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

 

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

American Fascists Co-Opt Trump Protests Hiding Inside Civil Rights Movement

February 23, 2017

by GH Eliason

American Fascists Co-Opt Trump Protests Hiding Inside Civil Rights Movement

Over the last couple of years I’ve written volumes on fascists making inroads into American politics and civil life. With civil and human rights it starts with understanding a little about what’s known as the Four Freedoms. And there are many legitimate civil rights groups today that go under that banner.

In 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave what became known as the Four Freedoms speech. He proposed that there were four freedoms that people everywhere in the world should enjoy. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want, and Freedom from Fear. The speech was mainly concerned with national security and democracies that were heading into a world war. The first two freedoms are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The last two were and are revolutionary.

Unfortunately ever since the Four Freedoms were first spoken it have been used politically to gear America up for war. They became a cornerstone of American Exceptionalism and intervention.

After World War II, the same groups that manned the gas chambers of the Holocaust took up the mantle of human rights victims and human rights advocates by starting groups named according to these freedoms and hiding among the legitimate rights groups.

By building a track record working for their own pet project civil rights, they thought no one would look at their own history very closely. They found over time by supporting legitimate human rights efforts, they could count on real activists to take up their causes.

What you need to decide is whether these are or aren’t the kind of groups you want support from. It’s that simple. Accepting the help is saying what they are and what they do is fine with you.

In reality when you start looking up their history, the first thing that comes up is files Released Under the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act.” I’m referring to the Organization for the Defense of Four Freedoms for Ukraine, Inc.

This is the only human rights group has the distinction of taking its name from a speech by a US president they tried to assassinate. If you scroll down their Face Book page you’ll notice they are not shy about Ukrainian nazi flags or support of neo-nazis murderers like Pravy Sektor. This despite the fact that they say they subscribe to the “freedom from fear” part.

In an official statement from 2004 in Ukraine Weekly they are a little more open about their participation with Adolf Hitler. They were the prison guards that committed the Holocaust and Waffen SS that the Nazis were afraid of.

“Ukraine Weekly 2004 statement- National Executive Organization for the Defense of Four Freedoms for Ukraine, Inc.

Over 55 years ago, a group of Ukrainian Americans, guided by a love for their native Ukraine created a committee in the United States that would support the liberation of Ukraine during World War II. Their committee supported the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army as they fought against the Nazi and Communist occupation of Ukraine. This committee became the Organization for the Defense of Four Freedoms for Ukraine, named after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s famous address wherein he declared that all nations and individuals have the right to freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom from fear and a freedom from want. Today, we reiterate our commitment to defend these four freedoms for Ukraine.”

What they don’t say is that during the war, they killed 3 million prisoners of war, 250,000 Jews including the first recorded act of Holocaust at Babi Yar. During the war, Ukrainian Americans were in charge of the SS battalions that were fighting and directed them from the USA. As late as 1945, the Ukrainian Diaspora was asking Adolf Hitler to fund new armies.

And they have never changed their political views. In 2014, they bought the bullets used to kill 100 protesters that were on their side sparking the Ukrainian coup against Victor Yanukovych.

According to the Huff Post, “Apparently, the aid doesn’t stop there. In a Newsweek interview, Ukrainian rightist Dmitry Yarosh admits that he has received U.S. dollars from the Ukrainian Diaspora. Yarosh is a leader of Right Sektor and has been training paramilitary fighters for almost 25 years. Moreover, Foreign Affairs notes that the Diaspora reportedly funds infamous Azov Battalion, a volunteer outfit which is enthralled by wartime Nazi insignia and iconography. Al-Jazeera remarks that “While the battalion is recognized by the Interior Ministry and provided with some arms, it is largely funded by charity from Ukrainians, wealthy businessmen, the Ukrainian diaspora and other European far-right groups.

Officially, Ottawa has pledged the Azov Battalion will not receive Canadian training or support. However, such pledges aren’t enshrined in law and the authorities have remarked defensively that Azov Battalion and a “small number of bad apples” shouldn’t be allowed to tarnish the entire Ukrainian defense effort. Meanwhile, within the Canadian Diaspora the Azov Battalion is reportedly a “touchy subject.” The Globe and Mail reports, “While opinions are divided, many see the 1,500-man Azov unit as being populated not with neo-Nazis and white supremacists, but with patriots willing to fight in order to rollback Russian-backed separatists.”

What does this have to do with the Women’s March or Trump protests that are following? They along with George Soros are providing most of the media coverage and providing tens of thousands of protesters to liven things up.

When you look at the list of groups supported by Soros, there is a couple that stand out which support the Women’s march. Common Cause sticks out because of what they did in Ukraine when the protests heated up. They killed people and stepped back to watch the carnage.

Another is the Four Freedoms Fund. This group started by Soros, to was designed to serve as

a conduit through which large foundations could fund state based open borders organizations more flexibly and quickly. It does this through ethnic-specific groups to coordinated state and national campaigns that advance immigration reform and defend the rights of immigrants.

“FFF’s mission is “to secure the full integration of immigrants as active participants in our democracy.” Designed to serve as a conduit through which charitable foundations could bankroll the activities of immigrant-rights organizations with maximum efficiency and flexibility.

The Four Freedoms Fund (FFF) was established in 2003 by Geri Mannion (a director with the Carnegie Corporation of New York) and Taryn Higashi (deputy director of the Ford Foundation’s Human Rights Unit). The Fund’s name was suggested by Craig McGarvey, a consultant and former program officer of the James Irvine Foundation, who was inspired by the Norman Rockwell paintings based on former President Franklin Roosevelt’s famous “Four Freedoms” speech.”

Is the Four Freedoms Fund tied to the Ukrainian Nazi supporting Defense of Four Freedoms? If this is the case then it’s legitimate proof of how much media and NGO pull the Ukrainian emigres have. While researching for an article I came upon this.

carnegie euromaidan press-carnegie.stfi.re 2016-06-15 01-23-06.png
Why is the Ukrainian propaganda website euromaidan press recommending reading at Carnegie Moscow? The Ukrainian website was started and is owned by Sviatoslav Yurash. He was the spokesman for Maidan, Dimitry and Yarosh’s spokesman. Euromaidan press has been in the process of whitewashing history for the last 3 years. They are making the perpetrators of the Holocaust into heroes. Yurash has been promoted to deputy director of the Ukrainian World Congress Kiev office.

Euromaidan press is propped up by the Ukrainian-American Diaspora. They are connected through the Atlantic Council, Stopfake, and Informnapalm. All three are tied into Ukrainian Intelligence Services.

In the US they provided Team Clinton with an almost unbeatable voting bloc during election cycle 2016. And this same group are behind the organization of and media supporting the anti-Trump protests.

How Much Influence Did They Have in the Election? This is the question to start with. First, let’s look at the raw numbers.

Starting in early June 2016, I started writing about real voting blocs that have the size to shape national politics. The simple math works like this. Out of 231,556,622 eligible voters, 25.6% voted for Clinton, and 25.5% voted for Trump. This is the final voter percentage tallies.

Out of the eligible voter pool, if we take 13%(low conservative reckoning) which make up the combined emigre bloc vote, their contribution is 30,102,360 bloc votes. Not shown at the CEEC link are the Middle East, South and Central American, Russian, or the Asian portions of the emigre bloc.

These articles show the background of the groups and how they work together en-bloc. I wrote them back then for today.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Out of Hillary Clinton’s total count of 65,844,610 votes, the emigre bloc made up 45% of the total because 92,622,648 Americans didn’t cast their ballot. Keep that last figure in mind for later.

In real terms 13% became 45% because of low voter turnout. The emigre bloc percentage is based on total eligible voters (231,556,622) and the bloc number didn’t change. When the real vote total was known, it could be measured against the bloc. The value of the votes in the bloc skyrocketed with low turnout.

The reason Bernie Sanders would not have a snowballs chance in hell is the combined bloc vote. Bernie should have been a shoo-in for them. His father is Galician. Galicia is the still disputed land between Poland and Ukraine including the regional capital of Lviv. He claims Polish ancestry, and that is the true nationality border or no border. Both emigre groups claim to support Polish and Ukrainian people. He was the natural candidate for them except for one thing.

Until the fall of the Soviet Union, these groups were known as the anticommunist emigres. They are the children of groups that manned Hitler’s SS. The problem with Sanders is he calls himself a Socialist. He was not electable as long as this type of bloc vote exists. If Sanders got the nod to run in the general election, a deal would have been cut for a new Republican candidate at the convention. If you look back, things started to shape up that way.

The only thing a nationalist hates worse than an enemy outside his country, is the enemy within. For an anticommunist and nationalist, there is no greater enemy than a socialist. Progressive’s have already forgotten how Sanders was derailed. Most progressives don’t realize that very directly, it WAS the emigre community that did it.

Even after seeing Propornot, progressive, libertarian, and conservative publications are spewing the memes created by these same people that put them on lists to be hacked, isolated, and eventually shut down. It started when journalists started questioning the Syria narrative and supporting ISIS.

Did the “Berners” make any change to the Democratic party? “It is very concerning that Bernie Sanders is so intent on taking over a party that he’s not even a member of that he’d insult the beloved vice president — and really the president — about a failed status quo approach,” said Texas Democratic chairman Gilberto Hinojosa.” Was Sanders ever a viable candidate for the Democratic Party? Was he ever treated like one?

The only chance he had was to tap into the over 90 million that did not vote. It’s not coincidental that the number coincides with Obama’s 5% jobless report. These people are too disaffected to vote, but had they, would it be for another Democrat?

If what I’m saying is true then there would have to be some evidence of this in the Woman’s March/ Inaugural Protest and following protests. And there is, but it’s not pretty.

ny nazi ukie nazi.jpg

If you look at the gray hat in the left image and the one in the center of the right image, it’s the same hat. This particular hat, as well as the rest of the young man’s clothing are a designer version of the OUNb Nazi uniform. This is the same uniform the Bandera OUNb wore when they manned the Concentration Camps in Europe.

This is the same uniform that they wore when they starved 3 million prisoners of war to death. This is the same uniform they wore when they murdered over 250,000 Jews and close to 500,000 Ukrainians. Behind him is the Ukrainian flag.

Today, this is the same uniform he wore to support the Woman’s march. The CEEC and Ukrainian emigres are behind most of the press hype, support articles and organization for the Women’s march and all the subsequent protests.

Standing next to him and working in concert is Shia Labeouf, actor, activist, and a Polish Jewish- American by background. In the video below, if you turn the sound off and focus on the image, you’ll see them smiling at each other. The unknown Ukrainian- American nazi and Labeouf appear to be dancing together. Labeouf got good press for it.

What do the Central and Eastern European American emigres believe politically? Are they Democrats, Progressive, or even Conservative? Shown above , it is integral nationalism in the same sense that drove Adolf Hitler.

They still celebrate the people that tried to murder Franklin Delano Roosevelt. They still celebrate the Ukrainian Americans that commanded the SS battalions fighting against the USA.

Today they still celebrate the SS murderers that perpetrated the Holocaust. The most awesome weapon fascists have in 2017 are human and civil rights. Every time they successfully hide behind a legitimate cause, they win. Every time they create a “legitimate cause” they win. In the most cynical fashion progressives are being corralled into supporting memes they stood against for the last sixteen years.

For years progressives, centrists, and libertarians have complained about the George Soros inspired color revolutions around the world. Why are progressives flocking to the very people that want to take away their freedoms hoping they are protecting them?

What does this have to do with the Women’s March or protests that are following? Along with George Soros are the CEEC and Ukrainians are providing most of the media coverage. They are providing tens to hundreds of thousands of protesters depending on location to liven things up.

Among the nasty women at the protest, the Ukrainians provided their own homegrown version to show women how to protest Donald Trump.

femen 4-www.google.ru 2017-01-26 20-58-37.png

She looks like a nasty woman protester doesn’t she? What they didn’t say is what it takes to make them happy again.

femen at odessa massacre.jpg

As you can see, she has her clothes on. Behind her, almost 400 people were killed or are missing at Odessa in May, 2014. The integral nationalists burned them to death. This is Femen’s vision for your protests.

Among this group’s natural partners is the Syrian American Council. These Syrians are also integral nationalist emigres. By protesting a stronger vetting process the US may end up with the same problem the UK had in 2015.

The Prime Minister has come under under fire after the International Development Committee, which is investigating the Syrian refugee crisis, received evidence that ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups were running the camps within the war-torn country, but also in Lebanon and Jordan where the majority of the 20,000 heading for the UK are currently based.”

In one of the most cynical manipulations yet, Holocaust survivors are being asked their opinion of Trump’s refugee policy. While it makes a good headline, instead of asking about refugees, they should be asked if mixed groups should be vetted for terrorists too. A fair question would be “were they willing to let the Nazis that killed their families to emigrate with them to America.”

It was Steve Bannon that first breathed “Muslim ban.” And Soros media is sticking that statement down Trumps throat now. Maybe that part is for the better. The US government needs to say precisely what it means. The problem is while everyone and their brother are having their relevant article day, they are ignoring National Security issues.

Let’s look at how the CEEC and Ukrainian emigre groups look at Holocaust victims and Jews 2017. We know their families tortured and killed during WWII but that was over 70 years ago.

Dolinsky combined.jpg

Like many of the CEEC countries are managed by the American emigres, Ukraine is no exception. They were behind Yanukovych’s ouster and the nationalist uprising, murder, and the war in Donbass. Apparently, they still don’t think much of Holocaust victims or Jews in general.

The fact that they have to hide their background and try to keep their involvement quiet does not cover their sins. For Progressives, women’s rights, civil rights, or human rights activists, are these legitimate partners to protest with?

I’ve seen how our heroes, activists, journalists, and celebrities have completely sold their souls to support something no person with an iota of morality would do. I’ve seen them say and do things to derail candidates who would have been a million times better for those less fortunate around us. It’s unfortunate most pretend to fight the establishment, to act like they love the people more than they love the struggle and the relevance that it brings them. I am not one of those and I won’t continue to be until the good Lord takes me.” Cesar Vargas

I agree with Cesar Vargas wholeheartedly.

A Documentary You’ll Likely Never See

A Documentary You’ll Likely Never See
EDITOR’S CHOICE | 16.02.2017

A Documentary You’ll Likely Never See

James DiEUGENIO

It is not very often that a documentary film can set a new paradigm about a recent event, let alone, one that is still in progress. But the new film Ukraine on Fire has the potential to do so – assuming that many people get to see it.

Usually, documentaries — even good ones — repackage familiar information in a different aesthetic form. If that form is skillfully done, then the information can move us in a different way than just reading about it.

A good example of this would be Peter Davis’s powerful documentary about U.S. involvement in Vietnam, Hearts and Minds. By 1974, most Americans understood just how bad the Vietnam War was, but through the combination of sounds and images, which could only have been done through film, that documentary created a sensation, which removed the last obstacles to America leaving Indochina.

Ukraine on Fire has the same potential and could make a contribution that even goes beyond what the Davis film did because there was very little new information in Hearts and Minds. Especially for American and Western European audiences, Ukraine on Fire could be revelatory in that it offers a historical explanation for the deep divisions within Ukraine and presents information about the current crisis that challenges the mainstream media’s paradigm, which blames the conflict almost exclusively on Russia.

Key people in the film’s production are director Igor Lopatonok, editor Alex Chavez, and writer Vanessa Dean, whose screenplay contains a large amount of historical as well as current material exploring how Ukraine became such a cauldron of violence and hate. Oliver Stone served as executive producer and conducted some high-profile interviews with Russian President Vladimir Putin and ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

The film begins with gripping images of the violence that ripped through the capital city of Kiev during both the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 removal of Yanukovich. It then travels back in time to provide a perspective that has been missing from mainstream versions of these events and even in many alternative media renditions.

A Longtime Pawn

Historically, Ukraine has been treated as a pawn since the late Seventeenth Century. In 1918, Ukraine was made a German protectorate by the Treaty of Brest Litovsk. Ukraine was also a part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 signed between Germany and Russia, but violated by Adolf Hitler when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941.

German dictator Adolf Hitler

The reaction of many in Ukraine to Hitler’s aggression was not the same as it was in the rest of the Soviet Union. Some Ukrainians welcomed the Nazis. The most significant Ukrainian nationalist group, Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), had been established in 1929. Many of its members cooperated with the Nazis, some even enlisted in the Waffen SS and Ukrainian nationalists participated in the massacre of more than 33,000 Jews at Babi Yar ravine in Kiev in September 1941. According to scholar Pers Anders Rudling, the number of Ukrainian nationalists involved in the slaughter outnumbered the Germans by a factor of 4 to 1.

But it wasn’t just the Jews that the Ukrainian nationalists slaughtered. They also participated in massacres of Poles in the western Ukrainian region of Galicia from March 1943 until the end of 1944. Again, the main perpetrators were not Germans, but Ukrainians.

According to author Ryazard Szawlowksi, the Ukrainian nationalists first lulled the Poles into thinking they were their friends, then turned on them with a barbarity and ferocity that not even the Nazis could match, torturing their victims with saws and axes. The documentary places the number of dead at 36,750, but Szawlowski estimates it may be two or three times higher.

OUN members participated in these slaughters for the purpose of ethnic cleansing, wanting Ukraine to be preserved for what OUN regarded as native Ukrainians. They also expected Ukraine to be independent by the end of the war, free from both German and Russian domination. The two main leaders in OUN who participated in the Nazi collaboration were Stepan Bandera and Mykola Lebed. Bandera was a virulent anti-Semite, and Lebed was rabidly against the Poles, participating in their slaughter.

After the war, both Bandera and Lebed were protected by American intelligence, which spared them from the Nuremburg tribunals. The immediate antecedent of the CIA, Central Intelligence Group, wanted to use both men for information gathering and operations against the Soviet Union. England’s MI6 used Bandera even more than the CIA did, but the KGB eventually hunted down Bandera and assassinated him in Munich in 1959. Lebed was brought to America and addressed anti-communist Ukrainian organizations in the U.S. and Canada. The CIA protected him from immigration authorities who might otherwise have deported him as a war criminal.

The history of the Cold War was never too far in the background of Ukrainian politics, including within the diaspora that fled to the West after the Red Army defeated the Nazis and many of their Ukrainian collaborators emigrated to the United States and Canada. In the West, they formed a fierce anti-communist lobby that gained greater influence after Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980.

Important History

This history is an important part of Dean’s prologue to the main body of Ukraine on Fire and is essential for anyone trying to understand what has happened there since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. For instance, the U.S.-backed candidate for president of Ukraine in 2004 — Viktor Yushchenko — decreed both Bandera and Lebed to be Ukrainian national heroes.

Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian ultra-nationalist and Nazi collaborator

Bandera, in particular, has become an icon for post-World War II Ukrainian nationalists. One of his followers was Dmytro Dontsov, who called for the birth of a “new man” who would mercilessly destroy Ukraine’s ethnic enemies.

Bandera’s movement was also kept alive by Yaroslav Stetsko, Bandera’s premier in exile. Stetsko fully endorsed Bandera’s anti-Semitism and also the Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews of Europe. Stetsko, too, was used by the CIA during the Cold War and was honored by Yushchenko, who placed a plaque in his honor at the home where he died in Munich in 1986. Stetsko’s wife, Slava, returned to Ukraine in 1991 and ran for parliament in 2002 on the slate of Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine party.

Stetsko’s book, entitled Two Revolutions, has become the ideological cornerstone for the modern Ukrainian political party Svoboda, founded by Oleh Tyahnybok, who is pictured in the film calling Jews “kikes” in public, which is one reason the Simon Wiesenthal Center has ranked him as one of the most dangerous anti-Semites in the world.

Another follower of Bandera is Dymytro Yarosh, who reputedly leads the paramilitary arm of an even more powerful political organization in Ukraine called Right Sektor. Yarosh once said he controls a paramilitary force of about 7,000 men who were reportedly used in both the overthrow of Yanukovych in Kiev in February 2014 and the suppression of the rebellion in Odessa a few months later, which are both fully depicted in the film.

This historical prelude and its merging with the current civil war is eye-opening background that has been largely hidden by the mainstream Western media, which has downplayed or ignored the troubling links between these racist Ukrainian nationalists and the U.S.-backed political forces that vied for power after Ukraine became independent in 1991.

The Rise of a Violent Right

That same year, Tyahnybok formed Svoboda. Three years later, Yarosh founded Trident, an offshoot of Svoboda that eventually evolved into Right Sektor. In other words, the followers of Bandera and Lebed began organizing themselves immediately after the Soviet collapse.

The neo-Nazi Wolfsangel symbol on a banner in Ukraine

In this time period, Ukraine had two Russian-oriented leaders who were elected in 1991 and 1994, Leonid Kravchuk, and Leonid Kuchma. But the hasty transition to a “free-market” economy didn’t go well for most Ukrainians or Russians as well-connected oligarchs seized much of the wealth and came to dominate the political process through massive corruption and purchase of news media outlets. However, for average citizens, living standards went down drastically, opening the door for the far-right parties and for foreign meddling.

In 2004, Viktor Yanukovych, whose political base was strongest among ethnic Russians in the east and south, won the presidential election by three percentage points over the U.S.-favored Viktor Yushchenko, whose base was mostly in the country’s west where the Ukrainian nationalists are strongest.

Immediately, Yushchenko’s backers claimed fraud citing exit polls that had been organized by a group of eight Western nations and four non-governmental organizations or NGOs, including the Renaissance Foundation founded by billionaire financial speculator George Soros. Dick Morris, former President Bill Clinton’s political adviser, clandestinely met with Yushchenko’s team and advised them that the exit polls would not just help in accusations of fraud, but would bring protesters out into the streets. (Cambridge Review of InternationalAffairs, Vol. 19, Number 1, p. 26)

Freedom House, another prominent NGO that receives substantial financing from the U.S.-government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), provided training to young activists who then rallied protesters in what became known as the Orange Revolution, one of the so-called “color revolutions” that the West’s mainstream media fell in love with. It forced an election rerun that Yushchenko won.

But Yushchenko’s presidency failed to do much to improve the lot of the Ukrainian people and he grew increasingly unpopular. In 2010, Yushchenko failed to make it out of the first round of balloting and his rival Yanukovych was elected president in balloting that outside observers judged free and fair.

Big-Power Games

If this all had occurred due to indigenous factors within Ukraine, it could have been glossed over as a young nation going through some painful growing pains. But as the film points out, this was not the case. Ukraine continued to be a pawn in big-power games with many Western officials hoping to draw the country away from Russian influence and into the orbit of NATO and the European Union.

Ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych

In one of the interviews in Ukraine on Fire, journalist and author Robert Parry explains how the National Endowment for Democracy and many subsidized political NGOs emerged in the 1980s to replace or supplement what the CIA had traditionally done in terms of influencing the direction of targeted countries.

During the investigations of the Church Committee in the 1970s, the CIA’s “political action” apparatus for removing foreign leaders was exposed. So, to disguise these efforts, CIA Director William Casey, Reagan’s White House and allies in Congress created the NED to finance an array of political and media NGOs.

As Parry noted in the documentary, many traditional NGOs do valuable work in helping impoverished and developing countries, but this activist/propaganda breed of NGOs promoted U.S. geopolitical objectives abroad – and NED funded scores of such projects inside Ukraine in the run-up to the 2014 crisis.

Ukraine on Fire goes into high gear when it chronicles the events that occurred in 2014, resulting in the violent overthrow of President Yanukovych and sparking the civil war that still rages. In the 2010 election, when Yushchenko couldn’t even tally in the double-digits, Yanukovych faced off against and defeated Yulia Tymoshenko, a wealthy oligarch who had served as Yushchenko’s prime minister.

After his election, Yanukovych repealed Bandera’s title as a national hero. However, because of festering economic problems, the new president began to search for an economic partner who could provide a large loan. He first negotiated with the European Union, but these negotiations bogged down due to the usual draconian demands made by the International Monetary Fund.

So, in November 2013, Yanukovych began to negotiate with Russian President Putin who offered more generous terms. But Yanukovych’s decision to delay the association agreement with the E.U. provoked street protests in Kiev especially from the people of western Ukraine.

As Ukraine on Fire points out, other unusual occurrences also occurred, including the emergence of three new TV channels – Spilno TV, Espreso TV, and Hromadske TV – going on the air between Nov. 21 and 24, with partial funding from the U.S. Embassy and George Soros.

Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine’s Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)

Pro-E.U. protests in the Maidan square in central Kiev also grew more violent as ultra-nationalist street fighters from Lviv and other western areas began to pour in and engage in provocations, many of which were sponsored by Yarosh’s Right Sektor. The attacks escalated from torch marches similar to Nazi days to hurling Molotov cocktails at police to driving large tractors into police lines – all visually depicted in the film. As Yanukovich tells Stone, when this escalation happened, it made it impossible for him to negotiate with the Maidan crowd.

One of the film’s most interesting interviews is with Vitaliy Zakharchenko, who was Minister of the Interior at the time responsible for law enforcement and the conduct of the police. He traces the escalation of the attacks from Nov. 24 to 30, culminating with a clash between police and protesters over the transport of a giant Christmas tree into the Maidan. Zakharchenko said he now believes this confrontation was secretly approved by Serhiy Lyovochkin, a close friend of U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, as a pretext to escalate the violence.

At this point, the film addresses the direct involvement of U.S. politicians and diplomats. Throughout the crisis, American politicians visited Maidan, as both Republicans and Democrats, such as Senators John McCain, R-Arizona, and Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut. stirred up the crowds. Yanukovych also said he was in phone contact with Vice President Joe Biden, who he claims was misleading him about how to handle the crisis.

The film points out that the real center of American influence in the Kiev demonstrations was with Ambassador Pyatt and Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland. As Parry points out, although Nuland was serving under President Obama, her allegiances were really with the neoconservative movement, most associated with the Republican Party.

Her husband is Robert Kagan, who worked as a State Department propagandist on the Central American wars in the 1980s and was the co-founder of the Project for the New American Century in the 1990s, the group that organized political and media pressure for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Kagan also was McCain’s foreign policy adviser in the 2008 presidential election (although he threw his support behind Hillary Clinton in the 2016 race).

Adept Manipulators

As Parry explained, the neoconservatives have become quite adept at disguising their true aims and have powerful allies in the mainstream press. This combination has allowed them to push the foreign policy debate to such extremes that, when anyone objects, they can be branded a Putin or Yanukovych “apologist.”

Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland during a press conference at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, Ukraine, on Feb. 7, 2014. (U.S. State Department photo)

Thus, Pyatt’s frequent meetings with the demonstrators in the embassy and Nuland’s handing out cookies to protesters in the Maidan were not criticized as American interference in a sovereign state, but were praised as “promoting democracy” abroad. However, as the Maidan crisis escalated, Ukrainian ultra-nationalists moved to the front, intensifying their attacks on police. Many of these extremists were disciples of Bandera and Lebed. By February 2014, they were armed with shotguns and rapid-fire handguns.

On Feb. 20, 2014, a mysterious sniper, apparently firing from a building controlled by the Right Sektor, shot both police and protesters, touching off a day of violence that left about 14 police and some 70 protesters dead.

With Kiev slipping out of control, Yanukovich was forced to negotiate with representatives from France, Poland and Germany. On Feb. 21, he agreed to schedule early elections and to accept reduced powers. At the urging of Vice President Biden, Yanukovych also pulled back the police.

But the agreement – though guaranteed by the European nations – was quickly negated by renewed attacks from the Right Sektor and its street fighters who seized government buildings. Russian intelligence services got word that an assassination plot was in the works against Yanukovych, who fled for his life.

On Feb. 24, Yanukovych asked permission to enter Russia for his safety and the Ukrainian parliament (or Rada), effectively under the control of the armed extremists, voted to remove Yanukovych from office in an unconstitutional manner because the courts were not involved and the vote to impeach him did not reach the mandatory threshold. Despite these irregularities, the U.S. and its European allies quickly recognized the new government as “legitimate.”

Calling a Coup a Coup

But the ouster of Yanukovych had all the earmarks of a coup. An intercepted phone call, apparently in early February, between Nuland and Pyatt revealed that they were directly involved in displacing Yanukovych and choosing his successor. The pair reviewed the field of candidates with Nuland favoring Arseniy Yatsenyuk, declaring “Yats is the guy” and discussing with Pyatt how to “glue this thing.” Pyatt wondered about how to “midwife this thing.” They sounded like Gilded Age millionaires in New York deciding who should become the next U.S. president. On Feb. 27, Yatsenyuk became Prime Minister of Ukraine.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko shakes hands with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry shakes hands with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin in Kyiv, Ukraine, on July 7, 2016.[State Department Photo)

Not everyone in Ukraine agreed with the new regime, however. Crimea, which had voted heavily for Yanukovych, decided to hold a referendum on whether to split from Ukraine and become a part of Russia. The results of the referendum were overwhelming. Some 96 percent of Crimeans voted to unite with Russia. Russian troops – previously stationed in Crimea under the Sevastopol naval base agreement – provided security against Right Sektor and other Ukrainian forces moving against the Crimean secession, but there was no evidence of Russian troops intimidating voters or controlling the elections. The Russian government then accepted the reunification with Crimea, which had historically been part of Russia dating back hundreds of years.

Two eastern provinces, Donetsk and Lugansk, also wanted to split off from Ukraine and also conducted a referendum in support of that move. But Putin would not agree to the request from the two provinces, which instead declared their own independence, a move that the new government in Kiev denounced as illegal. The Kiev regime also deemed the insurgents “terrorists” and launched an “anti-terrorism operation” to crush the resistance. Ultra-nationalist and even neo-Nazi militias, such as the Azov Battalion, took the lead in the bloody fighting.

Anti-coup demonstrations also broke out in the city of Odessa to the south. Ukrainian nationalist leader Andrei Parubiy went to Odessa, and two days later, on May 2, 2014, his street fighters attacked the demonstrators, driving them into the Trade Union building, which was then set on fire. Forty-two people were killed, some of whom jumped to their deaths.

‘Other Side of the Story’

If the film just got across this “other side of the story,” it would provide a valuable contribution since most of this information has been ignored or distorted by the West’s mainstream media, which simply blames the Ukraine crisis on Vladimir Putin. But in addition to the fine work by scenarist Vanessa Dean, the direction by Igor Lopatonok and the editing by Alexis Chavez are extraordinarily skillful and supple.

Screen shot of the fatal fire in Odessa, Ukraine, on May 2, 2014. (From RT video)

The 15-minute prologue, where the information about the Nazi collaboration by Bandera and Lebed is introduced, is an exceptional piece of filmmaking. It moves at a quick pace, utilizing rapid cutting and also split screens to depict photographs and statistics simultaneously. Lopatonok also uses interactive graphics throughout to transmit information in a visual and demonstrative manner.

Stone’s interviews with Putin and Yanukovych are also quite newsworthy, presenting a side of these demonized foreign leaders that has been absent in the propagandistic Western media.

Though about two hours long, the picture has a headlong tempo to it. If anything, it needed to slow down at points since such a large amount of information is being communicated. On the other hand, it’s a pleasure to watch a documentary that is so intelligently written, and yet so remarkably well made.

When the film ends, the enduring message is similar to those posed by the American interventions in Vietnam and Iraq. How could the State Department know so little about what it was about to unleash, given Ukraine’s deep historical divisions and the risk of an escalating conflict with nuclear-armed Russia?

In Vietnam, Americans knew little about the country’s decades-long struggle of the peasantry to be free from French and Japanese colonialism. Somehow, America was going to win their hearts and minds and create a Western-style “democracy” when many Vietnamese simply saw the extension of foreign imperialism.

In Iraq, President George W. Bush and his coterie of neocons was going to oust Saddam Hussein and create a Western-style democracy in the Middle East, except that Bush didn’t know the difference between Sunni and Shiite Moslems and how Iraq was likely to split over sectarian rivalries and screw up his expectations.

Similarly, the message of Ukraine on Fire is that short-sighted, ambitious and ideological officials – unchecked by their superiors – created something even worse than what existed. While high-level corruption persists today in Ukraine and may be even worse than before, the conditions of average Ukrainians have deteriorated.

And, the Ukraine conflict has reignited the Cold War by moving Western geopolitical forces onto Russia’s most sensitive frontier, which, as scholar Joshua Shifrinson has noted, violates a pledge made by Secretary of State James Baker in February 1990 as the Soviet Union peacefully accepted the collapse of its military influence in East Germany and eastern Europe. (Los Angeles Times, 5/30/ 2016)

This film also reminds us that what happened in Ukraine was a bipartisan effort. It was begun under George W. Bush and completed under Barack Obama. As Oliver Stone noted in the discussion that followed the film’s premiere in Los Angeles, the U.S. painfully needs some new leadership reminiscent of Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, people who understand how America’s geopolitical ambitions must be tempered by on-the-ground realities and the broader needs of humanity to be freed from the dangers of all-out war.

How Muslims saved jews during the Nazi occupation of Paris

The Great Mosque of Paris that saved Jews during the Holocaust

Stop Everything You Do and Listen to this Rabbi!!!

Is he a ‘holocaust denier or a truth seeker? I let you judge

Judea Declares War on Trump

November 09, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

Introduction by GA:

Back in 1933, long before Hitler imposed a single restriction on German Jews, the leaders of worldwide Jewry declared a war on  Hitler’s Germany. Some argue that the German animosity towards Jews in the 1930’s, that led to the Holocaust, cannot be realised without taking into consideration the Judea war against Germany.

Seemingly some Jews never learn the lesson. Performing the symptoms of  Pre Traumatic Stress disorder the Jewish Chronicle is already at war with the next American president.  

 

http://www.thejc.com/news/world-news/165787/the-jc-leader-trump-triumphant-so-what-now

The JC Leader: Trump Triumphant. So What Now?

By Leader, November 9, 2016

It is not an accusation, merely a statement of fact, to describe Donald Trump as a racist, misogynist bully. That such a man can be elected as President of the United States is deeply chilling.

For Jews, there is one specific aspect of his ascendency that is so worrying. His campaign was self-consciously antisemitic. One of his main themes was that a global elite was conspiring against ordinary Americans. This is not only a classic antisemitic meme; the examples cited by Mr Trump were all – every one of them – Jewish, such as George Soros and the President of the Federal Reserve. Anyone who denies this element to Mr Trump’s campaign is living in a self-deluded fantasy.

Fantasy may be an apposite word. Perhaps the past few decades, when the US preserved a global order that destroyed prejudice rather than cementing it, was merely a short-lived fantasy.

With our history, that is a desperate prospect.

Many of us have always looked to the US as a beacon of freedom. When the Third Reich looked unstoppable and Britain stood alone, it was the US that then sacrificed so many of its sons to defeat the Nazis. In the Cold War it was the US, through Nato, that ensured the Soviet Union was held in check. And in recent years Nato has helped preserve the long-delayed freedom of Eastern Europe from the Warsaw Pact.

All that is now threatened. Mr Trump cites Vladimir Putin as a role model and believes Nato no longer has a purpose. The message is clear: far from standing up to an aggressive tyrant, he will willingly acquiesce in that aggression.

For Jews, these are worrying times. We have already been scapegoated by Mr Trump, so it is no supposition to suggest that worse may be to come. History shows that when bullies take charge, they turn on the Jews.

%d bloggers like this: