strange army bookkeeping during June and July.  A million prisoners who had been receiving at least some food because of their nominal POW status lost their rights and their food when they were secretly transferred to the DEF status.  The shift was made deliberately over many week, with careful attention paid to maintaining plausible balances in SHAEF’s weekly POW and DEF reports.  (The discrepancy between those “shifted” from POW status during the period from June 2 to July 28 and those “received” in the DEF status is only 0.43 per cent.)  The reclassification to DEF did not require any transfer of men to new camps, or involve any new organisation to get German civilians supplies to them.  The men stayed where they were.  All that happened was that, by the clatter of a typewriter, their skimpy bit of US Army food was stopped.

The effect of a policy arranged through accountancy and conveyed by winks and nods–without written orders–was first to mystify, then to frustrate, then to exhaust the middle-rank officers who were responsible for POWs.  A colonel in the Quartermaster Section of the advance US fighting units wrote a personal plea to Quartermaster General Robert Littlejohn as early as April 27:  “Aside from the 750 tons received from Fifteenth Army, no subsistence has been received nor do I expect any.  What desirable Class II and IV (rations) we have received has been entirely at the suffernece of the Armies, upon personbal appeal and has been insignificant in relation to the demands which are being put upon us by the influx of prisoners of war.”

Rumours of conditions in the camps ran through the US Army.  “Boy, those camps were bad news,” said Benedict K. Zobrist, a technical sergeant in the Medical Corps.  “We were warned to stay as far away as we could.”  In May and early June of 1945, a team of US Medical Corps doctors did survey some of the Rhineland camps, holding just over 80,000 German POWs.  Its report is missing from the appropriate section of the National Archives in Washington, but two secondary sources reproduce some of the findings.  The three main killers were diarrhoea and dysentery (treated as one category), cardiac disease, and pneumonia.  But, straining medical terminology, the doctors also recorded deaths from “emaciation” and “exhaustion.”  And their data revealed death rates eighty times as high as any peacetime norm.

Only 9.7 percent to fifteen percent of the prisoners had died of causes clearly associated with lack of food, such as emaciation and dehydration, and “exhaustion.”  But the other diseases, directly attributable to exposure, overcrowding, filth, and lack of sanitation, were undoubtedly exacerbated by starvation.  As the report noted, “Exposure, overcrowding of pens and lack of food and sanitary facilities all contributed to these excessive (death) rates.”  The data, it must be remembered, were taken from the POW camps, not from the DEF camps.

By the end of May,1945, more people had already died in the US camps than would die in the atomic blast at Hiroshima.

On June 4, 1945, a cable signed “Eisenhower” told Washington that it was “urgently necessary to reduce the number of prisoners at earliest opportunity by discharging all classes of prisoners not likely to be required by Allies.”  It is hard to understand what prompted this cable.  No reason for it is evident in the massive cable traffic that survives the period in the archives in London, Washington, and Abilene, Kansas.  And far from ordering Eisenhower to take or hold on to prisoners, the Combined Chiefs’ message of April 26 had urged him not to take in any more after V-E Day, even for labour.  Nonetheless more than 2 million DEFs were impounded after May 8.

During June, Germany was partitioned into zones of occupation and in July, 1945, SHAEF was disbanded.  Eisenhower, reverting to his single role as US commanding general in Europe, becoming military governor of the US zone.  He continued to keep out Red Cross representatives, and the US Army also informed American relief teams that the zone was closed to them.  It was closed to all relief shipments as well–until December, 1945, when a slight relaxation came in to effect.

Also starting in July, the Americans turned over between 600,000 and 700,000 German captives to the French to help repair damages done to their country during the war.  many of the transferees were in five US camps clustered around Dietersheim, near Mainz, in the section of Germany that had just come under French control.  (most of the rest were in US camps in France.)

