Fukuyama may have gotten ahead of himself after the fall of the Soviet Union. The US may have stood as the only hegemony a couple of decades ago, but the world is now bouncing back from centuries of colonial oppression.
The West didn’t get to where it is today because of its supremacy. Far from it. It was the West’s military superiority that allowed it to subjugate the rest of the world, deluding itself in the process that it was the superior civilization. This ideological delusion will not survive for long.
Granted, Francis Fukuyama said this in 1992 (so more than 30 years ago), and a lot’s happened since then, but you can’t help but notice that a man of his academic caliber was so invested in his own vision of the world so as to actually confuse the US’ military supremacy with ideological supremacy.
But this wasn’t really unique to Fukuyama, who was just following a long line of ideologues that suffered from the same fatal error (perhaps it wasn’t an error so much as a case of moral failure for some).
For hundreds of years, and since the beginnings of modernity and Western colonialism, the West has confounded its victories in campaigns against other peoples and civilizations with its own supremacy. From missionaries, expeditions, trade missions, and invasions, up to the slaughtering of entire populations, these have all been presented by Western intellectuals throughout the colonial era as a victory of their own values. (Sarcasm follows, tread lightly)
This was the product of their intelligence, their mastery of the ways of life, and it thus rested upon them to take upon themselves the mantle, nay, the responsibility and duty… the arduous task of taking humanity by the hand and guiding it toward the light.
This wasn’t at all because of Western ambitions to control global trade and acquire cheap labor (also, how dare you insinuate that?), not at all. It was something they didn’t want to do. This wasn’t about convincing their peoples (and themselves perhaps), that they were claiming the moral high ground; not at all. For just as the great men of history guided people away from darkness, so it rested upon the collective West to take their hand – ironically, sometimes literally – (perhaps sometimes a bit forcefully), so that they could reach enlightenment and escape the deplorable life of wretchedness they had been leading.
And even when they slaughtered entire populations like the Hereros were slaughtered by the Germans in 1904, this wasn’t because of German barbarism, God forbid, it was quite simply because by then, social Darwinism had fully engrained itself in the European mind. The Germans weren’t actually killing people, why that would be a crime against nature! No, they were just hurrying evolution along, just like certain species of animals ceased to exist.
They were lesser peoples, and lesser peoples who do not abide by the necessities of biological development and human evolution are not worthy of life. They barely have any intelligence as it is.
Don’t take my word for it, that’s exactly what colonialist powers in the 19th and early 20th century had come to believe, something Paul Rohrbach had carefully put into word in his German Thought in the World (1912) when he said, “Existencies, be they peoples or individuals who do not produce anything of value, cannot make any claim to the right to exist.”
Although, you have to give credit where it’s due. The Germans were latecomers to the colonial game, and only learned (both in culture and in military practice) from their earlier colonial partners, meaning mainly Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, France, the UK, and the US (did I leave anyone out?)
But I digress.
Culture and Imperialism
This superiority and higher status that Europe was able to claim was not due to their actual cultural superiority, far from it. It was military superiority that allowed these powers to subjugate other peoples, and thus establish themselves as their de facto subjugators.
It was Europe’s military victories against other civilizations and the pillaging of their resources that allowed them to assume that they had reached a higher status. One small example we can go back to is the defeat of the Sudanese Army by British forces in 1898.
At the Battle of Omdurman, the Sudanese army was annihilated because of the British Empire’s advanced weapons, meaning that British soldiers were not even within the Sudanese army’s firing range. How can you fight against an enemy you can’t even hit?
And so it was that the West came to believe (ironically, following the mass murder of millions around the world) that it can claim the moral high ground. That belief firmly took root in the West’s collective unconscious because of the works of public intellectuals, philosophers, and novelists, who either shrugged off the genocide of millions or perpetuated the myth of Western moral superiority.
Reaching the end of history
Looking at this, it’s not very surprising to hear Fukuyama (and the Fukuyama-ites) talking of the end of mankind’s ideological progression. I mean, you can understand where he’s coming from, seeing as the US stood victorious as the world’s sole hegemon, across all of the globe’s continents. But that hegemony too was brought on by the US’ military might.
Granted, the culture war waged by the US and its use of soft and smart power across the world helped this along to a large extent, but Western culture had only gotten this far because the US’ military might was there to prove that it stood seemingly victorious above all others. Culture was just another tool used to cement the idea of American ideological supremacy; it was the tool, not the result.
So it was that liberal values were presented as the be-all and end-all of advanced human existence and development. This would have probably been the case today as well, were it not for the fact that globalization (perhaps best understood as the Americanization of the world) was met with a pushback around the world.
It didn’t take long before voices became heard around the world demanding dignity, and local identities refusing Western values gained ground. From Latin America to West and Central Asia, Africa, and East Asia, and more recently with Russia, traditional, conservative, and religious values had become a way for the peoples once subjugated by the West to express themselves.
Perhaps it is some form of poetic justice that the act of armed resistance itself, as Frantz Fanon once said, became the originator of a shared identity among the subaltern. Whereas once military might had been used to subjugate the world, armed resistance allowed the oppressed to both express their identity and carve out new levels of a shared identity among them.
Unlikely allies
Clearly, this outlook should be taken into account when considering what could bring Iran, Russia, and China together. Putting aside the Western perspective that is fixated on market-like views of interests and cost/benefit analyses, another rather telling element that explains the common ground between them comes to light.
Iran, Russia, China, not to mention Latin America, all of Africa, and West, Central, East Asia, and South Asia, have all suffered (though to varying degrees) because of the West’s onslaught, that much has already been established. But the one common feature that has brought most of the world’s population together in refusal of the West wasn’t ‘interest’, but rather their common suffering.
Suffering, and the ability we humans possess to empathize with one another, is what can take someone like Fanon from his native Martinique to the fight in Algeria, or someone like Fusako Shigenobu to Palestine, or someone like Che Guevara to Cuba, Africa, and Bolivia. Suffering, for all the havoc it can wreak upon the world, can be considered one of the building blocks of identity when coupled with basic human empathy, preceding even such basic elements as language and geography.
Taken to the state level, it is this common suffering at the hands of the West that can bring two countries like Iran and China together. The economic rapprochement and regional economic integration we’re witnessing around the world wasn’t simply borne out of the need that all these countries have to subvert the Western domination of the world for the sheer want to create a multipolar world order. These countries, these peoples, have identified with one another on the most basic level of their identities, and this rapprochement was nothing but the result of the West’s centuries-long campaign of misery upon the world.
That isn’t to say that this rapprochement will necessarily lead to full integration or harmony, but it does mean that at the very least, most of the world’s population are in agreement that the West cannot be allowed to continue to force its decisions upon the world.
Come what may, we’re moving beyond The End of History.
If we say that the Yellow Vests are not socialist revolutionaries even latently, then what are they protesting about?
To put it the most simply: they are protesting the end of European Social Democracy, with the limited protections it provided.
(This is the seventeenth chapter in a new book, France’s Yellow Vests: Western Repression of the West’s Best Values. Please click here for the article which announces this book and explains its goals.)
The Yellow Vests intuited that the pan-European project has ended the era of European Social Democracy (1945-75) and replaced it with elite-driven, free market, winner-take-all Liberalism.
Seeing that their list of 43 demands doesn’t include the word “Europe” once, however, the Yellow Vests don’t really grasp that the European Union represents the organisational assassin of European Social Democracy. The European Union and Eurozone’s response to the Great Recession made it entirely clear: these are institutions which are perfectly hostile to Social Democracy’s minor redistributions and protections which fundamentally embolden the average worker and citizen.
Social Democracy was not born after World War II, just as “neoliberalism” was first on display back in 1871, with what was imposed after the destruction of the Paris Commune. Marx chronicled the birth of European Social Democracy, in 1848, when the Mountain Party (which initially claimed the mantle of neo-Jacobinism) sided with the small-traders in the June Days massacre instead of with the urban proletariat and rural peasantry, as the Jacobins had done in 1789. They went from supporting Socialist Democracy to calling themselves Democratic Socialists (Démocrate-socialistes) and this – and not the downward slope from Napoleon Bonaparte to Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte – should be considered the truest essence of Marx’s famous line of history repeating itself as farce.
“The revolutionary point was thereby broken off from the social demands of the proletariat and a (social) democrat turn given to them….”
That was the birth of Social Democracy: an ideology where the social demands of the recently-feudal masses (decent pay, health care, education, pensions, etc.) get only partially addressed while the political demands of an aristocracy opposing an absolute monarch (free speech, property rights, trial by jury, etc.) are fully met. Liberalism has always sought to limit progressive changes to the political question of how to move on from feudalism, and to stop progressive changes to the social question of how to move on from feudalism. The reformist ideology of Social Democracy has operated within Western Liberal Democracy for nearly 175 years and only partially prevailed for 30 of them.
The sooner the Yellow Vests realise that Social Democracy will never be a harmonious solution to the elitism dominant in Liberalism, the better, as Marx did:
“The peculiar character of Social Democracy is epitomised in the fact that democratic-republican institutions are demanded as the means, not to remove the two extremes – capital and wage-slavery – but in order to weaken the antagonism and transform them into a harmonious whole.”
Putting capital primarily in the hands of the recently-feudal masses so they can provide the broad economic stability and success which would end wage- and debt-slavery has never been a goal of Social Democracy, from the Mountain Party to Leon Blum to Francois Mitterrand to Francois Hollande to the “Democratic Socialists of America” led by Bernie Sanders in the 21st century United States.
Yellow Vest: “We are not beggars! What is 100 euros only given one time? State taxes compose 60% of the price of gasoline, so calling it 100 euros is totally false – the people truly only receive 40 euros. This is election nonsense, but Macron won’t win votes with these crumbs.”
Marx continued in his examination of France and gave us the key to the capitalist culture of both Liberal and Social Democracies: “This substance is the transformation of society along (Social) democratic lines, but a transformation within the boundaries of the small-trader’s class.” One extraneous sentence later: “It believes rather that the special conditions for its own emancipation are the general conditions under which alone modern society can be saved and the class struggle be avoided.”
Trotsky and the Yellow Vests saw that, due to the rise of financial capitalism, a leftist alliance must include the small businessman, but they reject the goal of Social Democracy to elevate their virtues and needs over those of the average worker and citizen.
Thus even when Social Democracy prevails in Liberalist capitalist cultures the virtues of the usually bourgeois-aspiring, individualistic, managerial small-trader class become the highest virtues to be promoted. Everyone must be a self-interested, competitive entrepreneur who aspires to be a boss and a “job creator”. This veneration of the small trader is the most obvious in American culture, and it is American culture which has been imposed on France via the pan-European project: at the alleged “end of history”, with the fall of the USSR, the United States shepherded the pan-European project, which is rightly said to be even more Liberalist (i.e. Bankocratic) than anything which could be created in the United States.
What we see in the modern era, and as this book proves, is that Liberalism, Social Democracy and Fascism have all joined together and “become bourgeois”. This amalgam of 18th century Liberalism, 19th century Social Democracy and 20th century fascism is ultimately not different from the aristocracy of the 17th century and earlier, which which ruled the 99% in an entirely autocratic manner. The extremely modest expansion of wealth and political power from a blood/marriage line to a line of the super-wealthy 1% still results in the exclusion of the recently-feudal masses from policy making, and this is what the Yellow Vests emphatically reminded. Their primary demand was not Socialist revolution but merely to get more public opinion into public policymaking.
The bourgeois bloc continually dangles Social Democracy as a reformist possibility, and thus they secure the loyalty of both the big and the small bosses and owners. However, when the moment of implementation comes, amid the next guaranteed bust in Liberalist capitalism, the response is the anti-Socialist virulence of Liberalism via the ruthless elite domination of a Fascism which has made peace with big capital.
Yellow Vest: “Macron’s repeatedly evaded the main problems. His solutions are not concrete, and it is certain that in a few months we will just be in the same situation. This is why we will keep protesting, for certain.”
Baudelaire wrote, “The most beautiful trick of the devil is to persuade you that he does not exist,” and this is what modern Western Liberal Democracy has done with the elitism, arrogance and autocracy which is the basis of absolute monarchy. Macron’s “Jupiterian” remove has pulled the sheet off of Western Liberal Democracy, again, and reminded that the idea of an autocratic ruler remains the preference of a Western elite which has always been totally opposed to Socialist-inspired measures.
The republican lie of Liberalism
When Western leaders communicate among themselves and with their foreign counterparts they use the language of Liberalism; when they implement policy they use the ruthlessness of Fascism; but when they communicate with the masses they know that republican language is paramount.When Western leaders communicate among themselves and with their foreign counterparts they use the language of Liberalism; when they implement policy they use the ruthlessness of Fascism; but when they communicate with the masses they know that republican language is paramount.
This is especially true in France and the United States, where royalism has been fully discredited from holding public power. Thus, there is a constant emphasis by contemporary French leaders and their mainstream media on maintaining “republican” values.
However, the republicanism of both is an antiquated one as it is based on Liberal and not Socialist Democracy. A perfect example of the inadequacy of their elite-led republicanism is found in the Orwellian name of the group which wages the actual physical repression of the Yellow Vests: the detested CRS riot police (Compagnies républicaines de sécurité – Republican Security Companies.) A woman wearing a full-body bathing suit – a “burkini” (combination of “burqa” and “bikini”) is breathlessly presented as a bigger threat to French republicanism than the repression of the Yellow Vests. Most obviously, there is the mainstream conservative party’s name change shepherded by Nicolas Sarkozy in 2015 – from L’Union pour un mouvement populaire(UMP) to lesRépublicains: the party had so many corruption scandals that a rebranding was deemed unavoidable.
Such is the false republicanism in Liberal Democracies.
The lip service towards republicanism allows the perpetuation of the outdated notion in France that the world still views them as the brightest beacon of progressive politics. They are different than almost all of Northern Europe, where royals still – bewilderingly – remain on thrones which hide mountains of the public’s rightful riches and influence. Indeed, an Iranian can find in France a refuge from the common Western toleration and whitewashing of monarchism.
The elite in the United States uses “freedom”, while monarchies like the UK use “human rights” in the same way – to insist that freedom and human rights for their modern aristocracies still represents the pinnacle of progressivism.
The legacy of 1789 exists in France today only in this constant demand to uphold “republicanism”, even if it is not at all the spirit of 1789 and only mouths its forms. The Yellow Vest repression will remind all of history that the freedoms offered by the republicanism of Western Liberal Democracy with French characteristics are a fantasy – there is only the autocracy of the bourgeois bloc.
France’s 21st century belief that “the republic” must jingoistically unite the French is ultimately a means used to falsely claim the legacy of 1789 while also ensuring that talk for progressive politics ends with this very initial answer to the “political question”, and with no answer to the “social question”, as well.
This also explains why there is so much forced discussion in France about what a huge threat Islam poses to this immoral republicanism: Islam correctly insists on God and morality being the highest allegiance, and certainly not laws forced through by a Fascist-allying, imperialist bourgeois bloc.
Nothing is more Liberalist than the European Union, and thus the ‘Social Fascist’ repression of anti-austerity movements and the Yellow Vests
We have already linked the European Union with the birth of neoliberalism and neo-imperialism, we have established how Fascism was subsumed and its tactics adopted, and we have shown how the goal of the third restoration of Western Liberalism is to roll back the modest gains of Social Democracy.
All that’s needed is to show how Western Liberal Democracy wields the power of the state as autocratically as royal families and their coteries used to – for this we simply have to look to the Yellow Vests.
Western Liberal Democracy and pre-1789 autocracy – there is no real difference.
Whether the form is a parliamentary republic based on Liberalism, or an executive-led republic based on Liberalism, or a constitutional monarchy based on Liberalism – the autocracy has been the same. Only the truly elite have the money to buy Liberalist rights and influence in public policy.
Yellow Vest: “As usual, no prison for the rich – everything goes fine for them, always. They never know hunger or poverty, but put everything on the average person’s back. Benalla should have been treated like anyone else – justice should be equal for everyone.”
Just as the trends of 250 years of Iranian or Chinese history can be summarised so too can the trend of the past 250 years of French and Western history, and this book has aimed to do that. Above all the trend of moving away from an autocratic monarch and towards an empowered people’s republic is discerned. The problem has been Western Liberal Democracy’s conception of a republic: what they have always had is an oligarchic republic, inspired by the English, which aims for perpetual repression of the recently-feudal (to Asian conceptions of time!) Western masses.
The early years of all revolutionary republics are always fraught with missteps and mistakes, but made with the sincere goal of broad societal progress. In 1789 the move away from absolute monarchy was met with great difficulty and international opposition. In 1848 the move away from a limited monarchy was met with great difficulty, also caused by great inexperience. In 1871 the move towards a social republic was met with great difficulty and international opposition, also caused by great inexperience. But inexperience is not the primary difficulty of the people today – they know how to rule, but they still face great international opposition. As Marx wrote:
“The cry of ‘social republic’with which the February Revolution (of 1848) was ushered in by the Paris proletariat, did but express a vague aspiration after a republic that was not only to supersede the monarchical form of class rule but class rule itself. The Commune (i.e. the first appearance of Socialist Democracy) was the positive form of that republic.”
However, the social republic was annihilated by neoliberalism and would not appear until 1917 in the eastern frontier of Europe – Russia.
The Yellow Vests reminded those in the 21st century who believe that the “end of history” had occurred in 1991 that the people’s desires for a social republic are no longer vague. However the Yellow Vests have had the misfortune of living in the world’s only region – the West – where socialist-inspired revolutionary cultures have never won implantation.
To their great credit, the Yellow Vests created a revolutionary condition for all of France. When it was thwarted by Liberal Democratic politicians, media and unions the Yellow Vests continued to march to keep promoting what may truly turn into a revolutionary culture at the next major uprising over Liberalism’s endemic failures. The Yellow Vests have created a vast and reliable network – there’s no doubt they will spring into action at the next opportunity.
The next political progression for the Yellow Vests is the realisation that the pan-European project only dangled the illusion of mere Social Democracy, but that its “neoliberal” basis is actually Fascist and autocratic to its very core.
The analysis of that splendidly successful revolutionary Bolshevik, Trotsky, must be remembered today if the Yellow Vests are to break with the perpetual illusion of mere Social Democracy:
“The program of the Communist International has the following to say on this subject: ‘Side by sidewith the Social Democracy, which assists the bourgeoisie to stifle the proletariat and to lull its vigilance, Fascism appears.’ The Communist International failed to understand that it is not the mission of Fascism to functionside by sidewith the Social Democracy, but to destroy all the existing workers’ organizations, including the reformist. The task of Fascism, in the words of the program, is to ‘annihilate theCommuniststrata of the proletariat, and their leading cadres.’ Fascism, then, does not at all threaten the Social Democracy and the reformist trade unions; on the contrary, the Social Democracy itself plays a “Fascist” role to an ever increasing degree. Fascism achieves nothing more than the consummation of the labours of reformism, by functioning ‘side by sidewith the Social Democracy’.” (Emphasis his)
The Communist Bolsheviks rejected mere Social Democracy and instead used Socialist Democracy as their guiding structure ideology, as do Socialist-inspired countries today, who then adapt its primary economic and political imperatives to local cultures and mores. They saw that Social Democracy and Fascism work together to destroy not just Socialist Democracy-inspired groups, unions, parties, countries, etc, but also groups, unions, parties and countries which attempt Social Democratic reforms of Liberalism. As time goes on the Yellow Vests will realise, thanks to their own repression, that Liberal Democracy and Social Democracy offer them no solution except the destruction of the Yellow Vests.
One sentence later – in which Trotsky expressed his usual disapproval with the Moscow-based Comintern – Trotsky continued:
“We have here before us all the basic elements of the theory of social fascism. The leaders of the Communist International failed to understand that capitalism in decay is no longer able to come to terms with the most moderate and most servile Social Democracy, either as a party in power, or as a party in opposition. It is the mission of Fascism to take its place not ‘side by side with the Social Democracy’, but on its bones. Precisely from this there flows the possibility, the need and the urgency for the united front.” (Emphasis his)
(Recall that a united front (joining together in society’s leftist struggles), is not the same as a popular front (an electoral alliance).)
Call it what you want: Social Fascism, Liberalism, autocracy, Fascism, constitutional monarchy, rule by the 1% – it is all the same oligarchic autocracy for the recently-feudal masses. I call it Western Liberal Democracy to properly place it in a geographic and historical context.
As soon as the Yellow Vests stop trying to win back the Social Democratic measures which Nicolas Sarkozy, Francois Hollande and Macron rolled back, the sooner they will realise that Socialist-inspired countries have shown a better way, method and goal. Without a major reformulation of the pan-European project – which seems impossible to get off the ground in a Liberalist-dominated media – the pan-European project’s initial lure of even greater Social Democratic gains should be seen only as a chimera.
The Yellow Vests know enough to reject existing establishment institutions, as well as pathetic PFAXIst (Popular Fronts Against Xenophobia but for Imperialism) electoral strategies – they must realise the monarchist-elitist-reformist-fascist alliance which is Western Liberal Democracy must be rejected in favor of Socialist Democracy.
That, of course, will lead to even more repression.
But their bravery will earn them more and more comrades; their correctness will only increase as the repression accumulates; the guaranteed cycles of failure in capitalism and the clockwork greed of high finance all make the move away from autocratic Liberalism certain.
The combination of royalism, Liberalism and Fascism is doomed, but people must be liberated from the long-outdated and pernicious influence of Liberalism before the next political advancement can take place. Thus the Yellow Vests, and thus this book, which is another humble tally of Liberalism’s failures.
Yellow Vest: “The people I speak with express absolutely no desire to stop the movement and remain very positive. The Yellow Vests are, above all, the French people, and the French people recognize this and this is why the movement will have a second wind.”
So admirably, The Yellow Vests have cleared the path for France: the despairing working poor, middle and lower classes have a fighting force which can never, ever be called Fascistic. France is back to being the West’s leaders of progressive politics.
Marx’s most important passage on France – guiding France from 1789 to 2022 and beyond
Here we have the most important passage in Marx’s writings on France – from his writings on the Paris Commune – because it historically summarises a century of turbulent political and socio-economic changes and pinpoints the establishment of modern Western Liberal Democracy.
The passage covers the vital and obscured history of France for a century after 1789. The short parentheticals are mine and designed to add clarity to Marx’s meaning:
“If the parliamentary republic, as M. Theirs said, ‘divided them least’ (the different factions of the French ruling class in 1850), it opened an abyss between that class and the whole body of society outside their spare ranks. The restraints by which their own divisions had under former regimes still checked the state power were removed by their union; and in view of the threatening upheaval of the proletariat they now used that state power mercilessly and ostentatiously as the national (and imperialist) war engine of capital against labor.
In their uninterrupted crusade against the producing masses they were, however, bound not only to invest the executive with continually increased powers of repression, but at the same time divest their own parliamentary stronghold – the National Assembly – one by one, of all its own means of defence against the Executive. The Executive, in the person of (President) Louis(-Napoleon) Bonaparte, turned them out. The national offspring of the ‘Party of Order’ (the dominant political party of the 2nd) Republic was the Second Empire (of Emperor Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte).
The (Second) empire, with the coup d’etat for its birth certificate, universal suffrage for its salvationand the sword for its sceptre, professed to rest upon the peasantry – the large mass of producers not directly involved in the struggle of capital and labor. Itprofessed to save the working class by breaking down parliamentarianism and, with it, the undisguised subserviency of government to the propertied classes. It professed to save the propertied classes by upholding their economic supremacy over the working class; and, finally, it professed to unite all classes by reviving for all the chimera of national glory.
In reality it was the only form of government possible, at a timewhen the bourgeoisie had already lost, and the working class had not yet acquired, the faculty of ruling the nation. (As they would acquire, starting with the Paris Commune and then later the USSR, China, Iran, etc.) It (the 2nd French Empire) was acclaimed throughout the world as the saviour of society. Under its sway bourgeois society, freed from political cares, attained a development unexpected even by itself. Its industry and commerce expanded to colossal dimensions; financial swindling celebrated cosmopolitan orgies (Marx uses this last word literally, per scandals of the time); the misery of the masses was set off by a shameless display of gorgeous, meretricious and debased luxury. The state power, apparently soaring high above society, was at the same time itself the very scandal of that society and the very hotbed of all its corruptions. Its own rottenness, and the rottenness of the society it had saved (i.e. the bourgeois elite of the 2nd Republic), were laid bare by the bayonet of Prussia, herself eagerly bent upon transferring the supreme seat of that regime from Paris to Berlin.”
The globalist descendants of the victors of 1871 would eventually comprise on Brussels instead of Berlin. Belgium – the country fabricated so that France and Germany would have a place to fight their wars, it is often joked – became “the seat of that regime”.
Yellow Vest: “We are not proud, at least not yet, because we have many more victories to accomplish. We insist on having referendums initiated by citizens, in order to democratically give a voice to all of France and to the Yellow Vests. We will keep marching to ensure that our common future is serene and peaceful.”
If we make only minor substitutions in Marx’s passage to include contemporary developments, does this not make an up-to-date history of France and Europe covering over two centuries?
“If the pan-European project “divided them least” (the different factions of national ruling classes in Europe) least, it opened an abyss between that class and the whole body of society outside their spare ranks. The restraints by which their own divisions had under former regimes still checked the state power were removed by their union; and in view of the threatening upheaval of the Yellow Vests they now used that state power mercilessly and ostentatiously as the international war engine of capital against labor.
In their uninterrupted crusade against the producing masses they (the pan-European project) were, however, bound not only to invest the national executive branches with continually increased powers of repression, but at the same time divest their own national parliamentary branches, one by one, of all its own means of defence against the Executive. The Executive, in the person of amodern Louis Bonaparte (or something new and revolutionary, perhaps similar to the Supreme Leader branch of government in Iran), could not be allowed to have turned them – Brussels – out. The national offspring of the pan-European project was the neoliberal Empire of the European Union.
The empire, with the fall of the USSR for its birth certificate, denying the national referendums which rejected the European Union and which were based on universal suffrage for its salvation and the sword for its sceptre, professed to rest upon the neo-peasantry – the large mass of producers not directly involved in the struggle of capital and labor and whodesired to avoid more intra-European wars, free movement around Europe and the strengthening of a Social Democratic safety net. It also professed to save the working class by breaking down national parliamentarianism and, with it, the undisguised subserviency of government to the propertied classes. It professed to save the propertied classes by upholding their economic supremacy over the working class; and, finally, it professed to unite all classes by reviving for all the chimera of supranational glory via colluding with the United States to enforce Liberalist values worldwide.
In reality it was the only form of government possible, at a time when the bourgeoisie had fully acquired the faculty of ruling the nation, something they had no experience with in 1848. It (the pan-European project) was acclaimed throughout the West as the saviour of European society. Under its sway bourgeois society, freed from political cares, such as the profit drags and democratic nuisances created by the era of Social Democracy, attained a development unexpected even by itself. Its industry and commerce expanded to colossal dimensions; financial swindling celebrated cosmopolitan orgies; the misery of the masses was set off by a shameless display of gorgeous, meretricious and debased luxury. The state power, apparently soaring high above society, was at the same time itself the very scandal of that society and the very hotbed of all its corruptions. Its own rottenness, and the rottenness of the society it had saved –the royals threatened by 1789, the bourgeois threatened by 1848, the colluding Social Democrats threatened by 1917 and the Fascists threatened by 1945 – were laid bare by the bayonet of the Yellow Vests, herself eagerly bent upon transferring the supreme national seat of that regime from Brussels back to Paris.”
France is not Cuba, Iran, China or even Southern Lebanon – it will likely take a civil war for the Yellow Vests to ever use bayonets to finally win political and economic redistribution. However, the Yellow Vests emphatically prove the willingness of Western Liberal Democracy to use violence just as brutally as the autocracies of 1788.
The Yellow Vests also remind that Western Liberal Democracy does not even allow the rights which Liberalism claims to protect – how long can that persist in a country which regularly demands the right to publicly exercise such rights, and whose pens have been freed by the digital era?
If the French elite is not going to permit even the basic rights of Liberalism, then France needs a defensive force which can protect the Liberalist rights of protesters. That is the subject of the next chapter.
<—>
Upcoming chapter list of France’s Yellow Vests: Western Repression of the West’s Best Values.
France’s colonial history is a barbaric one that extends from the 16th century until the liberation of Algeria in 1962. Millions of people have died, countries have had their wealth plundered, and France still refuses to recognize its dark past.
France’s 132 years of colonial presence in Algeria resulted in the deaths of millions of people and the plundering of the country’s riches
It wasn’t completely unlike Macron to deny that Algeria was ever a nation. It was surprising to hear such a statement uttered against a sovereign country in what is supposed to be a post-imperialist world order (evidently not so), but to say outright that a country that France had occupied for over a century and whose culture it helped destroy was truly flabbergasting.
You can take the colonial out of the colony but not colonialism out of the colonial, the mentality indeed persists.
It seems somewhat perplexing that France, whose Zemmours, Le Pens, and Macrons are all radically attempting to preserve what they consider to be essential to French identity by coercing Muslims into conforming, are also denying the identity of the very country they occupied, whose riches they stole, whose people they killed and posed next to their decapitated heads neatly arranged on spears, and whose culture and identity they transformed by force and coercion.
How did France’s colonial history begin and unfold, and what led it to its 100+ year occupation of Algeria?
France’s colonial empire
France’s earliest trials at colonialism happened during the 16th and 17th centuries and were part of the ongoing competition that was taking place at the time between European powers (France, Britain, the Netherlands, Spain, and Portugal), the main goal of all of whom was to find new routes to the East Indies in an effort to secure these routes for themselves in an attempt to monopolize the spice trade.
France first began its incursions into North America with the establishment of small colonies. The presence of French missionaries, coupled with colonization efforts, further exacerbated matters as they upset the sociological makeup by drawing Native American men into Christianity with promises of land, and then telling them they must cultivate crops, which to their societies was women’s work. These “redefinitions of manhood prompted many women to resist Christianity” and generated conflict within their communities.[1]
The Caribbean was also a region where competing European powers constantly clashed with one another. By 1697, France had colonized portions of North America stretching to the Caribbean and snatched Hispaniola (modern-day Haiti) from Spain in that same year. Most of the island’s indigenous population had died during Spain’s incursion for gold. France turned their colonies into plantations for sugar, coffee, and spice, and used slave labor on the islands, to such an extent that by the late 18th century, slaves outnumbered European colonists by 8 to 1, thus greatly transforming the demographic makeup of the region.
Amid the struggle for global empire-building between France and Britain, the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763) took place between the two powers and their allies in Europe. The war resulted in a decisive win for Britain and a loss for France and Spain, and the 1763 Treaty of Paris saw a number of land exchanges in order to appease Britain. France ceded all of Canada in order to retain the islands of Martinique and Guadeloupe and their valuable sources of sugar and remained somewhat inactive until after the French Revolution of 1789 and the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte who returned to the task of empire-building.
France’s imperial incursions into West Asia and North Africa date back in large part to the year 1798, as Napoleon was rising in power and conquered Egypt, and then continued on when the French Empire later colonized Algeria in 1830.
After his successes in Italy, which culminated in the Treaty of Campo Formio, Napoleon turned his attention to the British Empire, France’s perennial enemy, and tried to see whether a landing on the British isles was possible; after two months of planning, he found that it was not, as the British Navy was far superior to the French. However, one thing Napoleon could do to harm the British would be to threaten their trade with India.
Napoleon’s fascination with Egypt
Another end goal envisioned by Napoleon would follow the occupation of Egypt, whereupon he would send a force to the Kingdom of Mysore in South India in order to reinforce them, as they were also enemy of the British and were fighting against their presence in India[2].
For Napoleon, this mission also held a personal dimension, as the 29-year-old general (in 1798) had been a longtime fan of the Orient, and he always referenced Alexander the Great and Egypt in his writings and conversations. “Thus, the idea of reconquering Egypt as a new Alexander proposed itself to him, allied with the additional benefit of acquiring a new Islamic colony at England’s expense.[3]”
Although Napoleon’s ships were being pursued by the British Royal Navy, he successfully evaded them, managed to land on Egypt’s shores, and defeated the Mamluk army in the Battle of the Pyramids. However, Napoleon’s armies suffered a resounding defeat at the hands of the British Navy only days later, which resulted in the decimation of Napoleon’s ships, left him stranded in Egypt, and ended his dreams of conquering West Asia. After a three-year campaign and a series of defeats, Napoleon went back to France and launched his coup d’état, leaving him in power[4].
Algeria’s story begins
France’s aspirations of colonization in the MENA region would be left unachieved until after Napoleon’s fall, and during the reign of Charles X. Although Algeria had stood by France during its difficult times, when it was shunned by all of Europe in the 1790s, Algeria had lent it money and allowed it to receive supplies from its ports. Both countries’ relations were somewhat constrained during France’s three-year invasion of Egypt, as the Ottoman Sultan requested that Algeria declare war on Egypt, which it did, but relations returned to normal as soon as the invasion was over.
Despite Algeria’s good relations with France, Napoleon had (prior to his fall) been looking for a reason to invade it because of its strategic position, the superiority of France’s fleet, and his want of a colony on the Mediterranean to strengthen France’s position. He threatened Algeria repeatedly over the years on a number of different occasions, but the plans to invade it never materialized, as he was busy with campaigns in Europe. Nevertheless, some of his commanders did go to Algeria in the early 1800s to scout it and assess how best to capture it.
The main reason behind France’s invasion of Algeria is that France did not wish to repay its debts to the Algerian Dey and Algeria’s Jewish merchants (who had come to the Dey complaining that France is refusing payment). The debt had been accumulated by France during its invasion of Egypt in 1798. France only used an incident that took place between the Algerian ruler and France’s consul (who was implicated in the affair and had received payment from the merchants in exchange for helping secure a portion of their debt, none of which found its way back to the Algerian treasury), in order to launch the war against the country and occupy it in 1830, during the reign of Charles X[5]. The incident in question came to be known as the Fly Whisk incident.
The merchants had promised France’s Foreign Minister and its consul in Algeria a portion of the funds if they managed to secure payment of France’s debts to them, which in fact happened. However, the merchants were also indebted to the Algerian state, but by the time they were paid, France paid them directly, and not through the Algerian treasury. Moreover, one of the merchants had secured French citizenship, and another Italian citizenship, and so the Algerian state was unable to pursue them for payment.
France’s consul, as French newspapers revealed at the time, was paid two million Francs by the merchants in return. When Algerian authorities caught wind of the news, they knew the consul, who is thought to have made up the incident, was in on it, and was refusing to cooperate with Algeria in order to avoid France having to repay its debt[6].
The occupation
During the course of Algeria’s 132-year struggle for independence, nearly 5 million people were killed, and hundreds of thousands were injured. It took France nearly 70 years to gain control of Algeria after it first occupied it on July 5th, 1830, and Algeria only gained its independence after fighting a fierce war in which nearly 1.5 million Algerians lost their lives.
As far as the looting of Algeria went, France made sure to profit off the land as best it could. Even though the Treaty of Surrender signed between Algeria’s last Dey, Hussein Dey, and France included a condition that Islamic endowments not be violated, France realized that these endowments may become a source of income and confiscated them and looted them in 1843.
France’s colonial administration went a step further in 1871, enacting the Indigenous People Law, which helped them plunder Algeria’s resources by granting European settlers ownership of the lands, while Algerians working them only received 20% of the production. The Algerians could also only travel after seeking permission from colonial authorities and had their movements restricted.
Another law issued by colonial authorities was the Cremieux Decree in 1870, which turned Muslim Arabs and Berbers effectively second-class citizens, while Algeria’s Jewish population was granted French citizenship.
In terms of precious metals, more than 110 tons of Algeria’s gold and silver were stolen by the French, which are estimated today to be worth over $180 billion in today’s money.
France only recognized Algeria’s war of independence as an actual war in 1999. Today’s France, however, is still dragging its legs in recognizing Algeria’s right to reparation. In 1961, before gaining their independence, Algerians took to the streets of Paris to protest a curfew imposed on them, but a French crackdown turned the protest into a massacre, with more than 200 people being killed and scores of bodies being dumped in the Seine River.
Today, France continues to treat its Muslim population as second-class citizens who must conform, by force, to a very restricted idea of French identity. Instead of accommodating them, France is trying its best to exclude its citizens, just as it tried to force Algerians to conform to its own norms. The reasoning before was that of the White Man’s Burden, backwardness, cultural inferiority, or any number of excuses. Today, these excuses have all been repackaged under a nifty new branding called French identity.
Sources:
[1] Benjamin, Thomas, and Macmillan Reference USA Staff. “Encyclopedia of Western colonialism since 1450.” (2007).
[2] Amini, Iradj, “Napoleon and Persia”, Iran, vol. 37 (1999), British Institute of Persian Studies, p. 109-110.
[3] Said, Edward. “Orientalism Penguin Books.” (1978), p. 80.
[4] Roberts, Andrew. Napoleon: A life. Penguin, 2014, p. 188-230.
[5] Abu al-Qasim Sa’d Allah, Muhadarat fi Tarikh al-Jaza’ir al-Hadith (Bidayat al-Ihtilal), Al-Jaza’ir: Al Sharikah al-Wataniyyah li-n-Nashr w-at-Tawzi’, p. 13-33
[6] Mubarak bin Muhammad al-Mili, Tarikh al-Jaza’ir bayn al-Qadim w-al-Hadith, vol. 3, n.d, Maktabat al-Nahdah al-Jaza’iriyyah, p. 271-276.
“Israel” knew that it would never settle in the Arab region unless it gets recognized by its people as a “normal state”.
Normalization Between Arabic Countries and “Israel”: Proven Record of Failure
An Advanced Outpost for Colonial Powers
“Israel” had been created in 1948 as an advanced outpost for the colonial-imperial powers keen on dominating the Middle East region and keeping it under control. That’s the plain fact proven at different stages in recent history. And since the announcement of “Israel” as a state on the land of Palestine, it acted exactly like that: a militarized compound disguising in a state’s attire! In 1956 “Israel” was called to service by the then-great Britain and France when they decided to attack Egypt in an attempt to prevent it from liberating itself and nationalizing its Suez Canal. “Israel” joined the evil plot willingly and attacked Egypt without any provocation, showing to its old colonial masters that their investment was paying off. Later, when the British Empire was doomed to demise, “Israel” moved on and joined the camp of the rising star, America, which inherited the old lion. From the sixties of the last century onwards, “Israel” took part in the US’ global efforts in combating national liberation movements, communist-socialist regimes, and people’s revolutions.
When “Israel” was announced in 1948, it was met with unanimous Arab rejection. All Arab nations, many of them still under British – French control, refused to recognize it. Absolutely no Arab felt “Israel” belonged to the region, not culturally nor politically. Nobody was ready to deal with it in any way. Arab People looked at it not as a neighbor but as a group of usurpers who took over Palestine by force and displaced its Arab brothers who became refugees. A solid barrier of rejection and contempt was surrounding “Israel” who stayed in the heart of the Arab region as a bastard state.
That’s why the normalization of relations with Arabic countries has always been of utmost importance for “Israel”. Even the smallest gesture from anywhere in the Arab world was being warmly welcomed by Israelis if they sense it could create a narrow crack in the rejection wall. “Israel” knew that it would never settle in the Arab region unless it gets recognized by its people as a “normal state”. “Israel” needed recognition more than anything else. “Israel” knew that no matter how strong its army is or how long its occupation of Palestinian lands lasts, it’s Arab recognition that gives it legitimacy and long-term future.
Three Old Normalization Accords
Before the new wave of Arab normalization with “Israel” in 2020, there were three normalization agreements between “Israel” and the Arabs:
-Camp David peace treaty with Egypt (1979)
-Oslo peace agreement with Palestine Liberation Organization (1993)
-Wadi Araba peace treaty with Jordan (1994)
Decades of formal normalization on three fronts resulted in nothing! It is true that written recognition from Arab governments was obtained by “Israel”. However, that can hardly be the real goal that “Israel” was after.
Let’s elaborate:
Egypt and Jordan are both sovereign independent states who were having occupied territories under Israeli control. So they had duty to restitute their lands from “Israel”. That, restitution the occupied land, was the basis for their peace treaties with “Israel”. The governments of Egypt and Jordan presented the matter to their people like that: we have to sign a peace treaty, we have to recognize “Israel” because there is no other way to get our lands back. We, as responsible governments, have to do that, but you, as people, as individuals, as society, have the freedom to make your own decision whether to normalize or not! And it seemed that logic was accepted by most of the people who “excused” their governments and took their own different path.
After four decades of Egyptian normalization, and three decades of Jordan’s, there is no people-to-people relations, no social contacts established, no community initiatives between the sides. The public opinion in Egypt and Jordan is still very much against any dealings with the Israelis. Anyone who “dares” to announce friendly relations with Israelis will be socially isolated and abandoned, swiftly. Civil society, political parties, unions and associations, intellectuals, writers, artists, cinema and sports stars … etc. all refusing to have anything to do with “Israel”. Cultural and economic boycott. The relations between Egypt and Jordan from one side and “Israel” on the other, remain official and limited to political meetings and border security arrangements. This kind of “normalization” can hardly be satisfactory to the Zionists of “Israel”.
The PLO is another story. Palestine is still under Israeli occupation. It’s neither liberated nor independent. Yasser Arafat wanted to have a base at home from which he may continue the struggle towards independence, so he signed an “interim” agreement. The Oslo Accord was supposed to be just a starting point and that’s what made Arafat accept all the unfair and un-advantageous terms imposed by Israelis. Well, Arafat was wrong, and the Israelis turned the “interim” agreement into an ever-lasting one! There are many relations between the Palestinians under occupation and “Israel” but that is, in no way, considered as “normalization” between the peoples. Matters related to borders crossing, transport of goods, water and electricity … are merely living conditions and requirements.
The failure of the decades-long official normalization speaks volumes. “Israel” has not shown any real appreciation of Arab concerns and aspirations. In short, they wanted “peace and normalization” with Arabs as a token of surrender. Palestine land will have to remain under Israeli occupation and Palestinian refugees will have to remain away from home.
Will the new normalizers have better luck?
In 2020 new Arab normalizers jumped in, under Trump’s patronage, and signed the so-called Abraham Accords (it is telling that the Biden administration keenly avoids the term “Abraham” and refers to the “normalization agreements” instead, intentionally ignoring the religious implications of the term). Unlike Egypt, Jordan and the PLO, the new Arab normalizers are very far away from “Israel”, thousands of miles away! Moreover, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan have no “bilateral” or direct conflict with “Israel” and are therefore under no pressure to conclude any deal with “Israel” whatsoever.
The new normalizers were unable to use the “solving pressing problems” excuse to justify their rush towards “Israel” to their people (who were never consulted about the matter!). So they started talking about modernization, civilization and “peace in the region” and other similar broad ideas. They began a faked kind of “heart to heart” normalization that has an artificial element of passion and love towards “Israel” in it! Sudan in particular talked about improving the economy (lifting the US sanctions and getting World Bank loans) as an excuse.
The new wave of normalization will not succeed, not because the signing parties don’t want that, but because there is no real basis for success in these deals. “Israel” is still the same old Zionist entity that Arabs know very well, and Al-Quds still under occupation, Palestinians still deprived of their homeland and “Israel” is still posing a constant threat to Arab nations. Even history tells us that the economic benefits of normalization won’t work! If anybody has doubt about that, a mere look at Egypt’s and Jordan’s economic hardships – after decades of normalization- will be enough to prove that: NORMALIZATION WON’T WORK.
The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.
When Gamal Abdel Nasser Screamed: We will Never Surrender!
Hussam AbdelKareem
Faced with the danger and gravity of the situation, Gamal Abdel Nasser did not collapse and stood steadfast. He did not lose faith in his people and in the justice of his cause.
The circumstances were very difficult and the situation could hardly be graver. Gamal Abdel Nasser headed to Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo, the historic base of Islam in Egypt, ascended its pulpit and addressed his people passionately from his heart and said “We will fight to the last drop of blood! We will never surrender”.
That was the way in which the young leader, 38 years old, responded to the developments of the crisis that escalated to the point of brutal military invasion which Egypt was facing. Eighty thousand was the number of British and French troops attacking Egypt, in addition to the army of “Israel”. All that was a result of Nasser’s decision to nationalize the Suez Canal a few months earlier.
The Invaders Have Arrived
At the time when Nasser was delivering his speech in Al-Azhar, the huge British Royal Navy fleet consisting of aircraft carriers, battleships, destroyers and speedboats, together with the French Navy ally, were already at the shores of northern Egypt attacking and targeting the cities of Port Said and Port Fouad and their surroundings. The forces of aggression paved the way for their attack on the Suez Canal area with concentrated air raids on Cairo and Alexandria that targeted many places, including the Egyptian radio station.
The situation was frightening. It was no less than a comprehensive attack on Egypt, whose army has not yet recovered from the effects of defeat in the 1948 Palestine War. On the other hand “Great Britain”, the lead attacker, had emerged victorious a few years ago from World War II.
Faced with the danger and gravity of the situation, Gamal Abdel Nasser did not collapse and stood steadfast. He did not lose faith in his people and in the justice of his cause. He decided that the best response to the challenge was to revert back to his people for whose sake he led the revolution in 1952. Nasser addressed the Egyptians urging them to be strong, united with no despair, and assuring them of the inevitability of victory over the forces of aggression.
In light of the disparity in military power, Nasser called on his people to engage in paramilitary resistance and guerrilla war to confront the British-French enemy forces that began landing in Port Said. The President decided to open the Egyptian army’s storehouses for the people to obtain weapons that would enable them to confront the invaders, and began organizing the activity of the resistance brigades.
Nasser’s belief in his people and his resort to them was not surprising. All the actions that he had taken since the success of the July Revolution (1952) were directed towards his quest to advance Egypt and promote its proper place in the world away from colonialism and subordination. That includes his decision in June 1956 to nationalize the Suez Canal and transfer its ownership and management to the Egyptian people after it had been owned by Britain for 70 years since Ismail, Egypt’s ruler from the Mohammad Ali dynasty, “sold” it to the British at cheap when he went through some financial hardship and needed cash!
Nasser’s Decision: A Risk Worth Taking
Gamal Abdel Nasser knew he was taking a great risk because he’s depriving “Great Britain” of controlling the sea route to its colonies and interests in the east, and in this case, the British wouldn’t let Nasser’s decision pass. Nasser acted intelligently and thoughtfully when nationalizing the canal, declaring Egypt’s willingness to pay for Britain’s share in the Suez Canal Company, using at the same time Egypt’s sovereign right to nationalize a water canal that is part of its territory, thus depriving Britain of the legal justification for launching aggression or even rejecting the decision.
In fact, the nationalization of Suez Canal was Gamal Abdel Nasser’s last arrow in his encounter with Britain and Western powers. Since the first day of the success of the July Revolution (1952) and the overthrow of King Farouk, the British position was hostile towards Nasser’s Free Officers regime and the renaissance measures they took in Egypt, their determination to achieve independence and get rid of British hegemony, and their insistence on the withdrawal of all British forces from Egypt (which finally took place in 1956).
When Britain along with the rising power, the US, failed to “contain” the Free Officers movement led by Nasser, and to take Egypt back to their camp, they showed their true colonial face and began working to thwart all of Nasser’s ambitious development projects; the most important of which were two: modernization and arming of the Egyptian army, and building the “Aswan High Dam” in Southern Egypt to generate electricity for the country and control the flooding of the Nile.
Despite lengthy negotiations and requests, Britain and the US did not agree to supply Egypt with modern weapons that would enable it to defend its borders against Israeli attacks and threats. They wanted Egypt to remain weak with outdated and obsolete weapons, but Nasser succeeded in making an important breakthrough and a major achievement when he managed, for the first time in the Arab region, to obtain Russian weapons through Czechoslovakia. Britain and the US felt the seriousness of what happened and that the Soviet communist opponent had gained a foothold in their area of influence! They looked at Nasser as an enemy who must be punished and brought down.
As for the vital project for Egypt, the Aswan High Dam, on which all of Nasser’s development plans were based (it became a matter of life or death to him), it reached a deadlock when the US Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, informed the Egyptian ambassador to the US of Washington’s final decision: We will not finance the High Dam and we will not support you to build it because the project is “bigger than Egypt’s capabilities!” All the efforts made by Egypt to obtain funding from Western countries to build the dam were suddenly gone with the wind! Even worse; the US and Britain used their influence in the World Bank to obstruct Egypt’s funding request!
That’s how Britain and the US dealt with Egypt very arrogantly. They did not agree to sell advanced weapons to Egypt, and they did not want Egypt to obtain them from any other source! They did not agree to fund the High Dam, and did not allow the World Bank to do that! In conclusion, Egypt, in the eyes of Britain, France and the US, must remain a weak, dependent and backward country in order be satisfied! Of course, this situation cannot be accepted by a young and devoted national leader like Gamal Abdel Nasser, who decided to respond in a way that hurts them: the nationalization of Suez Canal.
The Israeli Element
And here appeared “Israel”! It decided to show its usefulness as an advanced base for the British Empire (Britain originally established it for this purpose). Although the Suez Canal problem has nothing to do with it, “Israel” quickly conveyed to London and Paris its full readiness to participate in any Anglo-French aggression against Egypt.
A secret meeting was held in Paris (France was very interested in bringing down Nasser because of his support for the Algerian revolution) that included British Prime Minister Anthony Eden, French President Guy Mollet, and Prime Minister of “Israel” Ben Gurion, during which the war scenario on Egypt was agreed upon; “Israel” will launch an invasion against Egypt through the Sinai under the pretext of stopping the attacks of the Palestinian guerrillas in Gaza supported by Egypt. On the next day, Britain and France have issued an ultimatum to the Egyptian and Israeli sides to stop the fighting for the purpose of protecting the Suez Canal and the international navigation. Then, if the fighting wouldn’t stop, the British-French military intervention will begin and the reoccupation of all the Suez Canal area will be justified and “legal”! The assessment of the three parties was that this military action would lead to the humiliation of Nasser and his downfall into hostile hands inside Egypt, and perhaps the return of the old monarchy.
The plan was actually executed according to the secret agreement. “Israel” attacked Egypt on October 29. On the following day, a joint British-French ultimatum was issued to the two sides demanding ceasefire and allowing British-French forces to control the canal from Port Said in the north to Suez in the south. As expected, Nasser rejected the ultimatum and request. They attacked on October 31, and the tripartite Israeli-British-French aggression against Egypt was in its full might.
Back to Nasser’s “resistance speech” at Al-Azhar Mosque, the Egyptians responded to the call of their leader and declared their rejection of the return of colonialism. In Port Said, a national epic began to resist the occupation forces that faced relentless street wars and guerrillas from house to house.
The Conflicting Interests of World’s Super Powers
Despite the intensity of the bombing and the extent of destruction caused by the aggression forces in Port Said, the tripartite alliance faced great difficulty in controlling the city, in which fighting continued for several days, and that hindered the march of the invading forces to the south to reach the city of Suez (as planned), so they were only able to advance for a distance of only 17 kilometers south of Port Said. During those days, large-scale political movements took place in the world, the most important of which were two:
The first was the (rare) US-British rift. The United States, which had already ascended to the leadership of Western world as heir to Great Britain, did not like Britain’s unilateralism in dealing with the Suez problem and its war- inclined approach, which could lead to the “loss of Egypt” and push indirectly Nasser to throw completely himself into the arms the Soviets. US President Eisenhower took a tough stance and asked Britain to stop its offensive and ordered “Israel” to withdraw from Sinai.
The second was the Soviet Union’s intrusion into the crisis and its strong support for Egypt, which amounted to the Soviet leader Khrushchev’s threat to use nuclear weapons against Western countries!
The result of all this was the issuance of a United Nations resolution to stop the war and ordered the withdrawal of the attacking forces. Indeed, by the end of December 22, the last invading Anglo-French forces withdrew from Port Said. As for the Israeli forces, they stayed for another three months before withdrawing from Sinai and Gaza as well.
“Great Britain” Humiliated
What happened was a political earthquake in every sense of the word, from which Egypt emerged victorious with its head held high. It succeeded in consolidating the decision to nationalize the canal, which became an important source of income to help Egypt in its renaissance projects. Removing the huge statue of De Lesseps at the entrance to the Suez Canal was a symbolic blow to the old colonial powers.
The invaders’ forces withdrew after they failed to achieve any goal. Gamal Abdel Nasser appeared as a rising national leader and turned into a symbol of the Arab and international liberation movement from Western colonialism. The biggest disappointment was for British Prime Minister Anthony Eden, who was forced to resign in the wake of the failure and humiliation suffered by Britain (which was no longer great!) at the hands of Nasser.
The old lion realized that he became old, and could do nothing of real value, so he contented himself with action-less roaring and babbling. Britain’s media and major newspapers launched a terrible smear campaign against “Colonel Nasser” that amounted to comparing him to Hitler! And that was the most they could do after 1956.
The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.
A hundred years after the establishment of the “State of Greater Lebanon”, owned by the invading French General Henri Gouraud, this combination has miserably failed to achieve the fundamental geostrategic objective for that it was created in our view, which is the creation of a “Zionized Christian nationalist homeland”, in which the interests of French imperialism and the global European monopolistic financial bloc converge and merge with the interests of global Judaism; and in a race with the creation of the “Jewish nationalist homeland” in Palestine, in which the interests of universal Judaism converged with those of British [and later American] imperialism and the global monopolistic Anglo-Saxon Protestant financial bloc.
And in vain, colonial France is now trying to save the dismantled entitized Lebanon from drowning. The closest to historical logic is that colonial France itself will drown, before it can save the entitized Lebanon from drowning. The majority of analysts are now unanimously saying that the current Lebanese crisis is not a temporary crisis, but rather an existential one, entitled: Will the current entitized Lebanon remain or not?
And that’s why the sectarian heads of the entitzed Lebanon – terrified to the bone – degenerate to the point that they refuse the oxygen provided by Syria to help those affected by the coronavirus pandemic, destroy thousands of tons of flour provided by Iraq to help the Lebanese people, refuse to buy fuel in Lebanese pounds from Iraq and Iran, and refuse to accept the large unconditioned development offers made by China and Russia. All these crimes against the Lebanese people are committed in the name of the so-called “Lebanese sovereignty” and the preservation of Lebanon’s western “civilizational” identity.
This is why Lebanese entitized sectarians, instead of all of the aforementioned, have raised the so-called “neutrality” slogan and separated Lebanon from its Arab surroundings and affiliation, except through normalization regimes with “Israel” and even to demand the “internationalization” of Lebanon and call for foreign occupation of Lebanese territory on the pretext of preserving Lebanon’s “neutrality” and so-called “Lebanese sovereignty”.
And whatever the exits of the current crisis of forming a government in Lebanon may be, this will not eliminate – but it will further emphasize – the existential nature of crisis of the entitized Lebanon. Any scientific-historical and objective analysis of this crisis must take into account and start from the three cancerous components from which entitized Lebanon was formed, which are fundamentally hostile to the existence and life of the Lebanese popular masses of all categories and sects. These cancerous components are:
1- Sectarianism
2- Treason
3- Corruption
It must be emphasized that these three “qualities” do not exist separately, but are organically related. Every sectarian is at the same time a traitor and a corrupt – corruptor. And every traitor is a corrupt and a sectarian. And every corrupt is a sectarian and a traitor. These three filthy channels pour into the swamp of association and dependency with colonialism, imperialism and Zionism.
Entitzed Lebanon found in these three cancerous components, not by coincidence, and not a defense or guarantee of the interest of any Lebanese group or community, but rather a key tool and means for the production of the “nationalist Christian Zionized homeland” project, its supplements from other communities, under the slogans of “Coexistence”, “National Pact” and “Consensual Democracy”. And the presence of the entitized Lebanon is in conjunction with the presence of its components. If these components fall, the entitized Lebanon will inevitably fall.
Perhaps it is necessary to look at the nature of the existence of this Lebanese entity, through each of its existential components:
First, the entitized Lebanon was based on a “fundamental principle” which is sectarian quotas, while giving a “preference” to Christian denominationalism in its western wing, because the leading elite in Western Christian denominationalism has a historical relationship with the colonial West. And everything in the Lebanese entity, even the installation of sidewalk tiles on any street in any Lebanese city or village, is linked to sectarian quotas. And of course, they call this “Christian-Muslim coexistence”, “religious brotherhood” and the “message to the world” conveyed by Lebanon, mentioned dozens of times in the Torah!! Belonging to the entitized Lebanon is synonymous with belonging to the sectarian quota system. There is no existence whatsoever for “their Lebanon” without the existence of the sectarian quota system, taken from the Ottoman system of “millet”, which is the system that was enshrined, “modernized” and “constitutionalized” by French colonialism and its partners and successors.
Second, the entitized Lebanon was founded on a second “fundamental principle”, which is subordination and employment to colonialism. The upper-hand in the “State of Greater Lebanon” was given to Lebanese politicians [the founding fathers of the Lebanese State] who contributed to the formation of the “Army of the Levant” in the French Army, that is the “French Armed Force” comprised of Lebanese and Syrian volunteers, and it is the same legion from which the armed forces of the “independent” Lebanese State later emerged. The “Lebanese volunteers” fought alongside the invading French forces at the Battle of Maysalun in August 1920, following which the “independence” of the “State of Greater Lebanon” was declared. They also fought in the French colonial forces during the Great Syrian Revolt [1925 – 1927], which extended to some “Lebanese” areas.
Hassan Hamadeh wrote in “Al-Akhbar” newspaper on September 17, 2019, that in 1938, the President of the Lebanese Republic, Emile Edde and Prime Minister Khair al-Din al-Ahdab supported the project of the “Jewish Agency for ‘Israel’” to settle Jews fleeing Nazi Germany in the area between Saida and Tyre, where this area must join the planned “Israel” in return for sums of money.
This project was supported by Jewish French Prime Minister Léon Blum. But then French High Commissioner De Martel, who opposed the expansion of the British influence at the expense of France’s, disrupted the project and scolded Emile Edde and Khair al-Din al-Ahdab.
The scandalous WikiLeaks also published English reports on the Lebanese families of top landowners who sold thousands of acres of land in Palestine to the Jews. These families include: the Sursock family, the Salam family, the Tien family, the Tueni family, the Khoury family, the Qabbani family, Madam Omran, the al-Sabbagh family, and Muhammad Bayhm. And Khair al-Din al-Ahdab [the Prime Minister], Wasfi al-Din Qaddura, Joseph Khadij, Michel Sarji, Murad Dana [a Jew] and Elias al-Hajj established a company in Beirut, specifically on 19 August 1935, to buy lands in southern Lebanon and Palestine and sell them to Jews.
During the “Israeli” invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the traitorous “sovereign” entitized Lebanese marched in the ranks of the occupiers and fought alongside them in Beirut, the South and all of Lebanon, and committed the Sabra and Shatila massacre.
When “Israel” failed to defeat the Resistance in 2006, Lebanese traitors shed tears over “Israel’s” defeat.
Today, on the verge of the historic defeat of American and Western imperialism, “Israel” and Zionism in the region, entitized traitors do not hesitate to call for the foreign occupation of Lebanon, under the slogans of “internationalization”, “neutrality” and so-called “Lebanese sovereignty”.
Third, in the era of foreign rule in the Arab region [including Lebanon] – in the Ayyubid era, the Mamluk, then the Ottoman – the prevailing socio-economic system was a feudal, oppressive, eastern-style system, where the and authoritarian State is a separate and strange to the people, and the oppressed people are separate and strange to the State. The relationship of the State with all its local followers [princes, governors, the Pashas, the Beiks, and aghas, etc.] and the people, was a relationship of tyranny, murder, looting and plunder. Beyond this scourge, the masses of the people were living in a closed family and village natural economy, ruminating or re-producing themselves from generation to generation. Fair and ethical trade-offs, social integration and interdependence prevailed in public relations: farmers, craftsmen, macaroons and small traders. In that system, corruption was widespread among the State apparatus and the ruling and wealthy classes associated with it. As for the poor and oppressed popular masses, they maintained the values of honor, dignity and genuine Eastern and Arab morality.
With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the eastern feudal tyranny system, in Lebanon, collapsed forever. And with the establishment of the “State of Greater Lebanon”, the French colonial administration worked to restore the capitalist system in Lebanon in its ugliest and lowest form based entirely on corruption, corrupting, fraud, lying, bribery, con, scam and theft. Within a few years, capitalism [with all its decadent morals] entered all aspects of political, economic, social, educational and cultural life in Lebanon. The geostrategic goal was to facilitate the project of transforming Lebanon into a “second ‘Israel’”, by weakening the national and cultural moral strength or immunity of the Lebanese people, and turning them into a torn “ragged rag” that global monopoly capitalism, namely imperialism, could control as it wanted.
The blind can see today that all of Lebanon’s current complex crises: the formation of the Government, the criminal financial investigation, the price of the bread bundle, are linked to corruption, to the dollar and to the Governor of the Central Bank, that is, to the capitalist system that French colonialism has imposed on the entitized Lebanon.
The historical question today is: Can this entitized Lebanon continue to exist without its basic components: sectarianism, treason, and the corrupt capitalist system? Can the masses of the Lebanese people continue to live by the existence of this entity that is organically associated with American imperialism and global Judaism?
لعلَّك لم تسمع بهذه الحادثة من قبل وفي هذا ظلم عظيم عليك وعلى حقائق التاريخ وحق الأمة ووطنك وأهلك وكرامتك:
في 17 تشرين الأول/ أكتوبر عام 1961 تداعت الجالية الجزائرية في فرنسا للاجتماع والتظاهر استنكاراً لجرائم الفرنسيين في بلادهم فاحتشد عشرات الآلاف منهم مباشرة بعد خروجهم من مقرات العمل في ساحة الأوبرا للتعبير عن حقهم الطبيعي لنصرة أهلهم وقضيتهم.
حصل ذلك أثناء الثورة الجزائرية (1954–1962) وبعد عودة شارل ديغول للسلطة حيث أخذت الشرطة الفرنسية ومنظمة الجيش السري تنتهج سياسة العنف تجاه الجزائريين المطالبين باستقلال بلادهم، والقضاء على قيادات جبهة التحرير الوطني في فرنسا.
لكن الدعوة إلى التظاهر لم ترُقْ للسلطات الفرنسية الاستعمارية الحاقدة صاحبة التاريخ الأسود فَتَصدَّت لهذه الجموع وفَتَكَت بها حيث وقع المئات من القتلى والمفقودين والجرحى عدا عن المعتقلين الذين بلغُوا الآلاف باعتراف السلطات الفرنسية.
ولم يكتفِ رئيس الشرطة الفرنسية موريس بابون بذلك بل أراد أن يُبدع في جريمته فتفنَّن في إكمال مسلسل المجزرة بما يتناسب مع تاريخ فرنسا الطبيعي مع الدول التي استعمروها فقيَّد أيدي المعتقلين وثبَّت أرجلهم في قوالب إسمنتية ثم رماهم في نهر «السين» فتخضَّبت مياه النهر بدماءِ شرفاء الجزائر من طلاب الجامعات.
وسُجِّلَتْ شهادات حية في أنّ عشرات الجثث ظلت تطفو فوق نهر «السين» أياما عديدة بعد تلك الليلة بينما اكتشفت عشرات أخرى في غابَتَي «بولون وفانسون».
عدا عمَّن أُلْقِي بهم في قنوات المياه الآسِنة والبحر.
وأما الجرحى فَتُرِكوا بمئاتهم على قارعة الطريق ليُلاقوا مصيرهم.
وبعضهم ما زال حياً إلى يومنا هذا ليروي مأساته.
وفي مزيد من مواقف التكبّر والتجبُّر رفضت السلطات الفرنسية لعقود مجرد الاعتذار من الشعب الجزائري وأهالي الضحايا والجرحى الأحياء لأنّ الاعتذار كان ثقيلاً على حكومة لا تعرف إلا احتقار البشر وعبودية المُسْتَعمَرين.
أرادوا الصمت عن هذه المجزرة التاريخية كما أخفوا العشرات مثلها في شتى أنحاء العالم.
يقول الباحث في العلاقات الدولية زيدان خوليف في لقاء معه:
إنّ مواد التاريخ الموجودة في الأرشيف لا يمكن الوصول إليها بقرار شخصي من الرئيس السابق فرانسوا ميتران، متسائلاً:
«لماذا ترفض فرنسا الإفراج عن الأرشيف المتصل بتلك الأحداث حتى اليوم؟!»
حتى أنت أيها القارئ لهذا الكلام لعلك على الأغلب لم تسمع بهذا الحدث من قبل لأنّ التعتيم الإعلامي هو جزءٌ من المعركة.
لِذا لا نرى مَن يتحدث أو يذكر أو يتناول مثل هذه الأحداث التاريخية وذلك لأنّ الدول الكبرى تستمرّ في سياسة ظلم الشعوب.
ففرنسا والتي هي دولةٌ كبرى وعضوٌ دائمٌ في مجلس الأمن والذي يُقرّر مصير الشعوب لا يليقُ بها أن يُتَحَدَّث عما فعلت أو تفعل من جرائم.
بل إنَّ الخانعين والتابعين والمنهزمين لا يعرفون من فرنسا ولا يتحدَّثون إلا عن سحرها وعطرها وأناقتها وفنِّها ونسائها وأزيائها وأسواقها وأطعمتها وسهراتها وموضتها… وهذا غاية البؤس.
حتى أنّ المسؤول المباشر عن الجريمة رئيس الشرطة موريس بابون تُرِك ليتبوَّأ مناصب شتى إلى أن وصل إلى وزارة الداخلية نتيجة إنجازاته!
وبعد عقود من الجريمة كان لا بدّ لتجار البشر ومُدَّعي الإنسانية أن يستفيدوا من دماء أهلنا فَلَمَّح الرئيسان فرنسوا ميتران وهولاند إليها.
وأما الرئيس الحالي إيمانويل ماكرون فقد اعتبرهُ حدثاً مؤسفاً فحسب!
وحتى شارل ديغول المجرم وهو الذي يُصوَّر في بلادنا على أنه بطلٌ استثنائي وقدوة للسياسيين والعسكريين إلتزم الصَّمْت، لأنّ بعض مَن في لبنان يُصِرُّ على أن يُشوِّه التاريخ والحقائق ولا يعيش إلاَّ على أطلال العبودية.
فكم من وقائع التاريخ مُغيَّبة عنا ليقوم بعض المنهزمين قائلاً: ذهبت إلى الغرب فرأيت الإسلام ولم أرَ المسلمين!
من مجلس الأمن في أربعينيات القرن الماضي إلى “جنيف 2 ” عام 2014 قصةٌ وطنيةٌ خطّها “مسيحيٌّ ومسلمٌ”.. معذرة. ما بينهما وبعدهما الكثير مما يعرّي كذبة الطائفية حيث سورية وطنٌ للجميع حرٌّ ومستقلّ.
من مجلس الأمن في أربعينيات القرن الماضي إلى “جنيف 2 ” عام 2014 قصةٌ وطنيةٌ خطّها “مسيحيٌّ ومسلمٌ”.. معذرة. ما بينهما وبعدهما الكثير مما يعرّي كذبة الطائفية حيث سورية وطنٌ للجميع حرٌّ ومستقلّ.
بين العميدين.. الخوري والمعلم
في بلادي أي سورية (ونحن فيها نكتب سورية بالتاء المربوطة) لم نكن نعلم ديانة صديقٍ أو زميلٍ إلا في حالتين الزواج أو الوفاة.. لم نكن أساساً نُعير بالاً لذلك… حتى وإن جاء أحدٌ على ذكر الأمرِ وهي كانت من النوادر، كان يخفض صوته همساً و كأنه يقرّ بأنه يرتكب خطيئة..
محرك الوطنية.. فارس بيك الخوري
لا تتّسع بضع الكلمات التي أهمُّ بكتابتها لإنصاف أحد قامات بلادي الوطنية، الثائر ضد الاحتلالين العثماني والفرنسي، الأديب والمفّكر والسياسي الأصيل.. مناصبُ عديدةٌ تدرّج فيها رئيس الوزراء فارس بيك الخوري ومنها وزارة الأوقاف، وهذه الأخيرة لم تكن الوحيدة التي شغلها، لكن أهمية ذكرها تكمن في كون الخوري مسيحياً. معذرة … مسيحيٌ حارب محاولات فرنسا تبرير إبقاء استعمارها لسورية… بادعائها أن المسحيين يطلبون حمايتها، فذهب إلى المسجد الأموي واعتلى المنبر قائلاً: إن الفرنسيين يقولون إن المسيحيين يطلبون الحماية منها، أنا من هنا أعلنها، أنا أطلب الحماية من شعبي.
من قصص استقلال سوريا
عام 1946 في جلسة مجلس الأمن، جلس فارس بيك الخوري في المقعد الخاص بالمندوب الفرنسي. وعندما جاء المندوب الفرنسي ليجلس على مقعده، فوجئ بالخوري… طلب منه الفرنسي الانتقال إلى المقعد الخاص بسورية لكن الخوري تجاهله وأخرج ساعته من جييب سترته وراح يتأمل فيها بينما المندوب الفرنسي استشاط غضباً وراح يشرح له… هذا مقعد فرنسا، أنظر هذا العلم الفرنسي أمامه وهناك مقعد سورية حيث علمها أمامه.. لكن الخوري لم يتحرك واستمر بالنظر إلى ساعته. كاد مندوب فرنسا أن يفقد عقله، وعند الدقيقة الـ 25 قال فارس بيك بلغة فرنسية واضحة: سعادة السفير جلست في مقعدك 25 دقيقة، فكدت تقتلني غضباً وحنقاً.. سورية تحمّلت سفالة جنودكم 25 سنة وآن الآوان لها أن تستقلّ.
وكان الاستقلال إلى جانب بطولات أبناء الوطن على اختلاف تلاوينهم. وفي بلدي كما المنطقة لوحة فسيفسائية من الأديان والمذاهب والقوميات هي مصدر قوة بلا شك، وستبقى كذلك.
في قصص سيادة سورية
بعد ثلاث سنوات من الحرب في سورية وعليها، وهي الأقسى بالمناسبة تحدثت فيها الكرة الأرضية جمعاء باسم الشعب السوري وحكومته وجيشه ورئيسه.. ما عداهم.
وكانت كلمة سورية
في مؤتمر “جنيف 2” حيث اجتمع العالم لمناقاشة “قضية سورية”، كانت كلمةٌ للوفد السوري برئاسة الراحل شيخ الدبلوماسية ابن دمشق الأصيل وزير الخارجية وليد المعلم.
خطأٌ أعتقدُ أن واشنطن تندم عليه إلى اليوم، مع عواصمَ للأسف عربية وأيضا غربية. فهي لم تعتقد أن هناك من يضرب أو يشكك بروايتها التي أفردت لها امبراطوريات الإعلام والسياسة بين الغربية منها والعربية وبمال هذه الأخيرة عن “الرئيس القاتل وجيشه السفاح للثورة”.
عشر دقائق مُنحت للمعلم ليقول كلمته.. لكنها كلمة سورية، قال المعلم بكل هدوء، وأضاف مخاطباً بان كي مون الأمين العام للأمم المتحدة سابقاً عندما حاول مقاطعته لتخطيه الوقت المحدد: “لقد تكلمتَ أنتَ 25 دقيقةً، أنا أعيش في سورية وأنت تعيش في نيويورك.. لدي الحق لإيصال الصورة الحقيقية في سورية”.
تحدث المعلم 34 دقيقة بالتمام، لم تفلح لا مقاطعات بان كي مون ولا أصوات الجرس في ثنيه عن إكمال كلمته حتى النهاية.. مع رسائل واضحة ومباشرة، مخاطباً وزير الخارجية السابق جون كيري: “لا أحد في العالم سيد كيري، لا أحد في العالم يستطيع إضفاء الشرعية أو عزلها أو منحها لرئيسٍ أو حكومةٍ أو دستورٍ أو قانونٍ أو أي شيءٍ في سورية إلا السوريين أنفسهم”.
و كانت كلمة سورية.. أجبر العالم على سماعها كاملة.
رئيس أركان الجيش الدبلوماسي
لم يكن المعلم رئيس وفد سورية إلى مؤتمر “جنيف2” فحسب.. كان يمثل تاريخاً من الوطنية والانتماء والمهنية والخبرة والثبات والعفة، فالملايين من الدولارات دُفعت له حتى ينشقَّ عن وطنيته في سنيّ الحرب في سورية وعليها، فأبى كما الجسم الدبلوماسي السوري، ليكون رئيس أركان جيش دبلوماسيٍّ بطلاً وشريكاً بالانتصار.
سورية وطن للجميع
بين العميدين الخوري والمعلم من مجلس الأمن في أربعينيات القرن الماضي إلى “جنيف 2 ” عام 2014 قصةٌ وطنيةٌ خطّها “مسيحيٌّ و مسلمٌ”.. معذرة، وما بينهما وبعدهما الكثير.. تعرّي كذبة الطائفية والصدام الديني حيث سورية وطنٌ للجميع حرٌّ مستقلّ…
تشكلت الدولة الكيانية – القطرية في عموم العالم العربي بحدودها وهوياتها الوطنية الضيقة وفق خرائط الأجنبي وإرادته، الذي رسم وتقاسم مناطق النفوذ مع أجنبي آخر، حتى انّ بعض هاتيك الحدود كانت تُرسم بأقلام الرصاص، فهي قابلة للتعديل والإزاحة، وفق المستجدات والتقاسمات وموازين القوى عند الأجنبي المستعمر. بهذه الطريقة رسمت حدود الدويلات في خرائط الاتفاق الانجلو – فرنسي المعروف باتفاق سايكس بيكو الذي رسم حدود الدول السورية، ثم في الحجاز في شمال الجزيرة العربية حيث سُمح لسلطان نجد عبد العزيز بطرد الهاشميين من الحجاز وضمّ الحجاز لما أصبح يُعرف لاحقاً بالمملكة العربية السعودية، وكذلك نصّب الحكام وفق ما تقتضي ضرورات السياسة، فلا يكفي أن يكون الحاكم مدعوماً ومنسجماً مع الأجنبي المستعمر، وإنما يجب أن يبقى على شيء من الضعف وشيء من عدم المشروعية، ليبقى رهينة لمن جاء به.
الهاشميون في الحجاز هم أبناؤها ويملكون شرعية الشرف (بالمعنى الديني) من خلال سدانتهم للحرمين المكي والمدني، فتمّ نقلهم إلى دمشق ثم إلى العراق والأردن، فيما مُنحت الحجاز لعبد العزيز، الذي لا يملك الشرعية الروحية ولا الانتماء للحجاز وأهلها الذين كانوا ينظرون إليه على أنه بدويّ نجديّ جلف، منتمٍ إلى المذهب الوهابي غير الإجماعي. ولطالما تكرّرت هذه التجربة في المغرب العربي، وفي سبعينات القرن الماضي، عندما رسم الانجليز الحدود بين ما كان يسمّى في حينه الإمارات المتصالحة، والتي أصبحت في ما بعد دولة الإمارات العربية المتحدة وقطر والبحرين.
الشاهد الأول في هذا المقال، أنّ هذه الهوية الكيانية – القطرية الضيقة تمّت صناعتها والعمل عليها بمهارة ومكر، لجعلها أوطاناً أزلية، يتعصّب لها مواطنوها، وتمّ تطوير الشعور الانفصالي لديهم، بادّعاءات التفرّد والتمايز عن باقي فئات الوطن، وتوظف لتحقيق ذلك خبراء ولحق بهم أنصاف مثقفين من المرتزقة، لينسجوا لهم عقائد تفتيتية، ولاختراع تاريخ خاص وحضارة وهمية متمايزة مغرقة في القدم، تتفوّق على حضارات باقي الفئات، تصنع لهم هويات تتصادم مع الهوية القومية الجامعة، هذا ما كان مقدّمة لإضعاف التضامن العربي، وجعل كلّ دولة من هذه الدول تعمل لما تظنّه مصلحتها الخاصة، بعيداً عن المصالح المشتركة التي كان عليها الوضع قبل عام 1977، عندما أعلن الرئيس المصري في حينه، عن مبادرته للسلام والتطبيع، ثم ما لبثت هذه الحالة أن تفاقمت في مطلع تسعينيات القرن الماضي عندما أقدم العراق على احتلال الكويت وما لحقه من تداعٍ للنظام العربي، فقبل ذلك كانت فلسطين، مسألة قومية وعربية بامتياز.
أدّى انهيار النظام العربي إلى تداعيات، قادت إلى مؤتمر مدريد للسلام عام 1991، ثم إلى اتفاق اوسلو 1993 بين قيادة منظمة التحرير بصفتها الممثل الشرعي والوحيد للشعب الفلسطيني والحكومة (الإسرائيلية)، وعلى الطريق ذاتها سار الأردن الذي أخذه وغيره من دول العالم العربي هول مفاجأة اتفاق «أوسلو»، التي أعدّت بصمت وسرية وتفرّد وبمعزل عن مسارات التفاوض الأخرى، فكانت اتفاقية «وادي عربة»، وهنا لا يغيب عن الذهن ما فعلته المقاومة اللبنانية، بكلّ أطيافها (لا طوائفها) حين أسقطت اتفاق 17 أيار بين بعض لبنان و»إسرائيل»، فيما لم تستطع ولربما لم ترغب القوى السياسية التي ناوأت السادات في كامب دافيد، أو المعارضة الفلسطينية التي احتجت واعترضت على توقيع قيادة منظمة التحرير على اتفاق «أوسلو»، في السير على طريق المقاومة اللبنانية، وإنما أخذت مواقف ملتبسة فهي ضدّ الاتفاق، ولكنها تقتات منه، لذلك لم تأخذ موقفاً جدياً، ولم تقم بفعل حقيقي، فقد كان شعار القرار الوطني الفلسطيني المستقلّ، ملتزماً به عند معظم فصائل المنظمة، وكان القسم الأكبر والأقوى هو مَن اتخذ القرار ووقع على الاتفاق بصفته المذكورة.
الشاهد الثاني في هذا المقال، أنّ دولة الإمارات العربية، لم تفعل أكثر من السير على الطريق ذاتها التي طرقها من قبل الرئيس المصري أنور السادات وخلفاؤه ورئيس منظمة التحرير ثم السلطة الفلسطينية وخليفته، والعاهل الأردني الراحل والحالي، بناء على ما تقدّم فإنّ خبر إعلان التطبيع الإماراتي (الإسرائيلي) لا يجب أن يمثل مفاجأة غير متوقعة لمن يتابع أو يقرأ الأحداث، وإنما هو نتيجة رياضية لما حصل في السابق، ولن تكون مفاجأة عندما تلحق البحرين وعُمان ويمن عبد ربه منصور هادي والسودان وليبيا الحفترية بالركب.
لا يرى محمد بن زايد أنه قام بعمل من خارج الصندوق، وإنما سار على طريق معبّدة، سبقه في السير عليها من كان أوّلى بأن لا يسير في ذلك الطريق، واستعان محمد بن زايد بما يدعم ذلك بالقول والفعل والإشارة الرمزية، فهو يدّعي انه قام بذلك في سبيل درء الخطر الذي تتخوّف منه قيادة السلطة الفلسطينية وهو مشروع الضمّ الذي أعلنت عنه الحكومة الإسرائيلية، أما شقيقه وزير الخارجية عبد الله بن زايد، فاستعار من القاموس السياسي الفلسطيني مفرداته، كما ورد في حديثه عبر الاتصال الهاتفي المرئي لحفل الإعلان عن قيام نادي الصداقة الإماراتي – الفلسطيني، الذي تزامن الإعلان عن تأسيسه مع وصول الطائرة الإسرائيلية إلى أبو ظبي، تحدث الوزير الإماراتي طويلاً وبشكل مجامل ولطيف، في ما يتعلق بدور ونشاط الجالية الفلسطينية في الإمارات، ثم انتقل ليؤكد موقف الإمارات الداعم لحلّ الدولتين وإقامة دولة فلسطينية على حدود الرابع من حزيران 1967 وعاصمتها القدس الشرقية، وذكّر المستمعين بالدعم التاريخي لدولة الإمارات للقضية الفلسطينية وهو في ذلك لم يخرج عن الموقف الرسمي الفلسطيني، ولكنه ذكّر أيضاً وشدّد على أنّ الإمارات صاحبة قرار إماراتي مستقل وسيادي، أما في مجال الإشارات الرمزية، فإنّ التوقيع الرسمي على الاتفاق سيكون في 13 أيلول المقبل وفي حديقة البيت الأبيض، وفي المكان والتاريخ ذاتهما الذي وقع به الاتفاق الفلسطيني الإسرائيلي، مع فارق 27 عاماً.
مع كلّ ما تقدّم فإني وكثيرون غيري لا يوافقون ولن يوافقوا على أية عملية تطبيع مع الاحتلال، ويدركون خطورة ذلك لا على الشأن الفلسطيني فحسب، وإنما على الإمارات أيضاً، ولنا في تجارب من وقع الدروس الكافية الوافية، فقد تمّ تسويق اتفاق كامب دافيد على أنّ مصر ستقفز لتصبح مثل الدول الأوروبية المتطورة والعصرية، وذلك عندما تحوّل الأرصدة المخصصة للمجهود الحربي، باتجاه مشاريع التنمية، والنتيجة أنّ مصر أصبحت أكثر فقراً، وأكثر ضعفاً، لدرجة أنها لم تعد قادرة على التصدي للتهديدات الاستراتيجية والوجودية، في هضبة الحبشة وسيناء وليبيا، ولم تتحوّل الضفة الغربية إلى سويسرا وغزة إلى سنغافورة، اثر توقيع اتفاق أوسلو، وإنما أصبحت الأراضي الفلسطينية تفتقر إلى أبسط مقوّمات البقاء، ولا يبقيها أو يقيها من الموت إلا المساعدات الخارجية المشروطة، وأموال المقاصة التي تتقاضاها بالنيابة عن السلطة «إسرائيل»، ثم تعيدها للسلطة قدر ما تشاء، وكيف ما تشاء، ووقت ما تشاء.
العلاقات الإماراتية العربية وكذلك الفلسطينية ستعود قريباً إلى سابق عهدها، والتجاذبات الإقليمية هي ما يدفعها نحو التوتر، وثمة فلسطينيون يعيشون في الإمارات ومصر والأردن، لا يجدون مكاناً آخر يذهبون إليه، وانتقاد الخطوة التطبيعية الإماراتية واجب، لكن الإسفاف والتطاول واستعمال ما في الجعبة من شتائم، لن يغيّر من الأمر، وفي النهاية لن يقبض محمد بن زايد من الإسرائيلي إلا الهباء والسراب، والسعيد من اتعظ بغيره، أما الشقي فهو لا يتعظّ إلا بنفسه وعلى حسابه.
There are some incidents in life which a person would continue to review time and again, knowing pretty well that, it would be just a futile exercise from which he/she won’t really draw serious lessons (those who believe in learning from past deeds/misdeeds seldom forget the proverbial statement of Marx: ‘History repeats itself first as tragedy then as farce’). Similarly there are some historical events which intelligent people re-evaluate and reappraise repeatedly even after centuries – needless to say that, such reappraisals don’t stop the historical figures from different societies and different times from committing similar mistakes. Leaving aside the question of why and how political actors might indulge in erroneous reiteration of policy implementation, let me indulge in a simple exercise of re-evaluating – arguably the most prominent political leaders of inter-war Europe – Lenin and Stalin. Safeguarding the core interests of Russia during the world wars – I and II – was the greatest ‘sin’ of both Lenin and Stalin. Quite expectedly, the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State elites, who coordinated the 20th century ‘world order’, had been castigating Lenin and Stalin for all sufferings that the world has been infected with, since the beginning of 20th century.
As I said, some historical events remain ‘evergreen’ in terms of importance and impact – no other historical event in the past millennium was more intriguing and had more significance than WW-I and WW-II. And, Lenin and Stalin were the towering figures who influenced most decisively the outcome of WW-I and WW-II with respect to Russia. Having educated under Anglo-dominated education system, and spent working life under the influence of Zionist-Capitalist world order, I’m amply exposed to the 24×7 propaganda on so-called ‘cruelty’ and ‘sins’ of both Lenin and Stalin. Now in the diamond jubilee of Victory Day (Nazi Germany’s surrender to Soviet Union) it is time to explore the greatest ‘sins’ of the greatest ‘sinners’. Let history speak for itself.
This article will be primarily a mapping of political and economic event-vs.-timeline in the Eurasian landmass, with minimum commentary, as and when required, from my side. It would be better if history speaks for itself.
2. Soviet Russia at the End of WW-I
It is interesting to note that neither Russian empire nor German empire were adversary to each other to a very high degree of enmity. Actually both the Russian emperor and his cousin, the German emperor were reluctant antagonists in the WW-I, events of which from the very beginning (assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the heir to Austro-Hungarian Empire on 29th June, 1914, when he and his wife were on official trip in Sarajevo, Serbia that came under Austro-Hungarian rule after centuries of Ottoman Turk rule) to the very end (abolition of four empires in Europe and Asia i.e. Russian empire in 1917, Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1918, German Empire in 1918, Ottoman Turk Empire in 1922) were manipulated and managed by the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State consisting of the ruling elites of British, French, American (USA) empires (representing the interests of wealthy class of bankers-industrialists-landed aristocrats and other elites having substantial wealth and power).
2.1 Objectives of WW-I:
Even if the belligerents Nicholas II and Wilhelm II didn’t suspect in 1913 that a war was brewing, Polish leader Joseph Pilsudeski (most dedicated Zionist imperialist leader in 20th century east Europe ) had prior knowledge of the war plans and how it would end! Viktor Chernov, one of the founders of the Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party, wrote in his memoirs about a lecture by Josef Pilsudski, Polish leader delivered in Paris in early 1914. Chernov wrote:
“… Pilsudski confidently predicted the Balkans sparking an Austrian-Russian war in the near future … Pilsudski then set the question squarely: how would the war go down and who would triumph? His response reads as follows: Russia will be defeated by Austria and Germany who will in turn fall to the English and French (or English, Americans and French) …”
The WW-I primarily served three key purposes:
2.1.1 Due to the expansion of German empire in Africa as well as their world-wide business in the last quarter of 19th century, the Deep State of major colonial empires British and French increasingly came under the perception that German empire would very soon develop into a formidable competitor to their business of colonial empire across the world. WW-I wrecked the German empire as well as demolished the German economy to the extent that Germany couldn’t become a competitor to other European empires in the 20th century. Due to that, the British, French, Dutch, Belgium, USA colonial empires got a fresh lease of life.
2.1.2 In the European and Mediterranean geopolitical arena the longstanding empires like Russian, Ottoman Turk, and Austro-Hungarian Empires were obstinate in resisting the manipulations by Anglo and French rulers. The Anglo and French oligarchy found it very difficult to bring the entire European region under the influence of politics of liberal democracy whereby the elites of the society would create political parties, hold elections, and run government that will create a façade of people’s involvement in the governance (at the same time, however, everywhere in Europe the government, the central bank, and the economy would be owned and operated by the Deep State of major colonial empires). Due to destruction of 4 empires, the stage was set for the so-called transformation of most of the European societies to democracy
2.1.3 The Jewish and Anglo bankers and businessmen based in west European societies had been always in the forefront of the process of development of capitalism in Europe and the global colonies of European powers – starting from the ‘school’ of mercantile capitalism in 16th century, they ‘graduated’ from agrarian capitalism in 17th century, and in 18th century earned ‘master’s’ in industrial capitalism. The autocratic monarchy without democratic government proved to be impediment to the development and growth of capitalism in large part of Eurasia and east Europe. Destruction of four empires opened the floodgate of capitalistic development in those regions at the cost of common people who formed 90% of the population
2.2 Onset of WW-1:
After assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to Austro-Hungarian Empire on 29th June, 1914 in Sarajevo, Serbia Austro-Hungarian empire laid a claim on Serbia. Serbia resisted with backing from Russian empire. Germany and Austro-Hungarian unity was backed by historically German-speaking community in both Germany and Austria, while Orthodox Slavic culture was the bond between Russia and Serbia. If Austro-Hungarian and German leadership were confident that Russian empire would come forward to actively support Serbia in case of any conflict with Serbia, they would not have not crossed that line (since any attack on Russia would mean conflict with France, and any attack on France would mean conflict with Britain). Instead of peace-making efforts British and French diplomacy was busy adding fuel into the fire. British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey enticed Germany and Austro-Hungary at one side and Russia at the other side to declare war against each other, and then involved France and Britain in the war. Key events unfolded as below:
2.2.1 Instead of saying that Britain will support Russia, in July 1914 Grey told German ambassador that, Britain “cannot tolerate the destruction of France.” which meant that, in case of hot conflict between Germany and Russia, the British won’t come into picture unless France came under attack
2.2.2 Grey hosted Russian Ambassador Benckendorf after his meeting with the German ambassador, and expressed that Russia should come to Serbia’s defence when Austria attack Serbia
2.2.3 Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Sazonov proposed that Russia, England and France collectively pressure Austria, and force Austro-Hungarian Empire into a political settlement of their claims against Serbia. Grey rejected the proposal because that would have killed the entire war plan
2.2.4 On 23rd July, the Austrian ambassador to Serbia presented the Serbs with the ultimatum; Serbian Prince Regent Alexander sent telegram to Russian Tsar Nicholas II seeking help
2.2.5 On 28th July 1914, Austrian guns opened fire on Serbian land on the pretext that couple of clauses of Austrian demand were not agreed by Serbia
2.2.6 On 29th July, the Grey met twice with the German ambassador Lichnowsky. In the words of Lichnowsky “Grey declared that, the British government wished to maintain its former friendship with us, and it would stay out of it, since the conflict was limited to Austria and Russia. If, however, we pulled France into it, then the situation would dramatically change and the British government would potentially be compelled to take immediate action.” British and French Deep State not only organized the First World War, they tried to adjust the situation so that the fighting broke out only between Austria, Germany and Russia. They themselves wanted to stay out of it. Only when Russia and Germany destroy one another, the French and British forces will join the fight to extend their empire! (The Zionist-Capitalist imperialist Deep State followed same simple logic to plan for WW-II.)
2.2.7 Assuming that France and Britain would not join the conflict, on 31st July 1914 Germany (siding with Austro-Hungarian empire) declared war against Russia
2.2.8 France and Russia were party to ‘alliance treaty’ by which France should have come forward in support of Russia against German aggression on 31st July itself – but keeping in line with Grey’s diplomacy, against German query dated 31st July 1914 of whether or not Paris would remain neutral, France pulled back military forces 10 kilometers from the border and told that the action was “proof of France’s peaceful intentions”
2.2.9 But the duplicity was evident next day when French Prime Minister Viviani announced the military mobilization on 1st August 1914
2.2.10 On 3rd August 1914, Germany was left with only one option – to declare war on France
2.2.11 Next day on 4th August 1914, Britain entered the war to help France and Belgium. Thus with an ulterior motive of complete destruction of Russia and Germany, British and French empires ensured that the Austro-Hungarian animosity towards Serbians (culminated through the murder conspiracy) would engulf all key powers of Europe and Eurasia in WW-I viz. Austro-Hungarian Empire, German Empire, Russian Empire, colonial empires of Britain and France.
2.2.11 At the onset of WW-I in 1914, Russian Empire consisted of the following regions/countries in European territory (naming convention as it exists now):
Russia
Ukraine except Western Galician region
Crimea
Belarus
North-Eastern Warsaw-Lublin region of Poland
Finland
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Moldova (and Transnistria region)
Eastern (Russian) Theatre of WW-I encompassed at its greatest extent the frontier between the Russian Empire and Romania on one side and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, German Empire, Bulgaria, and Ottoman Turk Empire on the other. It stretched from the Baltic Sea in the north to the Black Sea in the south, involved Eastern Europe. Between August 1914 and the end of 1914, Russian empire was advancing against German and Austro-Hungarian forces, but 1915 onwards German and Austro-Hungarian forces were on the offensive (except Galician and Romanian regions where Brusilov Offensive worked in favour of Russian empire). German-Austrian advance was stopped at the end of 1915 on the line Riga–Dvinsk–Dünaburg–Baranovichi–Pinsk–Lutsk–Ternopil. That imply, the Russian Empire already lost by the beginning of 1916 the following regions/countries in European territory (naming convention as it exists now):
Lithuania
Large part of Ukraine
Large part of Belarus
Large part of Poland
2.3 March (February) Revolution in 1917:
The above mentioned front line did not change significantly until the abdication of Russian Tsar in March 1917 when ‘February Revolution’ was instigated by the following 3 political parties and Provisional Government was formed in Petrograd (Leningrad / St. Petersburg) by the Provisional Committee of the State Duma:
Constitutional Democratic Party (support base – professionals, academicians, lawyers)
Socialist Revolutionary Party (support base – peasantry, agrarian labour)
RSDLP-Menshevik faction (support base – industrial labour, intellectuals with moderate view)
Economy of Russian Empire bore the brunt of the mobilisation and losses in WW-I. Gross industrial production in 1917 decreased by around 36% of what it had been in 1914. Real wages (inflation adjusted) fell to about 50% compared to what they had been in 1913. Over and above that, to meet the war expenditures, Russian Tsarist government took debt of more than 50 billion roubles. In and around Petrograd, discontent with the monarchy erupted into mass protests mainly against food rationing on 23 February (8 March). Mass demonstrations, violent clashes with police and gendarmes, industrial strikes continued for days. On 27 February (12 March) mutinous Russian forces sided with revolutionaries – 3 days later on 15 March Tsar Nicholas II abdicated ending Romanov dynastic rule. In the new post-Tsarist era, State Duma was led first by Prince Georgy Lvov and then by Alexander Kerensky.
There are two groups of ‘nationalist’ intellectuals with leftist and rightist views in Russia and Europe who share, rather a delusional view of 1917 anti-monarchist revolution – they think that the Zionist anti-Orthodox and anti-Russian oligarchy and elites of Europe conspired with Bolshevik communists (popular feeling was all communists are atheist) to destroy the ‘Russian’ Tsar Empire and Orthodox Slavic society (fact of the matter was Romanovs were a German clan migrated from Prussian region). This group of intellectuals forget that (a) for at least two centuries Russian empire was one of the most unequal oppressive hierarchical feudal society, and people from industrial working class, peasantry, soldiers were spontaneously agitating for most basic of the rights – right for food, and (b) in March 1917, Bolshevik communists were completely outsmarted by the above mentioned three party combination, who ousted Tsar and his council of ministers to form Provisional Government – had the Provisional Government not messed up, Bolshevik party would have to wait few decades to come to power.
Historian Alexander Rabinowitch summarised the causes of February 1917 revolution: “The February 1917 revolution … grew out of pre-war political and economic instability, technological backwardness, and fundamental social divisions, coupled with gross mismanagement of the war effort, continuing military defeats, domestic economic dislocation, and outrageous scandals surrounding the monarchy”.
The Zionist-Capitalist imperialist Deep State, was pleased with the abdication by Tsar and the installation of the Provisional Government. They were very swift in recognising the government:
USA government recognition on 22 March 1917
UK, France, Italy government recognition on 24 March 1917
The haste with which the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State (the same elites who manipulated the events that led to entry of Germany and Russia in WW-I) welcomed the Provisional Government led by three anti-Bolshevik parties prove that, the Zionist-Capitalist elites were indeed anti-Tsar anti-Orthodox and anti-Russian, but they teamed up with anti-Bolshevik regime; and identifying Zionist-Capitalist elites with Bolsheviks would be no more than Orwellian truth.
Various estimates suggest Russian empire had around six million casualties (dead, missing, and wounded) during WW-I before January 1917. On the war front, by January 1917 everything was bleak – inadequate supply of arms-ammunition-food, incompetent officers, war-weariness among soldiers, mutinies among soldiers demanding end to war efforts, abnormally low level of morale among officers and soldiers, etc. And, on the home front burning issues like inflation, poverty, scarcity of food commodities, overstretched railway network, and millions of refugees from German-occupied Russia combined to bring a nightmare in Russian empire.
Initial composition of the Provisional Government formed mainly by three parties was led by Minister-President and Minister of the Interior Georgy Lvov. After July crisis, on 6th August 1917 the Second coalition cabinet was formed under the leadership of Alexander Kerensky (Minister-President and Minister of War and Navy). The Third Provisional government led by Minister-President Alexander Kerensky was formed on 8th October 1917. The Provisional Government was inherently weak and incompetent – even if they passed new laws and policies, implementation and enforcement of the same lacked ingenuity. The Provisional Government had internal contradictions on the issue of continuation of WW-I – Kerensky Offensive was launched with disastrous results. Opposition from common people to government policies and war efforts increased by the day.
On 14th March 1917 the Petrograd Soviet issued “Order No. 1,” which instructed the troops to disarm their officers. This was one of the significant instances where Provisional Government and Soviet both wanted to assert their power. To restore Army’s morale Kerensky launched an offensive (Kerensky Offensive) on 1st July which ended in a military catastrophe – morale of the Russian Army went down further. In September 1917 the then commander-in-chief of the Russian army, General Lavr Kornilov’s troops approached Petrograd, apparently to seize power in a military coup. Kerensky arrested them. The Kornilov affair remain unresolved till now. The exist a line of thought which suggest that Kornilov and Kerensky reached an agreement before the troop movement by which it was agreed that power would be shared by two of them; however in reality, Kerensky’s actions were betrayal of Kornilov. Whatever might the reality, relation between Provisional Government and Russian Army hit a new low.
2.4 November (October) Revolution in 1917:
While the country was rapidly sinking in chaos and disorder, the Bolshevik party under Lenin’s leadership quickly recovered the organisational ground lost to the Menshevik Party and Socialist Revolutionary Party in the beginning of 1917, by (a) positioning the Petrograd Soviet as a working committee which was more competent compared to the Provisional Government (indeed, Petrograd Soviet managed to take over the control of Petrograd, the most important trading and port city, gained control of the Imperial Army, and the Russian Railways beside their already existing control of local factories); (b) steadily weakening the three parties who were the backbone of the Provisional Government through pulling the left-minded members of those parties within the fold of Bolshevik party (within just 7 months, intellectual voices almost became non-existent in those three parties which outsmarted Bolshevik party in seizing state power; and, (c) creating the Red Guard units in March 1917 as paramilitary volunteer organizations (comprised mainly of factory workers, peasants, soldiers, sailors) for “protection of the soviet power”. They fought to protect and extend the power of the soviets (like Petrograd Soviet).
Continuous shortage of food, and other supplies created tremendous unrest – there were mass strikes by millions of workers in Petrograd, Moscow, Donbas, Urals, and Central Industrial Region during September and October 1917. The factory committees coordinated workers’ strike and negotiated better pay, working hours, and working conditions. During the same time, the peasant community lost faith that the land would be distributed to them by the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries – peasant movements targeted against the landowners spread to 482 of 624 counties. Seizures of land as well as marches on landowner manors became common. Spectre of famine generated a tendency of storing grains rather than selling them in the market. Soldiers and sailors became unionised and they started ignoring the authority of the Provisional Government.
Families of soldiers would incite “subsistence riots”/ “hunger riots” during which rural citizens seized food and other supplies from shop owners, who they believed to be charging higher prices.
The Central Committee of Bolshevik party made the decision on 23rd October to seize power. Red Guards forces attached with Bolshevik party began to occupy the government buildings on 7th November, 1917. The following day, the Winter Palace was captured. The Military-Revolutionary Committee coordinated the Red Guards activities. On 8th November, 1917 the Second Congress of Soviets elected a new cabinet of Bolsheviks known as the Council (Soviet) of People’s Commissars, with Lenin as leader. The cabinet passed the Decree on Peace and the Decree on Landwhich were approved by the Second Congress of the Soviet of Workers’, Soldiers’, and Peasants’ Deputies.
Historical timeline shows that the first seizure of power in Tallinn by Soviet happened on 5th November 1917, next in Petrograd, Minsk, Novgorod, Ivanovo-Voznesenski and Tartu on 7th November 1917, next in Ufa, Kazan, Yekaterinburg, and Narva on 8th November 1917. Significant power seizures included Pskov, Moscow, and Baku on 15th November 1917, Sevastopol on 29th December 1917, Kiev and Vologda on 8th February 1918, and the last on 25th February 1918 in Novocherkassk.
The Constituent Assembly elections were held on 25th November 1917. On 18th January 1918 the Constituent Assembly had its first and only day in session. The Constituent Assembly rejected Soviet decrees on peace and land that prompted the Congress of Soviets to dissolve the Constituent Assembly.
Apart from the peace and land decrees, Soviet issued other decrees which clearly established their ideology as pro-poor as their party claimed:
Nationalization of private property
Nationalization of Russian banks
Expropriation of Church properties
Expropriation of private bank accounts
Repudiation of foreign debts
Higher rates of wages for workers
Introduction of eight-hour working in factories and other establishments
2.5 WW-I Peace Treaty in 1918:
There were three views prevalent in 1917 Russia:
Continue fighting in WW-I to defend liberty and “Russian honour” – Kerensky (initially the Minister of War, thereafter the Prime Minister of the Provisional Government) was a proponent of this opinion
Opinion called as “revolutionary defensism” suggested achieving peace without annexations and indemnities. Supporters of this view didn’t have much fervour for territorial gains or Pan-Slavic liberation, but if pushed to the wall they were not ready to formally accept defeat
Another view called “defeatism” was held by the Bolshevik Party leaders who proposed that WW-I was an ”imperialist war” where common people were being killed for the expansionist designs of empires – they also wished to achieve peace without annexations and indemnities, but if pushed to the wall they were ready to formally accept defeat
Lenin’s call for cessation of hostilities in WW-I was backed by hard realities of poverty among common Russians and shortage of supplies for Russian Army – Lenin was neither swayed by the aristocratic ‘glory and glamour’ of the Tsarist empire nor influenced by ritualistic ‘patriotism’ parroted by bourgeois and Menshevik socialist politicians. The Decree on Peace called “upon all the belligerent nations and their governments to start immediate negotiations for peace” – peace may be decorative item for oligarchy and aristocracy, but peace is an essential element of plebeian life. Lenin was particularly scathing in exposing the role WW-I played for Russian people’s suffering – food shortage, tax rise, rising cost of living, refugee crisis, etc.
Trotsky was appointed Commissar of Foreign Affairs in new Bolshevik government. Trotsky appointed Adolph Joffe to represent the Bolsheviks at the peace conference with the Central Powers. The key events were:
2.5.1 An armistice between Russia and the Central Powers (German empire, Austro-Hungarian empire, Bulgaria, and Ottoman empire) was concluded on 15th December 1917. A week later peace negotiations started in Brest-Litovsk
2.5.2 Kaiser Wilhelm II, Chief of Imperial German Army Paul Hindenburg, Army General Max Hoffmann, Army General Erich Ludendorff, Foreign Minister Richard Kuhlmann, these five high priests of German imperialism were the main actors on German side during negotiation. On the Russian side Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin, Stalin were main actors during negotiation.
2.5.3 Germany agreed to Russian demand of peace with “no annexations or indemnities”, but with proposition that Poland and Lithuania will be independent on the basis of ‘self-determination’ (obviously both the so-called independent state will align with German empire). One of the Russian negotiation team member, noted Marxist historian Mikhail Pokrovsky wept and asked how they could speak of “peace without annexations, when Germany was tearing eighteen provinces away from the Russian state”
2.5.4 On 1st January 1918, the Kaiser discussed with Hoffmann on future German-Polish border during which Hoffman suggested Germany should take a small slice of Poland. Hindenburg and Ludendorff were of different opinion who, being the winning side, wanted much more territorial acquisitions including Baltic countries. Ukrainian Rada declared independence from Russia, and demanded the Polish city of Cholm and its surroundings.
2.5.5 During 1st week of February 1918, a group of ‘Left’ Communists comprising of Nikolai Bukharin and Karl Radek wanted to continue the war with a newly-raised revolutionary force while awaiting for socialist revolution in Germany, Austria, and Turkey. Trotsky wanted to “announce the termination of the war and demobilization without signing any peace”. Lenin advocated for signing an early deal rather than having even more disastrous treaty after a few more weeks of military defeats.
2.5.6 Peace negotiation started on 10th February 1918 and Trotsky proposed the German side his concept of ‘no war and no peace’, and abstained from drawing any conclusion
2.5.7 German General Hoffmann notified Russian team on 16th February 1918 that German Army would resume their attack on Russia because peace treaty was not signed. On 18th February 1918 Lenin’s resolution that Russia sign the treaty was supported by Central Committee. Lenin convinced the majority of Bolshevik party leadership (most of whom, as a first choice, wanted a new war to be waged against imperialist Central Powers) that a peace treaty with the Central Powers is a must for the new Bolshevik revolution to sustain in the long run – historical facts show, extremely unfavourable environment at that point of time in Russia because (a) Food shortage was rampant which created large scale civil unrest, (b) Tsarist Army was in complete disorder while Red Army was being built from scratch, and (c) lack of strength of German socialist party to compel their government to cease offensive (as part of WW-I) on Russian front
2.5.8 Germany launched Operation Faustschlag on 18th February 1918. General Hoffmann advanced further into Russian territory till 22nd February 1918, and on 23rd February 1918 he tabled new terms for peace treaty that included withdrawal of all Russian troops from Finland and Ukraine
2.5.9 Trotsky resigned as foreign minister. Sokolnikov arrived at Brest-Litovsk to represent Soviet Russian Bolshevik government, and the peace treaty (called as Treaty of Brest-Litovsk) was signed on 3rd March 1918
2.5.10 With this treaty, Russia had to renounce all territorial claims in
Finland
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Ukraine
Crimea
Belarus
Bessarabia
Russian part of Poland (was under possession of White Army);
Russia was also fined 300 million gold marks. Consequently, Russia lost one-third of its population, half of its industrial land, one-fourth of its railway, three-quarters of iron ore, and nine-tenth of its coalfields as German side insisted that Russia has to cede more than 150,000 sq. km. of territories.
2.5.11 This treaty was annulled by the Armistice of 11th November 1918 when Germany surrendered to the Entente Powers (excluding Russia). The Bolshevik legislature (VTsIK) annulled the treaty on 13th November 1918
2.6 Russian Civil War and Formation of Soviet Union:
Anti-Bolshevik groups landowners, bankers, middle-class citizens, monarchists, army senior officers, and politicians like liberals-conservatives-democrats as well as non-Bolshevik socialists aligned against the Bolshevik Communist government. The anti-Bolshevik groups were collectively known as ‘White Army’ who controlled significant parts of the former Russian Empire between 1918 and 1920.
In January 1918 Trotsky headed the reorganization of the existing Red Guards into a Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army in order to create a more efficient military force. In June 1918 Trotsky instituted mandatory conscription of the peasantry into the Red Army, and inducted former Tsarist Army officers as “specialists”. By 1922, more than one-third of all Red Army officers were ex-Tsarist Army officers. To prevent sabotage, the orders of ex-Tsarist Army officers were subject to approval by Bolshevik political commissars assigned to the unit. At the height of the Civil War the Red Army numbered almost five million men. Trotsky was the overall Commander and the Chairman of the Revolutionary War Council.
The Civil War in the military sense was fought on several fronts. The key events during the civil war between the ‘White Army’ and ‘Red Army’ were:
2.6.1 Czechoslovak Legion (by end of 1917, the Legion had more than 60,000 soldiers) was granted permission to evict from Ukraine in February 1918 by the Bolshevik government – since most of Russia’s main ports were blockaded, the Legion would travel from Ukraine to port of Vladivostok, where the men would embark on ocean-going vessels. The slow evacuation by Trans-Siberian Railway was aggravated by shortage of transport vehicles. On 14th May 1918 at Chelyabinsk Legion forces attacked POW and revolted against Bolshevik authorities. The Red Army lost control over Volga, Ural, and Siberia regions along the Trans-Siberian Railway. The Czechoslovak Legion occupied more cities in along the Railway route, including Nizhneudinsk, Kurgan, Novonikolaevsk, Mariinsk, Kansk, Samara, Kuznetsk, Irkutsk, and Chita. With Bolshevik forces on retreat, the White Army occupied Petropavl, Omsk, and Syzran, and advanced towards Saratov and Kazan. By 1919 relation between the Legion forces and White Army deteriorated sharply. Between December 1919 and September 1920, the Legion evacuated by sea from Vladivostok.
2.6.2 Western Siberia was the theatre for another White Army – Admiral Kolchak assumed command of this army in November 1918. During the summer and fall of 1919 Kolchak launched successful offensives against Red Army. In the spring of 1919 while approaching the shores of the Volga he was stopped and defeated by the Red Army. He was captured and shot without a trial, and his army disintegrated quickly.
2.6.3 Eastern Siberia Japanese forces entered through Vladivostok in August 1918 strength of which later increased to 70,000 troops. The Japanese were joined by British, USA, Canadian, French, and Italian troops. On 5 September 1918, the Japanese forces linked up with the vanguard of the Czechoslovak Legion. The Japanese forces ventured up to the west of Lake Baikal. By November, they occupied all ports and towns in Siberia east of Chita and the maritime provinces. The British, French, and Italian contingents marched westward to support Kolchak’s White Army.
2.6.4 Southern Russia & Ukraine had Volunteer Army organized among the Cossacks by General Alekseyev and General Kornilov in the winter of 1917-18. General Anton Denikin took over after death of Alekseyev and Kornilov. To extend material support to the White Army the French Army occupied Odessa and Sevastopol on 18th December 1918, a month after the WW-I armistice. In October 1919, Denikin’s Army, augmented by French and British aid and supplies, reached Orel about 250 kilometres south of Moscow. The Red Army crushed Denikin’s Army in the subsequent battles waged in October and November 1919. In the Crimean peninsula General Wrangel reorganized his army and held on for a while, from where it was dislodged on 14th November 1920 when General Wrangel fled Russia.
2.6.5 Caucasus also had its own share of civil war. In 1917, Allied military troops from British forces (and its colonies – Australia and Canada) deployed across Qajar Persia to seize Baku oil fields. The force fought the Red Army at Enzeli, then proceeded by ship to the port of Baku on the Caspian Sea. Ottoman forces clashed with Allied forces in September 1918. After the Ottoman Empire withdrew its forces from the borders of Azerbaijan in the middle of November 1918, fresh British troops arrived in Baku on 17 November.
2.6.6 North Russia was the most intensely battled region (apart from Baltic). To counter German troops that landed in Finland in April 1918 (who could capture Murmansk–Petrograd railway, ice-free port of Murmansk, and city of Arkhangelsk including supply warehouses) and to actively participate in anti-Bolshevik struggle of the White Army, the Allied block sent a huge force to north Russia. The military force comprising of army and navy of Zionist-Capitalist powers (UK and colonies, USA, France, and Italy) led by a British officer Lt. General Poole, launched anti-Bolshevik operation in late May-June 1918 in Arkhangelsk. On 2nd August 1918 Tsarist Russian officer staged a coup under tutelage of General Poole against the local Bolshevik government, and seized power.
In September 1918, the Allied Powers captured Obozerskaya. Their invasion followed the routes of both banks of the Northern Dvina river in the east, Vaga river and Onega river in the west, and Arkhangelsk Railway. Fighting was heavy – after initial gain by Allied forces, Red Army fought back. By next four months the Allied Powers’ gains shrunk to only around 50 km along the Northern Dvina and Lake Onega Area. USA forces fought their last major battle at Bolshie Ozerki from 31st March till 4th April 1919. From April 1919, the inability to defend the flanks and mutinies in the White Army caused the Allied Powers to decide complete withdrawal. On 27th September 1919, the last Allied troops departed from Archangelsk. Murmansk was abandoned on 12th October 1919.
Estonian Commander Laidoner rescinded his command over the White Russians on 19th June 1919, and they were renamed the Northwestern Army under the command of General Yudenich. The Northwestern Army on 9th October 2019 launched Operation White Sword to capture Petrograd with arms-ammunition provided by Britain and France. With the help of Estonian Army, Estonian Navy, and British Royal Navy Yudenich’s troops approached to within 16 km of Petrograd. The Red Army repulsed them back to the Narva River, and launched a counter-offensive in December 1919. Defeated and disorganised, some White Army soldiers retreated beyond Estonian state border and the remnants of the Army were evacuated from Arkhangelsk in February 1920. The Bolsheviks took Arkhangelsk on 20th February 1920 and Murmansk on 13th March 1920.
2.6.7 Baltic campaign of British military (Operation Red Trek) was the biggest naval intervention starting from November 1918 in Russia by the imperialist powers especially UK. British Royal Navy ships supported the Estonian and Latvian anti-Bolshevik troops by bombarding the Red Army positions on land. British military provided military supplies to the anti-Bolshevik troops and denied the Bolsheviks the ability to move by sea. The Russian Baltic Fleet, though severely depleted after WW-I, was still relevant to the Red Army for protection of Petrograd. The Estonian High Command pushed across the border into Russia and initiated an offensive Narva – the attack was supported by British Navy and Estonian Navy. The Estonian Pskov offensive commenced at the same time on 13th May 1919 and captured Petseri town by 25th May to clear the land between Estonia and Velikaya River (to facilitate northern White Army movements). In the summer of 1919, the Royal Navy boxed up the Red fleet in Kronstadt. In the autumn of 1919, British forces provided gunfire support to General Yudenich’s White Army which launched a failed offensive against Bolshevik-held Petrograd. On 2nd February 1920, Soviet Russia signed the peace treaty recognising Estonian independence – this resulted in withdrawal of British Navy from Baltic.
In November 1918 Latvia proclaimed independence, but Red Army launches its assault on the pro-White Latvian troops on 1st December 1918 and moved forward to control most of the territory by February 1919. German and Latvian forces launch counterattack on Red Army on 3rd March 1919. Pro-German nobility formed army and tried to establish their authority before ceasefire on 3rd July. The anti-Bolshevik West Russian Volunteer Army attacked Riga on 8th October, but was defeated after five weeks of fighting. The joint forces of Poland and Latvia launched an attack on the Bolsheviks in Latgale and took Daugavpils. Latvia signed cease-fire on 1st February 1920 with Soviet Russia, and on 15th July 1920 with Germany.
2.6.8 When it became evident that the Red Army and the Bolshevik government has effectively organised themselves across Soviet Russia to crush all resistances by different White Army as well as foreign forces, all Allied forces were evacuated by 1920, apart from the Japanese forces who stayed until 1922. Estimates of the casualties of the Civil War, most of them civilian victims range from a minimum of 10 million to 25 million
2.6.9 By 1921 the Red Army reoccupied all those regions that were part of the defunct Russian Empire except Poland (Poland also seized western part of Ukraine and western part of Byelorussia), and Baltic region (Lithuania-Latvia-Estonia-Finland). On 29th December 1922 a conference of plenipotentiary delegations from the Russian SFSR, the Trans-Caucasian SFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the Byelorussian SSR approved the Treaty on the Creation of the USSR and the Declaration of the Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). These two documents were confirmed by the 1st Congress of Soviets of the USSR. The first USSR constitution was formally adopted in January 1924.
The most agonising irony of this historical period was that, White Army was seeking support (in the name of Tsar) from same imperialists who completely destroyed Tsarist empire just 3 years back. The-then zionist-capitalist Deep State in UK-France-USA-Japan-Italy withdrew all support and threw the Russian White Army contingents into bottomless pit when they found Soviet Russia had built a strong new army – the Red Army.
There exists a view shared by so-called “nationalist” and “patriotic” leaders of past and present Russia – had Bolshevik party led by Lenin not interfered with Russia’s involvement in WW-I to sign a peace treaty with Germany (and its allies), Russia would have been in the ‘winning team’ of the Entente Powers and would have got a share of the booty flowing out of the Versailles Treaty signed just 8 months later. This view is untenable when scrutinised deeply. Had Russia been active on the WW-I war front even after February 1918, they could have lost even more territory that could include Russia proper. By 1916, Russian Army was not only hopelessly short of food, clothing, ammunitions, and other logistics in the war front, but Russian Army morale was, to a large extent, shattered; moreover Red Army was not yet in complete shape. Strategically, Lenin proved to be far-sighted – he could sense that, with USA officially entering the WW-I on 6th April 1917, Entente Powers would win against Central Powers, and those Zionist-Capitalist powers would directly control the vast east European territories (earlier part of Tsar Russia, but lost to Germany during WW-I). Lenin assessed that concluding a peace treaty with Germany in February 1918, while control of at least Russia proper was still with Bolshevik party, was administratively better than, simultaneously facing onslaught of German Army (in absence of a peace treaty) plus assault of White Army buttressed by active support from anti-communist governments of about 15 countries that included significant imperialist power like:
UK, Australia, Canada
France
Italy
Japan
USA
Romania etc.
History proved Lenin’s sagacity – after the conspiracy by British diplomat Bruce Lockhart to sabotage the Bolshevik government in 1918 got exposed, from 1918 till 1921 the Zionist-Capitalist hyenas were out to dismember Russia proper in dozens of pieces using the White Army generals Yudenich, Kolchak, Denikin, and few others, but with German Army neutralized along most of the front, the Red Army valiantly fought against them for unification of Soviet Russia.
2.7 Who Ultimately Won WW-I?
Genoa Economic and Financial Conference was held in Genoa, Italy from 10th April to 19th May 1922, as planned by British PM David Lloyd George. Primarily the objective was how the European countries can deal with the pariah states of Germany and Russia to resolve the major economic issues.
The Zionist-Capitalist Deep State comprising of more than 30 countries including the imperialist powers UK, France claimed that Soviet Russian (Bolshevik) government need to pay them (a) pre-WW-I debts plus interests, (b) war time debts plus interests, (c) all assets provided to the White Army plus interests, (d) cost of all enterprises, which had been owned by foreign citizens. Total claim was worth 18 billion golden roubles. The expectations were that the Bolshevik government would surrender Soviet Russian economy and become a kind of colony of UK-France-Italy.
Lenin’s government submitted a counterclaim 30 billion golden roubles that would pay for the losses due to foreign intervention and the blockade during the civil war. While the imperialist Deep State delegates were busy discussing the unbelievable ‘audacity’ of the Soviet government, the Soviet Russian delegates concluded a pioneering agreement with Germany on 16th April 1922 in Rapallo, the Genoa suburb. Both sides accepted the nullification of Brest-Litovsk Treaty, mutually gave up their territorial and financial claims (like reimbursement of military expenses and civilian losses), Germany acknowledged nationalization of (German state and private) property in Soviet Russia. West European delegations came to know about this Agreement only after it had been signed previous night.
Soviet Russian delegates offered the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State a softer version of Soviet claim – Soviet government would acknowledge pre-war debts of Russia and would provide former owners the right to lease their ex-property or to take it on concession; in lieu of that UK-France-Italy were to acknowledge the Soviet government and provide it with financial support, forgive war debts and interests, acknowledged nationalization of enterprises. The Soviet delegation stuck to their stand during the Hague conference in June, 1922. The objective of the conferences, obviously, were not achieved (by the-then Deep State).
At every step of statecraft – economic, political, diplomatic, and military – Lenin outmanoeuvred the zionist-capitalist oligarchy based in imperialist Anglo and French countries. Their revulsion about Lenin was so complete that they refused to recognise USSR while Lenin was alive! Only after his death on 21st January 1924, USSR was recognised by European and American imperialist powers – UK on 2nd February 1924, France on 28th October 1924, Italy on 7th February 1924, and USA on 16th November 1933.
Soviet Union was constructed on the same map where Tsarist Russian Empire once existed, albeit with smaller footprint. Led by Lenin, the new country set out on the journey of a social development free from ALL sorts of exploitation unheard of in the entire human history. Soon Russia and its imperial adversary Germany patched up in order to tackle their own financial and economic problems. In the final assessment, one can conclude that it was Lenin’s Soviet Union which won the WW-I by not allowing the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State to ruin the Eurasian landmass. And, that fact didn’t go down well with the Zionist-Capitalist oligarchy of imperialists like UK-France-Italy-Japan-USA, who again started next round of conspiracy to draw Soviet Union and Germany into yet another devastating war.
3. Soviet Union and Germany during WW-II
No sooner had the news spread about signing of the Treaty of Rapallo on 16th April 1922 night than the Zionist-Capitalist powers started their plan for another round of conflict between Russia and Germany in order to ruin both. In the 1920s neither Russia nor Germany remained empires ruled by aristocracy, but WW-II remained same old story just like WW-I – a web of deception and conspiracy pieced together by Zionist-Capitalist elites.
3.1 Objectives of WW-II:
In the section 6. ‘Geopolitics 1930 onwards’ of my earlier article ‘Bridging China’s Past with Humanity’s Future – Part 2, I recapitulated on the objectives of Zionist-Capitalist Deep State related to WW-II.
I would like to quote it here, since it is pertinent:
“ With the setting up of Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Switzerland in 1930, the disputes and tussle among the most prominent Jewish and Anglo banker families (like Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, Lazard, et al.) over type of business, geographical region of influence, and share of banking sector operations got resolved. The Zionist-Capitalist elites were fully united in words and deeds notwithstanding the occasional rivalry and difference of opinion between followers of two camps: Rothschild and Rockefeller. The long-term objective of the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State clique (representing primarily the Jewish, Anglo, Dutch, French, German oligarch and aristocrat families who had accumulated wealth and have been engaged in business in banking-land-industry-trading) after WW-I has been to establish a hegemonic world order which would:
own ‘political process and power’ in every society/country on the earth
own ‘economic process and wealth’ in every landmass/country/ocean on the earth
control ‘socio-cultural process and population’ in every region/country on the earth
I find it difficult to consider that, ‘winning’ political power anywhere in the world, has ever been an objective of the Deep State – they want to ‘own’ the process through which any political party may be made to ‘win’ or ‘loose’ power depending on short-term and long-term interest of the Deep State.
The Zionist-Capitalist Deep State crystallized in its existing form when WW-II started in 1936 (with signing of anti-communist pact between Germany, Italy, and Japan). Expectations of the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State were destruction of powerful societies (non- Anglo/Jewish/Dutch/French) who had potential to develop advanced economy, and expansion of Zionist-Capitalist empire:
combatants Fascist Germany and Communist Soviet Union decimating each other’s (i) military forces, (ii) physical infrastructure, and (iii) population across entire Eurasia;
combatants Fascist Japan and Nationalist China decimating each other’s (i) military forces, (ii) physical infrastructure, and (iii) population across entire East Asia;
stages (a) and (b) would be followed by occupation of whole Europe and Asia by the ‘benevolent’ Anglo-American military who would claim that they have ‘liberated’ these ancient civilizations from the ‘authoritarian dictatorships’ of fascism and communism;
stage (c) would be followed by establishment of ‘liberal democratic capitalism’ version of empire (as against ‘colonial extractive capitalism’ version) in whole Europe and Asia to continue plunder of wealth in maximum possible way;
Unfortunately half of the objectives remained unfulfilled in the WW-II that was over by 1945 – because of two political parties: Communist Party of Soviet Union (CPSU) and Communist Party of China (CPC) whose top leadership mobilised their countrymen in collective patriotic spirit, Soviet Union and China didn’t capitulate but their direct adversaries (Germany and Japan) were trounced. “
3.2 Prelude to WW-II:
Treaty of Versailles to end WW-I was signed on 28th June 1919 in Versailles exactly 5 years after assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, with stringent conditions that impacted Germany’s economy. Harsh conditions of the Treaty of Versailles created a kind resentment among the Germans as well as other peace-loving Europeans, for they anticipated a violent reaction in future from the German population against such humiliating treaty.
3.2.1 Conditions of Treaty of Versailles
Territorial implications – Germany was stripped of 65,000 sq. km. of territory and 7 million people. Germany had to give up all direct territorial gains and protectorates via the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Germany would recognize Belgian sovereignty over Moresnet and Eupen-Malmedy. Germany was to cede the control of Saar to League of Nations for 15 years, after which a plebiscite would decide sovereignty. France would control Alsace-Lorraine. A plebiscite would decide sovereignty of Schleswig-Holstein. Germany would recognize the independence of Czechoslovakia including some parts of Upper Silesia. Germany would recognize the independence of Poland including some portions of Upper Silesia, East Prussian Soldau area, Posen, and eastern Pomerania. Sovereignty of Southern East Prussia would be decided via plebiscite. Thus Poland got about 51,000 sq. km. area at the expense of Germany. Germany would cede Danzig and its hinterland for the League of Nations to establish the Free City of Danzig.
German colonies in Africa were converted into League of Nations mandates. Togoland and Cameroon were transferred to France. Ruanda and Burundi were transferred to Belgium. Britain got German East Africa, and (UK’s colony) South Africa got German South-West Africa. Kionga Triangle in northern Mozambique was allocated to Portugal. German Samoa was allocated to New Zealand, while German occupied islands in the Pacific Ocean south of equator were allocated to Australia. German concessions in Shandong, China was transferred to Japan who also got German occupied islands in the Pacific north of equator.
Trading of military machinery – Germany was prohibited from the manufacture or stockpile of armoured cars, battle tanks, military aircrafts, naval vessels, chemical weapon etc. Limits were imposed on the type and quantity of weapons and arms trading.
Reparation implications – An Allied “Reparation Commission” would be established to determine the amount which Germany would pay – it would submit its conclusions by 1st May 1921 after hearing the German Government’s stand. Interim reparation fixed at 20 billion gold marks ($5 billion) in gold, commodities, ships, securities, and other assets.
On 24th April 1921 German Government wrote to USA Government expressing readiness to accept total liability of 50 billion gold marks as reparation. The London Schedule of Payments of 5th May 1921 established final reparation sum of 132 billion gold marks to be paid by all Central Powers combined. The Commission, however, recognized that the Central Powers were not in a position to pay except Germany. Reparation amount was divided into three series of bonds: “A”, “B”, and “C” Bonds. “A” and “B” together had a nominal valuation of 50 billion gold marks (US$12.5 billion) which must be paid by Germany (out of which 9 billion gold marks payments were made between 1919 and May 1921). Reparation against “C” Bonds (82 billion gold marks) may/may not be required to be paid depending on Allied Powers decision in future.
The USA provided UK and France with loans amounting to USD 8.8 billon, when it formally entered WW-I. The total sum of war debt owed to the USA was USD 11 billion (including the loan given between 1919 and 1921) – essentially the UK and France governments wanted Germany to pay the reparations equivalent to their total loans accumulated during the course of WW-I.
3.2.2 Implementation of Reparation Payments
The flight of German capital abroad as a result of reparation payments and lower tax collection resulted in massive state deficit. To overcome that German government printed and dumped German marks without backing of gold/silver/forex. As a result, 1922 to 1924 German currency collapsed on hyperinflation (in 1923, inflation rate reached 578512%, 1 USD was worth 4.2 trillion Deutsch marks). Germany was unable to pay reparations.
During March to December 1923, Dawes Plan was formulated for which John Foster Dulles (legal advisor to USA President Woodrow Wilson), Montague Norman (Head of Bank of England), Charles G. Dawes (Director of one of J.P. Morgan banks), collaborated with Hjalmar Schacht (Dresdner Bank official). Dawes Plan transformed the existing Reichsbank as an institution independent of the Reich government (at least 50% of ruling body non-German) with Schacht as the director of Reichbank. Dawes Plan also introduced Reichsmark on 30th August 1924 replacing the old German mark and the hyperinflation was brought under control. In April 1924 the Dawes Plan formally replaced the “C” Bonds (82 billion gold marks) omitted. In 1st year following the implementation of new plan, Germany would have to pay 1 billion marks. Increasing gradually that figure would become 2.5 billion marks per year by 5th year of the plan. A Reparations Agency was established to coordinate the payments. A loan of 800 million marks would be arranged to back the German currency and economy – over 50% from USA based banks, 25% from UK based banks, and the balance from other European countries.
On 16th September 1928, a joint Allied-German statement was published acknowledging the necessity of a new reparation plan. The Young Plan (formulated by Owen D Young, American industrialist and trustee of Rockefeller Foundation) presented in June 1929 established the final reparation requirements at 112 billion gold marks (US$26.35 billion) with a new schedule of payments that would see final instalment of payment by 1988. In addition, Young Plan shifted the responsibility of coordination of reparation payments to Bank for International Settlements (which was established to coordinate among central banks and to receive and disburse reparation payments). A new loan of 1200 million marks would be raised by USA, UK, France and other European banks to back the German currency and economy.
With the financial crisis in German economy in 1931, USA President Herbert Hoover publicly proposed in June 1931 a one-year moratorium to reparation and war debts. Reparations were suspended for a year. On 16 June 1932 the Lausanne Conference opened, which annulled the Young Plan and instead required Germany to pay a final, single instalment of 3 billion marks. Thus Between 1919 and 1932, Germany paid less than 21 billion marks in reparations.
The relationship between Nazi government and the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State was so good that Reichsbank head Schacht travelled to the U.S. in May 1933 to meet major Wall Street bankers. As a result, USA-based banks provided Germany with new loans totalling USD 1 billion.After that, in 1933 new German Chancellor Adolf Hitler cancelled all payments, but neither Britain nor France forced German government to pay up. In June 1953, London Agreement on German External Debts resulted in agreement to pay 50% of the loan amounts that had been defaulted on in the 1920s and 1930s, but deferred some of the debt until German unification. In 1995, following reunification, Germany began making the final payments towards the loans. A final instalment of US$94 million was made on 3 October 2010, settling German loan debts in regard to WW-I reparations.
It will not be out of place to recall the views on ‘burden of WW-I reparation on Germany’ from three outstanding historians: AJP Taylor in his The Origins of the Second World War stated that in 1919 “many people believed that the payment of reparations would reduce Germany to a state of Asiatic poverty”, and that Keynes “held this view, as did all Germans; and probably many Frenchmen”. However, he also says these “apprehensions of Keynes and the Germans were grotesquely exaggerated”; Hans Mommsen & Elborg Foster wrote in their book The Rise and Fall of Weimar Democracy,“Germany financed its reparation payments to Western creditor nations with American loans”, which the British and French powers then used to “cover their long-term interest obligations and to retire their wartime debts with the United States”. Apparently what the authors wanted to convey between the lines was: as a direct fallout of the Treaty of Versailles, the Zionist-Capitalist banking elites of USA, UK, France and other European countries established total control in 1920s over Germany’s economy including monetary system through loans, and forced equity purchase as reparations.
3.2.3 Zionist-Capitalist Involvement in Economy of Germany
With the support of large bank loans from New York and London economic prosperity returned during 1924 to 1929 period. During this period exports doubled, and by 1929 GDP per capita was about 12 per cent higher than in 1913. However, even before the financial crisis of 1931, unemployment was more than 2 million by the end of 1928.
Germany made payments for both reparations and loans with shares of German companies – that allowed USA-based and UK-based capital to integrate itself into the German economy. The total foreign investment in German industry during 1924 to 1929 period amounted to nearly 63 billion gold marks – repay of loans accounted for 30 billion gold marks, and reparations accounted for 10 billion gold marks. JP Morgan provided majority of the investments. By 1930, German industry (majority owned by USA’s financial and industrial oligarchy) was second ranking in the world:
German military industry company IG Farben was under control of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil
German radio and electrical industry companies AEG and Siemens had General Electric as large investor around 30% stake, JP Morgan controlled General Electric
40% of Germany’s telephone network was controlled by ITT, JP Morgan controlled ITT
30% of Germany’s aircraft manufacturer Focke-Wulf was controlled by JP Morgan
Germany’s automotive industry company Volkswagen was owned 100% by Henry Ford, while Opel was taken over by the DuPont family’s General Motors.
In Germany metallurgical monopoly was established by Rockefeller bank, Dillon Reed and Co in 1926 – Vereinigte Stahlwerke (Unified Steel Trust) of Thyssen, Flick, Wolf etc.
By 1933, USA capital entered major banks like Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank etc.; in 1936 New York branch of Schroeder’s bank merged with a Rockefeller holding to create investment bank Schroeder, Rockefeller & Co.
After Hitler seized power as the Chancellor, 1933 onwards, the economy continued to develop. Like the previous government, Hitler also viewed foreign credit as source of financing his four-year plans. Government mixed pro-people measures (as subsidies) with corporatocracy. UK and Germany signed the Anglo-German Transfer Agreement in 1934 which enabled Germany to become UK’s primary trading partner. Nazi party allotted maximum predominance to Germany’s military industry. During the WW-II German economy was buttressed exploitation of conquered territories and society. Real GDP grew by more than 50% between 1933 and 1937. Spending on military machinery between 1933 and 1939 increased tenfold (from 1.9 billion to 18.41 billion marks) and, growth as a percentage of the annual budget from 24% to 58%. Industrial production increased substantially until 1945 (due to production of military armament) when WW-II ended.
Rockefeller oil giant Standard Oil constructed large oil refineries in Germany that supplied the Nazi war machinery with oil. For the military and aerospace sector also American MNCs like Douglas, Pratt and Whitney tied up with German companies to build aeroplane factories. By 1941, when the WW-II was in full-swing, direct USA investment in the German economy crossed more than USD 0.5 billion (Standard Oil – USD 120 million, General Motors – USD 35 million, ITT – USD 30 million).
3.2.4 Zionist-Capitalist Involvement in Politics of Germany
Weimar Constitution stipulated that Reichstag elections would be held every two years. Such impractical postulation resulted in 9 Reichstag elections over the course of 14 years (1919-1933) and 14 different persons served as chancellor. As a result of the absurdity when Hitler appeared and Nazi party renounced the ‘circus show’ general population welcomed them enthusiastically. The significant points about the rise of Nazi party and Hitler are noted below:
NSDAP (Nazi party) was based on racist imperialist anti-communist philosophy from its birth. Adolf Hitler announced Nazi party’s program on 24th February 1920 which included clause like:
We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples
We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germaine shall be abrogated
We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population (i.e. Lebensraum – living space)
Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be countryman
Etc.
On behalf of USA secret services, US Military Attaché in Germany Captain Truman-Smith explored potential recruits among German politicians who would work to further the interests of Zionist-Capitalist Deep State – retired General Ludendorff, Crown Prince Ruprecht, and Adolf Hitler. On 20th November 1922, the captain met with the future Fuhrer in his apartment. Hitler was quite candid with the American. After returning from Berlin, Truman-Smith submitted a report, which the embassy sent to Washington on 25th November 1922. Hitler, the Nazi leader invited Truman-Smith, the USA diplomat to his next rally. Instead of going there, Truman-Smith sent his friend (another secret service officer) Ernst Hanfstaengl. Ernst Hanfstaengl had dual German-USA citizenship (born in Bavaria, Germany and graduated from Harvard University along with FD Roosevelt as his classmate-cum-friend in 1909). Two meters tall Ernst was called as “Putzi” by Nazis. Ernst Hanfstaengl Putzi was truly the friend-philosopher-guide for Hitler, he was the puppet master behind the scene:
Hanfstaengl, introduced Hitler, the rustic corporal to Munich’s elite society, taught Hitler the manners prevalent in high society and gave Hitler respectability. Putzi’s family did the most important task of image-making for Hitler.
The Hanfstaengl family was rich. In March 1923, Hanfstaengl gave Hitler a loan of USD 1,000, which was a huge amount those days.
In his memoirs, Hanfstaengl states the ideas he embedded into Hitler’s mind: “If there’s another war, whoever has America on their side will win. The only sensible policy that you should follow is friendship with the United States. If they Americans end up on your enemy’s side, you will lose any war…”. During 1923, Hanfstaengl held a series of geopolitical discussions with Hitler to shape his ideas in detail and expanding his horizons – “In many ways, Hitler was still malleable and obedient,” Hanfstaengl wrote. In 1924, “the obedient student” wrote his own book, repeating the thesis of his friend, the USA secret service agent.
Hitler was a gifted orator. Ernst Hanfstaengl added confidence and enhanced effectiveness of Hitler’s communication skills.
Responding to Hitler question: “how can I get through to the German people, without the press? The newspapers totally ignore me. How can build on my success as an orator with our pitiful Volkischer Beobachter (Nazi newspaper), which comes out with my speeches only once a week? We will not achieve anything until it prints daily.” Ernst Hanfstaengl provided a loan of USD 1,000. With the money Nazi party bought a new printing machine for their newspaper, the Volkischer Beobachter. Putzi pulled cartoonist Schwartzer to make the newspaper attractive.
Hitler ‘appointed’ Putzi as the foreign press secretary of the party. Furthermore, Putzi also headed the foreign press division in Hitler’s deputy’s office. He was the single most important interlocutor between the German national oligarchy and zionist-capitalist oligarchy based out of USA-UK-France-Italy.
The Beer Hall Putsch or Munich Putsch was a failed coup d’état by Nazi Party led by Hitler – he tried to seize power in Munich along with Hess and Hanfstaengl, Bavaria on 8th and 9th November 1923 using about 2000 Nazis marching to the Feldherrnhalle, in city centre. Police confronted, and a wounded Hitler escaped to Hanfstaengl’s house in Uffing about 60 km from Munich. After 2 days, he was arrested and charged with treason. The putsch brought Hitler to the attention of the German nation through front-page headlines in newspapers. Hitler was found guilty of treason and sentenced to 5 years in prison. In prison he dictated Mein Kampf to his fellow prisoner Hess – in it he extolled the benefits of an Anglo-German alliance (UK and USA being the principal countries of Anglo block). The manuscript of Hitler’s book was secretly taken out of prison. Hitler was released only after 13 months in prison (12th November 1923 to 20th December 1924). The zionist-capitalist oligarchy of Anglo block used their clout to release Hitler so quickly. He came to Hanfstaengl’s new house across the Isar river after leaving prison.
Hitler’s book – Mein Kampf (My Struggle) – was unable to get wide audience. The first edition sold 10,000 copies in 1925, and about 7,000 were sold in 1926. In 1927, first and second editions combined found only 5,607 buyers, and in 1928, only 3,015 buyers took it. But even without any other income, by the summer of 1925, he bought a villa in the Bavarian Alps (future Obersalzberg) and six-seater Mercedes Kompressor car. Hitler’s lifestyle changed – upmarket clothes, a car and chauffer. Responding to the Weimar tax inspectors, Hitler said “neither in 1924, nor in the first quarter of 1925 did I receive any income. My living expenses are covered by loans” – it happened 100 years back, as it happens now – a ‘leader’ selected by zionist-capitalist Anglo oligarchy has multiple avenues of income that a commoner won’t have!
In the summer of 1932, Winston Churchill came to Germany on a personal visit. As written in Winston Churchill’s memoirs: “In the hotel, Regina, a gentleman introduced himself to someone in my entourage. His surname was Hanfstaengl and he spoke at length about the Fuhrer, with whom he was apparently very close… In all likelihood, he was assigned to make contact with me and clearly tried to make a good impression… As it turned out, he was Fuhrer’s closest confidante. He told me I should meet Hitler …”
Hanfstaengl’s side of the story reads differently: “I spent a good deal of time in the company of his son Randolph (son of Churchill) over the course of our pre-election trips. I even arranged for him to fly with us one or two times. He brought to my attention that his father would soon arrive in Germany and that we should organize a meeting”.
American secret services wanted a face-to-face meeting between would-be Chancellor of Germany and would-be Prime Minister of UK so that a personal equation grow between them – in spite of Hanfstaengl’s persuasions Hitler didn’t go to the meeting with Churchill. Churchill lamented in his memoirs: “Thus, Hitler missed his only opportunity to meet me”. However, Churchill discussed very sensitive geopolitical subjects with Hanfstaengl during that meeting. Hanfstaengl’s memoirs mention: “Churchill asked, ‘say, what your boss thinks about an alliance between France, England and your country?”
In February 1934 Hanfstaengl left Germany without the Fuhrer’s consent and went to Italy to meet with Benito Mussolini to initiate rapprochement between the two dictators. Putzi told Mussolini, “Such difficulties can exist between our two Fascist states.” History shows that the relationship between Hitler and Mussolini was on upswing from this point onward. Hanfstaengl time and again proved that he was the boss and Hitler-Mussolini were being groomed to carry out some strategic mission in near future – to destroy Soviet Union and communism.
The Nazi Party became largest party in parliament, but it didn’t get absolute majority. It received 33.1% of vote in November 1932, 37.4% of vote in July 1932, and 18.3% of vote in March 1930. Vote share of Social Democratic Party dropped from 37.9% in 1919 to 18.3% by 1933, while vote share of German Democratic Party dropped from 18.6% in 1919 to 0.8% by 1933.
On 4th January 1932, at a meeting between Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, German Chancellor Franz von Papen, Bank of England Governor Montague Norman, and USA politician John Foster Dulles a secret agreement was reached on funding for the Nazi Party. On 14th January 1933 Hitler held a meeting with Franz von Papen and Kurt von Schroeder, a Nazi-oriented banker during which Nazi party’s programme was fully endorsed. Even if Hitler was unable to win elections, he was sworn in as chancellor on 30th January 1933. Such move by the President Paul Hindenburg could be possible because the oligarchy modified the procedure of appointment of chancellor in March 1930 – instead of the leader of the parliamentary majority becoming the chancellor, the post would be appointed by the country’s president (article 48 of Weimar constitution). So President Hindenburg could appoint any German citizen as chancellor irrespective of result of the parliamentary election.
Reichstag fire was an arson attack on the German parliament (Reichstag) building in Berlin on 27th February 1933, four weeks after Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor of Germany. Hitler’s government stated that Marinus van der Lubbe, a Dutch communist was the culprit – German court gave verdict that Lubbe had acted alone. After that incident, Reichstag Fire Decree was passed – Nazi Party used the fire as a pretext to come down heavily on the German Communist party that was completely against the Nazi party. Historians later concluded based on evidence, that the arson had been planned and executed by the Nazis as a false flag operation. In 2008, Germany posthumously pardoned Lubbe under a law to lift unjust verdicts dating from the Nazi period.
Following the Reichstag fire, the Nazis suspended civil liberties and the Communists were excluded from the Reichstag. At the March 1933 elections, no single party secured a majority. Hitler tabled the Enabling Act on 24th March 1933 which gave him the freedom to act without parliamentary consent and without constitutional limitations. With Nazi paramilitary encircling the building, Hitler forced the Centre Party and Conservatives to vote for the Act while only the Social Democrats voted against (the Communists were excluded). The Act allowed Hitler to rule by emergency decree for next 4 years, though Hindenburg remained President.
Hitler immediately abolished the powers of the states and on 14th July 1933 outlawed all non-Nazi political parties and trade unions. The Act did not infringe upon the powers of the President, and after the death of Hindenburg in August 1934, Hitler usurped the Presidency by appointing himself President. German military took an oath on the day of Hindenburg’s death, swearing “unconditional obedience” to Hitler personally, not to the office or to the nation.
3.3 Onset of WW-II:
The revival and rearming of the German and Italian military forces between 1933 and 1939 occurred with the prior knowledge and continuous financial and technological support of the-then zionist-capitalist oligarchic elites of Anglo block countries especially UK and USA. The goal of this policy was to create a colossal war machine in the guise of Fascist Germany and Fascist Italy in order to strike a deadly blow to the Soviet Union (the resurgent new ‘edition’ of the ancient Rus Slavic civilisation).
3.3.1 Rebuilding German empire
Following Adolf Hitler’s consolidation of state power as a dictator in a single party rule, 1934 onwards Hitler went on a steady military build-up and empire building in Europe in order to create a communist-free German empire that will include most of the Europe and expand into East direction to create a Lebensraum i.e. living space for the racially superior ‘German race’ after decimating local population like Poles, Russians, Jews, Gypsyes, Serbs, Czechs etc. who collectively were termed as the so-called non-Aryan Untermenschen i.e. sub-human creatures (these policies were part of 25-point programme of Nazi party declared in 1920, as well as part of Mein Kampf book published by Hitler in 1925):
3.3.1.1 Hitler’s first major foreign-policy agreement was with Poland – on 26th January 1934 ‘Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact’ was signed for 10 years
3.3.1.2 In June 1935, ‘Anglo-German Naval Agreement’ was signed in London that allowed Germany to build naval power including submarines, beyond the limits set by the Treaty of Versailles signed after WW-I
3.3.1.3 In September 1935 Nazi Germany adopted the ‘Nuremberg Laws’, which revealed the racist philosophy of the Nazi party. According to the “Reich Citizenship Law” citizenship could only be held by a person possessing “German or related blood, who proves by his conduct that he is willing and fit faithfully to serve the German people and Reich.”
3.3.1.4 On 7th March 1936, Hitler sent troops into Rhineland which was a demilitarized buffer zone between Germany and France as per the Treaty of Versailles signed after WW-I
3.3.1.5 In 1936, Nazi Germany signed pacts with Militarist Japan and Fascist Italy to create an anti-communist platform as well as friendly cooperation among themselves
3.3.1.6 Fascist military insurrection against the Spanish government began on 17th July 1936 in Spanish Morocco and in Canary Islands. Within two weeks, two German military squadrons arrived in Spain, and German transport planes brought Moroccan troops into mainland Spain. Nazi Germany continuously sent military supplies, carried out bombing raids, and assisted the Fascist forces of General Franco in Spanish Civil War till Franco’s win in April 1939. It can be safely assumed that the same zionist-capitalist oligarchy from Anglo imperialist countries extended generous help to Franco through Hitler.
3.3.1.7 Nazi Germany forced Austria to sign ‘Austro-German Agreement’ on July 11, 1936 that guaranteed mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs plus independence of Austria as “a German State.” Being served ultimatum on 11th March 1938, Austrian chancellor von Schuschnigg announced his resignation. On 12th March 1938, German troops entered Austria – Germany annexed Austria [practically, WW-II started with it]
3.3.1.8 In the first conference about Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland (where ethnic Germans were numerically much larger than the Czechs) was held in London in April 1938 – British and French statesmen opined that a clash with Germany be avoided at all costs. On 30th September 1938, ‘Munich agreement’ was signed between Germany, Italy, UK, and France represented by Hitler, Mussolini, Chamberlain, and Daladier to transfer Sudetenland to Germany – the Czechoslovak representatives were not even invited to this meeting! On 1st October 1938, German troops entered Czechoslovakia. By mid-March 1939 Czechia was annexed by Germany. Slovakia announced its independence and withdrew from the country. Hitler allowed Hungary to annex 12000 sq. km of southern Slovakia and a small region of Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia on 2nd November 1938. Hitler also allowed Poland to get a small region of Těšín of Czechia. Instead of taking military or diplomatic measures against Hitler, Bank of England transferred Czech gold reserves worth six million pounds stored in London to Nazi Germany.
3.3.1.9 In October 1938, German Foreign Minister Joachim Ribbentrop demanded that, in lieu of renewal of Poland-German non-aggression pact (signed in January 1934), city of Danzig (now called Gdansk) would be occupied by Germany, and Danzig corridor (to connect Germany proper with East Prussia by a motorway and a railway through Polish land) would be constructed by Germany. As a normal reaction, Poland refused. Hitler rescinded the Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact (and Anglo-German Naval Agreement) unilaterally on 28th April 1939 in the Reichstag, with Germany renewing territorial claims in Poland
3.3.1.10 In April 1939, Nazi German forces seized the Memel district from Lithuania
3.3.2 Policy of Appeasement
1934 Onwards, the period when Hitler went on a steady military build-up in Europe, UK (world’s foremost colonial empire) Prime Ministers Neville Chamberlain and Ramsay MacDonald as well as French (world’s second largest colonial empire) leader Edouard Daladier followed a compromising policy towards Nazi Germany – this was called in history as the ‘policy of appeasement’ (with German Nazi government). Soviet People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Maxim Litvinov, who led foreign policy initiatives since 1934 (centred on concept of ‘collective security’ among all big European powers), commented on such policy of appeasement “England and France are now unlikely to retreat from the policy they have set out for them-selves, which boils down to unilateral satisfaction of the demands of all three aggressors – Germany, Italy and Japan. They will present their claims in turn, and England and France will make them one concession after another. I believe, however, that they will reach a point where the people of England and France will have to stop them. Then, probably, we will…return to the old path of collective security, because there are no other ways for preserving peace“.
Stalin gave a speech that was broadcast on Soviet Union television on 10th March 1939, in which he not only identified the policy of appeasement, but, he also outlined the objectives of such policy:
“The war is being waged by aggressor nations, which in every way infringe upon the interests of non-aggressor states, primarily England, France, and the United States, and the latter withdraw and retreat, making concession after concession to the aggressors. Thus, we are witnessing a blatant carving up of the world and its spheres of influence, at the expense of the non-aggressor states, without any attempt at resistance, and with even a bit of their acquiescence. It is hard to believe, but it is so. …. The policy of non-intervention betrays a desire not to impede the aggressors in their shameful deeds, not to obstruct, for example, Japan’s involvement in its war with China, and even better – with the Soviet Union, and not to deter Germany, for example, from getting caught up in events in Europe or from getting involved in a war with the Soviet Union. A motive can be seen to allow all the participants in the hostilities to sink deeply into the quicksand of war, to surreptitiously urge them onward, to allow them to weaken and exhaust each other, and then, when their strength has been sufficiently sapped – to appear on the scene with fresh forces, to take a stand, ‘in the global interest’ naturally, and to dictate conditions to the crippled belligerents.”
Britain, France and Poland continued to sabotage the collective security talks proposed by Soviet Union. UK and France wouldn’t give any guarantees of attacking Germany in the West in case of war – on the contrary, the zionist-capitalist Anglo oligarchy was, in fact, in collusion with Nazi Germany. Poland was generally viewing Russia as a victim for its own colonial war (war between Russia and Poland after Russian Revolution over the Tsarist territory claims-counterclaims still were resonating with Polish leader Pilsudski) and Poland saw Germany as an ally for such an adventure. Poland would not agree to let the Red army engage Germans on Polish territory. Basically the USSR was offered nothing but would have to declare a war on Germany and wait till Germany is done with Poland and invades the USSR.
On March 18 1939, Litvinov again suggested convening a pan-European conference to be attended by Britain, France, Poland, Russia, Romania, and Turkey. During March and April 1939 Europe witnessed hectic parleys over possible tripartite alliance among UK-France-USSR as suggested by USSR through a documented proposal. In the UK Cabinet Committee on Foreign Policy on 24th April 1939, Neville Chamberlain opposed the Soviet proposition saying “The Soviet’s present proposal was one for a definite military alliance between England, France and Russia; It could not be pretended that such an alliance was necessary in order that the smaller countries of Eastern Europe should be furnished with munitions… Then there was the problem of Poland.” (Who oppose any agreement with USSR based on which USSR participate in fighting against Nazi Germany within Poland boundary). Communist USSR’s Joseph Stalin removed Maxim Litvinov and installed Vyacheslav Molotov thinking Molotov to be a dynamic negotiator. Molotov spent May and June 1939 to work out on the same tripartite alliance, but in vain.
In July 1939 Germany proposed a non-aggression pact to Molotov in which they suggested USSR can get control of most part of the former Tsar empire like:
the western parts of Ukraine and Byelorussia following the Curzon line of demarcation discussed during closure of WW-I (both erstwhile Tsar empire provinces, part of which were taken by Poland between 1918 to 1922),
Bessarabia (erstwhile Tsar empire province, part of which were taken by Romania),
Karelia (part of erstwhile Tsar empire Dutchy of Finland),
Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania in Baltic (erstwhile Tsar empire provinces, independent countries WW-I)
And as per the German proposal, rest of the East Europe will come under Nazi Germany sphere of influence either by direct annexation or formation of protectorate. Soviet leadership, after exasperating failure of 5 years of discussions on military pact with UK and France, and in the midst of a massive war since May 1939 with Japanese empire in Khalkhin Gol near Mongolian border, couldn’t miss ‘opportunity’ of getting few extra years (before Nazi assault). On 23rd August 1939 the German–Soviet nonaggression pact (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) was signed.
USSR regained control of western part of Ukraine and western part of Byelorussia in September 1939 from Poland, and Karelia region from Finland in November 1939. Then USSR moved into Baltic region and Bessarabia in June 1940. While discussing on the annexation by Soviet Union, on 4th October 1939 Britain’s Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax said in the House of Lords “… the Soviet government’s actions were to move the border essentially to the line recommended at the Versailles Conference by Lord Curzon… I only cite historical facts and believe they are indisputable.”
Hanfstaengl set the ball rolling with frantic pace of militarization in Germany, and then he left Germany in March 1937 before any (future) Nazi war crime could implicate him. Putzi went to USA and was appointed an advisor to his friend USA President FD Roosevelt (as an expert on Nazi Germany he was in a position to suggest best how to coordinate with his ex-student, Hitler)! Ernst Hanfstaengl was the pioneer of a future phenomenon whereby thousands of Nazi scientists, technocrats, businessmen, military officers, and government officials would become American citizens and job seekers through ‘Ratlines’.
3.4 WW-II:
3.4.1 Journey from Phony War to Operation Barbarossa
Hitler’s Germany was in the thick of action during the 1939 through 1941 opening war fronts one after another:
3.4.1.1 Nazi Germany invaded Poland on 1st September 1939, Warsaw resisted until 27th September before surrendering. As usual, neither UK nor France militarily intervened to support Poland.
3.4.1.2 On 3rd September 1939, UK and France declared war on the Third Reich which is called as ‘Phoney War’ in WW-II history. The Polish military mission who flew to London had to wait for a week to meet British Chief of the Imperial General Staff, General Edmund Ironside – General Ironside promised 10000 obsolete rifles (while German Battle Tanks and Fighter Planes were thrashing Poland). During the 8 months duration of Phoney War, only once there was a land operation when French troops invaded Germany’s Saar district for couple of days. British Navy tried to enforce a blockade against German goods transport, and during German attacks at sea Royal Navy carrier HMS Courageous was sunk. During the ‘Nuremberg Trials’, German General Alfred Jodl admitted: “… we did not suffer defeat as early as 1939 only because about 110 French and British divisions stationed in the west against 23 German divisions, during our war with Poland, remained absolutely idle.”
3.4.1.3 Nazi Germany struck again to occupy Denmark with a surprise attack that lasted less than 4 hours on 9th April 1940. Attacking Norway on the same day, German forces completed the Norway invasion on 10th June 1940
3.4.1.4 On 10 May 1940, eight months after Britain and France had declared Phoney War on Germany, German Wehrmacht launched Operation Fall Gelb and marched into Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, and northern France marking the end of the Phoney War. By the evening of 10th May most of Luxembourg was occupied by German military. In Netherlands, the battle lasted from 10th May to 17th May, while in Belgium the battle raged on from 10th May to 28th May. In Belgium and northern France the fight was between German Wehrmacht and Allied forces in which France committed their best troops. Between 26th May and 4th June 1940 the defeated Allied soldiers were evacuated from Dunkirk harbour in northern France. German forces began Operation Fall Rot on 5th June 1940 to capture remaining part of France outflanking the Maginot Line. Paris was occupied on 14th June, on 22nd June 1940 armistice was signed by France and Germany.
3.4.1.5 Formal military alliance i.e. ‘Berlin Pact’ was signed by Germany-Italy-Japan in September 1940 (original Axis Power). Later on Hungary joined in November 1940, Romania joined in November 1940, Bulgaria joined in March 1941.
3.4.1.6 In April 1941 Nazi Germany launched an invasion of Yugoslavian regions and Greece (the original Balkan campaign launched by Fascist Italy in October 1940 didn’t achieve the objective, hence this new initiative). Yugoslavian regions and Greece were divided among the Axis Powers viz. Germany, Italy, Hungary, and Bulgaria.
3.4.1.7 When Nazi Wehrmacht launched ‘Operation Barbarossa’, the largest military operation in documented history of humankind on 22nd June 1941 (officially authorized by Adolf Hitler on 18 December 1940, but got delayed due to delay in finishing Balkan campign) across western border of USSR along a 2,900-kilometer war-front with more than 38 lakh military personnel from countries of Axis Powers, USSR could not sustain its resistance against the Nazi Wehrmacht. Since November 1941 when Nazi military was about 25 km away from Moscow, USSR fought back and launched ferocious counterattack on German military. From January 1943, after winning the Battle of Stalingrad, Red Army became more confident about defeating the so-called ‘unassailable’ Wehrmacht. However, it was the Battle of Kursk (largest tank battle in history) in July 1943 which completely turned the tide in favour of Soviet Red Army. Every passing day the Red Army became unconquerable force that decimated Nazi Wehrmacht single-handedly and liberated entire east Europe before capturing Berlin in May 1945.
As analysed by Mikhail Meltyukhov (Russian military historian working at the Russian Institute of Documents and Historical Records Research), during a period of two and half years (from 1 January 1939 to 22 June 1941) USSR increased their military strength assiduously that helped the final destruction of Nazi Germany:
Battle Divisions increased from about 131 to 316 (140% increase)
Military Personnel increased from 2,485,000 to 5,774,000 (132% increase)
Battle Tanks increased from about 21,100 to 25,700 (22% increase)
Aircrafts increased from about 7,700 to 18,700 (143% increase)
3.4.1.8 Following Adolf Hitler’s consolidation of state power in Germany, Lebensraum (Hitler announced Nazi party’s 25-point program on 24 February 1920 which included Nazi demand for new land and territory for the maintenance of German people and the settlement of surplus German population – known as Lebensraum i.e. living space) became an objective of Nazi party’s militarism and provided justification for the German territorial expansion into Eastern Europe. The Nazi Generalplan Ost policy (GPO) or ‘Master Plan for the East’ dealt with how Germany can set up a Lebensraum in Eastern Europe necessary for survival of so-called Aryan race (Nazis assumed Germans as ‘pure Aryan’ race) by eliminating most of the local non-Aryan population (Nazis assumed Slavs as non-Aryan and hence Untermenschen i.e. sub-human) like Poles, Russians, Jews, Czechs, Slovaks, Gypsyes etc. through mass killing, decimation by starvation and disease, and deportation to Siberia. The body responsible for the GPO was the SS’s Reich Main Security Office under Heinrich Himmler, which commissioned the work before World War II started. After the invasion of Poland, the original blueprint for GPO was discussed by the Reich Commissioner for the Consolidation of German Nationhood (RKFDV) in mid-1940. The next known version of GPO was procured by the RSHA from Erhard Wetzel in April 1942. The next revision was officially dated June 1942. The final settlement master plan for the East came in from the RKFDV on 29th October 1942. A document which enabled historians to accurately reconstruct the Generalplan Ost was a memorandum released on 27th April 1942, by Erhard Wetzel, director of the Nazi party Office of Racial Policy, entitled “Opinion and thoughts on the master plan for the East of the Reichsführer SS”.
Himmler stated openly: “It is a question of existence, thus it will be a racial struggle of pitiless severity, in the course of which 20 to 30 million Slavs and Jews will perish through military actions and crises of food supply. As of June 1941, the GPO policy envisaged the deportation of 31 million Slavs to Siberia. The Nazi government aimed at repopulating these lands with Germanic colonists in the name of Lebensraum after exterminating majority of the indigenous populations, to enable Germany to confiscate agricultural and mining products to transfer to Germany.
After Stalingrad defeat and surrender by the legendary 6th Army of German Wehrmacht in February 1943, Generalplan Ost was suspended by Nazi party. However, German savagery with the civilian population of Slavs, Jews, and Gypsyes, from 1940 to 1945 still continue to shock the people across world.
3.4.2 Second Front of Allies
True to their deceptive and manipulative core nature, the leaders of UK and USA zionist-capitalist clique didn’t pay any attention to Stalin’s repeated request from 1941 to 1944 of opening a second front in the west against Nazi Germany which would help Soviet Union to get a respite from deadly Nazi onslaught. For the Anglo imperialists the WW-II plan was simple – Germany and Soviet Union should fight between them to finish each other, and then they would appear on the scene to occupy the vast Eurasian landmass and spread Freedom (to loot the natural resources) and Democracy (to install puppets over the illiterate and simple people).
On 28th April 1942, FD Roosevelt addressed to the USA: “These Russian forces have destroyed and are destroying more armed power of our enemies – troops, planes, tanks, and guns – than all the other United Nations put together.” Only when it became crystal clear that, in absence of a second front, Soviet Red Army would liberate the entire Europe on its own (thereby banishing any future influences of zionist-capitalist oligarchy on the government formation in whole of Europe), the Allies opened a second front in WW-II in June 1944 with the Allied landings in Normandy.
From all four key perspectives – mobilization, viciousness of struggle, loss of life, and loss of infrastructure – Eastern front was far more significant compared to Western front. In the opinion of Norman Davis:“German losses on the Eastern Front accounted for about 80 per cent of the total…”
At the end of the WW-II, Soviet Union had lost about 26.6 million people, Western Allies lost less than 2 million, Germany lost around 4 million troops in the Eastern front and 1 million on the Western front.
Also, from the military logistics point of view, Soviet Union could defeat the industrially and technologically superior Nazi Wehrmacht and invade Nazi Germany capital by May 1945 because:
21-month respite provided by the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was utilised for increasing the production of military machinery on a gigantic scale
Lend-Lease policy of the FD Roosevelt provided food-clothing-raw materials-rail engines-automobiles-petroleum products-ordnance goods and ammunitions etc. between 1 October 1941 to 2 September 1945 (1947 money value of which amounted to about USD 11 billion)
3.5 Aftermath of WW-II:
At the onset of WW-II in 1938, USSR consisted of the following regions/countries in European territory (naming convention as it exists now):
Russia
Ukraine except Western Galician region
Crimea
Belarus
A complete and thorough assessment of WW-II casualties should be again undertaken by the group of CIS countries who were part of USSR 30 years back – every post-1945 citizen of this planet owe a bit to every known/unknown USSR citizen for their immense sacrifice to resist the Fascist forces during WW-II. I think, casualties were more than 30 million – military killed in action, soldiers missing in action, killed/died while POW, military death of wounds, civilian death on front, civilian death of forced labourers in Germany, civilian death in German prisons, civilian death of starvation, missing civilian, the list of category consists of all possible permutation-combination. Even if we accept government figure of 26.6 million dead plus wounded, it become 13.7% of 194 million population of USSR in 1940. Almost all physical infrastructures in Belarus, Ukraine, Crimean, and European regions of Russia were destroyed by indiscriminate bombing of Germany. Tragedy of such gigantic scale in any society would have been the cause of crushing defeat. But Communist Party of Soviet Union led by Stalin withstood such barbaric assaults only to rebound with more strength – economic, political, and military.
At the end of WW-II in 1945, USSR consisted of the following regions/countries in European territory:
Russia
Ukraine including Western Galician region
Crimea
Belarus
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Moldova (Bessarabia)
Except during the initial 6 months of Operation Barbarossa, Stalin proved himself a leader who was in control of the complete situation even at the worst moment. The zionist-capitalist oligarchy based in imperialist Anglo and French countries and their lackeys in east Europe were outsmarted by Stalin at every round of the geopolitical game surrounding WW-II. Stalin was disliked so much among the zionist-capitalist oligarchy and aristocrats that, on the death of Joseph Stalin in March 1953 (under suspicious circumstances) the stark enemies like Winston Churchill sent no condolences, or send a sympathy card. Interestingly, only after Stalin’s demise, Churchill was found to be suitable candidate for Knighthood and Nobel Prize (in literature) in 1953.
By 1953 when Stalin died, USSR already changed beyond imagination. A country that had, 30 years back, one of the most oppressive society with extreme poverty, widespread illiteracy, very high mortality, and high concentration of wealth within aristocrats, got transformed into a society where ALL citizens had guaranteed food-education-healthcare-housing-employment-vacation facilities. Soviet Union was the second most powerful country in terms of scientific research, atomic research (second country to test atomic bomb), space research (first country to send space craft), military machinery, and industrial machinery. By then, 85 significant Soviet journals were being translated into English language by USA government funding. Within three decades, Stalin transformed the Soviet Union into a major world power struggling almost single-handedly against the Zionist-Capitalist powers and their monstrous Fascist offspring. Born to shoemaker and house cleaner, Stalin was a true anti-elitist plebeian revolutionary who even sacrificed his son during WW-II by refusing to exchange him (in German captivity) with German General (in Soviet captivity).
4. Conclusion
Let me clarify at the end that, this article doesn’t aim to paint a bright untainted image of Stalin. I would like to also take this opportunity to briefly explain why.
The 6th Congress of the RSDLP (Bolshevik) party in July-August of 1917 elected the Central Committee comprising of 21 leaders:
Politburo members – Vladimir Lenin, Andrei Bubnov, Grigory Sokolnikov, Joseph Stalin, Lev Kamenev, Grigory Zinoviev, Leon Trotsky
Secretariat members – Felix Dzerzhinsky, Matvei Muranov, Yakov Sverdlov
Only Narrow Composition members – Vladimir Milyutin, Stepan Shahumyan, Moisei Uritsky
Only members of CC but not part of above groups – Ivar Smilga, Fyodor Sergeyev, Alexei Rykov, Viktor Nogin, Nikolay Krestinsky, Alexandra Kollontai, Nikolai Bukharin, Jan Berzin
In 1940, only 3 of the top 21 leaders of Bolshevik party would be alive: Stalin, Matvei Muranov who was sent into retirement from political life, and Alexandra Kollontai who was sent on foreign diplomatic assignment away from internal politics and governance. A little workout reveals that 7 of the top 21 leaders (Stepan Shahumyan, Moisei Uritsky, Yakov Sverdlov, Fyodor Sergeyev, Vladimir Lenin, Viktor Nogin, and Felix Dzerzhinsky) died due to ailments, or accidents. In other words, the remaining 11 of the top 21 leaders perished during the period when Stalin consolidated his power within the Bolshevik party and USSR. Like many others, I couldn’t get convinced, how more than 50% of the Bolshevik Party leaders were traitors to the state and the party! That would also mean, as a corollary, that Lenin led Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 with less than half of the Bolshevik party central committee members as true patriots! Even considering and acknowledging the facts that:
Trotsky and his team representing the interest of Zionist bankers based in Europe and USA tried to derail the economy and destroy the society across Soviet Union, and
Marshall Tukhachevsky and his team of Generals tried to seize state power and thereafter surrender large tract of the then USSR to Fascist Germany to make peace with Germany,
There can’t be any doubt that, paranoid and autocratic behaviour of Stalin created an organisational disarray within the Bolshevik party which pushed more and more leaders against Stalin’s style of functioning, that again created even more distrust in Stalin, finally culminating in massive purge and repression (after murder of Kirov).
Keeping in view the stellar achievements and leaving aside the organisational mismanagement during the initial decades of formation of Soviet Union, let me remind the readers across the world who love truth-justice-equality-morality, Lenin and Stalin were among the most outstanding leaders of the toiling masses in the history of humankind, who never compromised with capitalism, imperialism, and Zionism (academicians caringly call the combination of these three virus as ‘world-system’ or ‘world order’).
The application of the Marxist theory of socialism, as carried out by CPSU under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin had significant drawbacks, which were resultant of the-then prevailing geopolitical conditions as well as the necessity of creating a ‘material basis’ for the socialist transformation of the society. Fundamental working principle of capitalism has not and will not change in future – whether it was mercantile version, agrarian version, industrial version, or more recent financial version, capitalism (coupled with Zionism and imperialism) will continue to seek accumulation of wealth by direct and indirect exploitation of 90% common people. Considering the maxim ‘failure is the pillar of success’, people across the world look forward to the current Marxist parties and leaders in Russia and other Eurasian regions for making the second and completely successful attempt to initiate a colossal movement that will sweep away the Zionist-Capitalist filth accumulated over past 6 decades in erstwhile USSR, to usher new era of Marxist economy and collective society where every citizen can breathe fresh air free from the polluted pungent smell of capital and profit. Inquisitive readers may look into details of such possibility in one of my previous articles, link of which is given below:
Russian society would, thus vindicate the appearance of so many extraordinary personalities on its soil each of whom was a doyen in their own era, including great humanists like Tolstoy-Chekhov-Gorky and great leaders like Peter-Lenin-Stalin!
Note: The following books were referred:
Nikolay Starikov – Who Set Hitler Against Stalin
William Shirer – The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
Joachim C. Fest – Hitler
Short profile:
By profession I’m an Engineer and Consultant, but my first love was and is History and Political Science. In retired life, I’m pursuing higher study in Economics.
I’m one of the few decade-old members of The Saker blog-site. Hope that this website will continue to focus on truth and justice in public life and will support the struggle of common people across the world.
Headed by the then minister of defence Yousef al-Azmeh on July 24th, Maysaloun battle represents a turning point in the history of Syria and the Arab nation as it paved the way for the culture of resistance and confronting the occupation until the attainment of independence.
The centenary of Maysaloun battle comes to remind us of the honorable and brave stand of al-Azmeh and his colleagues in confrontation of the invading French forces which entered Syria from Lebanon but were forced to stop at Maysaloun to face the national Syrian army headed by al-Azmeh.
The Syrian fighters, led by al-Azmeh, gathered at Maysaloun to repel the French invading forces. Knowing beforehand that he would not be able to face the armed to the teeth French army, and despite the acceptance of King Faisal of the Guru Ultimatum, al-Azmeh insisted on facing the French at Maysaloun to tell them that their stay in Syria would not be as easy as they thought.
Al-Azmeh and his friends confronted the French occupiers with their simple weapons in comparison with the highly sophisticated weapons of the French invading army.
Al-Azmeh fell martyr along with scores of his friends igniting the spark of unceasing struggle. Revolts and upheavals flared up all over the country. In the coast, Sheikh Saleh al-Ali led the revolt which was one of the first acts of resistance against the French forces, and it allied itself with other revolts in the country.
On its centenary, Maysaloun battle has been the lighthouse guiding the way for the heroic Syrian Arab army in confrontation of terrorism which has been striking Syria for the past nine years supported by Western colonialist forces and the Zionist entity to implement an old renewable conspiracy that targets Syria’s unity, sovereignty and independent decision. But the Syrians’ strong will, which achieved victory in Maysaloun, will inevitably defeat conspiracy and achieve a landslide victory once again.
بالأمس سقطت المدنية الغربية بنسختها الفرنسية أمام أقدام ونعال الجزائريين النبلاء الأحرار، فيما علا جبين أهل الحق حتى السماء وهم يستقبلون بعض رفات أنبل البشر…!
تحية تليق ببطولات الشعب الجزائري البطل، نطلقها لهذا الشعب العظيم، في الذكرى الثامنة والخمسين لاستقلال الجزائر، التي تصادف يوم أمس، الخامس من شهر تموز سنة 1962.
تحية إكبار وإجلال لارواح ستة ملايين ونصف المليون شهيد، من أبناء الشعب الجزائري، ارتقوا شهداء على أيدي الوحوش الاستعمارية الفرنسية، بين عام 1830 وحتى استقلال الجزائر عام 1962. بشهداء الجزائر، الذين حاربوا الاستعمار الفرنسي وتصدوا له، والذين لم يكونوا مليوناً ونصف مليون من الشهداء فقط، وذلك لأن هؤلاء هم من استشهدوا خلال الثورة الجزائرية المعاصرة، التي امتدت من سنة 1954 وحتى الاستقلال سنة 1962. لذلك فلا بد من اضافة خمسة ملايين شهيد جزائري قتلتهم قوات الجيش الاستعماريّ الفرنسيّ من العام 1830 وحتى العام 1954…!
هذا الجيش الذي كان ولا زال يشكل الأب الروحي لكل من أتى بعده من تنظيمات عسكرية مسلحة، بدءاً من نظام پول بوت في كمبوديا – المستعمرة الفرنسية السابقة، حيث قتل تلميذ الجيش الفرنسي هذا، پول بوت، ما يزيد على ثلاثة ملايين من الشعب الكمبودي المسالم في سبعينيات القرن الماضي، وذلك بقطع رؤوسهم ووسائل أخرى.
ولا بد أن الجميع لا يزال يذكر جرائم عصابات داعش، التي أدارها الاستعمار الغربي بكل مكوناته، والتي مارست سياسة قطع الرؤوس على نطاق واسع، سواء في سورية او العراق او ليبيا. ولا زالت تقوم بذلك حالياً.
لذا فإن من الضروري جداً وفي يوم استقلال الجزائر واستعادة الدولة الجزائرية، وجيشها الوطني البطل، رفات أربعة وعشرين من قادة مقاومة الاحتلال الفرنسي الأوائل، والذين كان الجيش الفرنسي «الحضاري» قد قطع رؤوسهم وسرقها وذهب بها الى فرنسا، بعد أن أحرق جثثها في الجزائر.
ولا بد هنا من الإشارة الى أن مجموع هذه الجماجم الشهيرة، التي سرقها الجيش الفرنسي ونقلها الى فرنسا، يبلغ 536 جمجمة، تضعها السلطات الفرنسية في صالات عرض لما يسمّى بـ «متحف الإنسان» في باريس، منذ ما يزيد على 170 سنة.
فهل هناك جريمة ضد الانسانية اكثر بشاعةً من هذه الجريمة!؟
ألا يجب على العالم كله أن يحاكم كل من تولى السلطة في فرنسا، منذ بدء استعمارها للجزائر وحتى اليوم، بتهمة ارتكاب هذه الجرائم بدايةً والسكوت عليها لاحقاً والاستمرار في سرقة رفات هؤلاء المجاهدين الذين لم يقوموا إلا بما قام به المواطن الفرنسي، ابان الاحتلال النازي لفرنسا: مقاومة الاحتلال…؟
علماً أن الاحتلال النازي لم يرتكب مثل هذه الفظائع، في فرنسا، كما أن داعش لم يصل الى مستوى هذا الإجرام، الذي وصل اليه قادة فرنسا السياسيون والعسكريون. هؤلاء القادة الذين قتلوا خمسة وأربعين الف مواطن جزائري بتاريخ 8/5/1945، أي يوم استسلام ألمانيا النازية وفي يوم واحد، وذلك خلال المظاهرات التي انطلقت في مدن الجزائر، للمطالبة برحيل قوات الاحتلال الفرنسية، عن أرض الجزائر.
من هنا فإن المطلوب من فرنسا ليس الاعتذار عن فترة استعمارها للجزائر وسرقة ثرواتها وإنما المطلوب منها هو التالي:
تسليم بقية رفات (جماجم) المجاهدين، البالغ عددهم 512 مجاهداً، والذين لا زالت سلطات فرنسا الاستعمارية تحتجزها في هذا المتحف المشؤوم المذكور أعلاه، والموجود في باريس، ومن دون أي تأخير او مماطلة. تشكيل محكمة جرائم دولية لمحاكمة كل من تسلّم مسؤولية، لها علاقة بهذه الجرائم ضد الإنسانية، في فرنسا من عام 1830 وحتى استقلال الجزائر عام 1962. تسليم الآرشيف الوطني الجزائري كاملاً، وغير منقوص وعن طوال فترة الاستعمار، للدولة الجزائرية، وذلك لأن من حقها استرجاع ما سرقه المستعمرون الفرنسيون، في محاولة منهم لإخفاء الحقائق وتزوير التاريخ. تقديم فرنسا معلومات كاملة عن جرائمها النووية، التي ارتكبتها في الجزائر عام 1960/61 من القرن الماضي، وذلك عندما أجرت تجارب نووية عدة في مناطق مأهولة بالسكان من الصحراء الجزائرية، الأمر الذي ادى الى استشهاد الكثيرين ولا زالت تأثيراته متوالية حتى الآن على صحة الانسان والحيوان والبيئة. فعلى حكومة فرنسا، التي كانت ولا زالت تفكر بعقلية استعمارية، عليها قبل ان تطالب ترامب بالعودة الى اتفاقية باريس للمناخ، أن تقدم هي لحكومة الجزائر، المعلومات الضرورية والكاملة عن تلك التجارب/ الجرائم، كي تتمكن الحكومة الجزائرية من معالجة الكوارث، التي تسببت بها الحكومات الفرنسية السابقة، على المناخ وما يتأثر به، من إنسان ونبات وحيوان. أن تقوم فرنسا الحاليّة، ومن خلال مفاوضات مباشرة مع الحكومة الجزائرية، بدفع تعويضات ماليةٍ كاملة للحكومة الجزائرية عن كل الخسائر، المادية والبشرية، التي تعرّض لها الشعب الجزائري، على امتداد فترة استعمار فرنسا لبلاده، خاصة أن هذه الجرائم لا تسقط لا بمرور الزمن ولا بتغيّر الأجيال والحكام. ألم تفرض فرنسا دفع تعويضات مالية هائلة، على حكومة ألمانيا القيصرية، في إطار اتفاقيات فرساي؟
واستمرت في قبض هذه التعويضات حتى وصول هتلر الى الحكم في ألمانيا، عام 1933، وتمزيقه اتفاقيات فرساي..!
أَلَمْ تَقُمْ الحكومة الاسرائيلية بإرغام حكومة المانيا الاتحادية على دفع تعويضات لها، عما لحق باليهود من ظلم وخسائر بشرية ومادية، في أوروبا إبّان الحقبة النازية؟
هذه التعويضات التي لا زالت الحكومة الالمانية تواصل دفعها حتى اليوم، وإن بأشكال مختلفة عما سبق، وعلى شكل صفقة غواصات نووية، من طراز دولفين، سلمت للكيان في العامين الماضيين وشملت خمس غواصات، بعد أن دفعت ثمنها الحكومة الألمانية.
في هذا اليوم العظيم، يوم استقلال الجزائر، بلد الستة ونصف مليون شهيد، ننحني، تماماً كما انحنى الرئيس الجزائري يوم أمس، أثناء مرور نعوش القادة الشهداء أمامه، على ارض مطار هواري بومدين، في العاصمة الجزائر، ننحني إجلالاً وإكباراً لأرواح هؤلاء الشهداء العائدين الى الوطن، كما ننحني تقديراً لتضحيات الجيش الجزائري وقادته السابقين والحاليين وعلى رأسهم القائد الأعلى للقوات المسلحة الجزائرية، السيد الرئيس عبد الغني تبون، الذي أصرّ على مواصلة نضال الجزائر لاستعادة رفات الشهداء الجزائريين من أيدي لصوص الاستعمار الفرنسي وأحفادهم. نبارك للشعب الجزائري هذا الانتصار العظيم، ذا العمق الإنساني اللامتناهي والذي يعبر عن أخلاق وأصالة هذا الشعب وصلابته وثباته في مقاومة كلّ اشكال الهيمنة الاستعمارية، حفاظاً على استقلاله الوطني وعلى دوره الريادي في العالمين العربي والإقليمي وصولاً الى دوره الدولي، الذي قاد فلسطين الى منبر الأمم المتحدة، سنة 1974، حيث ألقى الزعيم الفلسطيني كلمته الشهيرة، ولأول مرة على هذا المنبر الدولي.
الحمد لله انه لا تزال بقية خيّرين مناضلين في هذه الأمة لا ينسون أسراهم ولا شهداءهم، ممن أعاروا جماجمهم لله.
I think that it would be true to say that sudden spurts of economic growth are often caused by preparation for war, war itself, and post-war reconstruction. This process in particular was occasioned by the end of WW1 which was succeeded by a restless and runaway period of economic growth based on the US Stock Market boom in 1929. Given the laws of capitalism and its immanent rhythm of boom-bust this break-down was entirely predictable.
The ensuing downturn migrated over the pond to a still weak Europe which had not really recovered from the carnage of 1914-18. The resulting depression in Europe was particularly acute in Germany since it was still attempting to pay its wartime reparations to the allies which had been foisted upon it as a result of the Versailles Treaty. This resulted in the great German inflation during the early to late 1920s.
As if this wasn’t enough, another blow to global economic and financial stability was to be delivered: this in the form of the Anstalt-Credit Bank failure of 1931. Credit-Anstalt was an exceptionally large bank based in Vienna. Given the interconnectedness of banking and finance, and the fragility of the European banking system at the time, one bank failure can give rise to multiple failures. In October 1929, the Austrian Schober government compelled the allegedly well-financed Credit-Anstalt to assume liabilities, which together with the simultaneous Wall Street Crash led to the financial imbalance of the then-largest Austrian credit provider. Credit-Anstalt had to declare bankruptcy on 11 May 1931.
The collapse of the Credit-Anstalt in Vienna started the spread of the crisis in Europe and forced most countries off the Gold Standard within a few months. A feeling of financial distrust and insecurity spread from Vienna and led to runs on other banks in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Poland, and Germany. The collapse set off a chain reaction that led from the run on German banks to withdrawals in London and the devaluation of the pound to large-scale withdrawals from New York and another series of bank failures in the United States. So in brief the news of the crisis of the Credit-Anstalt, the most important bank in Central Europe, shook the whole economic structure of Europe and sent shock waves through the rest of the world.
POLITICAL AND STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS
All of which added even greater political and economic instability in both Europe and North America during the Interregnum. Crises of this type unsurprisingly gave rise to bitter class struggles between capital and labour, and various other social and political disequilibria. Revolution in Russia, the rise of the Nazis in Germany and earlier in Italy the new political movement of the black-shirted Fascisti led by one Benito Mussolini – this new political template being the counter-revolution from below. Coincidental with this there was, moreover, the fall of no less than four royal dynasties, the Habsburgs, Hohenzollerns, Romanovs, and Ottomans. The old order had gone, in Europe at least, but their empires still remained: Britain, France, and new kid to the imperialist club – the United States since it had got into the imperialist game in the late 19th century, and there it still remains.
The resulting collisions of interest between the rival nations and blocs with unfinished geopolitical business left over from WW1 seemed to take on an inexorable process – a process headed toward open military conflict between the Great Powers. And so it turned out. Germany was a powerful well-armed state with imperial ambitions but eventually was to be confronted by the combination of the USA, the USSR, and the British Empire, which meant it was bound to lose.
World War 2 was, with the exception of Latin America, a global war and had global ramifications. The major reconstruction of physical, economic, political, and geopolitical organizations and institutions had a number of distinct phases in both war-ravaged Europe and the Far East. The US was fortunate in this regard since apart from Pearl Harbour no major damage occurred on its own territory with the exception of Hawaii.
BRETTON WOODS 1944
The year 1942 was the turning point when the allied victory was more or less guaranteed. It was decided therefore to convene a meeting of the allied powers – excluding the USSR for geopolitical reasons – which was in the main conducted and overseen by the US and UK, with the US being the senior partner, of course. In 1944 the conference was to be held at the Washington Hotel in the small town of Bretton Woods in New Hampshire, USA; grandiosely titled, the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference. At the time Hitler would last another 10 months, and war continued to rage in the Far East and Japan would not surrender for another 13 months. The UN Charter was still a year away. The specific goals of the attendees was to create institutions that would promote a vision beyond the end of the war united in hopes for a world united through prosperity.
US FOREIGN POLICY & TWILIGHT OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE
All very noble and idealistic. However also in play were the usual motivations of nation states and their internal interest groups – groups who harboured their own concerns which were somewhat less idealistic. It was argued by some realist foreign relations theorists that the plan for these Bretton Woods institutions go back further to the 1930s and to the US Council of Foreign Relations. (1)
‘’Members of this group assessed early on that, at a minimum, the US national interest required free access to the raw materials of the Western hemisphere, the Far East, and the British Empire. On July 24, 1941, a council memorandum outlined the concept of a grand area: that part of the world which the United States dominated economically and militarily to ensure materials to its industries.’’ (2)
Of course it was tacitly understood by the Americans that the British Empire stood in the way of US imperial aggrandisement and ultimately it had to go. The British delegation were in fact being played by the Americans throughout these tortuous negotiations. But the British were semi-aware of what the Americans were up to. According to the principal British negotiator J.M.Keynes who wrote in a private letter to a colleague:
‘’The greatest cause of friction between the US and Great Britain over a very long period was the problem of what we used to call the old commitments, arising out of the fact that lend-lease* did not come into anything like full operation for some nine months after it had legally come into force … You do not emphasise the point that the US Administration was very careful not to take every precaution to see that the British were as near as possible bankrupt before any assistance was given … or appropriately abated whenever there seems the slightest prospect that leaving things as they are might possibly lead to a result in leaving the British at the end of the war otherwise than hopelessly insolvent.’’(3)
Thus the whole issue of lend-lease boiled down to this: The UK was broke, a supplicant, and did not have the wherewithal to pay back the loans made to the US. On the other hand the hard-nosed US ruling circles were not a registered charity and insisted on business reciprocity involving loan repayment. Moreover, the fact that this meant the virtual winding up of the British empire and the Sterling Area was judged in certain American quarters as being a good deal for the US. It should be noted that the parsimony of the US vis-à-vis the British loan contrasted sharply with the extension of Marshall Aid and the wiping out of post-war German debts.
‘’The first loan on the post-war agenda was the British Loan which, as President Truman announced in forwarding it to Congress, would set the course of American and British economic relations for many years to come. He was right, for the Anglo-American Loan Agreement spelled the end of Britain as a Great Power.’’ (4)
POST-WAR AUSTERITY – POLITICS IN EUROPE
The post-war period was one of bitter austerity from the late 40s with rationing and austerity taking place among the ruins of war, and this continued until the early 1950s, to be exact 1954 in the UK, 1950 in Germany.
In the UK The Labour party was elected to power in 1945, which it is said, won the 1945 election by servicemen returning from the war and voting Labour in droves. The new government was given a political mandate to nationalise the core industries: Rail, Public Utilities (gas, electricity, water), Transport, Coal, Iron and Steel, and, most importantly, the setting up of the National Health Service, the jewel in the crown of a new social and political order as overseen by a determined social-democratic party
Over in Europe change was also on the agenda. There were open mass communist parties, the PCF in France, and PCI in Italy often supplemented with armed partisans in France, Italy, Yugoslavia, and the Balkans including Greece. Tito’s partisans gained power in 1946. But the civil war in Greece 1944-49 had a different outcome.(5) Also coming to power in the Balkans at this time were Albanian partisans led by the charismatic albeit demented figure of Enver Hoxha.
Things got better in the next phase of post-war recovery during the 1950s which marked the continuation of post-war reconstruction policies. This involved an end of rationing and a spurt of growth which had been pretty much flat for centuries until WW1 when the epoch of industrialisation of society evolved pari passu with mechanized industrial production; this was a feature of both civilian and military research which often involved a cross-fertilisation of both. Growth took off almost vertically in the 1950s and 60s. This was certainly true in the mid-20th century. But this was a political as well as a strategic/economic phenomenon. This was a period of acute internal political conflict and struggle.
POST-WAR BOOM AND COLD WAR
However from the middle 1950s the momentum of social and political developments moved to a more sustained and semi-tranquil path. The Trente Glorieuses as the French called it – a golden age of social and political peace: there were high levels of growth, low levels of unemployment, high wage levels, high levels of investment, not quite a social-democratic utopia, but at least the years of poverty, war and austerity had been left behind, it seemed for good. I think this unparalleled post-war economic boom had a great deal to do with post-war reconstruction. A point I made in the opening paragraph.
However, it should also be borne in mind that in international and strategic terms this was the Cold War era. A period of nuclear standoff, NATO, the Warsaw Pact, and the unstable division of Europe and colonial wars in Korea (UN under US control) Indo-China (French and American) Malaya, Kenya, Palestine (British). A situation which is still ongoing with the U.S. attempting (unsuccessfully) to carve out an empire.
BRETTON WOODS 2
These tendencies were highly visible and generally in the public realm. But perhaps the less contentious issues and decisions had been and were taking place in more recondite settings. Back in 1944, at the opening session of Bretton Woods, Henry Morgenthau, then Secretary of the US Treasury was to set forth one of the underlying assumptions that guided the work of the architects of the Bretton Woods system. Some were valid others less so. In particular the assumption that 1. Everyone would be the beneficiary of increased world trade, and 2. That economic growth would not be constrained by the limits of the planet.
The trouble with this mode of thinking is that the policy consensus and values among the powers that be (PTB) are also shared by everyone else. This is a very obvious and common shortcoming ‘groupthink’ among the ‘power elite’ of policy makers, and opinion formers, as was pointed out by the astute American intellectual, C Wright Mills way back in the 1950s.
All of this notwithstanding, by the end of the historic meeting, the World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) and IMF (International Monetary Fund) and GATT (the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) which was superseded by the WTO (World Trade Organization). If I may paraphrase the poet Robert Browning: Roosevelt was in the White House, God was in his Heaven and all was right with the world!
CONSOLIDATION AND NEW WORLD ORDER
Since that time these global organizations have been dutifully occupied over the years adhering faithfully to their mandate to promote economic growth through globalization – globalization being a catch-all term involving market liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation. Through Structural Adjustment Programmes/Policies (SAPs) the World Bank and the IMF have pressured countries of the Global South to open their borders and convert their economies from self-sufficiency to export production. Trade agreements negotiated through GATT/WTO have reinforced these policies and prized open economies in both the Global South and North opening the path to the increasingly free importation of goods and capital flows (usually ‘hot money’). These archaic trade theories are justified by reference to David Ricardo and his archaic concept of ‘comparative advantage’ which is still taught in economics departments of universities.
The American New World Order established in 1945 had a strategic-military component as well as an economic one. US occupation in 1945 became permanent through the imposition of NATO which has expanded incrementally all the way to the Russian border. This occupation has lasted for 7 decades and is barely noticed as such. Europe has essentially become a collection of vassal states unthinkingly loyal to its American masters. The situation has become so entrenched that – apart from a brief Gaullist opposition – Europeans are completely unaware of this silent annexation. An annexation which in large part was carried out by the CIA and its euro Quislings. These included Operations, Gladio, Mockingbird and Paperclip.
This Atlantic Military-Strategic bloc – NATO – is an aggressive intercontinental vehicle serving as the instrument for US strategy for global dominance. Hard power.
‘’The occupied and colonized can come to accept and adopt the system and ways of their occupiers and colonizers … In Western (and now a fortiori Eastern) Europe many have come to accept without challenge the primary role of the US over the affairs of their states and give little thought to NATO except as a foundation of their security architecture. They have been raised and socialised, with this as part of their world. In many instances it is not only a normal part of the status-quo for them, it is also invisible to them. This is why the post-Cold-War continuation of the Atlantic Alliance went mostly unchallenged at the societal level in NATO member states, leaving the US to slowly consolidate its influence in each and every state.’’(6)
Financial dominance has also been another weapon operationalised and used by the US in their quest for global hegemony. This is particularly relevant with the role of the US$. As the global reserve currency the dollar gives a number of trade advantages over its trade ‘partners’. These are easy enough to enumerate but taking one example:
‘’It costs only a few cents for the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to produce a $100 bill, but other countries have to pony up $100 of goods and services in order to obtain one. (The difference between what it costs the government to print a note and a foreigner to procure it is known as seignorage after the right of the medieval Lord or seigneur to coin money and keep for himself some of the precious metal from which it was made.) About $500 billion of US currency circulates outside of the United States for which foreigners have had to provide the United States with $500 billion goods and services.’’(7)
But it is not a privilege which should be abused. Human Nature being what it is, however, it was abused. When the US left the Gold Standard in 1971 it could print dollars with abandon to pay its import bills. This meant it could accrue many advantages including the one mentioned by Eichengreen above. However, all was not as clear-cut as it seemed.
THE TRIFFIN DILEMMA AND THE DOLLAR RACKET
There was always a fundamental incompatibility between the attainment of global economic stability and possession of a single national currency to perform the role of the world’s reserve currency. As a global reserve currency the dollar has to be the anchor of the world’s trading system. However, as a domestic currency the dollar needs to have sufficient flexibility for internal policy. Thus at the heart of the dollar’s value and use there is this contradiction for the dual roles of this currency.
During the Bretton Woods ‘golden age’ which lasted from 1944 until 1971, the US$ was fixed against gold at $35 per oz. However the cost of US wars of choice in Korea and Indo-China, as well as ambitious social programmes like LBJ’s ‘Great Society’, saw a global build-up of surplus dollars accumulating in central banks around the world. These surplus dollar countries then began trading in their surplus dollars at the gold window at the Fed. This was a situation which the US could not tolerate as gold was flying out of the US to various overseas central bank venues.
Thus it was that on August 15, 1971, President Nixon suspended dollar/gold convertibility for a temporary period, which in fact morphed into a permanent arrangement – an arrangement which persists to this day. The gold standard was replaced with the US$ fiat standard. The dollar was to be regarded as being as good as gold, which was rather more like an act of faith than rational economic policy.
The maverick Belgian economist Robert Triffin first drew attention to this anomaly during the 1960s in his seminal work Gold and the Dollar Crisis: The Future of Convertibility. He observed that having the US dollar perform the role of the world’s reserve currency created fundamental conflicts of interest between domestic and international economic objectives.
On the one hand, the international economy needed dollars for liquidity purposes and to satisfy demand for reserve assets. But this forced, or at least made it easy, for the US to run consistently large current account deficits.
He argued that such a policy of running persistent deficits would eventually put pressure on the dollars convertibility and ultimately lead to the demise of the Bretton Woods system of international exchange which is exactly what happened in 1971.
This arrangement led to what in effect were tangible advantages for the US, at least to the current situation.
Nice work if you can get it. International trade as denominated in US$’s meant that the US$ qua world reserve currency could use its dollars to buy foreign assets and pay for them in dollars. These dollars were then held by foreigners who could no longer convert surplus dollars into gold but could only purchase US Treasuries and other US dollar-denominated assets which were never going to be repaid. Surplus dollar countries would sell their hard-earned dollars to purchase US Treasuries which pushed up the value of the dollar and kept US interest rates low; and the US in turn would buy goods and services from these same surplus countries. It worked rather like this: a foreign computer company – say ‘Japcom’ – sells you a computer by lending you the money to buy it! The ultimate free lunch.
But of course there’s always a catch! The effect of a strong dollar which raised domestic US industries costs, led to the hollowing out of the US domestic economy which ultimately could not compete with more efficient overseas competition. The last thing that the US rust belt needed was/is a strong dollar which had the effect of making its export industries less competitive. This left the US in an economic quandary. Namely, that the United States must on the one hand simultaneously run a strong/dollar, policy and on the other a weak/dollar policy, or put another way must allow for an outflow of dollars to satisfy the global demand for the currency, but must also engineer an inflow of dollars to make its domestic industries more competitive. As explained thus: when the Fed cuts interest rates, investors sell dollar-denominated assets and buy foreign assets, which tends to weaken the dollar’s exchange rate.
Having it both ways! Which of course is hardly possible.
Moreover, it is a moot point as to whether the rest of the world will continue to support this ‘exorbitant privilege’ in perpetuity. So far, the Vichy-Quisling-Petainst regimes in Europe and East Asia have to touch their forelocks and prostrate themselves before their Lord and Masters, but it would be wrong to imagine that this can continue as a permanent arrangement. Ironically, however, the US hegemon treats its friends and allies considerably worse than its putative enemies. Such is the nature of geopolitics.
WHAT NEXT?
The rise and fall of empires has always been a leitmotif for historians from Thucydidies and Herodotus, to Gibbon, Glubb and Hobsbawm in the modern period. It seems fairly obvious that the United States is in irreversible decline, and I think that the same is probably true of Europe given that Europe has been effectively Americanised. The American intellectual Morris Berman has perceptively got his finger on the pulse of the decay of modern-day America.
‘’As the 21st century dawns, American culture is, quite simply, in a mess … The dissolution of American corporate hegemony, when it does occur – and our own ‘Soviet Watershed’ is at least 40 or 50 years down the road as of this writing – will happen because of the ultimate inability of the system to maintain itself indefinitely. This type of breakdown which is a recurrent historical phenomenon is a long-range one and internal to the system.’’ (8)
The long decline as described by Berman is in general a cultural critique. A dumbing down so massive, relentless and comprehensive that is seems irresistible and sadly unstoppable. As Berman further writes:
‘’For a zoned-out, stupefied populace, ‘democracy’ will be nothing more than the right to shop, or to choose between Wendy’s or Burger King, or to stare at CNN and think that this managed infotainment is actually the news. As I have said, corporate hegemony, the triumph of global democracy/consumerism based upon the American model is the collapse of American civilization. So a large-scale transformation is going on, but it is one that makes triumph indistinguishable from disintegration.’’(9)
Add to this the hollowing out of the US productive economy (10) and the rise of a bloated financial sector which is kept going by infusions of money freshly printed by the Fed and which is more and more taking on the visage of an gigantic Ponzi scheme where existing debt levels are serviced by more debt, apparently without end. This is not going to be easy to reverse. The ongoing deindustrialisation of the US and its satellites seems to be irreversible.
The US political elites and the MSM seem little more than a monkey house of corrupt buffoons with not a political idea in their heads or what they are about and where they are going: but everything is fine as long as they get paid-off. It seems all very reminiscent of the last days of the French monarchy with America’s own Marie Antoinette, the air-head Nancy Pelosi, passing the time on TV by recommending the variety of ice-cream she keeps in her fridge during the current shut-down. The people have got no bread Nancy! Well let them eat ice-cream! Brilliant PR from Nancy Antionette.
Then of course there are the complete and certifiable lunatics (the neo-cons) who, along with Israel and its 5th column within the US, are intent on dragging the US into unwinnable wars which are slowly degrading the morale the civilian population and fighting capacity of the ‘invincible’ US military machine.
An historical analogy from history seems germane at this point.
It has been recorded that the most important battle that the Roman Army fought was The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. Three crack Roman legions crossed the Rhine to engage the Germanic tribes; a cake walk, or so they thought. Unfortunately, they were overconfident and badly led. Strung out on the march and unable to get into their customary Roman battle formations – the dreaded testudo (tortoise) – and were attacked on all sides by hordes of Germanic tribesmen and unceremoniously put to the sword: three crack legions, 20,000 men, one tenth of the Roman Army. This was in 9 CE. The Roman Empire lasted approx. another 400 years, but its reputation had suffered a blow from which it never recovered. The beginning of the end came when the Visigoths crossed the Danube 376 AD into the Roman Empire properly. When Rome was sacked it was the definitive end of empire. The US seems set on the same course, or one similar perhaps, although it is difficult if not impossible to put a date on its final demise.
Who can tell the future? We shall wait and we shall see.
NOTES
(1) The Council of Foreign Relations founded in 1921, is a United States non-profit think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international affairs. It is headquartered in New York City, with an additional office in Washington, D.C. This somewhat bland description does not explain the reality. In fact the CFR is made up of a number of notables drawn from the American political and financial nomenklatura, an incubator of leaders and ideas unified in their vision of a global economy dominated by US corporate interests.
(2) The Failures of Bretton Woods – David C Korten – The Case Against the Global Economy – 1996 – p.21
* Under the Lend-Lease program, from 1941 to 1945 the United States provided approximately $50 billion in military equipment, raw materials, and other goods to thirty-eight countries. About $30 billion of the total went to Britain, with most of the remainder delivered to the Soviet Union, China, and France
(3) Robert Skidelsky – John Maynard Keynes – Fighting for Britain – 1937-46- collected works and letters – xxiv 28/29 letter to E.R.Stettinuis, 18 April 1944
(4) Michael Hudson – Super Imperialism – pp.268/269
(6) Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – The Globalization of NATO p.334.
(7) Barry Eichengreen – Exorbitant Privilege – pp.3/4
(8) Morris Berman – The Twilight of American Culture – p.21. Published in 2000.
(9) Berman – ibid. – p.132
(10) The Auto-vehicle industry which was pioneered by Henry Ford was dominant up until recently when it produced 50% of motor vehicles. But this is no longer the case. Currently global auto-vehicle producers can be ranked as follows:
1. Toyota (Japan) Annual Output: 10,455,051 2. Volkswagen (Germany) Annual Output: 10,382,384 3. Hyundai/Kia (South Korea) Annual Output: 7,218,391. 4. General Motors (United States) Annual Output: 6,856,880. 5. Ford (United States) Annual Output: 6,386,818. 6. Nissan (Japan) Annual Output: 5,769,277. 7. Honda (Japan) Annual Output: 5,235,842. 8. FCA (Italy, USA) Annual Output: 4,681,457. 9. Renault (France) Annual Output: 3,373,278. Group PSA (France) Annual Output: 3,152,787
في 28 نيسان 2020 غيّب الموت في البرازيل، الأمين بديع الشدراوي الجزيل الاحترام والعاطر الذكر، وهو من المناضلين القوميين الذين أدّوا أدواراً كبيرة في مقاومة الاحتلال.
قبل رحيله، تلقيت منه اتصالاً يشكرني فيه على نشر قول أنطون سعاده «العالم كله بحاجة إلى فلسفتنا» بلغات عدّة، وقال لي: «أحسنت يا رفيق يوسف. يجب أن يعرف العالم كله مَن هو أنطون سعاده ومَن هم نحن تلامذة أنطون سعاده الأوفياء النظاميون المناقبيون في الحزب الذي أسسه لنهضة الأمة السورية وماذا أعطت الأمة السورية الحضارية للعالم». وقد شكرته وأكدت بأن «حزبنا مدرسة حياة مَن نجح فيها تخرّج وتألّق، ومن استهان بها فشل وأخفق».
وخلال الاتصال أتينا على ذكر المطران ايلاريون كبوجي فقال لي الأمين بديع: «المطران رفيقنا وأنا أعرفه وأعرف أشياء كثيرة عنه قام بها من أجل الحزب والأمة. وقد كان ملاحقاً أثناء الانتداب الفرنسي ولم تتمكن السلطات الفرنسية من معرفته والقبض عليه، لأنه كان يحمل اسماً آخر هو اسم الرفيق جورج ينشط به حزبياً غير اسمه بالإضافة الى جانب نشاطه الديني». وقال لي الأمين بديع بأنه سيرسل كل ما يعرفه عن المطران كبوجي لتضمينها في مقال أكتبه، لكن القدر خطفه قبل أن يزوّدني بالمعلومات.
هنا، لا بدّ من الإشارة إلى المقابلة التي أجرتها الإعلامية جودي يعقوب مع المطران كبوجي وفيها يقول: «إنّ حل الأزمة السورية يكمن بالفكر السوري، فكم نحن بحاجة إلى كل المنادين بفكرة وحدة الأمة السورية مثل أنطون سعاده، لأن الرهان اليوم هو على الذين يؤمنون بفكرة الوحدة، من أجل أن نرتقي بسورية نحو الخلود».
وما يؤكد انتماء المطران كبوجي أنه كان يحبّ العرب ولا يحبّ الأعراب، ويقول بالعروبة العربيّة التمدنيّة العلميّة الواقعيّة الصحيحة ولا يقول بالأعرابية.
وهنا لا بد من الإشارة إلى ما جاء في محاضرة سعاده التي تحت عنوان «الاتحاد العملي في حياة الأمم» في النادي الفلسطيني سنة 1933: «وهل يضيرنا ان يكون بعضنا عرباً والعرب برهنوا بفتوحاتهم وما أدّوه للمدنية من خدمات أنهم شعب لهم مزايا تمكنه من القيام بأعباء المدنية متى وجد في محيط صالح. فالعرب في الأندلس – والسوريون كانوا يشكلون قسماً هاماً في الأندلس ضمن التسمية العربية – كانوا من أهم عوامل ترقية المدنية في العلوم وإطلاق حرية الفكر حتى أصبحت اللغة العربية لغة العلم في الشرق والغرب».
عروبة المطران كبوجي هي العروبة الواقعية العلمية التمدنية الصحيحة وليست العروبة الطائفية اللغوية الوهمية المتخلفة الزائفة. وقيامة العالم العربي وجبهة المجتمعات العربية لا ولن تتحققان بالطائفية المكفّرة، واللغوية المتبجّحة، والأوهام الخرافية، والتقهقر الأخلاقي المدمّر، بل تتحقق بالمفهوم السوري القومي الاجتماعي ومبادئ الحزب السوري القومي الاجتماعي وغايته وبالعقلية المناقبية القومية الاجتماعية.
وفي هذا السياق يقول المطران كبوجي للإعلامية يعقوب إن مَن يقرأ كتاب المحاضرات العشر «بتأنٍّ وتمعّن وتدبّر يفهم معنى العروبة الواقعية الصحيحة ويهجر العروبة الطائفيّة اللغويّة الوهميّة. وهذا هو إيماني لأن العروبة الواقعية العلمية هي لخير سورية ولخير العرب. وسورية القومية الاجتماعية هي لصالح العالم العربي كما هي لصالح سورية».
لقد كان للمطران كبوجي نوعان من النشاط في حلب: نشاط ديني علني ونشاط سوري قومي اجتماعي سري باسم آخر، ولمعرفة سبب لقاء راهب الدير كبوجي بالعمرين: الشاعر عمر أبو ريشة والأمين عمر أبو زلام هي أن الثلاثة كانوا بمهممة إدخال أحد المقبلين على الدعوة القومية الاجتماعية وقد عيّنوا له موعداً لأداء القسم الحزبي. وقبل ان ينطلقوا الى مكان الاجتماع المعيّن طلب منهم الراهب كبوجي أن يرتدوا ثياب رهبان لإبعاد الشبهة عنهم وتوجّه الثلاثة الى المكان المخصص لاداء القسم ومروا في طريقهم في سوق الهال ومعهم القَسَم الحزبي مكتوباً باليد، فظهرت أمامهم وفاجأتهم في السوق دورية من الشرطة الفرنسية فأمرهما المسؤول الرفيق جورج الذي هو الراهب كبوجي أن يخفوا الورقة المكتوب عليها القسم وأن الأمر الذي وجّهه لهما بكل «سلطان ورهبة»، كما ورد في قصة الحزب للأمين الدكتور شوقي خيرالله هو لإخفاء الورقة التي كتب عليها القسم، لأن السلطات الفرنسية كانت تعتبر القوميين الاجتماعيين مخرّبين لرفضهم الاحتلال الفرنسي ومقاومته، وتلاحقهم في كل مكان تواجدوا فيه.
وبالفعل أخفوا الورقة التي كتب عليها قَسَم الانتماء الى الحزب في قلب المكسّرات أو البهارات. وهذه القصة سمعتها من الرفيق الراحل عزيز إبراهيم ناظر إذاعة منفذية البرازيل العامة وهو من منطقة انطاكية والإسكندرون التي تنازلت عنها فرنسا لتركيا.
والرفيق عزيز ابراهيم كان رجل أعمال، وكان يملك مصنعاً كبيراً للنسيج في سان باولو، وكان على علاقة قوية مع الشاعر عمر أبو ريشة والمسؤول الأول عن طباعة خمسين نسخة في كتاب مختارات «من شعر عمر أبو ريشة» الذي وصل الى 300 صفحة عندما قدم الشاعر الى سان باولو كمسؤول دبلوماسي للكيان الشامي السوري وقدّمها كهدية من المؤلف لمستوصف القديس يوحنا في سان باولو – البرازيل. وقد خصّني الرفيق عزيز إبراهيم بنسخة من الكتاب قائلاً لي: لقد طبعنا خمسين نسخة من هذه المختارات من شعر الرفيق الشاعر عمر أبو ريشة. كما أرسل لزوجتي هدية قطعة من القماش المصنوع في مصنعه مع ابنه المهندس بشارة عزيز إبراهيم بعد زواجنا. وفي إحدى المرات التقينا في سان باول بدعوة على الغذاء من الأمين ألبرتو شكور وكان معنا الأمين نواف حردان والرفيق أديب بندقي، قال لي أثناءها الرفيق الراحل عزيز إبراهيم: «لقد حدثني الأمين البرتو أنك تقوم بترجمة مبادئ الحزب السوري القومي الاجتماعي الى اللغة البرتغالية فسررتُ جداً بهذا الخبر. وأقول لك إن سعاده في قبره يشكرك على هذا العمل».
من أقوال المطران كبوجي
1 –
«على أصوات المساجد وهي تصدح الله أكبر، وعلى أصوات الأجراس في الكنيسة، نحن عائدون إلى قدسنا الحبيبة».
2 –
«عائدون مهما طال الزمن ومهما بهض الثمن، والحق يعلو ولا يُعلى عليه، وطالما هناك شعب وفيّ هو الشعب الفلسطيني، فحتماً عائدون».
3 –
«يسعد صباحكم والله يجمعنا بكم قريباً في الناصرة… فعندما اسمع صوتكم انتعش. أنتم بالنسبة لي أوكسجين الحياة لقد صلّيت في قاعة المؤتمر لسلامة سورية وفلسطين والناصرة وكل بلاد الشام».
هكذا بدأ سيادة مطران القدس في المنفى المطران هيلاريون كابوتشي حديثه خلال مغادرته مدينة مونتريو، حيث شارك في الجلسة الافتتاحية لمؤتمر جنيف 2 حول سورية.
4 –
« لقد صليت ولكن… يد واحدة لا تصفق. فإن لم يبنِ الرب البيت عبثاً يتعب البناؤون… إن لم نرفق العمل بالصلاة فعملنا سيبقى بدون جدوى، لقد كنت داخل القاعة أصلي لربنا رب السلام والمحبة… وحتى يعمّ السلام العالم أجمع، والشرق الأوسط… يعمّ الناصرة وفلسطين وكل سورية وكل بلد عربي، فكفانا عذاباً. كل مدة وجودي في القاعة كنت أصلي من أجل السلام في العالم أجمع ونجاحه في فلسطين وفي الناصرة وفي كل سورية».
5 –
«أنا رجل دين الله رب العالمين، ورجل دين الله هو أيضاً مواطن، وحب الأوطان من الإيمان والذي لا يحبّ وطنه، لا يحبّ ربه. وايماني بربي هو من محبتي لوطني».
6 –
«وردًا على سؤال عن مشاركته في افتتاح المؤتمر وجلوسه على طاولة الوفد الرسمي السوري قال المطران كابوتشي: «نعم نعم.. كنتُ جالساً ضمن الوفد السوري الرسمي».
7 –
«وتابع المطران كبوجي: «لقد حضرت بتلقاء نفسي دون دعوة من أحد.. أنا لست بحاجة لدعوة من أحد لأذهب وأصلي وأعمل من اجل السلام لبلادي ولشعبي ولخلاصهما من القتل والدمار والإرهاب.. نعم رحت الى هناك الى سويسرا ومنها أنا مستعد للذهاب الى اي مكان في العالم من اجل السلام..».
8 –
« وعن مفاجأة الوفد السوري واستقباله له قال المطران كبوجي: «ما بتقدر تتصوّر. أنا عشت السماء على الأرض. مباشرة احتضنوني ضمن الوفد… كانت سورية أمامي بشعبها ورئيسها متألقة.. سورية كانت في السماء. سورية رغم كل الجراح تتأمل خيرًا. فما نيل المطالب بالتمني ولكن تؤخذ الدنيا غلابا. وحبة الحنطة إن لم تمُت في الأرض لا تُنضج سنبلة. سر الحياة وخصبها أنها تموت. وإنما هي تموت لكي تعيش، هكذا هي سورية شكلاً وروحاً».
9 –
«سورية هي وطني وشعبها شعبي، فإذا لم أعترف بذلك، فأي بلاد أخرى غيرها يمكن أن اعتبرها بلادي؟».
10 –
«سورية هي السماء على الأرض وهي دائماً في السماء، ولسلامها دائماً أعمل وأصلّي. فالدنيا لا تؤخذ بالصلاة وحدها، بل بالعمل أيضاً. الدنيا لا تؤخذ بالتمني بل تؤخذ غلابا».
هذا هو المطران كبوجي السوري القومي الاجتماعي الذي قال: «اذا لم أعترف بأن سورية وطني وشعبها شعبي، فأي بلاد أخرى غيرها يمكن أن أعتبرها بلادي؟!».
A Cold War or global competition was NOT U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s vision for the post World War II world. He saw the Soviet Union and the United States, the Russian and American peoples as the two best and most reliable partners to maintain the peace of the world. 75 years have proven his prescient vision was right. Yet American leaders of the Fake Right and the Fake Left alike have now abandoned it for the policies of chaotic globalism and unending eternal war.
It is always forgotten that Franklin Roosevelt was a personal eyewitness to the catastrophic Versailles Peace Conference in 1919. FDR was no child. He was by then almost 40 years old and had been as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, the civilian chief operating official of the entire United States Navy for more than six years including through a world war.
Roosevelt recognized at the time very clearly that megalomaniac President Woodrow Wilson had completely destroyed the future peace and happiness of the entire world on the rocks of his blasphemous arrogance and sheer incompetence. Decades of observation and reflection combined to show how Wilson’s airy visions of a world remade on the principles of national self determination was only a recipe for endless bloodbaths and more chaos.
Wilson’s monumental mess up at Versailles also led the United States to withdraw from the world stage for more than 20 years.
Roosevelt had a very different vision of the world to come after 1945. Central to it was his understanding that the United States and the Soviet Union did not have to love each other or ignore their very different national interests but that they had to remain partners in the great task of maintaining world peace. But tragically, this vision did not survive the president’s death from a cerebral hemorrhage on April 12, 1945.
Roosevelt’s successor Harry Truman suddenly, immediately and without even giving a courtesy warning shut down all Lend Lease aid to the Soviet Union: it was the decision that truly started the Cold War.
Then Truman abandoned Roosevelt’s wise and visionary determination to force the old European powers of Britain, France and the Netherlands to immediately grant independence, or at least initiate a phased process towards that goal in most of their old colonies across Africa and Asia.
Instead, Truman threw U.S. financial and military support behind frantic British and French attempts to keep most of their empires. This decision led directly to two of the most terrible post-colonial wars waged by the French to hold on to Algeria and Indo-China – modern Vietnam, along with Cambodia and Laos.
Thirty more years of wars and oceans of innocent blood would flow before the inevitable outcomes that Franklin Roosevelt reached in 1945 came about anyway.
It has been an almost unanimous consensus among Western historians that Roosevelt was a naive and childish appeaser of Josef Stalin and international communism. Instead, FDR’s successor Truman has been elevated as a far greater figure and the great hero in supposedly saving the West from Soviet conquest.
However, two outstanding recent histories by Susan Butler (“Roosevelt and Stalin”) and Nigel Hamilton “War and Peace: FDR’s Final Odyssey”) document and present a far different picture.
For all their myriad differences, Roosevelt had succeeded in forging an effective partnership with Stalin to create as table, long-lasting new world system in which the two dominant superpowers could work together to maintain world peace.
Indeed, far from manipulating Roosevelt as so many neoconservative and neoliberal Western writers have mindlessly claimed for so many decades, Stalin was emotionally shocked and deeply depressed by FDR’s s passing, Being Stalin, his first reaction was to task the formidable Soviet espionage apparatus to investigate whether FDR had actually been assassinated by hardliners in his own government.
That was not the case. On the contrary, as Hamilton documents, FDR suffered a catastrophic health collapse following his return from the October 1943 Tehran conference with Stalin and Winston Churchill. It was almost certainly brought on by the rigors suffered by an already seriously ill man flying in unpressurized aircraft higher than 10,000 feet for extended periods of time.
Indeed, as Hamilton step by step shows, Roosevelt’s chief cardiologist Dr. Howard Bruenn performed prodigies to keep a dying man alive and as leader of the United States for another 18 months almost to the victorious conclusion of the war against Nazi Germany.
Franklin Roosevelt died at the age of 63 after years of remorselessly developing heart problems. His father James had died from the same fundamental causes. His cousin, President Theodore Roosevelt had died at the age of 61 after years of comparable health problems. The extraordinary fact of FDR’s final years was not that he died so soon but that he lived so long.
It was tragic that FDR did not live to celebrate the Victory Day over the Nazi evil he had done so much achieve. He missed it by only four weeks.
It was vastly more tragic that FDR died before he could take the crucial steps to institutionalize the crucial partnership of the U.S. and the USSR on a lasting basis and force the Europeans to allow their emerging colonies a clear, honest path to freedom.
If the leaders of today’s Democratic Party truly wished to revive the great achievements and heritage of their greatest leader, they would immediately end all the unnecessary wars they have cheered, demanded and plunged into around the world: And they would immediately restore the vital partnership with Russia that was the key to his war success.
Were FDR permitted to return today, he would be horrified, raging and contemptuous of those who claimed to be his successors needlessly demonizing a non-communist and non-aggressive Russia, free and open to a degree no-one in the West in his own day could have possibly imagined.
Most of all, he would have been disgusted beyond reason to see the United States committed so deeply to fighting needless, meaningless unending wars across the Middle East, Asia and Eastern Europe – wars with no conceivable goal and therefore with no possible end, eternal wars – exercises only in exhaustion and futility.
Franklin Roosevelt would not have celebrated Victory Day 75 years after his death with his customary loud and generous laughter. He could only have wept.
– لا تستقيم عملية فهم ما تشهده الزعامة الأميركية في العالم إلا إذا أُخذت في سياقها التاريخي، فأميركا التي بدأ صعودها كدولة عظمى مع الحرب العالمية الأولى، تكرّست مكانتها الاقتصادية والعسكرية والسياسية في نظام ما بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية، كدولة قادرة على خوض حروب كبرى تدفع خلالها مئات آلاف الجنود في ساحات القتال وتنفق مليارات الدولارات على الحروب، وهي التي خاضت بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية حروباً طويلة ومكلفة رغم خسارة مئات الآلاف من جنودها في الحرب، فكانت الحرب الكورية وحرب فيتنام في ظل الحرب الباردة مع الاتحاد السوفياتي مساحات تثبيت المكانة الأميركية الجديدة، وهذا التجاذب بين النجاح والفشل في الحروب لا يمكن الحكم عليه إلا بنهايته، التي نقلت أميركا من دولة عظمى إلى الدولة العظمى مع نجاحها بتفكيك الاتحاد السوفياتي وسيطرتها على دول أوروبا الشرقية عام 1990، حيث يمكن القول إن الحرب الباردة الممتدة من مؤتمر يالطا عام 1954 إلى سقوط جدار برلين عام 1989، قد إنتهت بانتصار أميركي شكل بلوغ واشنطن قمة السيطرة على العالم وقمة النفوذ وقمة الصعود.
– في تاريخ الإمبراطوريات لا يمكن النظر لبلوغ القمة كحدث عابر، يمكن أن تكون الخيبات وعمليات التراجع بعده بميزان ما قبله ذاته. فالإمبراطوريات التي تبلغ القمة، وتبدأ بالتراجع تكون قد دخلت زمن الأفول، وبدأت تعيش شيخوختها. وبالنظر للحال الأميركية بعد الانتهاء من هزيمة الاتحاد السوفياتي والسيطرة على تركته كما فعلت بالسيطرة بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية على تركة بريطانيا وفرنسا، يمكن القول إن التوسّع الإمبراطوري الأميركي على حدود روسيا قد بلغ مداه، في عهد الرئيس بيل كلينتون، وأن ولايتَيْ الرئيس جورج بوش كانتا الفرصة لتطويع قوى الممانعة الآسيوية، وإكمال تطويق روسيا من الشرق. وهذا مغزى حربي أفغانستان والعراق، ومن بعدهما الحروب الإسرائيلية الصغيرة في لبنان وفلسطين، وهي حروب انتهت بالفشل جميعها، ومن بعدها كانت الحرب الناعمة المسماة بالربيع العربي درباً جديداً للفشل في إخضاع آسيا، حيث المثلث الروسي الصيني الإيراني، وحيث الحرب على سورية يمكن وصفها بآخر الفرص لتثبيت الزعامة الأميركية.
– يسهل الاستنتاج بتراجع حيوية المجتمع الأميركي بتراجع قدرته على خوض الحروب. فالمقارنة بين حرب فييتنام وما قدمته فيها أميركا قبل أن تبدأ بالتفكير بالانسحاب، وحرب العراق وما كان كافياً لتراجع أميركا عنها، يقول إنه الفرق بين الدولة التي قدمت خمسين ألف قتيل من جيوشها وصمدت عشرين سنة وهي تقاتل حتى بدأت تفكر بالانسحاب. والدولة التي لم تتحمل خسارة أقل من خمسة آلاف قتيل وخمس سنوات حتى استسلمت لفكرة الفشل واقتنعت بالحاجة للانسحاب، وتراجع الحيوية يظهر اقتصادياً بأرقام لافتة تحدث عنها الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب في خطاباته الانتخابية من تراجع النمو حجم البطالة وتهالك البنى التحتية، وإقفال المصانع وكساد الزراعة، بينما كانت اقتصادات دول منافسة كالصين تسجل نسباً عالية في النمو، والقدرات العسكرية لدول منافسة كروسيا تسجل تطوراً في القدرة التسليحية النوعية، والقدرات البشرية القتالية لدول مثل إيران وقوى المقاومة تظهر قدرة احتمال في الميدان على التضحيات التي افتقدتها القوات الأميركية في جولات متتالية من المواجهة.
الأفول الأميركي تعبير غير مبالغ به بقياس الخط البياني للسلوك الأميركي في مواجهة الأزمات، فهل من مرة سابقة فقدت خلالها أميركا طائرة عسكرية على يد دولة اخرى تعلن مسؤوليتها، ولم تقم أميركا بالرد، وهل من سابقة عن مرة ضربت فيها أهداف قالت واشنطن إنها ستشعل حرباً إذا وقعت، كما كان الحال في الحديث الأميركي عن حماية المصالح النفطية في الخليج، وعندما حدث ذلك تراجعت أميركا، وبالتوازي أيضاً، هل من سابقة لوحدة وعزلة أميركا وفقدانها القدرة، تشبه إعلانها الانسحاب من الاتفاق النووي وبقائها وحيدة، أو تشبه إعلان تأييدها لاعتبار القدس عاصمة لـ إسرائيل وبقائها وحيدة أيضاً، أو إطلاقها مشروع صفقة القرن وعدم الحصول على أي تأييد دولي ذي قيمة؟
ما يشهده الخليج من تجاذب إيراني أميركي يشبه التجاذب الأميركي الأسباني والأميركي البريطاني في القارة الأميركية، فعندما كانت بريطانيا إمبراطورية بدا أفولها بخسارة مكانتها في القارة الأميركية وعندما كانت اسبانيا إمبراطورية حدث معها الشيء نفسه، حتى ان الحركة البوليفارية التحررية في أميركا الجنوبية التي قادها سيمون دي بوليفار بوجه الأسبان، تمت تحت شعار التشبه بما فعله الأميركيون الشماليون مع البريطانيين. وما تفعله إيران اليوم مع أميركا يشبه ذلك الفعل يومها، خصوصاً لجهة الإعلان عن نهاية زمن إمبراطروية عظمى.
– في كلام سابق للأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصرالله إشارة اعتبرها مرشد الجمهورية الإسلامية في إيران الإمام علي الخامنئي بصيص أمل عن اقتراب موعد تحرير القدس من الاحتلال، وفقاً لما وصفه نصرالله بالاستدلال بالمنطق واقع المعادلات والتوازنات، رابطاً أمله الشخصي بالصلاة في القدس بمعادلة الحياة والموت التي لا يمكن التحكم بها، رغم وقوع توقعاته لتحرير القدس ضمن المدى المنطقي لما يمكنه من أن يكون شاهداً على التحرير، وفي كلام لاحق لمستشار الإمام الخامنئي الدكتور علي ولايتي، المعروف بمكانته في الملفات الاستراتيجية في فريق الإمام الخامنئي، إشارة إلى أن إسقاط الطائرة الأميركية الإلكترونية العملاقة واحتجاز ناقلة النفط البريطانية، أحداث تمثل منعطفاً في تاريخ العالم الإسلامي.
– بالعودة إلى التاريخ تبدو منطقة الساحل الشرقي للبحر المتوسط وعمقها الآسيوي، كميدان جغرافي للمواجهات التاريخية بين الغرب والشرق، مسرحاً لتسجيل انتصارات الغرب وهيمنته واستعراضاته العسكرية، وفرض مصالحه الاقتصادية منذ خمسة قرون على الأقل عندما بدأت الإمبراطورية العثمانية تقدّم التنازلات للدول الأوروبية في جنوب السلطنة، لضمان مصالحها في بلدان الشمال، وصولاً لتفكك السلطنة مع الحرب العالمية الأولى وما تبعها من ترسيخ للهيمنة الغربية، لكن حتى مراحل صعود السلطنة العثمانية لم تشهد ردعاً للصولات والجولات الغربية نحو شرق المتوسط، فخلالها نشأ ما عُرف بعهد القناصل، وتنامي الإرساليات، ونشوء النسخ البدائية للوكالات التجارية.
– آخر ما يكتبه التاريخ عن يد الشرق العليا في شرق المتوسط كان في تمكّن شعوب المنطقة من مواجهة حملات الفرنجة التي سُمّيت بالحروب الصليبية واتخذت الدين شعاراً لها لحشد المشاركة في التعبئة لقواتها تحت شعار الذهاب إلى القدس، بينما سحقت في طريقها إلى فلسطين كل الكنائس الشرقية وقتلت الآلاف من قساوستها ورهبانها، ودمّرت ممتلكاتها، وقتلت عشرات الآلاف من رعاياها، واللافت أن حروب الفرنجة نجحت يومها خلال الفترة الممتدة من نهاية القرن الحادي عشر إلى نهاية القرن الثاني عشر ببناء مستوطنات في فلسطين ونجحت بوضع يدها على القدس، بصورة لا تختلف كثيراً عن واقع كيان الاحتلال اليوم، وبقيت الأساطيل الغربية ومحاولات تأمين طريق بري بحملات مستديمة، هي مصدر الحماية الذي يشكل مصدر قوة هذا الكيان الاستيطاني الناشئ يومها.
– مع تحرير القدس في نهاية القرن الثاني عشر، وجعلها متاحة لكل المؤمنين لممارسة عباداتهم وشعائرهم الدينية، انتهت عملياً الحروب الكبرى وبقيت مناوشات استمرت تحت مسمّى حملات صليبية، لكنها لم تقدر أن تغير الواقع الجديد، حتى نشوء كيان الاحتلال منتصف القرن العشرين، لكن اللافت بالقياس التاريخي أنه منذ نشأة هذا الكيان القائم على اغتصاب فلسطين، للمرة الأولى يبدو محاصراً بصواريخ قوى المقاومة ومقاتليها من كل الجهات عاجزاً عن خوض حرب، وتبدو الأساطيل البحرية والجوية والبرية لنجدته عاجزة عن تشكيل توازن ردع في المنطقة. وهذا هو مغزى ما تمثله حوادث إسقاط الطائرة الأميركية واحتجاز الناقلة البريطانية.
– منذ ألف عام لم يحدث مثيل لذلك، رغم ما تلقته الأساطيل الغازية لنابليون بونابرت على سواحل مصر أو أسوار عكا، ورغم حروب المواجهة التي خاضها جمال عبد الناصر في مواجهة العدوان الثلاثي، فقد بقي في كل حالة منها مجال للإعداد لجولة مقبلة، حيث كان احتياط الغرب القوي ينتقل من ضفة إلى ضفة، كما هو حال الأفول الفرنسي لحساب بريطانيا والأفول البريطاني لحساب أميركا. وهذا مغزى القول اليوم إنه منعطف تاريخي، وبصيص أمل.
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 