On July 10, a French unit took over Dietersheim and seventeen days later a Captain Julien arrived to assume command.  His report survives as part of an army inquiry into a dispute between Julien and his predecessor.  In the first camp he entered, he testified to finding muddy ground “people living skeletons,” some of whom died as he watched.  others huddled under bits of cardboard which they clutched although the July day was hot.  Women lying in holes in the ground stared up at him with hunger oedema bulging their bellies in gross parody of pregnancy; old men with long grey hair watched him feebly; children of six or seven with the racoon rings of starvation looked at him from lifeless eyes.  Tow German doctors in the “hospital” were trying to care for the dying on the ground under the hot sky, between, the marks of the tent that the Americans had taken with them.  Julien, who had fought against the Germans with his regiment, the 3erne Regiment de Tirailleure Algeriens, found himself thinking in horror:  “This is just like the photographs of Buchenwald and Dachau.”

There were 103, 500 people in the five camps round Dietersheim and amongst them Julien’s officers counted 32, 640 who could do no work at all.  These were released immediately.  In all, two-thirds of the prisoners taken over by the French that summer from American camps in Germany and in France were useless for reparations labour.  In the camp at Sainte-Marthe, 615 of 700 captives were reported to be unable to work.  At Erbiseul near Mons, Belgium, according to a written complaint, twenty-five per cent of the men received by the French were “dechets,” or garbage.

In July and August, as US Quartermaster Littejohn signalled to Eisenhower in due course, the Army food reserves in Europe grew by thirty-nine percent.

On August 4, a one-sentence order signed “Eisenhower” condemned all prisoners of wear still on hand in the US camps to DEF status:  “Effective immediately all members of the German forces held in US custody in the American zone of occupation in GERMANY will be considered as disarmed enemy forces and not as having the status of prisoner of war.”  No reason was given.  Surviving weekly tallies suggest the dual classification was preserved, but, for the POWs now being treated as DEFs, the death rate quadrupled within a few weeks, from .2 percent per week to .8 percent.

Long-time DEFs were dying at nearly five times that rate.  the official “Weekly PW and DEF Report” for the week ending Sept 8, 1945, still exists in the US National archives in Washington.  It shows an aggregate of 1,056,482 prisoners being held by the US Army in the European theatre, of whom about two-thirds are identified as POWs.  the other third–363,587 men–are DEFs.  During that one week, 13,051 of them died.

In November, 1045, general Eisenhower succeeded George Marshall as US Army chief of staff and returned to the US.  In January, 1946, the camps still held significant numbers of captives but the US had wound down its prisoner holdings almost to zero by the end of 1946.  the French continued holding hundreds of thousands through 1946, but gradually reduced the number to nothing by about 1949.  During the 1950’s, most non-record material relating to the US prison camps was destroyed by the Army.

Eisenhower had deplored the Germans’ useless  defence of the Reich in the last months of the war because of the waste of life.  At least ten times as many Germans–undoubtedly 800,000, almost certainly more than 900,000, and quite probably over 1 million–died in the French and American camps as were killed in all the combat on the Western Front in northwest Europe from America’s entry into the war in 1941 through to April, 1945.

Source

 

The Jews and Their Lies and B’nai Brith Canada by Arthur Topham

 

2017 marks the 500 Year Anniversary of the birth of Protestantism and Dr. Martin Luther its Founder. Luther spent much of his active life trying to help the Jews realize the error of their ways and realize that their only salvation was to convert to Christianity.

By the end of his life Luther realized that it was a hopeless task trying to convert the Jew to the religion of Jesus Christ and as he neared his death he published a small booklet with the title as shown in the graphic above.

In Luther’s last Sermon he issued a “Warning Against the Jews.” Some extracts from that Sermon are herein quoted:

“…Besides, ou also have many Jews living in the country, who do much harm… You should know that the Jews blaspheme and violate the name of our Saviour day by day… for that reason you, Milords and men of authority, should not tolerate but expel them. They are our public enemies and incessantly blaspheme our Lord Jesus Christ, they call our Blessed Virgin Mary a harlot and her Holy Son a bastard and to us they give the epithet of changelings and abortions. If they could kill us all, they would gladly do so; in fact, many of them murder Christians, especially those professing to be surgeons and doctors. They know how to deal with medicaments in the manner of the Italians – the Borgias and Medicis – who gave people poison which brought about their death in one hour or in a month.

Therefore deal with them harshly as they do nothing but excruciatingly blaspheme our Lord Jesus Christ, trying to rob us of our lives, our  health, our honour and belongings… For that reason I cannot have patience nor carry on an intercourse with these deliberate blasphemers and violators of our Beloved Saviour.

As a good patriot I wanted to give you this warning for the very last time to deter you from participating in alien sins. You must know I only desire the best for you all, rulers and subjects.” (This Sermon was held at Eisleben, a few days before Luther’s death, February 1546.)

****  ****

Let us now look at an article published on February 21st, 2017 on the website of B’nai Brith Canada the secret Masonic organization created by the Rothschild’s back in the mid-19th Century to act as a front for the Jewish criminal cartel that now controls the governments of all of the nations of the Western world.

[*PLEASE NOTE: DUE TO A COURT ORDER THAT DISALLOWS ME FROM PUBLISHING THE NAME/S OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO LAID THE “HATE CRIME” COMPLAINT AGAINST ME I AM FORCED TO CHANGE THEIR NAME TO “AGENT Z” RATHER THAN SPEAK THE TRUTH ABOUT THEIR IDENTITY. AS WELL I CANNOT POST A LINK TO THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION. EDITOR]

B’nai Brith Canada’s primary purpose is to act as media and judicial bludgeon and work in tandem with the Jewish owned press to lie and slander and vilify and indict all Canadians who attempt to expose their criminal actions be they here in Canada or in Israel or anywhere around the world.

By Aidan Fishman
Campus Advocacy Coordinator
B’nai Brith Canada
February 21, 2017

 

The British Columbia Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from Arthur Topham, who was convicted of promoting hatred against Jewish people in November, 2015.

Through his website, RadicalPress.com, Topham has called for Jews to be forcibly sterilized, claimed that Canada is “controlled by the Zionist Jew lobby,” and described Jewish places of worship as “synagogues of Satan.”

The decision of Justice G. Bruce Butler in B.C. comes as part of a long legal saga spearheaded by AGENT Z, a B’nai Brith Canada member who first reported Topham’s antisemitic screeds to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and then later to the B.C. Hate Crimes Unit.

“I’m pleased with the court’s verdict,” AGENT Z said. “Calling to sterilize an entire ethnic or religious group is not free speech – it’s a crime in Canada, and rightfully so.”

“This is an important victory for tolerance and human rights in Canada,” added Amanda Hohmann, National Director of B’nai Brith’s League for Human Rights.

“In recent years, police and prosecutors have been hesitant to charge individuals with wilful promotion of hatred, perhaps because they fear that the accused will successfully appeal against the charges. This verdict shows that the hate speech sections of the Criminal Code are constitutionally sound and should be utilized whenever necessary.”

Topham’s sentencing is likely to take place in the near future. He faces a maximum of two years in prison, and the forced closure of his hateful website. It is not yet clear if he will appeal the ruling.

****   ****

I have emphasized the LIES that these two Jews are telling here in the article. Fishman is stating that I called for Jews to be forcibly sterilized. Agent Z lies when he states, “Calling to sterilize an entire ethnic or religious group is not free speech – it’s a crime in Canada, and rightfully so.

Here is the TRUTH that these two lying Jews have twisted around and turned inside out and upside down and reinterpreted so as to convince not only the jury that found me guilty on Count One but the general population that it was I who stated those words.

On my website I have a digital copy of the actual book which speaks about “sterilizing an entire ethnic” group. That book is called Germany Must Perish! and it was written by a Jew by the name of Theodore N. Kaufman back in 1941 in the USA.

As I stated in my Introduction to that book,

In 1941 Kaufman’s book was a brilliant piece of Zionist Jew propaganda designed to stir up anti-German hatred in America. Some say that it formed the basis of the infamous “Morgenthau Plan” that was later signed in Quebec, Canada by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill; one designed to dismember Germany after its defeat and reduce it to the status of “a goat pasture.” It probably remains to this day the foremost example of hate literature ever to have been published and dispensed to the general public.

At the very beginning of the book Kaufman states:

Germany Must Perish!

“This dynamic volume outlines a comprehensive plan for the extinction of the German nation and the total eradication from the earth, of all her people.”

Kaufman then expends about 83 pages vilifying the German nation and accusing it of the most insidious crimes possible. Finally at Page 84 of the 95 page book Chapter 7 appears and it is titled Death to Germany. It is here that we first find mention of the method which Kaufman affirms is the only expedient way in which to deal with German nation. On Page 86 the Jew author states:

There remains now but to determine the best way, the most practical and expeditious manner in which the ultimate penalty must be levied upon the German nation. Quite naturally, massacre and wholesale execution must be ruled out. In addition to being impractical when applied to a population of some seventy million, such methods are inconsistent with the moral obligations and ethical practices of civilization. There remains then but one mode of ridding the world forces of Germanism — and that is to stem the source from which issue those war-lusted souls, by preventing the people of Germany from ever again reproducing their kind. This modern method, known to science as Eugenic Sterilization, is at once practical, humane and thorough. Sterilization has become a byword of science, as the best means of ridding the human race of its misfits: the degenerate, the insane, the hereditary criminal.” [emphasis is mine. A.T.]

Having read this small book through I was determined to somehow bring its existence to the general public and attempt to show people who, in truth, were the real haters in this world. The method I chose to do that was to write a satire of Kaufman’s book and change a few key words so that instead of Germany being the victim it would show Israel as the victim. The satire consisted of quotes found here and there in Kaufman’s original book and the intent of the satire was to show the utter hypocrisy of the Jews in attempting to accuse others of “hate crimes” when it was they themselves who were the actual guilty party calling for the absolute genocide of the whole German nation.

And so we see that the Jew media is continuing along in its same course and doing everything possible via its media and the Jew media in general to promote this false notion that I was calling for the “sterilization” of the whole Jewish population when I wrote my satire and titled it Israel Must Perish!

Throughout the trial in October and November of 2015 the Crown and the presiding Justice continually misrepresented my satire and did everything they could to convince the jury that I had actually written a real book and called it Israel Must Perish! and that in that book I was advocating the total genocide of the Jews. Other than this one satire there was no actual evidence of any of my personal writings that could be misconstrued as being “hateful.”

Now you know what Dr. Martin Luther was talking about 500 years ago when he titled his book “The Jews and Their Lies.” And now you know why B’nai Brith Canada is still carrying on with the same lies that their forebearers were guilty of throughout the past centuries.

****   ****

A Take from Last Night’s Oscar Awards You May have Missed…

aw

By Greg Felton

(THE SCENE: WTFN’s Los Angeles studios. The set is bedecked with the usual movie posters, still photographs and various objets de cinéma. Host Lance Boyle is in his usual club chair. The opening theme music dies down.)

lb

LANCE BOYLE: (to camera) “Welcome to the ninth Oscar edition of The Cutting Room, the first under the new Trumpian regime. To read from the screeching from both sides of the right-wing of the political spectrum, we might as well redefine the calendar as BT and AT—Before Trump and After Trump. Whether one thinks that the last election marked a break with the past or is the inevitable result of 30-plus years of corporatism, one thing will always be a constant in our lives—movies—and where there are movies, there are award shows. Tonight we look at the best Hollywood had to offer in 2016, (camera pulls back into a two-shot. Miriam Kale is now seated across from Lance Boyle.) Miriam, welcome back.”

mk

MIRIAM KALE: “Thanks, Lance. A lot of my friends would agree with your BT/AT calendar because they wailed that Trump’s victory marked the beginning of the end of U.S. democracy. However, I found this reaction bizarre because American democracy ended at least as far back as 2001. The USA PATRIOT Act eviscerated civil liberties, and under the supposedly liberal Barack Obama the surveillance state was ratcheted up, the drone program was widely expanded and police forces became ever more militarized. Hillary Clinton represented this anti-democratic ‘Deep State’ establishment and was a war criminal to boot, which meant she was unelectable. Trump was really the only viable choice because the Democratic Party threw the election by sabotaging Bernie Sanders’s nomination. If people want to blame someone for Trump’s election, they need to blame the Democrats! But enough about politics; let’s talk movies!”

BOYLE: “Where do you want to start?”

KALE: “Where else?—with my pick for the Leni Riefenstahl Award for Best Holocaust Propaganda.”

BOYLE: “Ah, yes—The Leni; your favourite category.”

KALE: “This year, the winner is exemplary. Never before has a Leni nominee showed the connection between the Holocaust® and Holocaust® propaganda so clearly. I think you know which film I’m talking about. Go on: open the envelope.” (She hands it to him.)

envel

BOYLE: “Ah yes. I thought so, but there have been many films that have defended the six-million figure and sanctified Auschwitz. What makes this film so remarkable?”

KALE: “It exploits a real event to perpetuate a false history. Let me give you the context. The film is concerned with the infamous 2000 libel trial between historian David Irving and Holocaust® professor Deborah Lipstadt. In 1993, Lipstadt wrote Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, a book in which she accused Irving of being a ‘Holocaust® denier’.

“In the opening scene, Irving interrupts one of Lipstadt’s 1994 lectures and waves $1,000, saying he’ll give it to anybody who can produce any written evidence that Hitler ordered the Holocaust®. Lipstadt bombastically claims she’ll debate the Holocaust® with anyone but not with someone who denies it. Now, if she had evidence it occurred, it should be a simple matter to dispatch someone like Irving, but the fact that she refused to debate him gave credibility to Irving’s assertion that Hitler never ordered the Holocaust®.

“By the way, the film got this scene wrong. Irving’s actual words were: “I have here a thousand dollars for you [Lipstadt] if you can produce to this audience, now or at any time in the future, this document about which you have just lied to them.”

BOYLE: “He was referring to what Lipstadt claimed happened at the Jan. 20, 1942, Wannsee Conference, right?”

KALE: “Yes, but Lipstadt never produced any documents. In fact, nobody has. Lipstadt’s refusal to account to Irving for her claims and her ad hominem attack upon him, led Irving to sue for libel.”

BOYLE: “As I recall, Irving lost.”

KALE: “Yes, and no. Lipstadt was found to have libeled Irving on four counts, but not on a fifth. Therefore, Mr . Justice Charles Gray concluded that Irving did not suffer damage to his reputation, despite the libels, so he lost his suit.”

BOYLE: “One could say Irving lost his suit before it started. Merely being accused of being a ‘Holocaust® denier’ is enough to destroy anyone’s reputation, so even if Irving had proven that Lipstadt lied about him, the judge would still have rejected his claim.”

KALE: “That’s why this film is so quintessentially Leni-esque! The prejudice against Irving was insurmountable. The fix was in. As The Guardian reported: ‘[The judge] said he found that Irving was “an active Holocaust denier; that he was anti-Semitic and racist and that he associated with right-wing extremists who promoted neo-Nazism.” ’ Here is Gray in his own words:

Having considered the various arguments advanced by Irving to assail the effect of the convergent evidence relied on by the defendants, it is my conclusion that no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews.

BOYLE: “I understand that the trial moves to Auschwitz to address Irving’s claim there were no gas chambers. What was Irving’s evidence?”

KALE: “Essentially the lack of evidence. The Nazis allegedly dropped Zyklon B pellets through rooftop openings in the buildings, but no such openings existed. Irving’s catchphrase was ‘No holes; no holocaust.’ By casting doubt on the existence of the gas chambers, Irving cast doubt on the 6 million, so the existence of gas chambers had to be defended.

BOYLE: “How do we know they didn’t exist?”

Continued here

Video: Russian communists march to honour Red Army

Thousands of Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF)supporters marched through the centre of Moscow to mark the Defender of the Fatherland Day on Thursday.

The Defender of the Fatherland Day is a nationwide holiday celebrated annually on February 23, honouring those who served in the Red Army, who defeated Nazi Germany in World War Two. It marks the date of the establishment of the Red Army in 1918.

The rally began at Strastnoi Boulevard, with protesters marching to Revolution Square, where party members and CPRF leader Gennady Zyuganov addressed the crowd.

The CPRF, founded in 1993, is the second largest political party in the country after United Russia.

 

Good point: Lavrov Deep-Fries Merkel: US Tapped Your Phone, But You’re Whining About ‘Russian Hacking’?

Lavrov Deep-Fries Merkel: US Tapped Your Phone, But You’re Whining About ‘Russian Hacking’?

Russia’s Foreign Minister points out the obvious. Again.

A gentleman and a scholar
A gentleman and a scholar
It’s not even up for debate — Sergei Lavrov is in a league of his own. Russia’s Foreign Minister mutilates NATO press releases  in his sleep and eats Washington soundbites for breakfast — no salt.

As you are well aware, Sergei dropped a payload of painful truth on Mike Pence’s smug, smarmy face during the Munich Security Conference on Saturday. But that was just a warm-up. Pence is a small fish in a big ocean of idiots.

On the sidelines of the Munich conference, Lavrov participating in a meeting with top diplomats from the Normandy Four (Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine).

Angela Merkel used this opportunity to lecture Lavrov and the rest of the audience about the dangers of Russian hacking.

You think Lavrov just sat there and took it on the chin? No. When it was his turn to speak, he reminded the entire world that Angela Merkel’s phones were tapped by her “ally”, and that this is a confirmed fact, and that Angela Merkel is a sad puppet:

The German story was shown to be a fact. You know when it happened, several years ago. It was confirmed that top officials had had their phones tapped. And the other day there was a leak showing that the 2012 presidential election campaign in France coincided with cyber-espianage on the part of the CIA. And talking to a journalist today, a CIA representative said that he had no comments to offer.

So I repeat: show us the facts.

So basically Lavrov can check “told Merkel to her face that she’s a miserable witch” off his bucket list.

A true hero. Watch (starts around 6:40):

We love this man:

Take It from a European: NATO Is Obsolete

Take It from a European: NATO Is Obsolete

EDITOR’S CHOICE | 24.02.2017

Take It from a European: NATO Is Obsolete

The alliance’s members no longer share common goals or interests

Tom Sauer

The recent visit by Secretary of Defense James Mattis to NATO allies does not erase the fact that, as a presidential candidate and president-elect, Donald Trump stated on many occasions that NATO is obsolete. It is a bigger problem than just burden sharing. Trump’s key message is that the world has changed to the detriment of the United States, and that NATO no longer fits comfortably into this new world order. Of course, the United States will not withdraw from the organization, but NATO will get less attention from the Oval Office in the coming years. That is for sure.

For those in Europe who care about the alliance, this is a nightmare. But instead of clinging to the past, they should wake up. The world today is indeed fundamentally different from the one we happen to know, and certainly from the times into which NATO was born. It is indeed bizarre that NATO is still alive. Defense alliances are, by definition, temporary. Realists do not believe in long-term structural cooperation between states, and certainly not in the field of security. At most, states can try to cooperate in an alliance on a short-term basis to defeat a common enemy, like during the two world wars and during the Cold War. Once the enemy is gone, alliances have no meaning anymore. It was on this basis that John Mearsheimer and many others predicted the end of the alliance after the end of the Cold War. The implosion of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR itself should, indeed, have led to the demise of NATO.

It did not. The least bad explanation is organizational inertia. NATO tried to adapt to the changed circumstances by finding new enemies: proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, “rogue states,” failed states, ethnic conflicts (as in the Balkans) and, later on, terrorism. It is not difficult to come up with real or imagined dangers. But states do not need to be part of a militarily integrated organization to protect oneself against these kind of minor threats. Collective defense organizations, based on the premise of “an attack on one is an attack on all,” are established to defend oneself against an attack by a major power: Germany in 1914, Germany and Japan in the first half of the 1940s, the USSR during the Cold War, and maybe China in the future. Not for peacekeeping.

Collective defense organizations are not the best match for threats like terrorism and ethnic conflicts. For countering terrorism, coalitions of the willing will do. For managing ethnic conflicts, collective security organizations (like the UN and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) should take the lead, both for peacemaking and peacekeeping. Collective security organizations regulate the use of force amongst its member states, and they are—in contrast to collective defense organizations—not meant to serve against an external enemy. Because NATO stepped in for these collective security tasks, organizations like the UN and the OSCE got sidetracked.

NATO’s post–Cold War track record is dismal, which is not surprising, given the nature of the beast. Apart from the Balkans, which are more or less stable (although tensions are flaring up again these days), the NATO military interventions in Afghanistan and Libya are a complete failure. Thirteen and six years after NATO’s intervention, respectively, these states have hardly stabilized. On the contrary, Afghanistan and Libya are breeding places for terrorists. Again, this should not come as a surprise, because collective defense organizations are not meant for carrying out peace-building operations.

The biggest mistake, however, was NATO expansion. It is hard to refute the thesis that the Ukraine crisis is the result of interference by NATO and the EU in Russia’s spheres of influence. A red line was crossed, in the eyes of Moscow, and Russia had repeatedly made that position clear in advance. NATO expansion also contradicted Western promises. On the basis of these oral guarantees, in February 1990, Mikhail Gorbachev gave the green light for German reunification talks. And what did the West do? Expand NATO. Not just once, but twice. At the NATO Summit in Bucharest in 2008, President Bush even pushed through (against the wishes of the Europeans) a third extension, namely the promise to include Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. What did he expect Russia would do? Just take notice and agree?

More fundamentally, the West made the mistake after the end of the Cold War not to include Russia into the Euro-Atlantic security architecture on an equal basis. Contrary to positive examples in 1815 and 1945, the loser of the Cold War was left alone. Instead of replacing NATO with a regional collective security organization, the West kept NATO artificially in existence—and Russia in the dark. Ironically, the Baltic states, which wanted to feel more secure by becoming NATO members, are now feeling less secure. All this was predicted in the 1990s by foreign-policy giants like George Kennan and Paul Nitze.

Currently, there is a major split among the twenty-eight NATO member states: those in the south worry about migration and ISIS, but are relaxed with respect to Russia; those in the east are relaxed about ISIS, but worry about Russia. There is no common threat assessment. In addition, tensions between member states (Turkey and Greece) and within member states (Poland and Hungary) are rising.

It would be shortsighted to keep relying on NATO now because of the worsening relationship with Russia. A fundamental break with the past is needed, and the Trump administration provides an ideal opportunity. Until recently, the Europeans liked to hide behind American leadership, and not only with respect to burden sharing. Although European states spend on average much less on defense than the United States, the combined European defense budget is $250 billion, which is three and a half times more than Russia’s. The difference in defense spending between the United States and Europe says more about the United States than about Europe. More problematic is the lack of shared responsibility. It is indeed strange that the United States had to intervene in the Balkans in the 1990s. The flipside was that the United States was the one that pulled the ropes inside NATO. The Europeans had to live with NATO expansion and U.S. missile defense in Europe, for instance. The Europeans were always skeptical, but when push came to shove, they gave in to the Americans.

Now, for the first time ever, we have an American president who calls NATO obsolete. European leaders should now get their act together and agree with this assessment, for the many reasons mentioned above. There has never been a better external opportunity to strengthen European foreign, security and defense policy. In a world without NATO, the Europeans have no escape from taking up more responsibilities. In addition, NATO should be transformed, or even be replaced by a new Eurasian-Atlantic collective security organization that includes Russia. That will also be in the interest of Ukraine and the Baltic states. The newly built headquarters for NATO in Brussels, which will be inaugurated in the presence of President Trump at the end of May, is large enough to fit them all.

nationalinterest.org

%d bloggers like this: