“New world order pledged to Jews” 80 years ago

Source

September 21, 2020 – 11:43

Most Zionist diplomacy takes place in secret, through corruption and blackmail (euphemistically called “lobbying”). But sometimes it is deemed appropriate that some statement be written down by some government representative in support of Zionism. The Goyim who write these statements may think them of little consequence, but Zionists know very well how to capitalize on them.

The most famous such document is the short letter written by the British Foreign Minister Lord Arthur Balfour to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild, president of the Zionist Federation, on November 2, 1917. Prime Minister Lloyd George later explained the deal in those terms:

“Zionist leaders gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to give facilities for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause. They kept their word.” 

Less known than the Balfour Declaration is the letter obtained by Nahum Sokolow, head of the World Zionist Organization, from the French Foreign minister Jules Cambon. Dated June 4, 1917, it not only anticipated the Balfour Declaration but cleared the way for it. It states that the French government “feels sympathy for your cause, the triumph of which is linked to that of the allies.” The cause in question is “the development of the Israeli colonization in Palestine” and “the renaissance of the Jewish nationality in that land from which the people of Israel were exiled so many centuries ago.” Back in London, Sokolow deposited the Cambon letter at the Foreign Office, where it stimulated a spirit of competition. In January 1918, he returned to Paris, this time with the aim of securing a public French declaration in support of the Balfour Declaration.  A magnificent example of the efficiency of Zionist transnational diplomacy for war profiteering.

If Balfour thought that, after the war, his letter, cautiously worded and typed on unmarked paper, would be of little consequence, he was wrong. Zionists made it a cornerstone to their project. When the British government proved reluctant to deliver after the Versailles Treaty, they invested on the ambitious, unscrupulous and bankrupt Winston Churchill (1874-1965), whose thoughts were, in his own words, “99 percent identical” with Chaim Weizmann’s.  

During WWII, Churchill and Weizmann conspired to repeat the winning strategy of the Balfour declaration in WWI, attempting to monetize Jewish influence to bring the United States into the war. In a letter to Churchill dated September 10, 1941, Weizmann wrote: 
“I have spent months in America, traveling up and down the country […]. There is only one big ethnic group which is willing to stand, to a man, for Great Britain, and a policy of ‘all-out-aid’ for her: the five million American Jews. […] It has been repeatedly acknowledged by British Statesmen that it was the Jews who, in the last war, effectively helped to tip the scales in America in favor of Great Britain. They are keen to do it—and may do it—again.” 

As soon as he had become Prime Minister in May 1940, Churchill instructed his War Cabinet member Arthur Greenwood to craft a document assuring the Jewish elites that a winning Britain will give them not only Palestine but a major share in the “new world order” to compensate for “the wrongs suffered by the Jewish people.” Although it is little known, this “Greenwood Pledge” is, according to Zionist Rabbi Stephen Wise, “of wider and farther reaching implications” than the Balfour declaration. The New York Times published it in its October 6, 1940 edition, under the amazing title “New World Order Pledged to Jews” (reproduced here and here). 

The recipient of the declaration, here presented as Dr. S.S. Wise, was a major player in Zionist deep politics since the time of Theodor Herzl, and a close collaborator of Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, and Samuel Untermeyer. He was the founder of the New York Federation of Zionist Societies in 1897, the first seed for the Zionist Organization of America, of which he was president. In 1917 he participated in the effort to convince President Woodrow Wilson to approve the Balfour declaration. In 1936, he was a co-founder of the World Jewish Congress, dedicated to rallying world Jewry against Hitler. 

Here is the full text of the New York Times, introducing the  “Greenwood Pledge”:

New York Times, October 6, 1940

NEW WORLD ORDER PLEDGED TO JEWS;

Arthur Greenwood of British War Cabinet Sends Message of Assurance Here

RIGHTING OF WRONGS SEEN

English Rabbi Delivers to Dr. S.S. Wise New Statement on Question After War

In the first public declaration on the Jewish question since the outbreak of the war, Arthur Greenwood, a member without portfolio in the British War Cabinet, assured the Jews of the United States that when victory was achieved an effort would be made to found a new world order based on the ideals of “justice and peace.”

Mr. Greenwood, who is Deputy Leader of the British Labor party, declared that in the new world the “conscience of civilized humanity would demand that the wrongs suffered by the Jewish people in so many countries should be righted.” He added that after the war an opportunity would be given to Jews everywhere to make a “distinctive and constructive contribution” in the rebuilding of the world.

The message was delivered last week to Dr. Stephen S. Wise, chairman of the executive committee of the World Jewish Congress, by Rabbi Maurice L. Perzweig, chairman of the British section of the congress. Rabbi Perizweig arrived from England Monday evening. 

Intention to Right Wrongs

Comparing the statement with the Balfour Declaration of 1917, D. Wise declared that in a sense it had “wider and farther reaching implications,” as it dealt with the status of Jews throughout the world. He said that Mr. Greenwood’s message could be interpreted as a statement of England’s firm intention to help right the wrongs which Jews have suffered and continue to suffer today because of Hitler’s “disorder and lawlessness.” Mr. Greenwood, sending the Jews of America a message of “encouragement and warm good wishes,” wrote: 
“The tragic fate of the Jewish victims of Nazi tyranny has, as you know, filed us with deep emotion. The speeches of responsible statesmen in Parliament and at the League of Nations during the last seven years have reflected the horror with which the people of this country have viewed the Nazi relapse into barbarism.

“The British Government sought again to secure some amelioration of the lot of persecuted Jewry both in Germany itself and in the countries which were infected by the Nazi doctrine of racial hatred. Today the same sinister power which has trampled on its own defenseless minorities, and by fraud and force has temporarily robbed many small peoples of their independence, has challenged the last stronghold of liberty in Europe.

New World Order Forecast

“When we have achieved victory, as we assuredly shall, the nations will have the opportunity of establishing a new world order based on the ideals of justice and peace. In such a world it is our confident hope that the conscience of civilized humanity would demand that the wrongs suffered by the Jewish people in so many countries should be righted. 

“In the rebuilding of civilized society after the war, there should and will be a real opportunity for Jews everywhere to make a distinctive and constructive contribution; and all men of good-will must assuredly hope that in new Europe the Jewish people, in whatever country they may live, will have the freedom and full equality before the law with every other citizen.”

In an interview at the Hotel Astor, Rabbi Perlzweig declared he was certain Mr. Greenwood “speaks for England.” There is a clear realization, he added, that freedom and emancipation for the Jewish people are tied up with emancipation and freedom for people everywhere. The message, Rabbi Perlzweig remarked, was the subject of earnest consideration by the British Government. “This is a declaration on behalf of the whole world,” he observed. “Here the British Government expresses clearly what it hopes will take place after the war is won.”

[1] According to a 1937 report of the Palestine Royal Commission, quoted by Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel? (1953), Infinity Publishing, 2003, pp. 18-21.

[1] Martin Kramer, “The Forgotten Truth about the Balfour Declaration,” June 5, 2017, on mosaicmagazine.com

[1] Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship, Henry Holt & Company, 2007.

[1] David Irving, Churchills War, vol. 2: Triumph in Adversity, Focal Point Publications, 2001, pp. 76–77.

[1] Thanks to M.S. King, who made this information known here: http://www.tomatobubble.com/nwo_jews.html

RELATED NEWS

History: The Zionist Origins of Saudi Arabia and Its Royals

Part I

By Rez Karim

Global Research, September 22, 2020

Recognizing the contentious nature of the subject, this two-part article relies only on official treatises, pacts and primary sourced evidence to compile a historically accurate account of the founding of Saudi Arabia and Al Saud family becoming ‘Royals’.

Growing up Muslim in a Muslim majority country, I spent most Friday afternoons at a mosque, attending the Jummah prayer. First part of a Jummah prayer calls for the Imam to perform a Khutbah – a weekly sermon of sorts. It was in one of those Khutbahs that I, as a very young boy, learnt about the plight of the Palestinians for the first time.

Indeed, it’s a common practice among Imams around the world to bring up the Palestinian issue at mosques, especially during Friday sermons, and pray for the Palestinian people. In those prayers and discussions, Israel’s name comes up inevitably. In fact, Israel’s oppression of Palestinians bears no ambiguity in Islamic thoughts. And condemnation of Israel, therefore, comes naturally to Muslims around the world.

However, what escapes awareness in almost all Muslims is the connection between Israel and Saudi Arabia. While zealously castigating Israel for its atrocities, Muslims often revere Saudi Arabia as the custodians of Islam’s holiest sites; completely ignoring the Kingdom’s role in founding the Zionist state in the first place.

Notwithstanding the existence of a deep-seated bias against Israel among Muslims, it’s important to recognize that the lack of criticism for Saudi Kingdom, alongside Israel, doesn’t come from bias. Indeed, this absence finds its roots not in bias, but in a complete lack of knowledge. Knowledge among current generation of Muslims, as well as among the world population, about how Saudi Arabia and its founding king, Abdel Aziz Ibn Saud, played a critical role in establishing the Zionist state of Israel.

Suffice it to say, this ignorance about one of the most critical periods in world history seems anything but normal. Amazingly, the world, especially the Muslim world, had been kept in darkness about this momentous chapter in Middle East history. Propaganda and omissions run rampant within the historical accounts of this period. Official Saudi sources like House of Saud website, for example, avoids any mention of British involvement in founding the KSA. Although this omission seems predictable to many, it’s worth noting that even mainstream media outlets like the BBC, and prominent historians such as Professor Eugene Rogan etc., routinely portray Ibn Saud as having acted independently during WWI, and not as an instrument for the British Empire.

Therefore, recognizing the contentious nature of the issue – and to avoid becoming yet another ‘perspective’ on the subject – this article relies only on primary sourced evidence and the following four official treatises and declarations to compile a historically accurate account of the events:

  1. The McMahon-Hussain Correspondence
  2. The Treaty of Darin
  3. The Sykes-Picot Agreement
  4. The Balfour Declaration

1. The McMahon-Hussain Correspondence

To properly understand the events that led to the creation of both Israel and Saudi Arabia, we must travel back to the early 1900s’ Middle East. At the outbreak of WWI in the region, Sir Henry McMahon, then British High Commissioner in Egypt, offered Hussain bin Ali, Sharif of Hijaz (or ruler of the Hijaz – the western Arabian region in which Mecca and Medina lie), an independent Arab state if he would help the British fight against the Ottoman Empire. Hussein’s interest in throwing off his Turkish overlords converged with Britain’s war aim of defeating the Ottomans. McMahon made this offer via a series of letters exchanged between him and Sharif Hussain, collectively known as the McMahon-Hussain Correspondence. On his 14 July 1915 letter to McMahon, Hussain stated, among other things, the following as one of his propositions:Palestine: Britain Should Apologise for the Balfour Declaration, Not ‘Celebrate’ It

“Firstly.- England will acknowledge the independence of the Arab countries, bounded on the north by Mersina and Adana up to the 37th degree of latitude, on which degree fall Birijik, Urfa, Mardin, Midiat, Jezirat (Ibn ‘Umar), Amadia, up to the border of Persia; on the east by the borders of Persia up to the Gulf of Basra; on the south by the Indian Ocean, with the exception of the position of Aden to remain as it is; on the west by the Red Sea, the Mediterranean Sea up to Mersina. England to approve the proclamation of an Arab Khalifate of Islam.”

In response, McMahon wrote on 24 October 1915:

“I regret that you should have received from my last letter the impression that I regarded the question of the limits and boundaries with coldness and hesitation; such was not the case, but it appeared to me that the time had not yet come when that question could be discussed in a conclusive manner.

“I have realized, however, from your last letter that you regard this question as one of vital and urgent importance. I have, therefore, lost no time in informing the Government of Great Britain of the contents of your letter, and it is with great pleasure that I communicate to you on their behalf the following statement, which I am confident you will receive with satisfaction:-

“The two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded.

“With the above modification, and without prejudice of our existing treaties with Arab chiefs, we accept those limits.”

Interestingly, throughout history, there has been much disagreement as to whether this promise included Palestine. However, as we can see above, the area promised to the Arabs in McMahon’s letter excluded only the territory to the west of a line from Damascus north to Aleppo. Palestine, far to the south, was, by implication, included. Nevertheless, the British subsequently denied that they included Palestine in the promise and refused to publish the correspondence until 1939.

At the time however, Sharif Hussain believed this official promise from the British Government. He went on to make the most significant contribution to the Ottoman Empire’s defeat. He switched allegiances and led the so-called ‘Arab Revolt’ in June of 1916, which removed the Turkish presence from Arabia.

The defeat of the Ottoman Empire by the British in WWI left three distinct authorities in the Arabian peninsula. Sharif of Hijaz Hussain bin Ali of Mecca (in the west); Ibn Rashid of Ha’il (in the north); and Emir Abdel Aziz Ibn Saud of Najd and his religiously fanatical followers, the Wahhabis (in the east).

2. The Treaty of Darin

On 26 December 1915, Sir Percy Cox, on behalf of the British Government, signed the Treaty of Darin with Abdel Aziz Ibn Saud. Also known as the Darn Pact, the treaty made the lands of the House of Saud a British protectorate. The British aim of the treaty was to guarantee the sovereignty of Kuwait, Qatar and the Trucial States (later UAE). Abdul-Aziz vowed not to attack these British protectorates. He also pledged to enter WWI in the Middle East against the Ottoman Empire as an ally of Britain.

Britain’s signing of Darin Pact in December went against their promises of mutual protection made to Sharif Hussain in October; because Britain’s treaty with Ibn Saud does not oblige him to not attack the Hijaz.

The treaty also saw Abdel Aziz receiving £5000 per month ‘tribute’ from the British Government. After World War I, he received further support from the British. Support included substantially more monetary rewards and a glut of surplus munitions.

3. The Sykes-Picot Agreement 

On May 19, 1916, representatives of Great Britain and France secretly reached an accord, known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement. The accord aimed at dividing most of Arab lands under the Ottoman rule between the British and the French at the end of WWI. In its designated sphere, it was agreed, each country shall be allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they desire and as they may think fit.

Two diplomats, a Briton and a Frenchman, divided the map of one of the most volatile regions in the world into states that cut through ethnic and religious communities. The secret agreement largely neglected to allow for the future growth of Arab nationalism; which at that same moment the British government was using to their advantage against the Turks.

A century on, the Middle East continues to bear the consequences of the treaty. Many Arabs across the region continue to blame the subsequent violence in the Middle East, from the occupation of Palestine to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), on the Sykes-Picot treaty.

Indeed, Britain’s signing of this treaty went directly against what it promised to the Sharif of Hijaz in October of previous year. As we will see in Part II of this article, Britain’s betrayal of their promises of an independent Arab state eventually led them to unleash their attack dog, Ibn Saud, on Sharif Hussain and topple him. This allowed the British to effectuate the Sykes-Picot accord, and subsequently establish the Zionist state of Israel.

Read Part II

*

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

Author Rez Karim is an Electrical Engineer and Chief Editor at VitalColumns.com.

Featured image is from the authorThe original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Rez Karim, Global Research, 2020

Hyperinflation, Fascism and War: How the New World Order May Be Defeated Once More

Source

Hyperinflation, Fascism and War: How the New World Order May Be Defeated Once More

September 19, 2020

By Matthew Ehret for the Saker Blog

While the world’s attention is absorbed by tectonic shifts unfolding across America as “a perfect storm of civil war, and military coup threatens to undo both the elections and the very foundations of the republic itself, something very ominous has appeared “off of the radar” of most onlookers. This something is a financial collapse of the trans-Atlantic banks that threatens to unleash chaos upon the world. It is this collapse that underlies the desperate efforts being made by the neo-con drive for total war with Russia, China and other members of the growing Mutlipolar Alliance today.

In recent articles, I have mentioned that the Bank of England-led “solution” to this oncoming financial blowout of the $1.5 quadrillion derivatives bubble is being pushed under the cover of a “Great Global Reset” which is an ugly and desperate effort to use COVID-19 as a cover for the imposition of a new post-covid world order operating system. Since the new “rules” of this new system are very similar to the 1923 Bank of England “solution” to Germany’s economic chaos which eventually required a fascist governance mechanism to impose it onto the masses, I wish to take a deeper look at the causes and effects of Weimar Germany’s completely un-necessary collapse into hyperinflation and chaos during the period of 1919-1923.

In this essay, I will go further to examine how those same architects of hyperfinflation came close to establishing a global bankers’ dictatorship in 1933 and how that early attempt at a New World Order was fortunately derailed through a bold fight which has been written out of popular history books.

We will investigate in depth how a major war broke out within America led by anti-imperial patriots in opposition to the forces of Wall Street and London’s Deep State and we will examine how this clash of paradigms came to a head in 1943-1945.

This historical study is not being conducted for entertainment, nor should this be seen as a purely academic exercise, but is being created for the simple fact that the world is coming to a total systemic meltdown and unless certain suppressed facts of 20th century history are brought to light, then those forces who have destroyed our collective memory of what we once were will remain in the drivers seat as society is carried into a new age of fascism and world war.

Versailles and the Destruction of Germany

Britain had been the leading hand behind the orchestration of WWI and the destruction of the potential German-Russian-American-Ottoman alliance that had begun to take form by the late 19th century as foolish Kaiser Wilhelm discovered (though sadly too late) when he said: “the world will be engulfed in the most terrible of wars, the ultimate aim of which is the ruin of Germany. England, France and Russia have conspired for our annihilation… that is the naked truth of the situation which was slowly but surely created by Edward VII”.

Just as the British oligarchy managed the war, so too did they organize the reparations conference in France which, among other things, imposed impossible debt repayments upon a defeated Germany and created the League of Nations which was meant to become the instrument for a “post-nation state world order”. Lloyd George led the British delegation alongside his assistant Philip Kerr (Lord Lothian), Leo Amery, Lord Robert Cecil and Lord John Maynard Keynes who have a long term agenda to bring about a global dictatorship. All of these figures were members of the newly emerging Round Table Movement, that had taken full control of Britain by ousting Asquith in 1916, and which is at the heart of today’s “deep state”.

After the 1918 Armistice dismantled Germany’s army and navy, the once powerful nation was now forced to pay the impossible sum of 132 billion gold marks to the victors and had to give up territories representing 10% of its population (Alsace-Loraine, Ruhr, and North Silesia) which made up 15% of its arable land, 12% of its livestock, 74% of its iron ore, 63% of its zinc production, and 26% of its coal. Germany also had to give up 8000 locomotives, 225 000 railcars and all of its colonies. It was a field day of modern pillage.

Germany was left with very few options. Taxes were increased and imports were cut entirely while exports were increased. This policy (reminiscent of the IMF austerity techniques in use today) failed entirely as both fell 60%. Germany gave up half of its gold supply and still barely a dent was made in the debt payments. By June 1920 the decision was made to begin a new strategy: increase the printing press. Rather than the “miracle cure” which desperate monetarists foolishly believed it would be, this solution resulted in an asymptotic devaluation of the currency into hyperinflation. From June 1920 to October 1923 the money supply in circulation skyrocketed from 68.1 gold marks to 496.6 quintillion gold marks. In June 1922, 300 marks exchanged $1 US and in November 1923, it took 42 trillion marks to get $1 US! Images are still available of Germans pushing wheelbarrows of cash down the street, just to buy a stick of butter and bread (1Kg of Bread sold for $428 billion marks in 1923).

With the currency’s loss of value, industrial output fell by 50%, unemployment rose to over 30% and food intake collapsed by over half of pre-war levels. German director Fritz Lang’s 1922 film Dr. Mabuse (The Gambler) exposed the insanity of German population’s collapse into speculative insanity as those who had the means began betting against the German mark in order to protect themselves thus only helping to collapse the mark from within. This is very reminiscent of those Americans today short selling the US dollar rather than fighting for a systemic solution.

There was resistance.

The dark effects of Versailles were not unknown and Germany’s Nazi-stained destiny was anything but pre-determined. It is a provable fact often left out of history books that patriotic forces from Russia, America and Germany attempted courageously to change the tragic trajectory of hyperinflation and fascism which WOULD HAVE prevented the rise of Hitler and WWII had their efforts not been sabotaged.

From America itself, a new Presidential team under the leadership of William Harding quickly reversed the pro-League of Nations agenda of the rabidly anglophile President Woodrow Wilson. A leading US industrialist named Washington Baker Vanderclip who had led in the world’s largest trade agreement in history with Russia to the tune of $3 billion in 1920 had called Wilson “an autocrat at the inspiration of the British government.” Unlike Wilson, President Harding both supported the US-Russia trade deal and undermined the League of Nations by re-enforcing America’s sovereignty, declaring bi-lateral treaties with Russia, Hungary and Austria outside of the league’s control in 1921. The newly-formed British Roundtable Movement in America (set up as the Council on Foreign Relations) were not pleased.

Just as Harding was maneuvering to recognize the Soviet Union and establish an entente with Lenin, the great president ate some “bad oysters” and died on August 2, 1923. While no autopsy was ever conducted, his death brought a decade of Anglophile Wall Street control into America and ended all opposition to World Government from the Presidency. This period resulted in the speculation-driven bubble of the roaring 20s whose crash on black Friday in 1929 nearly unleashed a fascist hell in America.

The Russia-Germany Rapallo Treaty is De-Railed

After months of organizing, leading representatives of Russia and Germany agreed to an alternative solution to the Versailles Treaty which would have given new life to Germany’s patriots and established a powerful Russia-German friendship in Europe that would have upset other nefarious agendas.

Under the leadership of German Industrialist and Foreign Minster Walter Rathenau, and his counterpart Russian Foreign Minister Georgi Chicherin, the treaty was signed in Rapallo, Italy on April 16, 1922 premised upon the forgiveness of all war debts and a renouncement of all territorial claims from either side. The treaty said Russia and Germany would “co-operate in a spirit of mutual goodwill in meeting the economic needs of both countries.”

When Rathenau was assassinated by a terrorist cell called the Organization Consul on June 24, 1922 the success of the Rapallo Treaty lost its steam and the nation fell into a deeper wave of chaos and money printing. The Organization Consul had taken the lead in the murder of over 354 German political figures between 1919-1923, and when they were banned in 1922, the group merely changed its name and morphed into other German paramilitary groups (such as the Freikorps) becoming the military arm of the new National Socialist Party.

1923: City of London’s Solution is imposed

When the hyperinflationary blowout of Germany resulted in total un-governability of the state, a solution took the form of the Wall Street authored “Dawes Plan” which necessitated the use of a London-trained golem by the name of Hjalmar Schacht. First introduced as Currency Commissioner in November 1923 and soon President of the Reichsbank, Schacht’s first act was to visit Bank of England’s governor Montagu Norman in London who provided Schacht a blueprint for proceeding with Germany’s restructuring. Schacht returned to “solve” the crisis with the very same poison that caused it.

First announcing a new currency called the “rentenmark” set on a fixed value exchanging 1 trillion reichsmarks for 1 new rentenmark, Germans were robbed yet again. This new currency would operate under “new rules” never before seen in Germany’s history: Mass privatizations resulted in Anglo-American conglomerates purchasing state enterprises. IG Farben, Thyssen, Union Banking, Brown Brothers Harriman, Standard Oil, JP Morgan and Union Banking took control Germany’s finances, mining and industrial interests under the supervision of John Foster Dulles, Montagu Norman, Averill Harriman and other deep state actors. This was famously exposed in the 1961 film Judgement at Nuremburg by Stanley Kramer.

Schacht next cut credit to industries, raised taxes and imposed mass austerity on “useless spending”. 390 000 civil servants were fired, unions and collective bargaining was destroyed and wages were slashed by 15%.

As one can imagine, this destruction of life after the hell of Versailles was intolerable and civil unrest began to boil over in ways that even the powerful London-Wall Street bankers (and their mercenaries) couldn’t control. An enforcer was needed unhindered by the republic’s democratic institutions to force Schacht’s economics onto the people. An up-and-coming rabble rousing failed painter who had made waves in a Beerhall Putsch on November 8, 1923 was perfect.

One Last Attempt to Save Germany

Though Hitler grew in power over the coming decade of Schachtian economics, one last republican effort was made to prevent Germany from plunging into a fascist hell in the form of the November 1932 election victory of General Kurt von Schleicher as Chancellor of Germany. Schleicher had been a co-architect of Rapallo alongside Rathenau a decade earlier and was a strong proponent of the Friedrich List Society’s program of public works and internal improvements promoted by industrialist Wilhelm Lautenbach. The Nazi party’s public support collapsed and it found itself bankrupt. Hitler had fallen into depression and was even contemplating suicide when “a legal coup” was unleashed by the Anglo-American elite resulting in Wall Street funds pouring into Nazi coffers.

By January 30, 1933 Hitler gained Chancellorship where he quickly took dictatorial powers under the “state of emergency” caused by the burning of the Reichstag in March 1933. By 1934 the Night of the Long Knives saw General Schleicher and hundreds of other German patriots assassinated and it was only a few years until the City of London-Wall Street Frankenstein monster stormed across the world.

How the 1929 Crash was Manufactured

While everyone knows that the 1929 market crash unleashed four years of hell in America which quickly spread across Europe under the great depression, not many people have realized that this was not inevitable, but rather a controlled blowout.

The bubbles of the 1920s were unleashed with the early death of President William Harding in 1923 and grew under the careful guidance of JP Morgan’s President Coolidge and financier Andrew Mellon (Treasury Secretary) who de-regulated the banks, imposed austerity onto the country, and cooked up a scheme for Broker loans allowing speculators to borrow 90% on their stock. Wall Street was deregulated, investments into the real economy were halted during the 1920s and insanity became the norm. In 1925 broker loans totalled $1.5 billion and grew to $2.6 billion in 1926 and hit $5.7 billion by the end of 1927. By 1928, the stock market was overvalued fourfold!

When the bubble was sufficiently inflated, a moment was decided upon to coordinate a mass “calling in” of the broker loans. Predictably, no one could pay them resulting in a collapse of the markets. Those “in the know” cleaned up with JP Morgan’s “preferred clients”, and other financial behemoths selling before the crash and then buying up the physical assets of America for pennies on the dollar. One notable person who made his fortune in this manner was Prescott Bush of Brown Brothers Harriman, who went onto bailout a bankrupt Nazi party in 1932. These financiers had a tight allegiance with the City of London and coordinated their operations through the private central banking system of America’s Federal Reserve and Bank of International Settlements.

The Living Hell that was the Great Depression

Throughout the Great depression, the population was pushed to its limits making America highly susceptible to fascism as unemployment skyrocketed to 25%, industrial capacity collapsed by 70%, and agricultural prices collapsed far below the cost of production accelerating foreclosures and suicide. Life savings were lost as 4000 banks failed.

This despair was replicated across Europe and Canada with eugenics-loving fascists gaining popularity across the board. England saw the rise of Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists in 1932, English Canada had its own fascist solution with the Rhodes Scholar “Fabian Society” League of Social Reconstruction (which later took over the Liberal Party) calling for the “scientific management of society”. Time magazine had featured Il Duce over 6 times by 1932 and people were being told by that corporate fascism was the economic solution to all of America’s economic woes.

In the midst of the crisis, the City of London removed itself from the gold standard in 1931 which was a crippling blow to the USA, as it resulted in a flight of gold from America causing a deeper contraction of the money supply and thus inability to respond to the depression. British goods simultaneously swamped the USA crushing what little production was left.

It was in this atmosphere that one of the least understood battles unfolded in 1933.

1932: A Bankers’ Dictatorship is Attempted

In Germany, a surprise victory of Gen. Kurt Schleicher caused the defeat of the London-directed Nazi party in December 1932 threatening to break Germany free of Central Bank tyranny. A few weeks before Schleicher’s victory, Franklin Roosevelt won the presidency in America threatening to regulate the private banks and assert national sovereignty over finance.

Seeing their plans for global fascism slipping away, the City of London announced that a new global system controlled by Central Banks had to be created post haste. Their objective was to use the economic crisis as an excuse to remove from nation states any power over monetary policy, while enhancing the power of Independent Central Banks as enforcers of “balanced global budgets”. elaborate

In December 1932, an economic conference “to stabilize the world economy” was organized by the League of Nations under the guidance of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) and Bank of England. The BIS was set up as “the Central Bank of Central Banks” in 1930 in order to facilitate WWI debt repayments and was a vital instrument for funding Nazi Germany- long after WWII began. The London Economic Conference brought together 64 nations of the world under a controlled environment chaired by the British Prime Minister and opened by the King himself.

A resolution passed by the Conference’s Monetary Committee stated:

“The conference considers it to be essential, in order to provide an international gold standard with the necessary mechanism for satisfactory working, that independent Central Banks, with requisite powers and freedom to carry out an appropriate currency and credit policy, should be created in such developed countries as have not at present an adequate central banking institution” and that “the conference wish to reaffirm the great utility of close and continuous cooperation between Central Banks. The Bank of International Settlements should play an increasingly important part not only by improving contact, but also as an instrument for common action.”

Echoing the Bank of England’s modern fixation with “mathematical equilibrium”, the resolutions stated that the new global gold standard controlled by central banks was needed “to maintain a fundamental equilibrium in the balance of payments” of countries. The idea was to deprive nation states of their power to generate and direct credit for their own development.

FDR Torpedoes the London Conference

Chancellor Schleicher’s resistance to a bankers’ dictatorship was resolved by a “soft coup” ousting the patriotic leader in favor of Adolph Hitler (under the control of a Bank of England toy named Hjalmar Schacht) in January 1933 with Schleicher assassinated the following year. In America, an assassination attempt on Roosevelt was thwarted on February 15, 1933 when a woman knocked the gun out of the hand of an anarchist-freemason in Miami resulting in the death of Chicago’s Mayor Cermak.

Without FDR’s dead body, the London conference met an insurmountable barrier, as FDR refused to permit any American cooperation. Roosevelt recognized the necessity for a new international system, but he also knew that it had to be organized by sovereign nation states subservient to the general welfare of the people and not central banks dedicated to the welfare of the oligarchy. Before any international changes could occur, nation states castrated from the effects of the depression had to first recover economically in order to stay above the power of the financiers.

By May 1933, the London Conference crumbled when FDR complained that the conference’s inability to address the real issues of the crisis is “a catastrophe amounting to a world tragedy” and that fixation with short term stability were “old fetishes of so-called international bankers”. FDR continued “The United States seeks the kind of dollar which a generation hence will have the same purchasing and debt paying power as the dollar value we hope to attain in the near future. That objective means more to the good of other nations than a fixed ratio for a month or two. Exchange rate fixing is not the true answer.”

The British drafted an official statement saying “the American statement on stabilization rendered it entirely useless to continue the conference.”

FDR’s War on Wall Street

The new president laid down the gauntlet in his inaugural speech on March 4th saying: “The money-changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit”.

FDR declared a war on Wall Street on several levels, beginning with his support of the Pecorra Commission which sent thousands of bankers to prison, and exposed the criminal activities of the top tier of Wall Street’s power structure who manipulated the depression, buying political offices and pushing fascism. Ferdinand Pecorra who ran the commission called out the deep state when he said “this small group of highly placed financiers, controlling the very springs of economic activity, holds more real power than any similar group in the United States.”

Pecorra’s highly publicized success empowered FDR to impose sweeping regulation in the form of 1) Glass-Steagall bank separation, 2) bankruptcy re-organization and 3) the creation of the Security Exchange Commission to oversee Wall Street. Most importantly, FDR disempowered the London-controlled Federal Reserve by installing his own man as Chair (Industrialist Mariner Eccles) who forced it to obey national commands for the first time since 1913, while creating an “alternative” lending mechanism outside of Fed control called the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) which became the number one lender to infrastructure in America throughout the 1930s.

One of the most controversial policies for which FDR is demonized today was his abolishment of the gold standard. The gold standard itself constricted the money supply to a strict exchange of gold per paper dollar, thus preventing the construction of internal improvements needed to revive industrial capacity and put the millions of unemployed back to work for which no financial resources existed. It’s manipulation by international financiers made it a weapon of destruction rather than creation at this time. Since commodity prices had fallen lower than the costs of production, it was vital to increase the price of goods under a form of “controlled inflation” so that factories and farms could become solvent and unfortunately the gold standard held that back. FDR imposed protective tariffs to favor agro-industrial recovery on all fronts ending years of rapacious free trade.

FDR stated his political-economic philosophy in 1934: “the old fallacious notion of the bankers on the one side and the government on the other side, as being more or less equal and independent units, has passed away. Government by the necessity of things must be the leader, must be the judge, of the conflicting interests of all groups in the community, including bankers.”

The Real New Deal

Once liberated from the shackles of the central banks, FDR and his allies were able to start a genuine recovery by restoring confidence in banking. Within 31 days of his bank holiday, 75% of banks were operational and the FDIC was created to insure deposits. Four million people were given immediate work, and hundreds of libraries, schools and hospitals were built and staffed- All funded through the RFC. FDR’s first fireside chat was vital in rebuilding confidence in the government and banks, serving even today as a strong lesson in banking which central bankers don’t want you to learn about.

From 1933-1939, 45 000 infrastructure projects were built. The many “local” projects were governed, like China’s Belt and Road Initiative today, under a “grand design” which FDR termed the “Four Quarters” featuring zones of megaprojects such as the Tennessee Valley Authority area in the south east, the Columbia River Treaty zone on the northwest, the St Laurence Seaway zone on the North east, and Hoover Dam/Colorado zone on the Southwest. These projects were transformative in ways money could never measure as the Tennessee area’s literacy rose from 20% in 1932 to 80% in 1950, and racist backwater holes of the south became the bedrock for America’s aerospace industry due to the abundant and cheap hydropower. As I had already reported on the Saker, FDR was not a Keynesian (although it cannot be argued that hives of Rhodes Scholars and Fabians penetrating his administration certainly were).

Wall Street Sabotages the New Deal

Those who criticize the New Deal today ignore the fact that its failures have more to do with Wall Street sabotage than anything intrinsic to the program. For example, JP Morgan tool Lewis Douglass (U.S. Budget Director) forced the closure of the Civil Works Administration in 1934 resulting in the firing of all 4 million workers.

Wall Street did everything it could to choke the economy at every turn. In 1931, NY banks loans to the real economy amounted to $38.1 billion which dropped to only $20.3 billion by 1935. Where NY banks had 29% of their funds in US bonds and securities in 1929, this had risen to 58% which cut off the government from being able to issue productive credit to the real economy.

When, in 1937, FDR’s Treasury Secretary persuaded him to cancel public works to see if the economy “could stand on its own two feet”, Wall Street pulled credit out of the economy collapsing the Industrial production index from 110 to 85 erasing seven years’ worth of gain, while steel fell from 80% capacity back to depression levels of 19%. Two million jobs were lost and the Dow Jones lost 39% of its value. This was no different from kicking the crutches out from a patient in rehabilitation and it was not lost on anyone that those doing the kicking were openly supporting Fascism in Europe. Bush patriarch Prescott Bush, then representing Brown Brothers Harriman was found guilty for trading with the enemy in 1942!

Coup Attempt in America Thwarted

The bankers didn’t limit themselves to financial sabotage during this time, but also attempted a fascist military coup which was exposed by Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler in his congressional testimony of November 20, 1934. Butler had testified that the plan was begun in the Summer of 1933 and organized by Wall Street financiers who tried to use him as a puppet dictator leading 500 000 American Legion members to storm the White House. As Butler spoke, those same financiers had just set up an anti-New Deal organization called the American Liberty League which fought to keep America out of the war in defense of an Anglo-Nazi fascist global government which they wished to partner with.

The American Liberty league only changed tune when it became evident that Hitler had become a disobedient Frankenstein monster who wasn’t content in a subservient position to Britain’s idea of a New World Order. In response to the Liberty League’s agenda, FDR said “some speak of a New World Order, but it is not new and it is not order”.

FDR’s Anti-Colonial Post-War Vision

One of the greatest living testimonies to FDR’s anti-colonial vision is contained in a little known 1946 book authored by his son Elliot Roosevelt who, as his father’s confidante and aide, was privy to some of the most sensitive meetings his father participated in throughout the war. Seeing the collapse of the post-war vision upon FDR’s April 12, 1945 death and the emergence of a pro-Churchill presidency under Harry Truman, who lost no time in dropping nuclear bombs on a defeated Japan, ushering in a Soviet witch hunt at home and launching a Cold War abroad, Elliot authored ‘As He Saw It’ (1946) in order to create a living testimony to the potential that was lost upon his father’s passing.

As Elliot said of his motive to write his book:

“The decision to write this book was taken more recently and impelled by urgent events. Winston Churchill’s speech at Fulton, Missouri, had a hand in this decision,… the growing stockpile of American atom bombs is a compelling factor; all the signs of growing disunity among the leading nations of the world, all the broken promises, all the renascent power politics of greedy and desperate imperialism were my spurs in this undertaking… And I have seen the promises violated, and the conditions summarily and cynically disregarded, and the structure of peace disavowed… I am writing this, then, to you who agree with me that… the path he charted has been most grievously—and deliberately—forsaken.”

The Four Freedoms

Even before America had entered the war, the principles of international harmony which FDR enunciated in his January 6, 1941 Four Freedoms speech to the U.S. Congress served as the guiding light through every battle for the next 4.5 years. In this speech FDR said:

“In future days, which we seek to secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

“The first is the freedom of speech and expression–everywhere in the world.

“The second is the freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world.

“The third is the freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants–everywhere in the world.

“The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world.

“That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

“To that new order, we oppose the greater conception–the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.

“Since the beginning of American history, we have been engaged in change–in a perpetual peaceful revolution–a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly, adjusting itself to changing conditions–without the concentration camp or the quicklime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

“This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or to keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose.”

Upon hearing these Freedoms outlined, American painter Norman Rockwell was inspired to paint four masterpieces that were displayed across America and conveyed the beauty of FDR’s spirit to all citizens.

FDR’s patriotic Vice President (and the man who SHOULD have been president in 1948) Henry Wallace outlined FDR’s vision in a passionate video address to the people in 1942 which should also be watched by all world citizens today:

Churchill vs FDR: The Clash of Two Paradigms

Elliot’s account of the 1941-1945 clash of paradigms between his father and Churchill are invaluable both for their ability to shed light into the true noble constitutional character of America personified in the person of Roosevelt but also in demonstrating the beautiful potential of a world that SHOULD HAVE BEEN had certain unnatural events not intervened to derail the evolution of our species into an age of win-win cooperation, creative reason and harmony.

In As He Saw It, Elliot documents a conversation he had with his father at the beginning of America’s entry into WWII, who made his anti-colonial intentions clear as day saying:

“I’m talking about another war, Elliott. I’m talking about what will happen to our world, if after this war we allow millions of people to slide back into the same semi-slavery!

“Don’t think for a moment, Elliott, that Americans would be dying in the Pacific tonight, if it hadn’t been for the shortsighted greed of the French and the British and the Dutch. Shall we allow them to do it all, all over again? Your son will be about the right age, fifteen or twenty years from now.

“One sentence, Elliott. Then I’m going to kick you out of here. I’m tired. This is the sentence: When we’ve won the war, I will work with all my might and main to see to it that the United States is not wheedled into the position of accepting any plan that will further France’s imperialistic ambitions, or that will aid or abet the British Empire in its imperial ambitions.”

This clash came to a head during a major confrontation between FDR and Churchill during the January 24, 1943 Casablanca Conference in Morocco. At this event, Elliot documents how his father first confronted Churchill’s belief in the maintenance of the British Empire’s preferential trade agreements upon which it’s looting system was founded:

“Of course,” he [FDR] remarked, with a sly sort of assurance, “of course, after the war, one of the preconditions of any lasting peace will have to be the greatest possible freedom of trade.”

He paused. The P.M.’s head was lowered; he was watching Father steadily, from under one eyebrow.

“No artificial barriers,” Father pursued. “As few favored economic agreements as possible. Opportunities for expansion. Markets open for healthy competition.” His eye wandered innocently around the room.

Churchill shifted in his armchair. “The British Empire trade agreements” he began heavily, “are—”

Father broke in. “Yes. Those Empire trade agreements are a case in point. It’s because of them that the people of India and Africa, of all the colonial Near East and Far East, are still as backward as they are.”

Churchill’s neck reddened and he crouched forward. “Mr. President, England does not propose for a moment to lose its favored position among the British Dominions. The trade that has made England great shall continue, and under conditions prescribed by England’s ministers.”

“You see,” said Father slowly, “it is along in here somewhere that there is likely to be some disagreement between you, Winston, and me.

“I am firmly of the belief that if we are to arrive at a stable peace it must involve the development of backward countries. Backward peoples. How can this be done? It can’t be done, obviously, by eighteenth-century methods. Now—”

“Who’s talking eighteenth-century methods?”

“Whichever of your ministers recommends a policy which takes wealth in raw materials out of a colonial country, but which returns nothing to the people of that country in consideration. Twentieth-century methods involve bringing industry to these colonies. Twentieth-century methods include increasing the wealth of a people by increasing their standard of living, by educating them, by bringing them sanitation—by making sure that they get a return for the raw wealth of their community.”

Around the room, all of us were leaning forward attentively. Hopkins was grinning. Commander Thompson, Churchill’s aide, was looking glum and alarmed. The P.M. himself was beginning to look apoplectic.

“You mentioned India,” he growled.

“Yes. I can’t believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy.”

“What about the Philippines?”

“I’m glad you mentioned them. They get their independence, you know, in 1946. And they’ve gotten modern sanitation, modern education; their rate of illiteracy has gone steadily down…”

“There can be no tampering with the Empire’s economic agreements.”

“They’re artificial…”

“They’re the foundation of our greatness.”

“The peace,” said Father firmly, “cannot include any continued despotism. The structure of the peace demands and will get equality of peoples. Equality of peoples involves the utmost freedom of competitive trade. Will anyone suggest that Germany’s attempt to dominate trade in central Europe was not a major contributing factor to war?”

A vintage photo of a group of people sitting posing for the camera Description automatically generated

It was an argument that could have no resolution between these two men…

The following day, Elliot describes how the conversation continued between the two men with Churchill stating:

“Mr. President,” he cried, “I believe you are trying to do away with the British Empire. Every idea you entertain about the structure of the postwar world demonstrates it. But in spite of that”—and his forefinger waved—”in spite of that, we know that you constitute our only hope. And”—his voice sank dramatically—”you know that we know it. You know that we know that without America, the Empire won’t stand.”

Churchill admitted, in that moment, that he knew the peace could only be won according to precepts which the United States of America would lay down. And in saying what he did, he was acknowledging that British colonial policy would be a dead duck, and British attempts to dominate world trade would be a dead duck, and British ambitions to play off the U.S.S.R. against the U.S.A. would be a dead duck. Or would have been, if Father had lived.”

This story was delivered in full during an August 15 lecture by the author:

FDR’s Post-War Vision Destroyed

While FDR’s struggle did change the course of history, his early death during the first months of his fourth term resulted in a fascist perversion of his post-war vision.

Rather than see the IMF, World Bank or UN used as instruments for the internationalization of the New Deal principles to promote long term, low interest loans for the industrial development of former colonies, FDR’s allies were ousted from power over his dead body, and they were recaptured by the same forces who attempted to steer the world towards a Central Banking Dictatorship in 1933.

The American Liberty League spawned into various “patriotic” anti-communist organizations which took power with the FBI and McCarthyism under the fog of the Cold War. This is the structure that Eisenhower warned about when he called out “the Military Industrial Complex” in 1960 and which John Kennedy did battle with during his 900 days as president.

This is the structure which is out to destroy President Donald Trump and undo the November elections under a military coup and Civil War out of fear that a new FDR impulse is beginning to be revived in America which may align with the 21st Century international New Deal emerging from China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Eurasian alliance. French Finance Minister Bruno LeMaire and Marc Carney have stated their fear that if the Green New Deal isn’t imposed by the west, then the New Silk Road and yuan will become the basis for the new world system.

The Bank of England-authored Green New Deal being pushed under the fog of COVID-19’s Great Green Global Reset which promise to impose draconian constraints on humanity’s carrying capacity in defense of saving nature from humanity have nothing to do with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and they have less to do with the Bretton Woods conference of 1944. These are merely central bankers’ wet dreams for depopulation and fascism “with a democratic face” which their 1923 and 1933 efforts failed to achieve and can only be imposed if people remain blind to their own recent history.


Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , a BRI Expert on Tactical talk, and has authored 3 volumes of ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation

Greatest ‘sin’ of Lenin and Stalin

Greatest ‘sin’ of Lenin and Stalin

by Straight-Bat for the Saker Blog

1. Introduction

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 Land which 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.

[Link: http://thesaker.is/bridging-chinas-past-with-humanitys-future-part-2/ ]

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 ReichbankDawes 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.

[Link: http://gplanost.x-berg.de/gplanost.html ]

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:

[Link: http://thesaker.is/towards-a-new-dawn-of-collective-community-in-a-new-union/ ]

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.

An Indian by nationality, I believe in humanity.

Why empty can makes the most noise? Or how visible is hidden deep in invisible?

Why empty can makes the most noise? Or how visible is hidden deep in invisible?

August 11, 2020

Note by the Saker: I want to express my deepest gratitude to Zoran for taking up my (always standing) invitation to express a point of view different than the one expressed by Johnny-on-the-spot in Serbia.  And, just in case, I want to remind everybody that I take NO personal position on this issue.  I hope that with Zoran’s column we can now have a discussion of substantive issues even if we vehemently disagree with each other.  Kind regards, The Saker

by Zoran Petrov for The Saker Blog

I was also one who has sent complaints to Saker on reporting from Belgrade and the one who refused his request to write something about situation in Serbia. There are many reasons for my refusal – one of them is that I am a biodynamic farmer and right now is high season for us in the fields. But Saker´s open letter did make change of my mind! Even if it means being accused as one of “tyrant’s trolls and bots”.

In younger days I was deputy editor in chief of small Yugoslav weekly in Australia and one of the first rules for every journalist was to avoid in their articles attributes like the one in reporting from Belgrade – “Serbian tyrant”, “psychopath” or having statements like “the board of medical charlatans”, “illegitimate, fraudulently elected deputies” without giving argumentation for such statements. Or better to say – without substance.

Instead manipulative “the people of Belgrade” good journalist would write (small or large) group of people, huge crowd, etc. and poetic expressions like “Serbia has now sunk to the darkest depths of the Middle Ages…”, “it is the descent of a proud country and noble nation into the malodorous septic tank…” would never be printed…

But what is happening in Serbia? Although everything seems quite obvious to Johnny-on-the-spot in Belgrade, questions must be raised about true influences and powers play in Serbia.

Good starting point could be series of lectures given by Rudolf Steiner in 1916 and firstly published as “Karma of Untruthfulness “in 1948. Steiner gave many lectures on nature of political events of his time. Quite interesting is his remark in 1918 that “Russian revolution was a social experiment that will last 70 years”! There are nice insights in his lectures into events that happened before WWI and background info on real causes that led to WWI.

Macintosh HD:Users:katarinapetrov:Downloads:200px-Mehmed_talaat_pasja.jpg

Steiner claimed that there was quite obvious clear intention of secret Anglo-Saxon brotherhoods to destroy 4 empires based on strong religious impulses – German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman empire!

Back in 1893, an elusive Englishman named Charles George Harrison delivered a series of six lectures to the Berean Society, a London based association of Christian esotericists. Harrison, described as a “mysterious and unknown figure,” was an English occultist and Anglican Christian. In his second lecture Harrison spoke of “the next great European war” and of how the “national character” of the Slavic peoples would “enable them to carry out experiments in Socialism, political and economical, which would present innumerable difficulties in Western Europe.”[1]

These brotherhoods took active roles after WWI, from forming new states to establishing new borders like the one between Serbia and new countries of Hungary and Romania (free masons even published a book about how demarcation line was settled among them for newly established Yugoslavia). What is less known is their role in Ottoman empire destruction – major figures in Young Turk movement were at least Freemasons. The role of Dönmeh[2] members is quite intrigant and hard to follow due to their secrecy. The fact is that direct responsibility for Armenian genocide does not lay on some, of those days religious fanatic Al Kaida, but on western educated and western leaning, young Turks like Talaat Pasha (one of 4 feared Pashas) that ruled during last days of Ottoman Empire. Talaat Pasha comes from Dönmeh environment in Salonika, 33rd Scottisch Rite Freemason, minister of interior, etc., masterminded genocide of Armenian people. Today whole Turkish nation is blamed for this genocide! “Good thing” was Young Turks decision to turn Aja Sofia into museum as today is “bad thing” by Erdogan to turn in back into mosque!

With these hints in mind maybe we could start to check what is happening in Serbia right now! Is Serbia better place now then 8 years ago? I remember when several Serbian governments unsuccessfully tried to sell 2 black holes of Serbian budget – Bor copper mine[3] and Smederevo Foundry[4]. Roughly 500 millions of euros went to cover wages and maintenance costs of these two unproductive companies. No one wanted to buy any of these companies even when the sale for 1 euro for each of them (There was short episode with US company that bought Smederevo Steel Mill for 1 euro but returned it back to Serbian state after they melted surplus of tanks and artillery pieces from Serbian army)! During Vucic rule he managed to bring Chinese companies that paid good money for these companies with commitment to make further investments into modernization as well in environmental protection. Serbian state is minority shareholder and more importantly it has 500 euros more in annual budget!

Long overdue modernization of Serbian army did take place (but we are not going into this topic) and it might have some connection with interesting events:

1. in 2018 Chinese president XI and Vucic discussed possible purchase of FK3 (frankensteined S-300 and Patriot missile defence system);

2. in 2019 and 2020 Serbian solders took training in Russia on S-400 missile defence system;

3. in 2020 Russia brought S-400 missile defense system to Serbia for a joint military exercise.

4. This month it became public information that Serbia actually bought FK – 3 from China[5]

How do we connect all these dots, are Russians and Chinese so stupid to play Vucic games, Western puppet? Why would Serbian soldiers spend nearly 2 years in Russia on training how to use S-400 when government already bought FK-3!?

Even more interesting events took part in the last 60 days! But Johnny-on-the-spot in Belgrade, somehow overlooked it. Instead, of all 2 million something Belgrade citizens, he focused his attention on handful (at most 1000) active protestors?!

Chain of events started with sudden visit of FM Lavrov to Belgrade on 18th of June. After meeting with Lavrov, grim Vucic warned of “difficult times ahead”[6] :

1. protests started by small group of people (because “fraudulent election”) eventually swelled on one day to maybe 6-7000 people. But after violence by some, number of protestors decreased rapidly in the matter of 48 hours! Interestingly, police arrested young men from Ukraine and Turkmenistan (with Israel passports), from Great Britain, etc. fully prepared for fight with police.

It is hard to believe that security services in Serbia were not aware of preparation for protests. It could be even that Lavrov brought those information? It is obvious to me that firecracker was prematurely ignited (aikido scenario) and gave Vucic nice pretext for negotiation in Brussels to show his counterparts that he is not at peace at home because Kosovo but also to get some more space for maneuver after uncomfortable complete majority in Serbian parliament!

2. US mediated Serbia/Kosovo negotiation was postponed as a blow to Trump[7]

3. Brussels mediated Serbia/Kosovo negotiation came “back on track”[8] whatever it means.

4. Serbia contacted US to buy 20 bombers[9] but if US refuses it, Serbia will find someone else where to buy it (Russia).

5. Serbian army entered Kosovo in joint border with NATO KFOR[10]. Press statement from KFOR confirmed event adding that everything was in accordance with UN resolution 1244 and Kumanovo Agreement (The Military Technical Agreement signed between the International Security Force (KFOR) and the Governments of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Serbia) !?!?[11]

And, yes, Corona did something to Serbian government that started frantically to invest hundreds of millions of euros in health system of Serbia that was devastated during last 30 years. Many new hospitals are going to be built as a matter of urgency, complete restructuring of microbiological labs in Serbia, state owned Torlak (in older days major vaccine provider for Asia and Afrika) was resurrected amid claims that it was sold. Veil of silence was lifted and we know now that Torlak still produces influenza vaccine among others. State of art new labs were bought or donated from China…

So many news in so few days! Chess game is in full swing and we need good and thoughtful reports from Belgrade!

It is important to remember – when Vucic came to power he was immediately accused of being Western pawn that should finalize Kosovo independence. He might be a Western man in Serbia but he did not give Kosovo independence yet!

Notes:

  1. https://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/brothers-of-the-shadows-overlords-of-chaos 
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%B6nmeh 
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zijin_Bor_Copper 
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesteel_Serbia 
  5. https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/08/03/world/europe/03reuters-serbia-arms-china.html 
  6. http://rs.n1info.com/English/NEWS/a611225/Belgrade-additionally-worries-about-Kosovo-after-Moscow-s-estimatesBelgrade-additionally-worries-abo.html 
  7. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/world/europe/serbia-kosovo-trump-hashim-thaci.html 
  8. https://www.rferl.org/a/leaders-of-kosovo-serbia-to-hold-talks-in-eu-effort-to-reboot-dialogue/30721718.html 
  9. https://www.voanews.com/europe/serbia-seeks-purchase-more-warplanes-strengthen-its-armed-forces-potentially-russia 
  10. https://exit.al/en/2020/08/09/serbian-army-entered-kosovo-in-joint-border-patrol-with-natos-kfor-mission/ 
  11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumanovo_Agreement 

Woodrow Wilson’s Racism And His Support For Zionism

Source

by Lawrence Davidson 

Author - American Herald Tribune

Lawrence Davidson is professor of history emeritus at West Chester University in Pennsylvania.

He has been publishing his analyses of topics in U.S. domestic and foreign policy, international and humanitarian law and Israel/Zionist practices and policies since 2010.

Part I— Woodrow Wilson’s Racism

Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) was born in Staunton, Virginia, to Christian fundamentalist parents—his father was a Presbyterian minister—who supported the Confederacy during the Civil War. Thus, Wilson grew up and was educated in the segregated American South. This upbringing imbued him with both a literal interpretation of the Bible and a lifelong racist outlook which he brought with him to every position, every office he ever held. For instance, while he served as president of Princeton University (1902-1908), he refused to allow the university to admit African Americans. Despite his racist orientation, Princeton subsequently named a School of Public Policy and International Affairs, sub-colleges and buildings for Wilson. Today, in the wake of uprisings against not only police brutality toward African Americans and other minorities, but also America’s racist legacy, Princeton has removed Wilson’s name from these institutions and buildings. 

Wilson went on to become the 28th president of the United States (1913-1921). He led the United States into World War I, was instrumental in the founding of the League of Nations, appointed the first Jewish member of the Supreme Court and, notably, facilitated the eventual establishment of a “Jewish national home” in Palestine through his support for the Balfour Declaration (1917). At the time he remarked, “To think that I, son of the manse [minister’s house], should be able to help restore the Holy Land to its people.” Subsequently, this decision made him as much a hero to Zionists, and American Zionists in particular, as he was a villain to African Americans. 

Part II—The Zionist Dilemma

Given today’s reaction against the country’s historical racism, American Jews’ understanding of Wilson’s legacy is being debated. The challenge for Zionists is to save Wilson’s heroic image without totally disregarding his racist record. An attempt to do just that came in an essay, recently published on 2 July 2020, in the American Jewish newspaper the ForwardThe essay is entitled “Woodrow Wilson was a hero to Jews. What should we do with his racism?” and was written by Jonathan D. Sarna, a Brandeis University professor of American Jewish history.

Sarna notes both facets of Wilson’s career. On the one hand “The Jews of his day considered Wilson a hero and a savior, a man of principle and ethical uprightness.” On the other, African Americans “learn a totally different narrative” wherein “Wilson … staunchly defended segregation and characterized Blacks as an ‘ignorant and inferior race.’” 

Sarna seeks to square this circle by retreating to a frankly banal apologia: ”Many a flawed hero accomplished great deeds and changed the institutions and nations they led for the better. … They remind us that good people can do very bad things — and vice versa.” This is poor consolation for African Americans. It also turns out to be a shaky basis for Jewish admiration of Wilson. This is so because the alleged good Woodrow Wilson did for the Jews—his support for the Balfour Declaration—was based on the same racist foundation shaping his behavior toward African Americans.  

Part III—Wilson Supports the Balfour Declaration

What is the connection between Wilson’s racism and his support for the Balfour Declaration? The president was a European race supremacist, or what today would be called a “white supremacist.” As he saw it, African Americans were not the only “ignorant and inferior race” out there. All the non-European peoples, such as those of the Ottoman Empire, including Palestinians, qualified for this designation.

On 8 January 1918, in the run-up to America’s entrance into World War I, President Wilson announced his “Fourteen Points.” These were the nation’s war aims—notions around which to rally the American people. A major theme that runs throughout these “points” is the promise of self-determination for peoples then under the rule of the enemy Central Powers: Germany, Austria and the Ottoman Empire. Referring specifically to the last-mentioned, point twelve reads, “The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development.”

Such a promise, of course, included the Arabs of the Ottoman province of Greater Syria, which in turn included Palestine and its indigenous population. This pledge might seem to conflict with Wilson’s racist outlook, but one has to keep in mind that point twelve was meant as a propaganda piece in support of the broader claim that America was joining a war to make the world safe for democracy. As a vehicle for arousing the enthusiasm of the American people, it was effective. However, it transformed itself into something problematic as soon as Wilson got to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. U.S. allies Britain and France wanted to incorporate most of the Ottoman lands, which they considered the spoils of war, into their own existing empires, and so objected to point twelve. 

Because of his European supremacist point of view, Wilson really had no deep objections to this expansion. The question was how to go along with his allies’ wishes while still appearing to honor the Fourteen Points. He achieved this goal in a way that also meshed with his racist worldview. He and his allies established the Mandate System. Real self-determination was now to be reserved for the European peoples previously belonging to the German, Austrian and Russian empires. For instance, Poland and Serbia, among others, were to be “accorded the freest opportunity for autonomous development.” Non-European peoples were  viewed as unprepared for this reward. They were to be placed under the tutelage of a “mandatory power,” which in the case of most of the Arab lands meant either Britain or France. Such imperial powers, in turn, were to instruct these inferior peoples in the art of self-government. It should come as no surprise that Palestine was given over to the British as a “mandate territory.” Indeed, the Balfour Declaration was incorporated into the preamble and second article of the mandate document for Palestine.  

Part IV—Back to Sarna’s Suggestion

Woodrow Wilson supported the Balfour Declaration because he was a Christian fundamentalist who believed that God desired the Jews, whom Wilson understood to have been civilized through long residence in the West, to “return to their ancient home.” The instruments for that return were the Balfour Declaration and the British mandate. The Palestinians were not even relevant to the issue for Wilson.

Given this history, what do we learn when, as Sarna suggests, we “probe more deeply into [our hero’s] flaws”?

—It is now recognized that Wilson’s major flaw was his racist worldview and the behavior that flowed from it.

—This racism was the basis of his mistreatment of African Americans.

—As it turns out, that same racist outlook was part of the basis for his support of the Balfour Declaration—the very act that makes Wilson a hero for both past and present Zionists. 

Now we come to the second part of Sarna’s suggestion, that an examination of the hero’s flaws “invites us to think harder about our own flaws.” What are the resulting implications of such a self-examination for today’s Zionists?

—What sort of flaw in ourselves should an examination of Woodrow Wilson bring Zionist Jews to consider?

—The fact is that contemporary Israeli Jewish and Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinians in many ways mimic those of Woodrow Wilson toward African Americans. 

—If we are to consider Wilson’s racism a flaw from which Jews too can learn, the consequence must be a reconsideration of the inherently racist Zionist attitudes and policies toward the Palestinians.

I do not know if Jonathan Sarna really meant to inspire a serious assessment of Israel’s and Zionism’s flaws through the reexamination of those of their champion, Woodrow Wilson. However, such an assessment would certainly reveal a shared racism. Wilson never ceased to be a racist and, at least since 1917, the Zionists have been following his “heroic” model. How many of them can be counted upon to take up Sarna’s suggestion and look into this shared historical mirror in any honest way?

آن الأوان للتوجّه شرقاً والتحرّر من التبعيّة الاقتصاديّة العمياء للغرب ‏

د. عصام نعمان

يغزو الغرب بلدان المشرق العربي منذ منتصف القرن التاسع عشر. يفعل ذلك بالسياسة والتجارة والثقافة والعسكر. آل إليه ميراث بني عثمان في أعقاب الحرب العالمية الأولى 1914-1918 فتقاسمته أقوى دُوَله آنذاك، فرنسا وبريطانيا، على نحوٍ باتت معه بلاد الشام أربعة كيانات: لبنان وسورية والأردن وفلسطين.

بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية 1939-1945 آلت قيادة الغرب إلى الولايات المتحدة الأميركية فشاركت دُوَله الاستعمارية التليدة المصالحَ والموارد والنفوذ وزرعت في قلب المشرق، فلسطين، كياناً لليهود الصهاينة آخذاً بالتوسع والتمدّد حتى كاد يسيطر على كامل فلسطين التاريخية ناهيك عن أراضٍ وحواضر في سورية ولبنان ووادي الأردن وسيناء.

سورية تحرّرت، منذ أواسط خمسينيات القرن الماضي، من سيطرة الغرب سياسياً واقتصادياً وعسكرياً واستحصلت من روسيا (السوفياتية آنذاك) قرضاً وازناً لبناء سدّ الفرات.

لبنان ظلّ خاضعاً للغرب على جميع المستويات. مردُّ ذلك تجذّرُ ثقافة الغرب لدى نخباته السياسية وأوساطه المستنيرة بفضل شيوع مدارس وجامعات أجنبية كثيرة تعهّدت على مدى قرنين أجيالاً متعاقبة من الطلاب، وبفعل علاقات راسخة من التبادل التجاري بين لبنان ودول أوروبا محورها تجارةُ الحرير (نفط ذلك الزمان) ونجاح اللبنانيين المتمرّسين باللغات الفرنسية والإنكليزية والالمانية والإيطالية في تقديم خدمات الوساطة بين مؤسسات الغرب الأوروبي والكيانات السياسية والإقتصادية في شتى بلدان المشرق العربي.

غير أنّ الظاهرة اللافتة في تاريخ لبنان المعاصر اقترانُ نظامه السياسي الذي ابتناه الفرنسيون منذ مطالع عشرينيات القرن الماضي بنظام الاقتصاد الحر المتفلّت من ايّ رقابة او ضوابط حكومية او أهلية رادعة. والمفارقة أنّ محاولات الإصلاح تركّزت في غالب الأحيان على النظام السياسي ولم تقارب النظام الاقتصادي الذي تمتع دائماً بشبه قدسيّة حمته من ضراوة معارضيه.

نظام اقتصادي هذه مواصفاته وممارساته المتفلّتة من اي رقابة او محاسبة كان لا بدّ من أن يتصدّع تحت وطأة الديون والخسائر والمخالفات والفضائح التي تكشّفت أخيراً. اليوم يجد اللبنانيون، مسؤولين ومواطنين، أنفسهم أمام مشهد انهيار اقتصادي ومالي مريع.

ازدادت الأزمة الراهنة تفاقماً بعجز المنظومة الحاكمة عن التوافق على أسسٍ ونهجٍ لمقاربة المؤسسات الدولية، لا سيما صندوق النقد الدولي، بغية الحصول على قروض وتسهيلات مالية تساعد الحكومة على معالجة الازمة في مختلف وجوهها وانعكاساتها. وكان الأمر على فداحته ليهون لولا انّ إدارة ترامب بادرت، في توقيت مريب، الى مباشرة تطبيق أحكام «قانون قيصر» الرامي الى محاصرة سورية وفرض عقوبات قاسية عليها وعلى المتعاملين والمتعاونين معها في شتّى الميادين.

لعلّ لبنان أشدّ المتضرّرين من تنفيذ هذا القانون الجائر لكون سورية تحيط به من جميع الجهات تقريباً، ولأنّ البلدين يتبادلان، بوتيرة يومية، مختلف أنواع السلع والخدمات والمقايضات، ليس أقلها أنّ سورية تزوّد لبنان بنحو 200 ميغاوات من التيار الكهربائي التي لولاها لعمّت العتمة الكثير من مناطقه.

إزاء تفاقم الأزمة وعجز الحكومة، ومن ورائها المنظومة الحاكمة، عن إيجاد حلول ناجعة لبعض جوانبها الأكثر تأثيراً في معيشة المواطنين، دعا رئيس الجمهورية العماد ميشال عون الى لقاءٍ في قصر الرئاسة يوم الخميس المقبل للتشاور مع وبين رؤساء الجمهورية السابقين، ورؤساء الحكومة السابقين، ورؤساء الكتل النيابية في الوضع الراهن وفي ما يقتضي اتخاذه من تدابير لوقف التدهور الاقتصادي والمالي وتطويق الاحتقان الطائفي والاجتماعي.

ليس أكيداً انّ جميع المدعوّين سيلبّون دعوة رئيس الجمهورية. حتى لو فعلوا وشاركوا في اللقاء، فإنّ ما قد يتوصّلون اليه من مقترحات وتوصيات لن يقدّم ولن يؤخّر، إذ لا يمكن، بل لا يجوز، التعويل عليه لسبب بسيط هو انّ المسؤولين، مباشرةً او مداورةً، عن انحدار الدولة الى ما هي عليه من فساد ونهب للمال العام وفضائح وإهدار وتفكك وفوضى لا يُعقل أن يُطلب الى المرتكبين إصلاح أخطائهم وخطاياهم وأن يكون في مقدورهم أصلاً القيام بالمطلوب.

ذلك كله يجب ان يحفّز القوى الوطنية الحيّة، بكل ألوانها وأشكالها، على التلاقي لعقد مؤتمر وطني، بالسرعة الممكنة، يضمّ ممثلي الهيئات والنقابات والفاعليات الشعبية المتضرّرة من أفاعيل المنظومة الحاكمة وأفرعها داخل السلطة وخارجها من أجل الاتفاق على برنامج عمل لتحرير البلاد والعباد من التبعية العمياء، السياسية والاقتصادية، للغرب كما للاتفاق على النهج الواجب اعتماده للخروج من الأزمة المالية والاقتصادية الراهنة وذلك باتخاذ المبادرات الآتية:

أولاً، تفعيل الانتفاضة الشعبية وتركيزها على المتطلبات المعيشية الحياتية، وضرورة إنشاء محكمة خاصة متفرّغة لمحاكمة الفاسدين وناهبي الأموال العامة، ووقف الهدر والإنفاق غير المجدي بإلغاء المصالح والصناديق الحكومية التي انتهت مهامها وباتت مأوى وملاذاً لتعيين المحاسيب والأزلام.

ثانياً، التوجّه شرقاً الى الصين التي تعرض تمويل وتنفيذ رزمة مشاريع إنمائية تتعلق بتطوير مرفأي بيروت وطرابلس وربطهما بخط سكة حديد يصل الى بغداد، وإنشاء خطوط سكك حديد سريعة من العريضة شمال طرابلس الى الناقورة جنوب صور، وتنفيذ وتشغيل معامل كهرباء وشبكات نقل لتوفير الكهرباء بصورة مستدامة، وإنشاء وتشغيل نفق ضهر البيدر إلخ… كما من الضروري أيضاً الانفتاح على سائر الدول والمؤسسات الأممية التي يمكنها تمويل وتنفيذ مشاريع إنمائية مماثلة.

ثالثاً، الضغط على الحكومة لإنشاء هيئة وطنية من شخصيات واختصاصيين من ذوي الخبرة والرؤية مهمتها تقديم خطة وبرنامج لإلغاء الطائفية السياسية، ومشروع قانون للانتخابات يكفل صحة التمثيل الشعبي وعدالته وإحالته على مجلس النواب لإقراره، وإذا امتنع يُصار إلى عرضه على استفتاء شعبي لإجازته الأمر الذي يشكل خطوة ثورية دستورية تنقل لبنان من الجمهورية الأولى المترهّلة الى جمهورية ثانية شابة مدنية وديمقراطية.

آن أوان الانتقال من حلاوة الأقوال الى صلابة الأفعال.

75th Anniversary of the Great Victory: Shared Responsibility to History and our Future

Source

75th Anniversary of the Great Victory: Shared Responsibility to History and our Future

June 18, 2020

Mr Putin wrote a comprehensive history on the 2ndWW, which surprisingly first appeared in the The National Interest and released today.  This writing leads to a further support for the request that Mr Xi Jinping, Mr Macron, Mr Trump and Mr Johnson – gather together to to hold a meeting of the leaders of the five nuclear-weapon states, permanent members of the Security Council, with the focus being: ” a solid basis for successful negotiations and concerted action for the sake of enhancing the stability and security on the planet, for the sake of prosperity and well-being of all states. ”

Controversy is beginning to show .. with Foreign Policy saying he is rewriting history and the Moscow Times describing it as “Putin’s Latest Obsession: A New World War II Narrative”


from http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/63527

75 years have passed since the end of the Great Patriotic War. Several generations have grown up over the years. The political map of the planet has changed. The Soviet Union that claimed an epic, crushing victory over Nazism and saved the entire world is gone. Besides, the events of that war have long become a distant memory, even for its participants. So why does Russia celebrate the 9th of May as the biggest holiday? Why does life almost come to a halt on June 22? And why does one feel a lump rise in their throat?

They usually say that the war has left a deep imprint on every family’s history. Behind these words, there are fates of millions of people, their sufferings and the pain of loss. Behind these words, there is also the pride, the truth and the memory.

For my parents, the war meant the terrible ordeals of the Siege of Leningrad where my two-year old brother Vitya died. It was the place where my mother miraculously managed to survive. My father, despite being exempt from active duty, volunteered to defend his hometown. He made the same decision as millions of Soviet citizens. He fought at the Nevsky Pyatachok bridgehead and was severely wounded. And the more years pass, the more I feel the need to talk to my parents and learn more about the war period of their lives. But I no longer have the opportunity to do so. This is the reason why I treasure in my heart the conversations I had with my father and mother on this subject, as well as the little emotion they showed.

People of my age and I believe it is important that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren understand the torment and hardships their ancestors had to endure. They need to understand how their ancestors managed to persevere and win. Where did their sheer, unbending willpower that amazed and fascinated the whole world come from? Sure, they were defending their homes, children, loved ones and families. However, what they shared was the love for their homeland, their Motherland. That deep-seated, intimate feeling is fully reflected in the very essence of our nation and became one of the decisive factors in its heroic, sacrificial fight against the Nazis.

People often wonder: What would today’s generation do? How will it act when faced with a crisis situation? I see young doctors, nurses, sometimes fresh graduates that go to the ”red zone“ to save lives. I see our servicemen fighting international terrorism in the North Caucasus, fighting to the bitter end in Syria. They are so young. Many servicemen who were part of the legendary, immortal 6th Paratroop Company were 19–20 years old. But all of them proved that they deserved to inherit the feat of the warriors of our Motherland that defended it during the Great Patriotic War.

This is why I am confident that one of the characteristic features of the peoples of Russia is to fulfil their duty without feeling sorry for themselves when the circumstances so demand. Such values as selflessness, patriotism, love for their home, their family and Fatherland remain fundamental and integral to the Russian society to this day. These values are, to a large extent, the backbone of our country’s sovereignty.

Nowadays, we have new traditions created by the people, such as the Immortal Regiment. This is the memory march that symbolises our gratitude, as well as the living connection and the blood ties between generations. Millions of people come out to the streets carrying the photographs of their relatives who defended their Fatherland and defeated the Nazis. This means that their lives, the ordeals and sacrifices they endured, as well as the Victory that they passed to us will never be forgotten.

We have a responsibility to our past and our future to do our utmost to prevent those horrible tragedies from happening ever again. Hence, I was compelled to come out with an article about World War II and the Great Patriotic War. I have discussed this idea on several occasions with world leaders, and they have showed their support. At the summit of CIS leaders held at the end of last year, we all agreed on one thing: it is essential to pass on to future generations the memory of the fact that the Nazis were defeated first and foremost by the entire Soviet people and that representatives of all republics of the Soviet Union fought side by side together in that heroic battle, both on the frontlines and in the rear. During that summit, I also talked with my counterparts about the challenging pre-war period.

That conversation caused a stir in Europe and the world. It means that it is indeed high time that we revisited the lessons of the past. At the same time, there were many emotional outbursts, poorly disguised insecurities and loud accusations that followed. Acting out of habit, certain politicians rushed to claim that Russia was trying to rewrite history. However, they failed to rebut a single fact or refute a single argument. It is indeed difficult, if not impossible, to argue with the original documents that, by the way, can be found not only in Russian, but also in foreign archives.

Thus, there is a need to further examine the reasons that caused the world war and reflect on its complicated events, tragedies and victories, as well as its lessons, both for our country and the entire world. And like I said, it is crucial to rely exclusively on archive documents and contemporary evidence while avoiding any ideological or politicised speculations.

I would like to once again recall the obvious fact. The root causes of World War II mainly stem from the decisions made after World War I. The Treaty of Versailles became a symbol of grave injustice for Germany. It basically implied that the country was to be robbed, being forced to pay enormous reparations to the Western allies that drained its economy. French Marshal Ferdinand Foch who served as the Supreme Allied Commander gave a prophetic description of that Treaty: “This is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years.”

It was the national humiliation that became a fertile ground for radical and revenge-seeking sentiments in Germany. The Nazis skilfully played on people’s emotions and built their propaganda promising to deliver Germany from the “legacy of Versailles” and restore the country to its former power while essentially pushing German people into war. Paradoxically, the Western states, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States, directly or indirectly contributed to this. Their financial and industrial enterprises actively invested in German factories and plants manufacturing military products. Besides, many people in the aristocracy and political establishment supported radical, far-right and nationalist movements that were on the rise both in Germany and in Europe.

“Versailles world order” caused numerous implicit controversies and apparent conflicts. They revolved around the borders of new European states randomly set by the victors in World War I. That boundary delimitation was almost immediately followed by territorial disputes and mutual claims that turned into “time bombs”.

One of the major outcomes of World War I was the establishment of the League of Nations. There were high expectations for that international organisation to ensure lasting peace and collective security. It was a progressive idea that, if followed through consistently, could actually prevent the horrors of a global war from happening again.

However, the League of Nations dominated by the victorious powers of France and the United Kingdom proved ineffective and just got swamped by pointless discussions. The League of Nations and the European continent in general turned a deaf ear to the repeated calls of the Soviet Union to establish an equitable collective security system, and sign an Eastern European pact and a Pacific pact to prevent aggression. These proposals were disregarded.

The League of Nations also failed to prevent conflicts in various parts of the world, such as the attack of Italy on Ethiopia, a civil war in Spain, the Japanese aggression against China and the Anschluss of Austria. Furthermore, in case of the Munich Betrayal that, in addition to Hitler and Mussolini, involved British and French leaders, Czechoslovakia was taken apart with the full approval of the League of Nations. I would like to point out in this regard that, unlike many other European leaders of that time, Stalin did not disgrace himself by meeting with Hitler who was known among the Western nations as quite a reputable politician and was a welcome guest in the European capitals.

Poland was also engaged in the partition of Czechoslovakia along with Germany. They decided together in advance who would get what Czechoslovak territories. On September 20, 1938, Polish Ambassador to Germany Józef Lipski reported to Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland Józef Beck on the following assurances made by Hitler: “…in case of a conflict between Poland and Czechoslovakia over our interests in Teschen, the Reich would stand by Poland.” The Nazi leader even prompted and advised that Poland started to act “only after the Germans occupy the Sudetes.”

Poland was aware that without Hitler’s support, its annexationist plans were doomed to fail. I would like to quote in this regard a record of the conversation between German Ambassador to Warsaw Hans-Adolf von Moltke and Józef Beck that took place on October 1, 1938, and was focused on the Polish-Czech relations and the position of the Soviet Union in this matter. It says: “Mr Beck expressed real gratitude for the loyal treatment accorded to Polish interests at the Munich conference, as well as the sincerity of relations during the Czech conflict. The Government and the public [of Poland] fully appreciated the attitude of the Fuehrer and Chancellor.”

The partition of Czechoslovakia was brutal and cynical. Munich destroyed even the formal, fragile guarantees that remained on the continent. It showed that mutual agreements were worthless. It was the Munich Betrayal that served as the “trigger” and made the great war in Europe inevitable.

Today, European politicians, and Polish leaders in particular, wish to sweep the Munich Betrayal under the carpet. Why? The fact that their countries once broke their commitments and supported the Munich Betrayal, with some of them even participating in divvying up the take, is not the only reason. Another is that it is kind of embarrassing to recall that during those dramatic days of 1938, the Soviet Union was the only one to stand up for Czechoslovakia.

The Soviet Union, in accordance with its international obligations, including agreements with France and Czechoslovakia, tried to prevent the tragedy from happening. Meanwhile, Poland, in pursuit of its interests, was doing its utmost to hamper the establishment of a collective security system in Europe. Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Józef Beck wrote about it directly in his letter of September 19, 1938 to the aforementioned Ambassador Józef Lipski before his meeting with Hitler: “…in the past year, the Polish government rejected four times the proposal to join the international interfering in defence of Czechoslovakia.”

Britain, as well as France, which was at the time the main ally of the Czechs and Slovaks, chose to withdraw their guarantees and abandon this Eastern European country to its fate. In so doing, they sought to direct the attention of the Nazis eastward so that Germany and the Soviet Union would inevitably clash and bleed each other white.

That was the essence of the western policy of ‘appeasement,’ which was pursued not only towards the Third Reich but also towards other participants of the so-called Anti-Comintern Pact – the fascist Italy and militarist Japan. In the Far East, this policy culminated in the conclusion of the Anglo-Japanese agreement in the summer of 1939, which gave Tokyo a free hand in China. The leading European powers were unwilling to recognise the mortal danger posed by Germany and its allies to the whole world. They were hoping that they themselves would be left untouched by the war.

The Munich Betrayal showed to the Soviet Union that the Western countries would deal with security issues without taking its interests into account. In fact, they could even create an anti-Soviet front, if needed.

Nevertheless, the Soviet Union did its utmost to use every chance to create an Anti-Hitler coalition. Despite – I will say it again – the double‑dealing on the part of the Western countries. For instance, the intelligence services reported to the Soviet leadership detailed information on the behind-the-scenes contacts between Britain and Germany in the summer of 1939. The important thing is that those contacts were quite active and practically coincided with the tripartite negotiations between France, Great Britain and the USSR, which were, on the contrary, deliberately protracted by the Western partners. In this connection, I will cite a document from the British archives. It contains instructions to the British military mission that came to Moscow in August 1939. It directly states that the delegation was to proceed with negotiations very slowly, and that the Government of the United Kingdom was not ready to assume any obligations spelled out in detail and limiting their freedom of action under any circumstances. I will also note that, unlike the British and French delegations, the Soviet delegation was headed by top commanders of the Red Army, who had the necessary authority to “sign a military convention on the organisation of military defence of England, France and the USSR against aggression in Europe.”

Poland played its role in the failure of those negotiations as it did not want to have any obligations to the Soviet side. Even under pressure from their Western allies, the Polish leadership rejected the idea of joint action with the Red Army to fight against the Wehrmacht. It was only when they learned of the arrival of J. Ribbentrop to Moscow that J. Beck reluctantly and not directly, but through French diplomats, notified the Soviet side: “… in the event of joint action against the German aggression, cooperation between Poland and the Soviet Union, subject to technical conditions which have to be agreed, is not out of the question.” At the same time, he explained to his colleagues: “… I agreed to this wording only for the sake of the tactics, and our core position in relation to the Soviet Union is final and remains unchanged.”

In these circumstances, the Soviet Union signed the Non-Aggression Pact with Germany. It was practically the last among the European countries to do so. Besides, it was done in the face of a real threat of war on two fronts – with Germany in the west and with Japan in the east, where intense fighting on the Khalkhin Gol River was already underway.

Stalin and his entourage, indeed, deserve many legitimate accusations. We remember the crimes committed by the regime against its own people and the horror of mass repressions. In other words, there are many things the Soviet leaders can be reproached for, but poor understanding of the nature of external threats is not one of them. They saw how attempts were made to leave the Soviet Union alone to deal with Germany and its allies. Bearing in mind this real threat, they sought to buy precious time needed to strengthen the country’s defences.

Nowadays, we hear lots of speculations and accusations against modern Russia in connection with the Non-Aggression Pact signed back then. Yes, Russia is the legal successor state to the USSR, and the Soviet period – with all its triumphs and tragedies – is an inalienable part of our thousand-year-long history. However, let me also remind you that the Soviet Union gave a legal and moral assessment of the so-called Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. The Supreme Soviet in its resolution of December 24, 1989 officially denounced the secret protocols as “an act of personal power” which in no way reflected “the will of the Soviet people who bear no responsibility for this collusion.”

Yet other states prefer to forget the agreements carrying signatures of the Nazis and Western politicians, not to mention giving legal or political assessments of such cooperation, including the silent acquiescence – or even direct abetment – of some European politicians in the barbarous plans of the Nazis. It will suffice to remember the cynical phrase said by Polish Ambassador to Germany J. Lipski during his conversation with Hitler on September 20, 1938: “…for solving the Jewish problem, we [the Poles] will build in his honour … a splendid monument in Warsaw.”

Besides, we do not know if there were any secret “protocols” or annexes to agreements of a number of countries with the Nazis. The only thing that is left to do is to take their word for it. In particular, materials pertaining to the secret Anglo-German talks still have not been declassified. Therefore, we urge all states to step up the process of making their archives public and publishing previously unknown documents of the war and pre-war periods – the way Russia has been doing it in recent years. In this context, we are ready for broad cooperation and joint research projects engaging historians.

But let us go back to the events immediately preceding the Second World War. It was naïve to believe that Hitler, once done with Czechoslovakia, would not make new territorial claims. This time the claims involved its recent accomplice in the partition of Czechoslovakia – Poland. Here, the legacy of Versailles, particularly the fate of the so-called Danzig Corridor, was yet again used as the pretext. The blame for the tragedy that Poland then suffered lies entirely with the Polish leadership, which had impeded the formation of a military alliance between Britain, France and the Soviet Union and relied on the help from its Western partners, throwing its own people under the steamroller of Hitler’s machine of destruction.

The German offensive was mounted in full accordance with the blitzkrieg doctrine. Despite the fierce, heroic resistance of the Polish army, on September 8, 1939 – only a week after the war broke out – the German troops were on the approaches to Warsaw. By September 17, the military and political leaders of Poland had fled to Romania, betraying its people, who continued to fight against the invaders.

Poland’s hope for help from its Western allies was vain. After the war against Germany was declared, the French troops advanced only a few tens of kilometres deep into the German territory. All of it looked like a mere demonstration of vigorous action. Moreover, the Anglo-French Supreme War Council, holding its first meeting on September 12, 1939 in the French city of Abbeville, decided to call off the offensive altogether in view of the rapid developments in Poland. That was when the infamous Phony War started. What Britain and France did was a blatant betrayal of their obligations to Poland.

Later, during the Nuremberg Trials, German generals explained their quick success in the East. Former Chief of the Operations Staff of the German Armed Forces High Command 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.”

I asked for retrieval from the archives of the whole body of materials pertaining to the contacts between the USSR and Germany in the dramatic days of August and September 1939. According to the documents, paragraph 2 of the Secret Protocol to the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of August 23, 1939 stated that, in the event of territorial-political reorganisation of the districts making up the Polish state, the border between the spheres of interest of the two countries would run “approximately along the Narew, Vistula and San rivers.” In other words, the Soviet sphere of influence included not only the territories that were mostly home to Ukrainian and Belorussian population but also the historically Polish lands in the Vistula and Bug interfluve. This fact is known to very few these days.

Similarly, very few know that, immediately after the attack on Poland, in the early days of September 1939, Berlin strongly and repeatedly called on Moscow to join the military action. However, the Soviet leadership ignored those calls and planned to avoid engaging in the dramatic developments as long as possible.

It was only when it became absolutely clear that Great Britain and France were not going to help their ally and the Wehrmacht could swiftly occupy entire Poland and thus appear on the approaches to Minsk that the Soviet Union decided to send in, on the morning of September 17, Red Army units into the so-called Eastern Borderlines (Kresy), which nowadays form part of the territories of Belorussia, Ukraine and Lithuania.

Obviously, there was no alternative. Otherwise, the USSR would face seriously increased risks because – I will say this again – the old Soviet-Polish border ran only within a few tens of kilometres from Minsk. The country would have to enter the inevitable war with the Nazis from very disadvantageous strategic positions, while millions of people of different nationalities, including the Jews living near Brest and Grodno, Przemyśl, Lvov and Wilno, would be left to die at the hands of the Nazis and their local accomplices – anti-Semites and radical nationalists.

The fact that the Soviet Union sought to avoid engaging in the growing conflict for as long as possible and was unwilling to fight side by side with Germany was the reason why the real contact between the Soviet and the German troops occurred much farther east than the borders agreed in the secret protocol. It was not on the Vistula River but closer to the so-called Curzon Line, which back in 1919 was recommended by the Triple Entente as the eastern border of Poland.

As is known, the subjunctive mood can hardly be used when we speak of the past events. I will only say that, in September 1939, the Soviet leadership had an opportunity to move the western borders of the USSR even farther west, all the way to Warsaw, but decided against it.

The Germans suggested formalising the new status quo. On September 28, 1939 J. Ribbentrop and V. Molotov signed in Moscow the Boundary and Friendship Treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union, as well as the secret protocol on changing the state border, according to which the border was recognised at the demarcation line where the two armies de-facto stood.

In autumn 1939, the Soviet Union, pursuing its strategic military and defensive goals, started the process of incorporation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Their accession to the USSR was implemented on a contractual basis, with the consent of the elected authorities. This was in line with international and state law of that time. Besides, in October 1939, the city of Wilno and the surrounding area, which had previously been part of Poland, were returned to Lithuania. The Baltic republics within the USSR preserved their government bodies, language, and had representation in the higher government entities of the Soviet Union.

During all these months there was an ongoing invisible diplomatic and politico-military struggle and intelligence work. Moscow understood that it was facing a fierce and cruel enemy, and that a covert war against Nazism was already going on. And there was no reason to take official statements and formal protocol notes of that time as a proof of ‘friendship’ between the USSR and Germany. The Soviet Union had active trade and technical contacts not only with Germany, but with other countries as well. Whereas Hitler tried again and again to draw the Soviet Union into Germany’s confrontation with the UK. But the Soviet government stood firm.

The last attempt to persuade the USSR to act together was made by Hitler during Molotov’s visit to Berlin in November 1940. But Molotov accurately followed Stalin’s instructions and limited himself to a general discussion of the German idea of the Soviet Union joining the Tripartite Pact signed by Germany, Italy and Japan in September 1940 and directed against the UK and the USA. No wonder that already on November 17 Molotov gave the following instructions to Soviet plenipotentiary representative in London Ivan Maisky: “For your information…No agreement was signed or was intended to be signed in Berlin. We just exchanged our views in Berlin…and that was all…Apparently, the Germans and the Japanese seem anxious to push us towards the Gulf and India. We declined the discussion of this matter as we consider such advice on the part of Germany to be inappropriate.” And on November 25, the Soviet leadership called it a day altogether by officially putting forward to Berlin the conditions that were unacceptable to the Nazis, including the withdrawal of German troops from Finland, mutual assistance treaty between Bulgaria and the USSR, and a number of others. Thus it deliberately excluded any possibility of joining the Pact. Such position definitely shaped the Fuehrer’s intention to unleash a war against the USSR. And already in December, putting aside the warnings of his strategists about the disastrous danger of having a two-front war, Hitler approved Operation Barbarossa. He did this with the knowledge that the Soviet Union was the major force that opposed him in Europe and that the upcoming battle in the East would decide the outcome of the world war. And he had no doubts as to the swiftness and success of the Moscow campaign.

And here I would like to highlight the following: Western countries, as a matter of fact, agreed at that time with the Soviet actions and recognised the Soviet Union’s intention to ensure its national security. Indeed, back on October 1, 1939 Winston Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty back then, in his speech on the radio said, “Russia has pursued a cold policy of self-interest… But that the Russian Armies should stand on this line [meaning the new Western border] was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace.” On October 4, 1939, speaking in the House of Lords, Britain’s Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax said, “…it should be recalled that 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.” Prominent British politician and statesman David Lloyd George emphasised, “The Russian Armies occupied the territories that are not Polish and that were forcibly seized by Poland after World War I … It would be an act of criminal insanity to put the Russian advancement on a par with the German one.“

In informal communications with Soviet plenipotentiary representative Ivan Maisky, British high-ranking politicians and diplomats spoke even more openly. On October 17, 1939, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs R. A. Butler confided to him that the British government circles believed there could be no question of returning Western Ukraine and Belorussia to Poland. According to him, if it had been possible to create an ethnographic Poland of a modest size with a guarantee not only of the USSR and Germany, but also of Britain and France, the British government would have considered itself quite satisfied. On October 27, 1939, Neville Chamberlain’s senior advisor Horace Wilson said that Poland had to be restored as an independent state on its ethnographic basis, but without Western Ukraine and Belorussia.

It is worth noting that in the course of these conversations the possibilities for improving British-Soviet relations were also explored. These contacts to a large extent laid the foundation for future alliance and Anti-Hitler coalition. Winston Churchill stood out among responsible and far-sighted politicians and, despite his infamous dislike for the USSR, had been in favour of cooperating with the Soviets even before. Back in May 1939, he said in the House of Commons, “We shall be in mortal danger if we fail to create a Grand Alliance against aggression. The worst folly… would be to… drive away any natural cooperation with Soviet Russia…” And after the start of hostilities in Europe, at his meeting with Ivan Maisky on October 6, 1939 he confided that there were no serious contradictions between the UK and the USSR and, therefore, there was no reason for strained or unsatisfactory relations. He also mentioned that the British government was eager to develop trade relations and willing to discuss any other measures that might improve the relationships.

World War II did not happen overnight, nor did it start unexpectedly or all of a sudden. And German aggression against Poland was not out of nowhere. It was the result of a number of tendencies and factors in the world politics of that time. All pre-war events fell into place to form one fatal chain. But, undoubtedly, the main factors that predetermined the greatest tragedy in the history of mankind were state egoism, cowardice, appeasement of the aggressor who was gaining strength, and unwillingness of political elites to search for compromise.

Therefore, it is unfair to claim that the two-day visit to Moscow of Nazi Foreign Minister J. Ribbentrop was the main reason for the start of World War II. All the leading countries are to a certain extent responsible for its outbreak. Each of them made fatal mistakes, arrogantly believing that they could outsmart others, secure unilateral advantages for themselves or stay away from the impending global catastrophe. And this short-sightedness, the refusal to create a collective security system cost millions of lives and tremendous losses.

Saying this, I by no means intend to take on the role of a judge, to accuse or acquit anyone, let alone initiate a new round of international information confrontation in the historical field that could set countries and peoples at loggerheads. I believe that it is academics with a wide representation of respected scholars from different countries of the world who should search for a balanced assessment of what happened. We all need the truth and objectivity. On my part, I have always encouraged my colleagues to build a calm, open and trust-based dialogue, to look at the common past in a self-critical and unbiased manner. Such an approach will make it possible not to repeat the mistakes committed back then and to ensure peaceful and successful development for years to come.

However, many of our partners are not yet ready for joint work. On the contrary, pursuing their goals, they increase the number and the scope of information attacks against our country, trying to make us provide excuses and feel guilty. They adopt thoroughly hypocritical and politically motivated declarations. Thus, for example, the resolution on the Importance of European Remembrance for the Future of Europe approved by the European Parliament on September 19, 2019 directly accused the USSR – along with the Nazi Germany – of unleashing the Second World War. Needless to say, there is no mention of Munich in it whatsoever.

I believe that such ‘paperwork’ – for I cannot call this resolution a document – which is clearly intended to provoke a scandal, is fraught with real and dangerous threats. Indeed, it was adopted by a highly respectable institution. And what did it show? Regrettably, it revealed a deliberate policy aimed at destroying the post-war world order whose creation was a matter of honour and responsibility for the countries a number of representatives of which voted today in favour of this deceitful resolution. Thus, they challenged the conclusions of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the efforts of the international community to create after the victorious 1945 universal international institutions. Let me remind you in this regard that the process of European integration itself leading to the establishment of relevant structures, including the European Parliament, became possible only due to the lessons learnt form the past and its accurate legal and political assessment. And those who deliberately put this consensus into question undermine the foundations of the entire post-war Europe.

Apart from posing a threat to the fundamental principles of the world order, this also raises certain moral and ethical issues. Desecrating and insulting the memory is mean. Meanness can be deliberate, hypocritical and pretty much intentional as in the situation when declarations commemorating the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II mention all participants in the Anti-Hitler coalition except for the Soviet Union. Meanness can be cowardly as in the situation when monuments erected in honour of those who fought against Nazism are demolished and these shameful acts are justified by the false slogans of the fight against an unwelcome ideology and alleged occupation. Meanness can also be bloody as in the situation when those who come out against neo-Nazis and Bandera’s successors are killed and burned. Once again, meanness can have different manifestations, but this does not make it less disgusting.

Neglecting the lessons of history inevitably leads to a harsh payback. We will firmly uphold the truth based on documented historical facts. We will continue to be honest and impartial about the events of World War II. This includes a large-scale project to establish Russia’s largest collection of archival records, film and photo materials about the history of World War II and the pre‑war period.

Such work is already underway. Many new, recently discovered or declassified materials were also used in the preparation of this article. In this connection, I can state with all responsibility that there are no archive documents that would confirm the assumption that the USSR intended to start a preventive war against Germany. The Soviet military leadership indeed followed a doctrine according to which, in the event of aggression, the Red Army would promptly confront the enemy, go on the offensive and wage war on enemy territory. However, such strategic plans did not imply any intention to attack Germany first.

Of course, military planning documents, letters of instruction of Soviet and German headquarters are now available to historians. Finally, we know the true course of events. From the perspective of this knowledge, many argue about the actions, mistakes and misjudgement of the country’s military and political leadership. In this regard, I will say one thing: along with a huge flow of misinformation of various kinds, Soviet leaders also received true information about the upcoming Nazi aggression. And in the pre-war months, they took steps to improve the combat readiness of the country, including the secret recruitment of a part of those liable for military duty for military training and the redeployment of units and reserves from internal military districts to western borders.

The war did not come as a surprise, people were expecting it, preparing for it. But the Nazi attack was truly unprecedented in terms of its destructive power. On June 22, 1941, the Soviet Union faced the strongest, most mobilised and skilled army in the world with the industrial, economic and military potential of almost all Europe working for it. Not only the Wehrmacht, but also Germany’s satellites, military contingents of many other states of the European continent, took part in this deadly invasion.

The most serious military defeats in 1941 brought the country to the brink of catastrophe. Combat power and control had to be restored by extreme means, nation-wide mobilisation and intensification of all efforts of the state and the people. In summer 1941, millions of citizens, hundreds of factories and industries began to be evacuated under enemy fire to the east of the country. The manufacture of weapons and munition, that had started to be supplied to the front already in the first military winter, was launched behind the lines in the shortest possible time, and by 1943, the rates of military production of Germany and its allies were exceeded. Within eighteen months, the Soviet people did something that seemed impossible. Both on the front lines and the home front. It is still hard to realise, understand and imagine what incredible efforts, courage, dedication these greatest achievements were worth.

The tremendous power of Soviet society, united by the desire to protect their native land, rose against the powerful, armed to the teeth, cold-blooded Nazi invading machine. It stood up to take revenge on the enemy, who had broken, trampled peaceful life, people’s plans and hopes.

Of course, fear, confusion and desperation were taking over some people during this terrible and bloody war. There were betrayal and desertion. The harsh splits caused by the revolution and the Civil War, nihilism, mockery of national history, traditions and faith that the Bolsheviks tried to impose, especially in the first years after coming to power – all of this had its impact. But the general attitude of the of Soviet citizens and our compatriots who found themselves abroad was different – to save and protect the Motherland. It was a real and irrepressible impulse. People were looking for support in true patriotic values.

The Nazi ‘strategists’ were convinced that a huge multinational state could easily be brought to heel. They thought that the sudden outbreak of the war, its mercilessness and unbearable hardships would inevitably exacerbate inter-ethnic relations. And that the country could be split into pieces. Hitler clearly stated: “Our policy towards the peoples living in the vastness of Russia should be to promote any form of disagreement and split.”

But from the very first days, it was clear that the Nazi plan had failed. The Brest Fortress was protected to the last drop of blood by its defenders representing more than 30 ethnicities. Throughout the war – both in large-scale decisive battles and in the protection of every foothold, every metre of native land – we see examples of such unity.

The Volga region and the Urals, Siberia and the Far East, the republics of Central Asia and Transcaucasia became home to millions of evacuees. Their residents shared everything they had and provided all the support they could. Friendship of peoples and mutual help became a real indestructible fortress for the enemy.

The Soviet Union and the Red Army, no matter what anyone is trying to prove today, made the main and crucial contribution to the defeat of Nazism. These were heroes who fought to the end surrounded by the enemy at Bialystok and Mogilev, Uman and Kiev, Vyazma and Kharkov. They launched attacks near Moscow and Stalingrad, Sevastopol and Odessa, Kursk and Smolensk. They liberated Warsaw, Belgrade, Vienna and Prague. They stormed Koenigsberg and Berlin.

We contend for genuine, unvarnished or whitewashed truth about war. This national, human truth, which is hard, bitter and merciless, has been handed down to us by writers and poets who walked through fire and hell of front trials. For my generation, as well as for many others, their honest and deep stories, novels, piercing trench prose and poems have left their mark on the soul forever. Honouring veterans who did everything they could for the Victory and remembering those who died on the battlefield has become our moral duty.

And today, the simple and great in their essence lines of Alexander Tvardovsky’s poem “I was killed near Rzhev …” dedicated to the participants of the bloody and brutal battle of the Great Patriotic War in the centre of the Soviet-German front line are astonishing. In the battles for Rzhev and the Rzhev Salient alone from October 1941 to March 1943, the Red Army lost 1,342,888 people, including wounded and missing in action. For the first time, I call out these terrible, tragic and far from complete figures collected from archive sources. I do it to honour the memory of the feat of known and nameless heroes, who for various reasons were undeservingly, and unfairly little talked about or not mentioned at all in the post-war years.

Let me cite another document. This is a report of February 1945 on reparation from Germany by the Allied Commission on Reparations headed by Ivan Maisky. The Commission’s task was to define a formula according to which defeated Germany would have to pay for the damages sustained by the victor powers. The Commission concluded that “the number of soldier-days spent by Germany on the Soviet front is at least 10 times higher than on all other allied fronts. The Soviet front also had to handle four-fifths of German tanks and about two-thirds of German aircraft.” On the whole, the USSR accounted for about 75 percent of all military efforts undertaken by the Anti-Hitler Coalition. During the war period, the Red Army “ground up” 626 divisions of the Axis states, of which 508 were German.

On April 28, 1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his address to the American nation: “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.” Winston Churchill in his message to Joseph Stalin of September 27, 1944, wrote that “it is the Russian army that tore the guts out of the German military machine…”

Such an assessment has resonated throughout the world. Because these words are the great truth, which no one doubted then. Almost 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives on the fronts, in German prisons, starved to death and were bombed, died in ghettos and furnaces of the Nazi death camps. The USSR lost one in seven of its citizens, the UK lost one in 127, and the USA lost one in 320. Unfortunately, this figure of the Soviet Union’s hardest and grievous losses is not exhaustive. The painstaking work should be continued to restore the names and fates of all who have perished – Red Army soldiers, partisans, underground fighters, prisoners of war and concentration camps, and civilians killed by the death squads. It is our duty. And special role here belongs to members of the search movement, military‑patriotic and volunteer associations, projects like the electronic database ”Pamyat Naroda“ (Memory of the People), which contains archival documents. And, surely, close international cooperation is needed in such a common humanitarian task.

The efforts of all countries and peoples who fought against a common enemy resulted in victory. The British army protected its homeland from invasion, fought the Nazis and their satellites in the Mediterranean and North Africa. American and British troops liberated Italy and opened the Second Front. The US dealt powerful and crushing strikes against the aggressor in the Pacific Ocean. We remember the tremendous sacrifices made by the Chinese people and their great role in defeating Japanese militarists. Let us not forget the fighters of Fighting France, who did not fall for the shameful capitulation and continued to fight against the Nazis.

We will also always be grateful for the assistance rendered by the Allies in providing the Red Army with munition, raw materials, food and equipment. And that help was significant – about 7 percent of the total military production of the Soviet Union.

The core of the Anti-Hitler Coalition began to take shape immediately after the attack on the Soviet Union where the United States and Britain unconditionally supported it in the fight against Hitler’s Germany. At the Tehran Conference in 1943, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill formed an alliance of great powers, agreed to elaborate coalition diplomacy and a joint strategy in the fight against a common deadly threat. The leaders of the Big Three had a clear understanding that the unification of industrial, resource and military capabilities of the USSR, the United States and the UK will give unchallenged supremacy over the enemy.

The Soviet Union fully fulfilled its obligations to its allies and always offered a helping hand. Thus, the Red Army supported the landing of the Anglo-American troops in Normandy by carrying out a large-scale Operation Bagration in Belorussia. In January 1945, having broken through to the Oder River, our soldiers put an end to the last powerful offensive of the Wehrmacht on the Western Front in the Ardennes. Three months after the victory over Germany, the USSR, in full accordance with the Yalta agreements, declared war on Japan and defeated the million-strong Kwantung Army.

Back in July 1941, the Soviet leadership declared that “the purpose of the war against fascist oppressors was not only the elimination of the threat looming over our country, but also help for all the peoples of Europe suffering under the yoke of German fascism.” By mid-1944, the enemy was expelled from virtually all of the Soviet territory. However, the enemy had to be finished off in its lair. And so the Red Army started its liberation mission in Europe. It saved entire nations from destruction and enslavement, and from the horror of the Holocaust. They were saved at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives of Soviet soldiers.

It is also important not to forget about the enormous material assistance that the USSR provided to the liberated countries in eliminating the threat of hunger and in rebuilding their economies and infrastructure. That was being done at the time when ashes stretched for thousands of miles all the way from Brest to Moscow and the Volga. For instance, in May 1945, the Austrian government asked the USSR to provide assistance with food, as it “had no idea how to feed its population in the next seven weeks before the new harvest.” State Chancellor of the Provisional Government of the Austrian Republic Karl Renner described the consent of the Soviet leadership to send food as a saving act that the Austrians would never forget.

The Allies jointly established the International Military Tribunal to punish Nazi political and war criminals. Its decisions contained a clear legal qualification of crimes against humanity, such as genocide, ethnic and religious cleansing, anti-Semitism and xenophobia. Directly and unambiguously, the Nuremberg Tribunal also condemned the accomplices of the Nazis, collaborators of various kinds.

This shameful phenomenon manifested itself in all European countries. Such figures as Pétain, Quisling, Vlasov, Bandera, their henchmen and followers – though they were disguised as fighters for national independence or freedom from communism – are traitors and butchers. In terms of inhumanity, they often exceeded their masters. In their desire to serve, as part of special punitive groups they willingly executed the most inhuman orders. They were responsible for such bloody events as the shootings of Babi Yar, the Volhynia massacre, burnt Khatyn, acts of destruction of Jews in Lithuania and Latvia.

Today as well, our position remains unchanged – there can be no excuse for the criminal acts of Nazi collaborators, there is no period of limitations for them. It is therefore bewildering that in certain countries those who are smirched with cooperation with the Nazis are suddenly equated with World War II veterans. I believe that it is unacceptable to equate liberators with occupants. And I can only regard the glorification of Nazi collaborators as a betrayal of the memory of our fathers and grandfathers. A betrayal of the ideals that united peoples in the fight against Nazism.

At that time, the leaders of the USSR, the United States, and the UK faced, without exaggeration, a historic task. Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill represented the countries with different ideologies, state aspirations, interests, cultures, but they demonstrated great political will, rose above the contradictions and preferences and put the true interests of peace at the forefront. As a result, they were able to come to an agreement and achieve a solution from which all of humanity has benefited.

The victor powers left us a system that has become the quintessence of the intellectual and political quest of several centuries. A series of conferences – Tehran, Yalta, San Francisco and Potsdam – laid the foundation of a world that for 75 years had no global war, despite the sharpest contradictions.

Historical revisionism, the manifestations of which we now observe in the West, primarily with regard to the subject of the Second World War and its outcome, is dangerous because it grossly and cynically distorts the understanding of the principles of peaceful development, laid down at the Yalta and San Francisco conferences in 1945. The major historic achievement of Yalta and other decisions of that time is the agreement to create a mechanism that would allow the leading powers to remain within the framework of diplomacy in resolving their differences.

The twentieth century brought large-scale and comprehensive global conflicts, and in 1945, nuclear weapons capable of physically destroying the Earth also entered the scene. In other words, the settlement of disputes by force has become prohibitively dangerous. And the victors in the Second World War understood that. They understood and were aware of their own responsibility towards humanity.

The cautionary tale of the League of Nations was taken into account in 1945. The structure of the UN Security Council was developed in a way to make peace guarantees as concrete and effective as possible. That is how the institution of the permanent members of the Security Council and the right of the veto as their privilege and responsibility came into being.

What is the power of veto in the UN Security Council? To put it bluntly, it is the only reasonable alternative to a direct confrontation between major countries. It is a statement by one of the five powers that a decision is unacceptable to it and is contrary to its interests and its ideas about the right approach. And other countries, even if they do not agree, take this position as a given, abandoning any attempts to realise their unilateral efforts. It means that in one way or another it is necessary to seek compromises.

A new global confrontation started almost immediately after the end of the Second World War and was at times very fierce. And the fact that the Cold War did not grow into the Third World War has become a clear testimony of the effectiveness of the agreements concluded by the Big Three. The rules of conduct agreed upon during the creation of the United Nations made it possible to further minimise risks and keep confrontation under control.

Of course, we can see that the UN system currently experiences certain tension in its work and is not as effective as it could be. But the UN still performs its primary function. The principles of the UN Security Council are a unique mechanism for preventing a major war or a global conflict.

The calls that have been made quite often in recent years to abolish the power of veto, to deny special opportunities to permanent members of the Security Council are actually irresponsible. After all, if that happens, the United Nations would in essence become the League of Nations – a meeting for empty talk without any leverage on the world processes. How it ended is well known. That is why the victor powers approached the formation of the new system of the world order with utmost seriousness seeking to avoid repetition of mistakes made by their predecessors.

The creation of the modern system of international relations is one of the major outcomes of World War II. Even the most insurmountable contradictions – geopolitical, ideological, economic – do not prevent us from finding forms of peaceful coexistence and interaction, if there is the desire and will to do so. Today the world is going through quite a turbulent time. Everything is changing, from the global balance of power and influence to the social, economic and technological foundations of societies, nations and even continents. In the past epochs, shifts of such magnitude have almost never happened without major military conflicts. Without a power struggle to build a new global hierarchy. Thanks to the wisdom and farsightedness of the political figures of the Allied Powers, it was possible to create a system that has restrained from extreme manifestations of such objective competition, historically inherent in the world development.

It is a duty of ours – all those who take political responsibility and primarily representatives of the victor powers in the Second World War – to guarantee that this system is maintained and improved. Today, as in 1945, it is important to demonstrate political will and discuss the future together. Our colleagues – Mr Xi Jinping, Mr Macron, Mr Trump and Mr Johnson – supported the Russian initiative to hold a meeting of the leaders of the five nuclear-weapon states, permanent members of the Security Council. We thank them for this and hope that such face-to-face meeting could take place as soon as possible.

What is our vision of the agenda for the upcoming summit? First of all, in our opinion, it would be useful to discuss steps to develop collective principles in world affairs. To speak frankly about the issues of preserving peace, strengthening global and regional security, strategic arms control, about joint efforts in countering terrorism, extremism and other major challenges and threats.

A special item on the agenda of the meeting is the situation in the global economy. And above all, overcoming the economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Our countries are taking unprecedented measures to protect the health and lives of people and to support citizens who have found themselves in difficult living situations. Our ability to work together and in concert, as real partners, will show how severe the impact of the pandemic will be, and how quickly the global economy will emerge from the recession. Moreover, it is unacceptable to turn the economy into an instrument of pressure and confrontation. Popular issues include environmental protection and combating climate change, as well as ensuring the security of the global information space.

The agenda proposed by Russia for the upcoming summit of the Five is extremely important and relevant both for our countries and for the entire world. And we have specific ideas and initiatives on all the items.

There can be no doubt that the summit of Russia, China, France, the United States, and the UK will play an important role in finding common answers to modern challenges and threats, and will demonstrate a common commitment to the spirit of alliance, to those high humanist ideals and values for which our fathers and grandfathers fought shoulder to shoulder.

Drawing on a shared historical memory, we can trust each other and must do so. That will serve as a solid basis for successful negotiations and concerted action for the sake of enhancing the stability and security on the planet, for the sake of prosperity and well-being of all states. Without exaggeration, it is our common duty and responsibility towards the entire world, towards the present and future generations.

The Rise and Fall of Empires

Francis Lee for the Saker Blog

June 08, 2020

The Rise and Fall of Empires

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

(5) The British Labour government of 1945-40 actually took sides in the Greek Civil War fought between the Greek government army (supported by the United Kingdom and the United States)and the Democratic Army of Greece (DSE) — the military branch of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) supported by YugoslaviaAlbania and Bulgaria. This lasted from 1946 to 1949. The Soviet Union avoided sending aid. The fighting resulted in the defeat of the DSE by the Hellenic Army. The Labour party, social-democratic as it may have portrayed itself, was nonetheless pro-imperialist to the core and a founder member of 1940.

(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

Metropolis and the Battle for Herd Unity

 BY GILAD ATZMON

metropolis and Herd Unity.jpg

by Gilad Atzmon

The 1927 cinematic epicMetropolis is often described as a ‘German expressionist’ (anti realist) and a ‘science-fiction’ film. Today, as we watch the evaporation of the Covid19 phantasmal saga of viral apocalypse, we will examine whether Metropolis’ plot was truly anti-realist. 

 Watching the film almost a century after its creation brings up some existential and perplexing thoughts. Is not Metropolis the most timely expression of our current fatigue with corporate culture, our dismay with ‘science’ and ‘technology,’ and our fatigue of our deeply rotten and uniquely ungifted political class?  I suggest that back in 1927, the creators of Metropolis understood the current dystopia and its ontological roots better than some of our most venerated contemporary ‘intellectuals.’ Accordingly, I believe that rather than as ‘science fiction,’ ‘an astute prophetic message’ is the best description of this ambitious moment in German cinema.

Watch Metropolis: https://youtu.be/AvtWDIZtrAE

The film was directed by Fritz Lang and  written by his wife,Thea von Harbou, in collaboration with Lang. It is important to note that Lang escaped from Germany in 1933. Lang, it seems, didn’t approve of the Nazi regime: his wife, however, stayed behind. After the war, Thea von Harbou was imprisoned for collaboration with the Nazis. I don’t intend to examine whether Von Harbou was a ‘Nazi’ or not, but I will support the argument that Metropolis was probably the definitive and most prophetic ‘Nationalist Socialist’ (as opposed to National Socialist) masterpiece. 

Metropolis was created in Germany during the era of the Weimar Republic. It is set in a futuristic metropolitan ultra capitalist dystopia that isn’t so removed from the reality of some of our present day Western metropolises. It tells the story of Freder, the son of the oligarch city master  (Joh Fredersen), and Maria, an inspirational working class, Christian and saintly character. Together Freder and Maria defeat social injustice and the class divide by means of Herd-Unity. For this unity to occur, a mediator has to come forward to transform the history of social conflicts into a harmonious future.  We are exposed to two and a half hours of horror, oppression, slavery, capitalist malevolence and class divide that resolves in the end  into reconciliation of an Hegelian ‘end of history’ nature. The cinematic epic exhausts itself when the workers’ leader and Joh Fredersen are shaking hands and accepting their mutual fate and co-dependence. “The Mediator Between the Head and the Hands Must Be the Heart,” is the inter title of the scene, emphasising the ideological and metaphysical motto of the film.  

Post WWI Germany was evidently in need of a unifying character who could resolve the class struggle and bond the workers and the capitalists into  an integrated organismus sharing an harmonious, unified  reality. It would be naïve not to believe that Hitler and his National Socialist party were driven by such a vision. And they weren’t alone. Roosevelt might have been committed to a similar search for such a bond, as was Henry Ford as well as many others.

The film was made in 1925-6 and saw the screen in 1927, during a significant period in terms of German politics and intellectual evolution. In 1927 Martin Heidegger published his monumental Being and Time (Sein und Zeit). Heidegger posited that the history of Western Philosophy is a tale of the forgetting of Being. Heidegger, more than any other philosopher before him, identified the growing detachment that has become intrinsic to modern existence and post enlightenment human landscape.  

Another text that was published at that time in Germany that had a far more immediate influence than Heideggers’ philosophical musings was Hitler’s Mein Kampf (1925). Though the text is largely described as an ‘anti-Semitic diatribe,’ Mein Kampf wasn’t really a book ‘about Jews,’ though Jews were mentioned occasionally in the text. It was the means by which Hitler, at the time, a veteran corporal and a prisoner, outlined his political ideology and future plan for Germany under his leadership. In that regard, it is interesting to read George Orwell’s 1940 review of the book. Orwell, a voice from the Left, despised Hitler. His review provides an astute critique, yet, he tried to understand the success of Nazism in the light of the total failure of the German working class movement.  Not once does Orwell mention Jews or anti-Semitism.  In this regard, it is interesting to read George Steiner’s  view of Mein Kampf as one of “half a dozen books” published between 1918-27 that resulted from the crisis in German society and culture following its humiliating defeat in WWI.  In the introduction to his book about Martin Heidegger, Steiner correctly locates the work of Mein Kampf within the context of its contemporaries such as  Ernst Bloch’s The Spirit of Utopia (1918),  Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West (1918),  Franz Rosenzweig’s The Star of Redemption (1921),  Karl Barth’s The Epistle to the Romans (1922), and, of course, Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time (1927) mentioned above.

While at the time some film critics saw Metropolis as a ‘banal’ communist statement, it was actually an invaluable Nationalist Socialist cinematic revelation as it was critical of both capitalism and communism. By so doing, it expressed the true political spirit and the wishes of many Germans at the time. Like Heidegger and many other German intellectuals who were critical of the enlightenment, the meaning of modern technology and the crude exploitive instrumentalisation of science, Metropolis identified the growing detachment from the Christian and Athenian Western ethos. In a way, the film forecast the nuclear bomb, offered  a phantasy of a manmade viral apocalypse, it depicted the reality of concentration camps and even predicted robots dictating the  ‘party line’ long before Mark Zuckerberg  was born.

Twenty years before Orwell created Emmanuel Goldstein and many decades before George Soros reduced the so-called ‘Left’ into his controlled opposition toy, Lang, together with von Harbou realised that in the eyes of Capitalists and Oligarchs, the fantasy of a ‘proletarian revolution’ is a useful political tool. There is no better means towards total hegemony and oppression than the disasters the masses bring on themselves willingly and even enthusiastically.

While this is obviously the most cynical interpretation of democracy and the prospect of a revolution, it is hard not to admit that this sardonic reading is the reality in which we live.

In 2020 it isn’t Trump or the Tory government that oppresses the masses. It isn’t the White House that deletes Youtube videos of doctors and renowned scientists and it isn’t the British police that close the social media accounts of truth seekers. Instead, it is the private technology companies that dictate a tyranny of correctness in the name of so-called ‘community standards.’

And they are not alone. Corbyn was initially seen by some, including myself, as a refreshing development in British politics. However, it took just a few weeks before many of us were devastated to realize that the British Labour Party under his leadership had quickly morphed into one of the most oppressive authoritarian political bodies around.

In Metropolis Lang ridicules the idea of ‘the revolution.’ He points at the banality and the hopelessness of the masses. In the film, the workers follow Maria’s humane Christian message, waiting for a mediating savior that would redeem the entire class, but when Maria returns in the shape of a robot and delivers the complete opposite message, literally calling  for war, the masses follow her and rise up against the machine in what seems to be a suicidal act.  

In this, Metropolis managed to capture the menace attached to the Left’s empty and impulsive rhetoric as well as the sinister wickedness inherent in capitalism and its insane abuse of the weak.  

The Nationalist Socialism that evolved in the early 1900s promoted social equality however, it flatly rejected the idea of world revolution and cosmopolitanism. In his book, Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg produces an interesting account of the evolution of European Fascist thinking. Italian Fascism, in Goldberg’s eyes, advocated equality of the Italian people. Not such an outrageous concept in itself. German National Socialism could be defined, according to Goldberg, as Socialism of German Speaking people. Again, maybe not the ideal Marxist vision of the world, but not necessarily a racist concept as many people of different origins and ethnicities may speak German. Hitlerism, however, pushed for Socialism of one race. This was an extremely problematic concept as it discriminated against peoples based on the accident of birth.

It is common to look at the distinction between Marxism (or the Left) and Nationalist Socialism from the perspective of their attitudes toward cosmopolitanism versus equality or justice within a given geographical or national context. However, my study of Jewish Identity politics and Zionism has led me to a deeper understanding of the crucial distinction between Marxism and Nationalist Socialism.

In his spectacular book, The Founding Myths of Israel, the Jewish history scholar Zeev Sterhell, reveals that the ideology of Nationalist Socialism, deeply suffocated with blood and soil (Blut und Boden) was also at the core of the early Zionist revolution well before Hitler wrote Mein Kampf and certainly before Fritz Lang and his wife were looking for a mediator to bond the ‘head’ and the ‘hands.’

 Sternhell notes that the early Zionist movement saw it as a necessity to bond the ‘workers’ and the ‘owners’ into a unified revolutionary force; the nation or the folk. “Nationalist socialism,” Sternhell writes, “taught that all kinds of workers represented national interests; they were the heart of the nation, and their welfare was also the welfare of the nation. Thus, workers standing beside the production line and the owners of the industrial enterprise were equally ‘producers.’” 

 “Similarly,” Sternhell continues,  “nationalist socialism distinguished between the positive’ bourgeois, the producer, and the ‘parasitic’ bourgeois, between ‘productive’ capital and ‘parasitic’ capital, between capital that creates employment and adds to the economic strength of society and speculative  capital, capital that enriches only its owners without producing collective wealth.” 

The early Zionist project was very successful in recruiting Jewish wealth and the productive bourgeois into the emerging Jewish nationalist project.  Zionism, in its early form, thought of the nation as a cultural, historical, and biological unit, or, figuratively, an extended family. Sternhell points out that in Zionism’s early days the individual was regarded as an organic part of the whole, and the whole took precedence over the individual. “To ensure the future of the nation and to protect it against the forces threatening to undermine it, it was necessary to manifest its inner unity and to mobilize all classes against the two great dangers with which the nation is faced in the modern world: liberalism and Marxism in its various forms.” 

In a lucid manner Sternhell relates that Zionism in its early form rejected the spirit of enlightenment –  the European bourgeoisie philosophy. “In place of bourgeois individualism, nationalist socialism presented the alternative of team spirit and the spirit of comradeship: instead of the artificiality and the degeneracy of the large city, it promoted the naturalness and simplicity of the village. It encouraged a love of one’s native land and its scenery. All these were also the basic values of the labor movement. Socialist Zionism, however, went further than any other national movement when it rejected the life of the Jews in exile. No one attacked Eastern European Jewry more vehemently than the young men from the Polish shtetl who settled in Palestine, and no one depicted traditional Jewish society in darker hues than the pioneers of the first immigration waves.”

In his reading of the early Zionist movement Sternhell comes to the realisation that the Jewish nationalist movement was Nationalist Socialist to its core.  Under this concept, Zion, or more accurately, historic Palestine,  the so-called ‘promised land’ was the  ‘heart’ that unified the revolutionary Jewish  ‘minds’ and ‘hands.’

Two years after Metropolis, Germany faced a horrendous financial crisis that  eventually led to the rise of Nazism. It was the disbelief in the Socialist offering and the reality of hard, merciless capitalism that made Germans believe that Hitler was the Heart, the man who brings herd unity and emancipates the Germans from the sons of the enlightenment namely,  ‘Capitalism’ and ‘Marxism.’ Hitler lasted in power for about 12 years. His nationalist devotion was complete, his socialism was pretty selective. His reign of power ended in total global havoc.   Zionist nationalist socialism, prevailed for eight decades. It started in the late 19th century and came to an end in 1977 with the electoral defeat of the Israeli Labour Party. The party that dominated the Zionist revolution for most of a century literally vanished last month but it achieved a lot before that happened. It won wars while displaying spectacular Blitzkrieg victories e.g.1967, it founded a Jews- only State as it vowed to do, it ethnically cleansed Palestine of its indigenous people, it enacted the most problematic racist, expansionist and nationalist  philosophies and tactics and it easily got away with it.

There is a lesson to learn from Metropolis and also from Labour Zionism: if global capitalism is a total disaster then maybe Herd Unity is the way forward; a repeated search for a human bond that transcends race, gender, class, left, right or any other divisive ideology. The push for equality and compassion is precious and the search for that heart that unites us all into one man is a humane endeavour.  Labour Zionism eventually crashed because it wasn’t genuine, it pretended to be humane and universal but was tribal and racist to the bone. Labour Zionism vanished because it was a crude Identitarian precept. It was self-centred, it imploded into its own contradictions. It wasn’t ‘patriotism’ that dismantled Labour Zionism, it was the fact that Zionist patriotism was celebrated at someone else’s expense. This is precisely the danger in ethnic nationalism. I want to believe that this type of manifestation of crude chauvinism can be avoided. To be in the world is to live amongst others, to be and let be.   

For the heart to bond the ‘heads’ and the ‘minds’ a universal ethos is needed: a humble acceptance of the human condition is crucial. Maybe this very realisation explains the centrality of Christian symbolism and the church throughout the entire Metropolis movie. 

Thanks for supporting Gilad’s battle for truth and justice.

Donate

Calculated Assumptions and Prevention of “Scientifically Shattered” Societies

April 25, 2020

Note by the Saker: I did post this excellent article by Mansoureh Tajik because it presented a view rarely seen in the West: a view from Iran and a view from a deeply religious person. Yes, that is somewhat of a departure from my rule about not discussing medical aspects of the pandemic, but in this case, it was worth it, at least in my opinion.
HOWEVER
I ask you to please not use this pretext, again, inundate the comment section with you favorite theory about the virus. Really! Surely you can react and discuss this article without the obligatory “here is my theory about the virus”.
Looks, if I cannot appeal to your common sense, then I will have to shut down the comments section under this article.
Your choice.
The Saker

Calculated Assumptions and Prevention of “Scientifically Shattered” Societies

Calculated Assumptions and Prevention of “Scientifically Shattered” Societies

by Mansoureh Tajik for The Saker Blog

Health is severely commodified and diseases are disgracefully exploited as means to social, political, and financial ends. Statements like, “Let us not play politics with people’s health” are made to dress up stealth politics and covert missions to play political games with people’s health and lives on behalf of some vested interest. It is done so by pretending the efforts are devoid of any politics and solely intended for the good of the general public.

In the current atmosphere of uncertainty, disinformation, and behind-the-scene jockeying around this maroon aureole, therefore, our priorities demand us to make transparent the underlying politics of top contenders in the competition of narratives. Who is doing what to whom, how, why, and what is next?

I borrow a passage from Sylvia Noble Tesh’s classic book (1988), Hidden Arguments: Political Ideology and Disease Prevention Policy,[1] to contextualize the point of this exercise and questions, The discussions in that book are a bit dated but their resonances feel rather current. She asserted:

“Behind debates about such questions as the toxicity of environmental pollutants, the hazards of smoking, and the health effects of cholesterol lie other hidden arguments. These arguments are more fundamental: What is the legitimate source of knowledge? What is the nature of human beings? And what is the ideal structure of society? Firmly but often unconsciously held answers to these questions guide scientists, policy makers, and ordinary citizens alike to different constellations of facts about the causes of disease and hence, to different preferences for prevention policy.”[2]

We could add questions about an infectious disease like COVID-19 and its potential causes to Tesh’s list and still be in the same frame of argument. It has been stated in the past and it does not hurt to repeat, as Shi’a, we do not believe there to be any separation between our politics and our religion. Health and diseases greatly affect if and how we perform our required and essential tasks like prayers, fasting, Hajj, jihad, and more. Even our most basic greeting, Salam, and the name of our religion, Islam, all share the same root as our word for health, Salamat. So, for us, there is no shame or any compulsion in admitting that matters related to health and diseases are one and the same as our religion and our politics.

Those societies in which their systems of beliefs have convinced their people, however, that health and disease decisions are made through some apolitical processes and free of political values should have followed Tesh’s advice some thirty years ago that,

“We need public discussion about the values, beliefs, and ideologies with which scientists and policy makers begin. This is not an unwarranted intrusion of politics into science. There is no science uninfluenced by politics. This is a plea to get the politics out of hiding.”[3]

Judging by the signs, I sense that the time for such public discussions by the elites are way passed their deadlines. Discussions about exactly whose political values, views, and interests in public health and diseases are hidden from the very public, at the exclusion of, and at the expense of that very public are all passed due. It appears in not so distant a future such discussions will be carried out by the public on the streets with guns and at gunpoint.

Meanwhile, it is useful to discuss and clarify a few relevant items since the decisions we make rest heavily on what we assume the causes of current events are. It is imperative to make the correct decision and determine which side to take and where to spend most of our energy. In this essay, I would like to discuss one of the Saker’s position regarding SARS-COV-2 and contrast that with the position of the Iranians.

From the beginning of the coronavirus affair, the Saker has maintained a firm position that novel coronavirus is not a bio-weapon. He made his point here and reiterated his position through multiple updates. He solidly sealed his view here. In a recent article here, he provided a reminder by recapitulating that “a truly weaponized virus would both be much more transmissible than SARS-COV-2 and it would be far more deadly.”

It is certainly quite appropriate to assume the null until we have enough solid evidence to reject it. That means, in the case of the novel coronavirus the default assumption would maintain the virus not to be a bio-weapon unless and until there is preponderance of reasonable evidence to reject the null assumption. The Saker has gone a step further, however. His statements, in effect, provide an acceptance of the null not as an assumption but as a proven statement.

The position of the Iranians contrasts with that position. It is not prudent for us to accept the Saker’s firm assessment and to rule out a strong possibility that SARS-COV-2 could be a bio-weapon. My own impetus to pry open the Saker’s stance is twofold. On one hand, I would like to ensure the principle of precaution in these discussions are not overlooked (i.e. the need to err on the side of caution). On the other hand, I think the actual rationale provided by the Saker concerning the aspects of “transmissibility” and “deadliness” of SAR-COV-2 in determining its weaponization status needs additional investigation.

First the principle of precaution. Iranians are a nation that has been the subject of relentless conventional and non-conventional attacks by the US and the west from every imaginable venue and by any conceivable means. Therefore, as a people who are still suffering from the consequences of the chemical attacks by then weaponized agent, Sadam Hussein, we do not feel we have the luxury of definitively accepting a non-weaponized status for this virus.

We imagine for ourselves four possible scenarios based on two rival assumptions. First, if we assumed this virus is a bioweapon and planned according to that assumption, and the virus turned out to have been indeed a bioweapon, then we have done right by our nation and what we are obligated to do in terms of preparation and protection.

Second, if we assumed the virus is not a bioweapon, thus we do not treat it as one but it is, in fact, a bioweapon, then we are guilty of neglect, carelessness, and in breach of our duties in protecting ourselves and our nation.

Third, if we assumed the virus is a bioweapon and prepared accordingly and it turned out not to have been one, then we have prepared for and put into practice a drill with all its required infrastructure that are useful for our defenses and preparedness. In addition, we have supported the country’s health system and have helped reduce its burden in dealing with an infectious disease.

Fourth, if we assumed the virus is not a bioweapon and it was not one, then we would have carried on with life as usual and dealt with a particularly tough flu season and we were no more prepared than before the whole affair.

The Leader of Iran, Ayatullah Khamenei clarified[4] Iran’s position and decision in one of his earlier speeches on March 8 as follows:

“Another key point is that we are asking all sections in the country, we request them to cooperate with a sense of responsibility with the Ministry of Health which is at the frontline of this issue and to make available to the ministry all their necessary resources. We have, of course, asked the armed forces and all organs linked to our office [i.e. the office of the Commander in Chief of all armed forces, Ayatullah Khamenei] that they, too, cooperate and put all of their resources in this area at the service of the people. This is not an event that has just happened for our country. You know and you have heard that this has happened in many countries of the world. The difference, of course, is that in many countries, they are hiding the truth, they are not talking about it. Our officials have spoken with sincerity and truthfulness from the very first day. They have been transparent in their reporting. They have made people aware of the situation which is a good thing. There are places though that we know they have it much worse than we do, but they do not talk about it. We do ask God Almighty for health and wellbeing for all those other countries, too. God Will InshAllah help them, too.

And the last word on this matter is that this event is a transient issue as well. It will pass. It is not an extraordinary event. Happenings similar to this occur in the country. Certainly, I do not wish to minimize the issue but we should not aggrandize it either. There is something that has happened. It will take a specific period of time. A period of time that will not be too long, InshAllah. This will exist for the country and then it will go away. The experiences that we will gain in this area, the actions that people take, and what various organs do, which in fact a general and a public drill in this area, this could become an achievement. If we could have these sorts of achievements, a calamity changes to a blessing. A threat changes into an opportunity.”

Last week, in an event held during this year’s Army Day celebration in Iran on Friday, April 17, Amir Sartip Aziz Nasirzadeh, the head of Islamic Republic’s Air Force, said[5],

“We view the spread of coronavirus through a military lens. The spread of this virus, in our calculation, is a biological threat or a quasi-biological threat. This subject for the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the military is a practice and a drill to counter biological threats.”

For Iranians, therefore, to assume the novel coronavirus as a bioweapon is logically and wisely a more appropriate assumption. An assumption of otherwise could be more deleterious. However, the Iranians having figured into their calculus not to accept the null assumption about the novel coronavirus is not a reasonable evidence to reject the Saker’s argument. Therefore, I discuss the second element that motivates me to offer this rebuttal which relates to the actual rationale provided by the Saker. He used not high enough “transmissibility” and insufficient “deadliness” as two major determinants to reject the weaponization of SAR-COV-2.

To be fully transparent, I must say I am not an expert in weapons and my practical military training is limited to what a regular Basiji goes through here in Iran. That makes my expertise in this area limited to not accidentally shooting myself in the foot. My argument is therefore literary in essence and not based on practical skills and field experience.

To weaponize an agent (biological, chemical, or nuclear) and the degree of weaponization depends entirely on the specific aim and purpose for that weaponizing. That means, a biological agent can be designed and released to be not highly but “just enough” transmissible and not highly lethal but “just enough” deadly to achieve the intended goal of an attack. The US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had identified around 30 organisms[6] that might be weaponized. CDC employs a classification scheme based on the intended outcome in three different categories of weaponizations for biological agents. The classification is based on “ease of dissemination, morbidity and mortality, panic potential, and level of public health requirements.” They have defined the categories as follows:

Category A: Highest priority diseases that pose a risk to national security, are easily transmitted, have high morbidity and mortality, would have a major public health impact and cause panic, and require special public health preparedness.

Category B: Moderate priority diseases with lower morbidity and mortality and more difficult to disseminate.

Category C: High priority diseases that have the potential to cause significant morbidity and mortality and are emerging pathogens that could be engineered for mass dispersionCategory C agents are emerging pathogens that could be engineered for mass dissemination because of their availability, ease of production and dissemination, mortality rate, and ability to cause a substantial health impact.”[6]

It is therefore important to consider the intended outcomes as important variables in determining the weaponization of SAR-COV-2. Looking from this angle, transmissibility and deadliness would be more of a tactical decision commensurate to specific aims of the attack than key indicators of weaponization. It might be interesting to note that US CDC had classified SARS coronaviruses as potential biological agents under Category C[7], but it is now removed from its main page[8]. Those interested though could search for published scientific articles that used the CDC’s information as their references in earlier dates.

I would like to go a bit further in supporting my position. I will use an example of attack operations during World War I in which the British carried out “low-grade” attacks and acts of sabotage against the Ottoman’s darling project, the Hejaz Railway. An excerpt from an article by S. Anderson (2014) in the Smithsonian Magazine[9] illustrates the significance of the railroad:

“The southernmost town in Jordan, Mudowarra was once connected to the outside world by means of that railroad. One of the great civil-engineering projects of the early 20th century, the Hejaz Railway was an attempt by the Ottoman sultan to propel his empire into modernity and knit together his far-flung realm. By 1914, the only remaining gap in the line was located in the mountains of southern Turkey. When that tunneling work was finished, it would have been theoretically possible to travel from the Ottoman capital of Constantinople all the way to the Arabian city of Medina, 1,800 miles distant, without ever touching the ground. Instead, the Hejaz Railway fell victim to World War I. For nearly two years, British demolition teams, working with their Arab rebel allies, methodically attacked its bridges and isolated depots, quite rightly perceiving the railroad as the Achilles’ heel of the Ottoman enemy, the supply line linking its isolated garrisons to the Turkish heartland.”

Those attacks were carried out under the command of the British agent T.E. Lawrence (the infamous Lawrence of Arabia made famous by Hollywood). The attacks could have actually been more exact and more destructive than they were to finish the job of destroying the railroad in a much shorter time frame. However, they opted for operations that were less destructive. Lawrence himself explains the reason in Revolts in the Desert[10] by saying:

“In the drainage holes of the spandrils six small charges were inserted zigzag, and with their explosion all the arches were scientifically shattered; the demolition being a fine example of that finest sort which left the skeleton of its bridge intact indeed, but tottering, so that the repairing enemy had a first labour to destroy the wreck, before they could attempt to rebuild.”

“Scientifically shattered,” seems to suggest causing “just enough” destruction for the enemy to get entangled and locked in specific areas, to divert its resources, manpower, and focus to those areas and away from other priorities and critical tasks. If the bridges and the railroads of Hejaz Railway were “scientifically shattered” and tulip bombs were used to twist the rails into tangled ribbons of steel but not completely destroy them, why would not a virus be weaponized in a manner that can “scientifically shatter,” let’s say, health systems, health personnel, and infrastructure of a country with “just enough” but not very high destruction and lethality?

I can think of two specific reasons: 1) A fear that bioweapon would spread beyond the target population and adversely affect allies and own forces and populations. 2) A fear of God and the Day of Judgment. Let’s briefly explore both reasons. For the first one, in case the biological agent can make its way back to one’s own population, if the original source of the attack is prepared, then this becomes a non-issue. However, if not, we must examine whether or not those who use such weapons care sufficiently about their own people and populations.

In a study conducted by the Institute of Medicine titled, “Veterans at Risk: The Health Effects of Mustard Gas and Lewisite,” that was presented at a hearing by the members of the US Congress in 1993 regarding US Department of Defense Mustard Gas Testing,[11] it was revealed that 60,000 US service members were exposed to mustard agents and Lewisite during World War II. Based on the records of that hearing, participants in military test experienced varying degree of exposure to mustard agent or Lewisite. The tests ranged from a drop of agent on the arm in “patch” tests to repeated gas chamber trials and fields tests. In addition, there were thousands of non-service individuals who worked in the US arsenals that produced these chemical agents. There were no follow-up medical care or monitoring of long-term effects but at the time of hearing, the information from the study revealed that:

The scanned document is some hundred thirty pages long, within it though, there are some vivid descriptions that illustrate a high level of indifference and disregard for human suffering. An excerpt is shown below:

We could spend quite a bit of time to review similar examples from the exposure of Vietnam Veterans to Agent Orange[12, 13] to CIA and Military testing of LSD[14] to various DARPA projects. However, the point can be made that some governments’ concerns for health and wellbeing of their own people may not be sufficiently high to serve as an obstacle in decision making.

The second reason about why would a given power refrain from “scientifically shattering” populations and societies using bio-weapons is a fear of God and the Day of Judgment. It is that belief that we cannot really get away and there WILL come a day when we must defend our intentions and deeds. Here, I am not talking about a superficial belief and using the name of God Almighty as a political means to material ends. Nor am I speaking of the type of believers who think they can commit all sorts of atrocities and injustice and be forgiven by God because they are just so special and “chosen”.

وَقَالُوا لَنْ تَمَسَّنَا النَّارُ إِلا أَيَّامًا مَعْدُودَةً [And they say, “Never will the Fire touch us, except for a short period of time.” (Qur’ān, Chapter 2, Verse 80)].

I am speaking of genuinely true believers in God who are very fearful and weary of the day they must stand before their Creator and defend their actions. That is enough functional and practical (not theoretical) fear and weariness that would prevent them from violating God’s boundaries and committing atrocities now, here, and in this world.

Perhaps a passage from the book, Brother Qasem[15], which contains a collection of lectures, talks, and views from Martyr Sardar Soleimani could illustrate what I mean. The segment is titled “Didn’t you say you invited him?!” in the book:

“For years we had been chasing after one of the most notorious rebels in Sistan and Bluchestan. This rebel was very active in narcotic trafficking and had martyred great many of our revolutionary guard members. Finally, after employing very complex intelligence operations, we invited him to a special locality for negotiation. Immediately upon his and his companions’ arrival to the designated place, we arrested him and his team and put them in jail. We were very pleased. He was someone whose criminal record would have secured him some fifty death sentences.

In a meeting in which we were visiting the Leader [Ayatullah Khamenei], I brought up the subject and gave the Leader the news about the arrest and described the event. I was expecting to see a positive reaction and happy response from His Eminence. The Great Leader of the Revolution immediately ordered, “Tell them to set him free right this moment.”

Without hesitation and question, I made the call. Afterwards, while quite baffled, I asked, “Agha! Why? I don’t understand; why did I have to do that? Why did you order his release?”

The Leader said, “Didn’t you say you had invited him?! The order of Islam is that if you invite anyone, and he is your guest, even if he is your father’s killer, you have no right to cause him discomfort.”

I was stunned with the response. Immediately, of course, the Leader commanded, “You must make sure to arrest him.” A few months later, in another series of complex operations, we arrested the fellow.”

The rebel in question was Abdulmalik Rigi, the terrorist agent in the service of the US and the Saudis. But he is not the key point of the excerpt, the Taqwa (as operationalized here by the Leader of the Iranian Revolution) is. Taqwa is to always be mindful and fearful of God’s boundaries and to make sure one does not cross them not matter what the event or the situation. May peace be upon you.

References

[1] Tesh SN (1988). Hidden Arguments: Political Ideology and Disease Prevention Policy. 4th Edition, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

[2] Ibid, P. 3.

[3] Ibid, P. 177.

[4] Speeches by Ayatullah Khamenei on Esfand 13, 1398 (March 8, 2020). Speech after Tree Planting Ceremony. Available online at: http://farsi.khamenei.ir/speech-content?id=45076

[5] Tasnim News Agency, “Fight against corona for armed forces is a military exercise against biological threats.” Farfardin 29 (April 17), 1399; 10:46; News code: 2245243; https://tn.ai/2245243

[6] Williams M, Sizemore DC. “Biologic, Chemical, and Radiation Terrorism Review.” [Updated 2020 Feb 17]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2020 Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493217/

[7] Moran GJ (2002). “Threats in bioterrorism. II: CDC category B and C agents.” Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America, 20(2):311-30.

[8] US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2020). Bioterrorism Agents and Diseases by Category. Access online at: https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/agentlist-category.asp#c

[9] Anderson S (2014). “World War I: Hundred Years Later, The True Story of Lawrence of Arabia.” Simithsonian Magazine, Special Report, Available online at: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-lawrence-arabia-180951857/

[10] TE Lawrence (1926). Revolt in the Desert. Garden City Publishing Company, Inc.

[11] Hearing before the Sub-committee on Compensation, Pension, and Insurance of the Committee on Veteran’s Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress, Second Session, March 10, 1993. Printed for the use of the Committee on Veteran’s Affairs, Serial No. 103-3. Available online at: https://ia802307.us.archive.org/31/items/departmentofdefe1993unit/departmentofdefe1993unit.pdf

[12] Hansen JC (1981). “The Vietnam Veteran vs Agent Orange: The War that Lingers.” Government Accounting Office (GAO) Review, Spring 1981, Pages 29-36. Available online at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/674041.pdf

[13] Stellman JM & Stellman SD (2018). “Agent Orange During the Vietnam War: The Lingering Issue of Its Civilian and Military Health Impact.” American Journal of Public Health, 108(6): 726-728.

[14] Disbennett BM (2014). “An Analysis of CIA and Military Testing of LSD on non-Consenting US Service Members and Recovery through the VA Disability System.” Tennessee Journal of Race, Gender, & Social Justice, 3(2): 173-201.

[15] Mehrvanfar A (1397). “Brother Qasem: a Collection of Strategic thinking of Haj Qasem Soleimani in areas of Guardianship, Revolution, Holy Defense, Martyrdom, the Protectors of Haram, Culture and Arts.” Mehr Amir-Al Mumenin Publishing, 1st Edition, Page 23. [Translated from the original in Farsi by the author.]

Understanding why they lie and why they get away with it

Understanding why they lie and why they get away with it

In lieu of an normal introduction: the eternally evolving BDA

Over 100 US service members have been diagnosed with mild traumatic brain injuries in the wake of the January 8 Iranian missile attack on the al Asad military base in Iraq, according to a US official with knowledge of the latest information?

On his website, Colonel Cassad offered this, shall we say, “evolution” of the truth as reported by the United States:

X stands for “surviving casualties”

Y stands for “dead”

  1. X = 0, Y = 0
  2. X = 11, Y = 0
  3. X = 34, Y = 0
  4. X = 50, Y = 0
  5. X = 64, Y = 0
  6. X=100+?, Y = 0
  7. X> 200, Y> 80?

(that last line is, obviously, hypothetical, but at the time of writing, we are already up to 109 casualties!)

Notice that while the number of surviving wounded steadily goes up, there is no corresponding increase in the number of dead. All we have are “aircraft crashes” (all, we are told, accidental). Ask any military specialist (or military historian) and you will be told that this kind of “evolution” is exceedingly unlikely (see here for one discussion). Simply put – these kinds of numbers are pretty obviously impossible, which means that from the moment the Idiot-in-Chief tweeted “so far so good”, the US was already lying:

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning.

307K people are talking about this

Is there really anybody out there who will deny that the US government lies pretty much about everything and anything?. And it’s not just the Executive Branch, Congress lies possibly even more (both parties, of course). In fact, I would argue that lying is both necessary AND expected from any US politician. When somebody like Tulsi Gabbard or Ron Paul don’t abide by this rule, the media immediately dismisses them as “Putin agents” or something equally insipid.

The truth is that lies have become the norm of the western political discourse.

That is bad enough by itself. But there is worse.

The worst is not that western politicians lie, the worst is that almost nobody cares.

That is really scary.

Why?

Because in a society which expects everybody to lie, facts simply don’t matter any more.

So that is the key question: do we care or don’t we?

Well, some clearly still care. Or we would not have Howard Zinn’s books, or Oliver Stone’s movies as best sellers. Neither would we have a vibrant 9/11 Truth movement. You want more evidence? Sure! How about all the folks who are willing to go into exile (or to jail!) to uphold the rights of historians to freely investigate the history of WWII? How about Ed Snowden, Julian Assange or Bradley Manning? How about the millions of people in the West who took to the streets to protest the various GWOT wars? No, there clearly are a lot of people who care.

The problem is that their impact is minimal, and that is what I want to look into today.

Have facts and truth become redundant?

I doubt that there are many reading these lines who don’t already know for a fact that Kennedy was not killed by one “lone gunman”. Likewise, we all know the truth about the “Gulf of Tonkin” incident. Then there are those who realize that something about the Pearl Harbor attack stinks to high heaven. Some even remember the USS Liberty. Most specialists know about GLADIO. And I could go on and on. The fact is that most of the worst lies of the 20th century have been debunked beyond reasonable doubt, really.

Chris Hedges really nailed it when he spoke of an “Empire of Illusions“. He names the following types of illusions: the illusion of Literacy, the illusion of Love, the illusion of Wisdom, the illusion of Happiness and the illusion of America. The book is most interesting, and I highly recommend it. But I think that there is one crucial aspect of the Empire being an “Empire of Illusions” and that is the illusion of Reality. What do I mean by that?

I mean the following: most people are aware that there is a “reality” of some kind out there. Of course, many people are aware of how difficult it can be to ascertain what the “real reality” really is, thus they prefer to cautiously state that getting to the truth is a very difficult endeavor. These are the folks who know enough to know that they really don’t know much. But then there are also those who misinterpret this caution as to mean that there really is no such thing as reality at all and all there is, is the sum of our subjective perception thereof (of reality that is). Pretty soon we have slipped from:

  • Reality is often very difficult to establish

to

  • Reality is impossible to establish

to

  • Reality does not really exist at all (or, if it does, it really doesn’t matter)

Of course, most people won’t directly declare that reality does not exist – they just act as if it didn’t.

It all began centuries ago by a quite formidable indifference to Truth on the part of the leaders of the Papacy. These folks were all about power, so if religion could give it to them, then religion was good, but when religion placed limits on what the Latins could or could not do (say like during the famous “Valladolid debate“), then suddenly religion became a hindrance which had to be “reformed”. And, indeed, once the original Christianity was “reformed” (be it by the Reform or the Counter-Reformation) all hell broke lose for most of mankind and the Age of Imperialism was fully ushered in and the ancient motto “exitus acta probat” became the de facto measure of morality.

Then came the first blow of the scientific revolution of the late Renaissance which left the Papacy with very little credibility left.

The next blow came during WWII when the Papacy saw its very last hurrah come and go, pretty quickly, in fact (it lasted just as long as Hitler’s “1000 year Reich” did: 12 years). By the end of the war, western Christianity was left in shambles and, even worse was the fact that none of the victors of WWII (Reformed Anglos, Atheist Soviets, Jews – secular and not, etc.) had any warm feelings left for the Christianity (truth be told, neither did Hitler or Mussolini). At this point the Papacy decided to commit suicide and organized the Vatican II Council, which must be the most massive surrender of values previously held for sacred in history. This ill-advised attempt to show “Roman Catholicism with a human face” resulted in a total failure. Those who hated the Papacy were unimpressed did not like it any more. As for the confused rank and file “Roman Catholics” (whom I refer to as “Latins”), they were were left with the following conundrum: if the Pope is infallible (which he is as per the First Vatican Council of 1868), how can he so clearly contradict the teachings of his own Church (not to mention the teachings of his putatively infallible predecessors!)? Some declared that the Pope was a heretic, others simply declared that the “Holy See” was unoccupied (“sedevacantism“), but most simply gave up in total disgust (sex scandals did not help!) and simply stopped asking “what is the truth”?

When a Church which had declared itself “The Church” (all in CAPS, and at the exclusion of all others) for 910 years (almost a millennium!) suddenly acts as if all religions were equally “true” (this is logically impossible, but never mind that) and when a once powerful “Holy Father” (and Vicar of Christ, no less!) becomes just another public figure somewhere between Kim Kardashian and Greta Thunberg, you know that something very big has taken place.

Something very bad too.

 

The truth is not only unwelcome, it does not even exist, right?!

Both world wars were the manifestation of an immense civilizational collapse. WWI saw the collapse of the traditional European monarchies and empires. WWII, and its absolutely unprecedented explosion of hatred (political, class, racial, linguistic, religious, etc.) saw Europe, once the center of our planet, being subjected to a monstrous (but also highly predictable) bloodbath which resulted in two non-European powers splitting the world into two spheres of influence (at least that was the plan). More interestingly, while nominally “Christian” rulers and countries could not openly advocate for mass terror, the “enlightened” secular folks had no such problems at all. Just read Trotsky’s brilliant, if clearly satanic, “Dictatorship versus Democracy” or Hitler’s 5th chapter in Mein Kampf (here in German if you can!).

Both Dostoevskii and Solzhenitsyn predicted what would inevitably happen to a world in which Nihilism prevails. Dostoevskii very simply summarized it all when he wrote (in the Karamazov Brothers) “if there is no God, then everything is allowed“. The Nihilists have simply logically concluded that if there is no God, and everything is allowed, then nothing really exists, most certainly not any “real” (objective) reality. Even the very notions of “good” and “evil” are absolutely meaningless absent an absolute reference system.

Bertrand Russel (and, apparently, also Voltaire) once brilliantly wrote that “God created Man in His image and Man returned Him the favor“. Amazing words, really! If we are not the creation of God, but God is our creation, that makes us very much God-like, does it not? And, as “gods” – don’t we deserve to define for ourselves what is “good” and what is “bad”? Of course we do! Once life/existence has no meaning, how could concepts such as “good” or “evil”? And that is exactly what we have done, especially our post-modern 21 century Nihilists!

Back to where we started – assessing the “so what?” defense

I have already mentioned many times the mind-blowing hypocrisy of the Dems, who all hate on Trump for his alleged “so what?” defense (which, by the way, is a mis-characterization – his defense was much more solid and logical), but have absolutely no problems with people like the Obamas or, even better, the Clintons next to whom Trump almost sounds like a paragon of honesty, integrity and an acute sense of decency. I mean, really, the Clintons made even violent mobsters (Italian or Jewish) look pure and innocent. And when they lie, this is absolutely no big deal. But when Trump lies, then he elicits the kind of blind, impotent, rage which in the Gospel is described by the words “weeping and gnashing of teeth“. Maybe that is what they refer to when they speak of a “Trump derangement syndrome” amongst US liberals?

The truth is simple: we all know that Trump lied. About the Iranian counter-strike and about many other things. We also know that Obama lied. And Baby-Bush too. And the Clinton and his no-sex cigars… And we remember “read my lips, no new taxes” just as well as we remember “We did not, I repeat, did not trade weapons or anything else [to Iran] for hostages, nor will we“. So yes, we remember.

We just don’t care anymore.

We have been completely desensitized not only to truth, but even to reality.

So what, right?

And the consequences are dire indeed!

Conclusion: life in a reality-free world

The fact that we, who live inside the Empire, live in a reality-free world has a huge impact upon the actions of our rulers. After all, if nobody really believes in, or cares about, reality, then why should our rulers bother with making reality any better, especially for us? It is much, much, simpler to simply present a “feelgood” message about how great “America” is (as in “We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far!“) and never mind that this most powerful military in the Galaxy could not even protect its own soldiers even though they knew exactly when and where the Iranian counter-strike would come.

Of course, with time, the entire edifice of lies built by US and EU politicians will come crashing down, either as a consequence of a military defeat impossible to hide, or from a major economic shock. This will be totally unexpected for those who choose to live in a reality-free world.

The Road to Damascus: How the Syria War was Won

The Road to Damascus: How the Syria War was Won

October 18, 2019

by Pepe Escobar : posted with permission and crossposted with Consortium News

What is happening in Syria, following yet another Russia-brokered deal, is a massive geopolitical game-changer. I’ve tried to summarize it in a single paragraph this way:

“It’s a quadruple win. The U.S. performs a face saving withdrawal, which Trump can sell as avoiding a conflict with NATO ally Turkey. Turkey has the guarantee – by the Russians – that the Syrian Army will be in control of the Turkish-Syrian border. Russia prevents a war escalation and keeps the Russia-Iran-Turkey peace process alive.  And Syria will eventually regain control of the entire northeast.”

Syria may be the biggest defeat for the CIA since Vietnam.

Yet that hardly begins to tell the whole story.

Allow me to briefly sketch in broad historical strokes how we got here.

It began with an intuition I felt last month at the tri-border point of Lebanon, Syria and Occupied Palestine; followed by a subsequent series of conversations in Beirut with first-class Lebanese, Syrian, Iranian, Russian, French and Italian analysts; all resting on my travels in Syria since the 1990s; with a mix of selected bibliography in French available at Antoine’s in Beirut thrown in.

The Vilayets

Let’s start in the 19thcentury when Syria consisted of six vilayets — Ottoman provinces — without counting Mount Lebanon, which had a special status since 1861 to the benefit of Maronite Christians and Jerusalem, which was a sanjak (administrative division) of Istanbul.

The vilayets did not define the extremely complex Syrian identity: for instance, Armenians were the majority in the vilayet of Maras, Kurds in Diyarbakir – both now part of Turkey in southern Anatolia – and the vilayets of Aleppo and Damascus were both Sunni Arab.

Nineteenth century Ottoman Syria was the epitome of cosmopolitanism. There were no interior borders or walls. Everything was inter-dependent.

Ethnic groups in the Balkans and Asia Minor, early 20th Century, Historical Atlas, 1911.

Then the Europeans, profiting from World War I, intervened. France got the Syrian-Lebanese littoral, and later the vilayets of Maras and Mosul (today in Iraq). Palestine was separated from Cham (the “Levant”), to be internationalized. The vilayet of Damascus was cut in half: France got the north, the Brits got the south. Separation between Syria and the mostly Christian Lebanese lands came later.

There was always the complex question of the Syria-Iraq border. Since antiquity, the Euphrates acted as a barrier, for instance between the Cham of the Umayyads and their fierce competitors on the other side of the river, the Mesopotamian Abbasids.

James Barr, in his splendid “A Line in the Sand,” notes, correctly, that the Sykes-Picot agreement imposed on the Middle East the European conception of territory: their “line in the sand” codified a delimited separation between nation-states. The problem is, there were no nation-states in region in the early 20thcentury.

The birth of Syria as we know it was a work in progress, involving the Europeans, the Hashemite dynasty, nationalist Syrians invested in building a Greater Syria including Lebanon, and the Maronites of Mount Lebanon. An important factor is that few in the region lamented losing dependence on Hashemite Medina, and except the Turks, the loss of the vilayet of Mosul in what became Iraq after World War I.

In 1925, Sunnis became the de facto prominent power in Syria, as the French unified Aleppo and Damascus. During the 1920s France also established the borders of eastern Syria. And the Treaty of Lausanne, in 1923, forced the Turks to give up all Ottoman holdings but didn’t keep them out of the game.

Turkish borders according to the Treaty of Lausanne, 1923.

The Turks soon started to encroach on the French mandate, and began blocking the dream of Kurdish autonomy. France in the end gave in: the Turkish-Syrian border would parallel the route of the fabled Bagdadbahn — the Berlin-Baghdad railway.

In the 1930s France gave in even more: the sanjak of Alexandretta (today’s Iskenderun, in Hatay province, Turkey), was finally annexed by Turkey in 1939 when only 40 percent of the population was Turkish.

The annexation led to the exile of tens of thousands of Armenians. It was a tremendous blow for Syrian nationalists. And it was a disaster for Aleppo, which lost its corridor to the Eastern Mediterranean.

Turkish forces under entered Alexandretta on July 5, 1938.

To the eastern steppes, Syria was all about Bedouin tribes. To the north, it was all about the Turkish-Kurdish clash. And to the south, the border was a mirage in the desert, only drawn with the advent of Transjordan. Only the western front, with Lebanon, was established, and consolidated after WWII.

This emergent Syria — out of conflicting Turkish, French, British and myriad local interests —obviously could not, and did not, please any community. Still, the heart of the nation configured what was described as “useful Syria.” No less than 60 percent of the nation was — and remains — practically void. Yet, geopolitically, that translates into “strategic depth” — the heart of the matter in the current war.

From Hafez to Bashar

Starting in 1963, the Baath party, secular and nationalist, took over Syria, finally consolidating its power in 1970 with Hafez al-Assad, who instead of just relying on his Alawite minority, built a humongous, hyper-centralized state machinery mixed with a police state. The key actors who refused to play the game were the Muslim Brotherhood, all the way to being massacred during the hardcore 1982 Hama repression.

Secularism and a police state: that’s how the fragile Syrian mosaic was preserved. But already in the 1970s major fractures were emerging: between major cities and a very poor periphery; between the “useful” west and the Bedouin east; between Arabs and Kurds. But the urban elites never repudiated the iron will of Damascus: cronyism, after all, was quite profitable.

Damascus interfered heavily with the Lebanese civil war since 1976 at the invitation of the Arab League as a “peacekeeping force.” In Hafez al-Assad’s logic, stressing the Arab identity of Lebanon was essential to recover Greater Syria. But Syrian control over Lebanon started to unravel in 2005, after the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, very close to Saudi Arabia, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) eventually left.

Bashar al-Assad had taken power in 2000. Unlike his father, he bet on the Alawites to run the state machinery, preventing the possibility of a coup but completely alienating himself from the poor, Syrian on the street.

What the West defined as the Arab Spring, began in Syria in March 2011; it was a revolt against the Alawites as much  as a revolt against Damascus. Totally instrumentalized by the foreign interests, the revolt sprang up in extremely poor, dejected Sunni peripheries: Deraa in the south, the deserted east, and the suburbs of Damascus and Aleppo.

Protest in Damascus, April 24, 2011. (syriana2011/Flickr)

What was not understood in the West is that this “beggars banquet” was not against the Syrian nation, but against a “regime.” Jabhat al-Nusra, in a P.R. exercise, even broke its official link with al-Qaeda and changed its denomination to Fatah al-Cham and then Hayat Tahrir al-Cham (“Organization for the Liberation of the Levant”). Only ISIS/Daesh said they were fighting for the end of Sykes-Picot.

By 2014, the perpetually moving battlefield was more or less established: Damascus against both Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS/Daesh, with a wobbly role for the Kurds in the northeast, obsessed in preserving the cantons of Afrin, Kobane and Qamichli.

But the key point is that each katiba (“combat group”), each neighborhood, each village, and in fact each combatant was in-and-out of allegiances non-stop. That yielded a dizzying nebulae of jihadis, criminals, mercenaries, some linked to al-Qaeda, some to Daesh, some trained by the Americans, some just making a quick buck.

For instance Salafis — lavishly financed by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait — especially Jaish al-Islam, even struck alliances with the PYD Kurds in Syria and the jihadis of Hayat Tahrir al-Cham (the remixed, 30,000-strong  al-Qaeda in Syria). Meanwhile, the PYD Kurds (an emanation of the Turkish Kurds’ PKK, which Ankara consider “terrorists”) profited from this unholy mess — plus a deliberate ambiguity by Damascus – to try to create their autonomous Rojava.

A demonstration in the city of Afrin in support of the YPG against the Turkish invasion of Afrin, Jan. 19, 2018. (Voice of America Kurdish, Wikimedia Commons)

That Turkish Strategic Depth

Turkey was all in. Turbo-charged by the neo-Ottoman politics of former Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, the logic was to reconquer parts of the Ottoman empire, and get rid of Assad because he had helped PKK Kurdish rebels in Turkey.

Davutoglu’s Strategik Derinlik (“Strategic Depth’), published in 2001, had been a smash hit in Turkey, reclaiming the glory of eight centuries of an sprawling empire, compared to puny 911 kilometers of borders fixed by the French and the Kemalists. Bilad al Cham, the Ottoman province congregating Lebanon, historical Palestine, Jordan and Syria, remained a powerful magnet in both the Syrian and Turkish unconscious.

No wonder Turkey’s Recep Erdogan was fired up: in 2012 he even boasted he was getting ready to pray in the Umayyad mosque in Damascus, post-regime change, of course. He has been gunning for a safe zone inside the Syrian border — actually a Turkish enclave — since 2014. To get it, he has used a whole bag of nasty players — from militias close to the Muslim Brotherhood to hardcore Turkmen gangs.

With the establishment of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), for the first time Turkey allowed foreign weaponized groups to operate on its own territory. A training camp was set up in 2011 in the sanjakof Alexandretta. The Syrian National Council was also created in Istanbul – a bunch of non-entities from the diaspora who had not been in Syria for decades.

Ankara enabled a de facto Jihad Highway — with people from Central Asia, Caucasus, Maghreb, Pakistan, Xinjiang, all points north in Europe being smuggled back and forth at will. In 2015, Ankara, Riyadh and Doha set up the dreaded Jaish al-Fath (“Army of Conquest”), which included Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda).

At the same time, Ankara maintained an extremely ambiguous relationship with ISIS/Daesh, buying its smuggled oil, treating jihadis in Turkish hospitals, and paying zero attention to jihad intel collected and developed on Turkish territory. For at least five years, the MIT — Turkish intelligence – provided political and logistic background to the Syrian opposition while weaponizing a galaxy of Salafis. After all, Ankara believed that ISIS/Daesh only existed because of the “evil” deployed by the Assad regime.

The Russian Factor

Russian President Vladiimir Putin meeting with President of Turkey Recep Erdogan; Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov standing in background, Ankara, Dec. 1, 2014 Ankara. (Kremlin)

The first major game-changer was the spectacular Russian entrance in the summer of 2015. Vladimir Putin had asked the U.S. to join in the fight against the Islamic State as the Soviet Union allied against Hitler, negating the American idea that this was Russia’s bid to restore its imperial glory. But the American plan instead, under Barack Obama, was single-minded: betting on a rag-tag Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a mix of Kurds and Sunni Arabs, supported by air power and U.S. Special Forces, north of the Euphrates, to smash ISIS/Daesh all the way to Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor.

Raqqa, bombed to rubble by the Pentagon, may have been taken by the SDF, but Deir ez-Zor was taken by Damascus’s Syrian Arab Army. The ultimate American aim was to consistently keep the north of the Euphrates under U.S. power, via their proxies, the SDF and the Kurdish PYD/YPG. That American dream is now over, lamented by imperial Democrats and Republicans alike.

The CIA will be after Trump’s scalp till Kingdom Come.

Kurdish Dream Over

Talk about a cultural misunderstanding. As much as the Syrian Kurds believed U.S. protection amounted to an endorsement of their independence dreams, Americans never seemed to understand that throughout the “Greater Middle East” you cannot buy a tribe. At best, you can rent them. And they use you according to their interests. I’ve seen it from Afghanistan to Iraq’s Anbar province.

The Kurdish dream of a contiguous, autonomous territory from Qamichli to Manbij is over. Sunni Arabs living in this perimeter will resist any Kurdish attempt at dominance.

The Syrian PYD was founded in 2005 by PKK militants. In 2011, Syrians from the PKK came from Qandil – the PKK base in northern Iraq – to build the YPG militia for the PYD. In predominantly Arab zones, Syrian Kurds are in charge of governing because for them Arabs are seen as a bunch of barbarians, incapable of building their “democratic, socialist, ecological and multi-communitarian” society.

Kurdish PKK guerillas In Kirkuk, Iraq. (Kurdishstruggle via Flickr)

One can imagine how conservative Sunni Arab tribal leaders hate their guts. There’s no way these tribal leaders will ever support the Kurds against the SAA or the Turkish army; after all these Arab tribal leaders spent a lot of time in Damascus seeking support from Bashar al-Assad.  And now the Kurds themselves have accepted that support in the face of the Trukish incursion, greenlighted by Trump.

East of Deir ez-Zor, the PYD/YPG already had to say goodbye to the region that is responsible for 50 percent of Syria’s oil production. Damascus and the SAA now have the upper hand. What’s left for the PYD/YPG is to resign themselves to Damascus’s and Russian protection against Turkey, and the chance of exercising sovereignty in exclusively Kurdish territories.

Ignorance of the West

The West, with typical Orientalist haughtiness, never understood that Alawites, Christians, Ismailis and Druze in Syria would always privilege Damascus for protection compared to an “opposition” monopolized by hardcore Islamists, if not jihadis.  The West also did not understand that the government in Damascus, for survival, could always count on formidable Baath party networks plus the dreaded mukhabarat — the intel services.

Rebuilding Syria

The reconstruction of Syria may cost as much as $200 billion. Damascus has already made it very clear that the U.S. and the EU are not welcome. China will be in the forefront, along with Russia and Iran; this will be a project strictly following the Eurasia integration playbook — with the Chinese aiming to revive Syria’s strategic positioning in the Ancient Silk Road.

As for Erdogan, distrusted by virtually everyone, and a tad less neo-Ottoman than in the recent past, he now seems to have finally understood that Bashar al-Assad “won’t go,” and he must live with it. Ankara is bound to remain imvolved with Tehran and Moscow, in finding a comprehensive, constitutional solution for the Syrian tragedy through the former “Astana process”, later developed in Ankara.

The war may not have been totally won, of course. But against all odds, it’s clear a unified, sovereign Syrian nation is bound to prevail over every perverted strand of geopolitical molotov cocktails concocted in sinister NATO/GCC labs. History will eventually tell us that, as an example to the whole Global South, this will remain the ultimate game-changer.

 

أميركا التي لا تحارب

سبتمبر 28, 2019

توفيق شومان

يسأل العلامة ول ديورانت كاتب قصة الحضارة و قصة الفلسفة : مَن هي أميركا؟

يسأل ديورانت ويجيب: أميركا هي الحصان ورجل الأعمال.

الحصان في المفهوم العام هو رمز الفروسية، إلا أنه في المفهوم الأميركي وسيلة الكاوبوي ، ولا داعي لتفصيل رمزية رجل الأعمال.

جاء دونالد ترامب إلى البيت الأبيض كـ رجل أعمال ، يمتهن عقد الصفقات وإجادتها مثلما قال وأسهب في حملته الانتخابية وبعد تنصيبه رئيساً.

هذا يعيد الأمور إلى فلسفة وصول ترامب إلى رأس الإدارة الأميركية وعلاقتها بصلب الفلسفة العملية ، او النفعية أو البراغماتية، وهي فلسفة أميركية خالصة ومحضة، وإن نشأ بعض جذورها في القارة الأوروبية.

يكتب مؤسس الفلسفة البراغماتية الأميركي تشارلز بيرس 1839ـ1914 مقالة في العام 1878 تحت عنوان كيف نجعل أفكارنا واضحة؟ ، ويذهب إلى إجابة مضمونها بأن الفكرة الواضحة هي الفكرة القابلة للتطبيق والمعبّرة عن آثار حسية.

بعد تشارلز بيرس، يأتي مواطنه وليم جيمس 1842ـ 1910 ليقول إن معنى الحقيقة في قيمتها العملية، وأي بحث عن معنى آخر ضرب من العبث، وأما الأميركي الآخر جون ديوي 1859ـ1952 الذي يكتمل به الثلاثي الفلسفي البراغماتي فيرى أن الأفكار تجارب، وأي فكرة لا قيمة لها اذا تجرّدت من نتائجها العملية.

ما علاقة الفلسفة بالحرب؟

علاقة الفلسفة بالحرب، أن الحديث يدور حول فلسفة أميركية نفعية وحول حرب يمكن أن تكون نفعية ويمكن ألا تكون. وبمعنى آخر، يدور الحديث عن الحرب كفعل أو فكرة تحقق الغاية النفعية للولايات المتحدة أو لا تحققها.

والسؤال المطروح حيال ذلك:

ما الحروب التي خاضتها الولايات المتحدة؟

هذا يفرض العودة إلى عقارب الحروب في القرن العشرين وفي أوراقها التالي:

شغلت الولايات المتحدة مقاعد المتفرّجين في بداية الحرب العالمية الأولى، فمشهد الحرب ومسرحها كان في أوروبا، وفيما ذهب الأميركيون إلى ما يمكن تسميته بـ النفعية العليا خلال السنوات الثلاث الأولى للحرب وعملوا على تزويد الأوروبيين المتقاتلين بالسلاح والملابس والدواء والغذاء. مما أدى إلى نهضة اقتصادية أميركية لا سابق لها، وهذا ما أثار حفيظة ألمانيا، فراحت تهاجم السفن التجارية الأميركية في العام 1917 وتحثّ المكسيك للدخول في الحرب واعدة إياها بإعادة ولايات أميركية جنوبية إلى سيادتها.

كان الأوروبيون يتحاربون والأميركيون يتاجرون في الحرب.

ودخل الأميركيون الحرب في لحظاتها الأخيرة.

لم يختلف الأمر كثيراً في الحرب العالمية الثانية، فالمصانع الأميركية للسلاح والألبسة والدواء والغذاء، ارتفع إنتاجها إلى مستويات أدهشت الأميركيين أنفسهم، إذ باتوا المصدّرين الأوائل إلى أطراف الحرب، فتوسّع رأس المال وتضخّمت المصانع.

هنا جاء الهجوم الياباني على بيرل هاربور في العام 1941، أي بعد ثلاث سنوات من اشتعال الحرب العالمية الثانية، وكان من شأن هذا الهجوم أن يغيّر مجرى الحرب.

مرة ثانية:

كان العالم، شرقاً وغرباً، يتقاتل في الحرب العالمية الثانية وكان الأميركيون يتاجرون في الحرب.

ينتفعون منها.

يكنزون الأرباح والذهب والفضة.

انتهت الحرب العالمية الثانية وقرعت الحرب الكورية 1950ـ1953 طبولها، وهي حرب أميركية ـ صينية بالدرجة الأولى، وخلاصة الحرب يفسّرها أحد أهم الخبراء الأميركيين في الشؤون الصينية، هـ. ج. كريل، في كتابه المعروف الفكر الصيني من كونفوشيوس إلى ماو ، حيث يقول: كان ثمة تصورات خاطئة لدى الخبراء العسكريين في شؤون الشرق الأقصى، فقد كانوا يتصورون أن الصيني لا يحارب .

هذا خطأ في التصورات.

ربما يضاهي خطأ ألمانيا في الحرب العالمية الأولى

ويوازي خطأ اليابان في الحرب العالمية الثانية. ويساوي خطأ الزعيم النازي ادولف هتلر حين هاجم الاتحاد السوفياتي في الحرب الثانية أيضاً، فانقلب ظهر المجن عليه.

ويوازن خطأ نابوليون بونابرت حين غزا روسيا في العام 1812، فأصابه ما أصاب براقش، فجنى على نفسه وأسدل الستار المأساوي على حروب التوسع النابوليونية.

خطأ في التصورات قد يؤدي الى حرب.

ذاك موجز الحرب الكورية.

ماذا عن حرب فيتنام؟

هي نظرية الدومينو التي كشف عنها الرئيس الأميركي دوايت ايزنهاور في العام 1954، وموجزها يكمن في التصور الأميركي القائل بأن سقوط فيتنام في قبضة الشيوعية، سيؤدي إلى قيام أنظمة رفيقة في كمبوديا ولاوس وتايلند والفيلبين وأندونيسيا واليابان وأوستراليا.

هذه النظرية ما فتئت محل نقاش حارّ في الولايات المتحدة وعما إذا كات مدرجة في سياق التصورات والحسابات الخاطئة أم أنها كانت أمراً محتوماً لا فرار منه، خصوصاً بعد استعار المواجهة مع الرايات الحمراء التي طرقت أبواب القارة الأميركية مع فيديل كاسترو وتشي غيفارا، وما نجم عن ذلك، من تداعيات كان في طليعتها غزوة خليج الخنازير في العام 1961 و أزمة الصواريخ الكوبية في العام 1962.

الجدل حول نظرية الدومينو ما زال قائماً.

والإجابة غير قاطعة لغاية الآن.

ولكن ماذا عن الحروب الأميركية الأخرى في أواخر القرن العشرين ومطلع القرن الحالي؟

بعد حرب فيتنام، انخرطت الولايات المتحدة في حروب الوكالة ، والتي تعني الارتكاز على حلفاء محليين لمواجهة الخصوم أو الأعداء. وهكذا كان أمرها مع حرب أفغانستان الأولى إثر الاجتياح السوفياتي في العام 1979، فراحت تقاتل بـ غيرها ، وهي الحال نفسها في أفريقيا وأميركا اللاتينية.

المشهد عينه، سوف يبرز في حروب أميركية لاحقة. فخلال حرب افغانستان الثانية في العام 2001، كانت ركيزة الحرب الأميركية قائمة على الحلفاء المحليين . وهذا ينطبق على العراق في العام 2003، وعلى ليبيا في العام 2011، مع فارق بين الحربين الأفغانية والعراقية وبين الحرب الليبية، أن الولايات المتحدة اعتمدت في افغانستان والعراق مبدأ القيادة من الأمام ، وفي ليبيا القيادة من الخلف .

ثمة دروس فائقة الأهمية في الحروب الأفغانية والعراقية والليبية خلاصتها وإجمالها في التالي:

ـ خاضت الولايات المتحدة حربها الأفغانية بوجه دولة ممزقة.

ـ خاضت الولايات المتحدة حربها العراقية بوجه دولة محطّمة.

ـ خاضت الولايات المتحدة حربها الليبية بوجه دولة مشرذمة.

عملياً، كان العدو ضعيفاً ، وكأن الولايات المتحدة كانت تبحث عن حرب مع الفراغ، ولذلك كان إسقاط الأنظمة القائمة سهلاً.

الحرب السهلة لأجل النصر السهل.

ذاك عنوان قد يكون مناسباً لحروب الولايات المتحدة في دول الإقليم، وبصرف النظر عن التعقيدات والمآلات التي تلت مقدمات تلك الحروب ومفاصلها الأولى، فما بعد المقدمات والمفاصل حديث آخر.

هل يمكن الخروج بقراءة عامة لحروب الولايات المتحدة؟

لنلاحظ التالي:

ـ في الحربين العالميتين الأولى والثانية لجأت الولايات المتحدة إلى مبدأ الانتظار ، ولم تدخل الحربين إلا بعدما تهالك وتآكل المتحاربون، وهو مبدأ يشكل ذروة النفعية.

ـ في الحرب الكورية، تورّط الأميركيّون في التصورات الخاطئة.

ـ حول الحرب الفيتنامية ما زال الأميركيون يتجادلون حول الخطأ والضرورة.

ـ في حروب افغانستان والعراق وليبيا اعتمد الأميركيون مبدأ الاستناد إلى الركيزة المحلية.

ـ في حروب أفغانستان والعراق وليبيا استغل الأميركيون واقع الأنظمة الهشة.

ـ في الحربين العالميتين الأولى والثانية وفي حرب أفغانستان الثانية، كانت مبررات الحروب الأميركية: قصف الغواصات الألمانية للسفن التجارية الأميركية ـ الهجوم الياباني على قاعدة بيرل هاربور العسكرية ـ تفجيرات تنظيم القاعدة في واشنطن ونيويورك، أي وقوع الولايات المتحدة تحت مرمى الاستهداف المباشر.

ـ في حرب العراق 1991، اعتبر الأميركيون احتلال الكويت عبثاً بالجغرفيا السياسية وخرائطها.

أي حالة تنطبق على ايران؟

ولا حالة.

ولا مبرر.

ولا نفعية ولا منفعة.

وفي تفصيل هذه الحالات ، يمكن القول إن الأميركيين لا يمكنهم اعتماد مبدأ الانتظار ليدخلوا الحرب مع ايران في لحظاتها الأخيرة، كما في الحربين الأولى والثانية، فإيران ليست في حالة حرب مع أي دولة، كما لا يمكن للأميركيين خوض حرب مع إيران بالوكالة، فلا وجود لقوى محلية إيرانية تشكل ركيزة للحرب، ولا توجد قوى اقليمية يمكن أن تشكل الركيزة المفقودة، وفوق ذلك فإيران دولة متماسكة وليست دولة هشّة على ما كانت عليه حالات افغانستان والعراق وليبيا.

يبقى التصوّر الخاطئ.

هل يمكن ان يخطئ الأميركيون بتصوراتهم؟

هذا احتمال ضعيف، بل هو أضعف الاحتمالات، وفي القياس النفعي يفرض السؤال نفسه: ماذا يجني دونالد ترامب من الحرب مع إيران؟

لا شيء مضمون سوى أن النفوذ الأميركي في الخليج سيكون محل سؤال استراتيجي كبير، وهل يبقى على حاله ام تنقلب أحواله سلباً وتراجعاً؟

إذا لماذا الحرب والنتائج غير مضمونة؟

تحت طيات هذا السؤال ربما يعيد الإيرانيون قراءة أمثالهم القديمة.

ربما واحد منهم يردّد المثل الإيراني القديم:

لا تقتل الأفعى بيدك

اقتلها بيد عدوك.

فعلاً لم يحدث هذا منذ ألف عام

 

يوليو 25, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– 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.

Related Videos

Related Articles

Taking a Minute to Walk in Iran’s Shoes

Iran Feature photo

Feature photo | Mourners carry flag-draped caskets in a funeral procession for 150 soldiers whose remains were recently recovered. The soldiers were killed during the war with then-US-backed-Iraq in the 1980s, Tehran, Iran, June 27, 2019. Vahid Salemi | AP

If one can learn anything from the modern history of Iran, it’s that great powers will sell — and have sold — them out at a moment’s notice.

61mjZGKbAAL._UL1500_

Iran has seen its fair share of the damage imperialism has inflicted on the world — joint Russian and British control over Iran during the Qajar era, then the killing of one fifth of the Iranian population between 1917-19 (as documented in Barry Rubin’s The Middle East: A Guide to Politics, Economics, Society and Culture, p. 508) from famine brought on by the confiscating of foodstuff by occupying British forces that had violated Iran’s neutrality in World War I. This was followed in WWII by a coup that ousted Reza Shah, the then-king of Iran, also at a time when Iran had declared neutrality, in a British coup that put his son Mohammad Reza Shah on the throne of the kingdom. We need not mention the joint American-British coup, in which hundreds were killed, that toppled the popular Mosaddegh government because of its nationalization of the Iranian oil industry (which would have damaged American and British interests in Iranian oil).

The only time Iran saw an actual democratic movement succeed in giving power to the people that foreign powers were not able to abort was with the Islamic Revolution of 1979; and, even after that, the AmericansEuropeans, and even Arab countries of the Persian Gulf aided Saddam Hussein in a war he instigated against Iran — providing him with arms and chemical weapons, as well as intelligence.



A lesson in wariness

Taking these historical events (and many more instances) into account, it is no wonder that Iranians would be very wary of any moves made by the United States and other global powers, namely those with a colonial track record. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal) could have very well marked a paradigm shift in relations with Iran, but instead, the Europeans did not abide by their commitments, and the Americans just up-and-left the agreement as soon as Trump got around to Iran. Not only that but, instead of abiding by their commitments, they’re trying to milk even more out of the deal — promising they’ll abide by their commitments if Iran offers more to an already done deal. What this means is they are being asked to add concessions in their ballistic missile program, much to the benefit of Arab Persian Gulf monarchies that are on a trend of increased militarization.

Trump's War On Iran. (Image: Carlos Latuff For MintPress News)

Credit | Carlos Latuff

Which brings us to the region’s latest round of tensions.

Given the already-stated facts, one has to understand, first and foremost, that Iran is dealing with a number of countries that have a history of falsifying facts, not standing by their agreements, and going into war in order to secure their own economic interests at the expense of other peoples. One must not forget the Indian famine in WWII, caused by food being exported from India to Britain, killing more than 20 million Indians, in reference to which Churchill said: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.”

Living in such a flammable neighborhood — where the United States and its allies recently occupied its neighbors to the east and west and built military bases — and with such historical baggage, it’s not far-fetched that Iran, being the region’s most stable country, would rather rely on deterrence and defensive capabilities to secure itself than give concessions that could damage its security to powers that can hardly be trusted to keep their own word, as their own history suggests.

 

A wise decision

Iran made a wise decision in its downing of the RQ-4 drone. Usually, the shooting down of military surveillance drones does not lead to military escalation, though it does lead to an increase in tension. By doing so, Tehran was successful in warning any aggressor — be it the United States or any other country, for that matter — that it is not willing to compromise on matters of security or national pride (though the U.S. claims the drone was flying above international waters — 8000 miles away from U.S. soil — the debris has since been recovered by Iranian authorities in Iranian waters).

Iran US Drone

An Iranian general looks at debris from a U.S. military drone shot down by Iran’s air defense system, June 21, 2019. Meghdad Madadi | Tasnim via AP

The wisdom of this decision is that Iran delivered the intended message without causing any escalation — which doubtless would have been the outcome if it had downed a manned military plane that was also in its sites in the vicinity of the drone. It was a message that Trump had clearly received, and for which he expressed appreciation to Iranian authorities (although why he would bother to thank Iran if it was attacking a plane flying over “international waters” as he said is truly baffling).

In addition to that — although it had the legal right to shoot down the drone for flying over its airspace, which extends to 12 nautical miles from its borders — Iran also has the right to demand identification from any aircraft flying close to its territory. For more perspective, U.S. Air Defense Identification Zones extend 200 miles from the U.S. border and, as testified to by a former U.S. Air Force navigator, any unidentified drone flying that close to the U.S. border would most likely be shot down. The shooting down of this unidentified drone, even supposing the U.S.’s version of events were true, is perfectly warranted on Iran’s part, and does not allow the U.S. any measure of retaliation in “self-defense,” because no lives were lost in its downing.

Moreover, Iran clearly showed other countries what it was able to achieve independently through its reliance on its own capabilities. It downed the world’s leading military power’s aircraft for infringing on its airspace, and did so without hesitation because it sees itself as truly “sovereign.” Although the U.S. may threaten Iran with its military might and its presence in the region, Iran’s ballistic missile program has allowed it to turn that very strength into a weakness by having American bases, and 25,000 American troops, within targeting range.

A war with Iran would devastate the region. A war with Iran, Hezbollah, the Popular Mobilization Forces, and Ansarullah is in the interest of no one, and God only knows what other surprises Iran might have in store for conspiring Arab monarchies. The smart move would be to repair the JCPOA in order to avoid further escalation in the region.

Karim Sharara is a Lebanese PhD student who’s lived in Tehran since 2013 studying political science at the University of Tehran with a focus on Iranian affairs. 

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy.

Trump’s Annihilation Threat to Iran and WWI Déjà Vu

Finian Cunningham
May 22, 2019

The erratic US president has gone from wishing for peace with Iran to, a few days later, making a veiled threat of nuclear annihilation against the Islamic Republic.

Donald Trump got on his twitter pulpit at the weekend, warning about the “official end of Iran”.

The configuration of military power in the Persian Gulf, the heightening of tensions between the US and Iran, and the unhinged aggressive rhetoric all make a tinderbox situation.

At times, the protagonists have each said they don’t want war. But just like the slippery slope towards the First World War (1914-18), the eruption of hostilities can take on a logic of its own.

Paradoxically, assurances last week from President Trump and his top diplomat Mike Pompeo that the US “is not fundamentally seeking a war with Iran” are not in fact all that reassuring.

Neither, it must be said, are assurances from the Iranian leadership that they also do not want war with the US. Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif said there was “no appetite for war”. That may be so, but it’s no guarantee there won’t be one, especially because the circumstances are so precarious.

In the run-up to the First World War, European leaders were similarly adamant that war could be avoided. They thought their rationality and modernity would spare them from catastrophe. Nevertheless, the Europeans quickly plunged into a conflagration through a chain reaction beyond their control.

What bodes particularly grave today is the erratic and incendiary nature of Trump’s rhetoric. At the end of last week he was telling media that “he hoped” there would not be war with Iran. Indeed, he even alluded to the possibility of future diplomatic talks with Tehran. Then, over the weekend, Trump flipped as always and tweeted that if Iran threatened the US “it will be the official end of Iran”.

“If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!” tweeted the US Commander-in-Chief.

It’s not clear what set him off. Maybe reports of rocket attacks on the American embassy in Baghdad, fingering Iranian-backed Iraqi militias. Or maybe someone overcooked his hamburger.

There can be no doubt that Trump was invoking the use of nuclear weapons against Iran if any war were to break out. What else to deduce from the words “the official end of Iran”?

A senior Republican Senator, Tom Cotton, who is an arch war hawk on Iran, also appeared to endorse nuclear strikes if any conflict were to arise. He told Fox News that the US could defeat Iran with just two strikes, cryptically calling them “the first strike and the last strike”. That again leaves little doubt that nuclear annihilation is on the mind of Washington politicians with regard to prosecuting a war with Iran.

Such thinking is, of course, despicable. To contemplate the genocidal destruction of another nation demonstrates the barbarity and iniquity of American rulers. But we should not be surprised by such depravity. After all, the Americans are the only people who ever used atomic weapons when they dropped two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, killing over 200,000 civilians. Washington has always reserved the infernal “right” to use nuclear force preemptively to “defend its vital interests”.

During the Cold War decades, US strategists had drawn up plans to launch pre-emptive nuclear attacks on both the Soviet Union and China, knowing full well that millions of innocents would be obliterated.

Trump has previously warned North Korea with nuclear destruction, bragging about “a fury like the world has never seen before”. He even made a similar threat of annihilation against North Korea while addressing the UN General Assembly in September 2017. The arrogant criminality knows no bounds. Imagine, before the UN in brazen violation of its founding charter outlawing aggression, Trump actually seemed to relish genocide. (He has since gone on to embrace North Korean leader Kim Jong-un with diplomacy, but the psychotic American power could revert to barbarous aggression at any time, if talks don’t appease its dictates.)

Trump’s latest rhetorical broadside against Iran is as provocative as it gets. To crow about wiping out an entire nation is all but declaring war. It’s one tweet away from sparking a conflagration. It’s insane and criminal. Why has Twitter not shut down Trump’s account?

To return to our First World War analogy, that horrendous event, resulting in up to 20 million deaths and the arrival of industrial-scale killing, was largely opposed by the public at the time. Political, military and imperial leaders went to war in spite of assurances beforehand there would be no war. It was like the nations stumbled into a conflagration.

However, it wasn’t entirely unprecedented. What made the violence inevitable was the configuration of military forces and international tensions had been put in place over several years like a powder keg. One spark – the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914 – led to a chain reaction of disaster.

That’s why vows from this American president that he doesn’t want war are rather disconcerting. The complacency is alarming. The Trump administration has done everything possible to lay down an explosive fuse in the Persian Gulf. From trashing the 2015 nuclear accord with Iran, to ratcheting up economic terrorism through illegal sanctions, from sending aircraft carrier naval armada and B-52 bombers, to hinting at nuclear annihilation.

Washington is fully culpable for the explosive configuration. For Trump and other American politicians to talk about “not wanting war” is ludicrous naivety or duplicity.

Rockets fired at the American embassy in Baghdad, or Yemeni drones attacking Saudi oil infrastructure, or suspicious sabotage of tankers in the Persian Gulf. The sparks are flying at the powder keg.

The repetition of history is not inevitable. But Washington has surely done its fiendish utmost to make history repeat – a century after the First World War.

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

Afghanistan, the Forgotten Proxy War

Part I

July 3, 2019 marks the 40th anniversary of when the United States’ first military assault against Afghanistan with the CIA-backed Mujahideen began. It would be a mistake to treat the present-day conflict as being separate from the U.S. intervention that began in 1979 against the then-government of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan. Afghanistan was not always known as the chaotic, ‘failed state’ overrun by warlords as it is now; this phenomenon is a product of that U.S.-led regime change operation. The article below, originally published on March 30, 2019, summarizes and analyzes the events that transpired during and after the Cold War years as they relate to this often misunderstood, if not overlooked, aspect of the long war against Afghanistan. 

When it comes to war-torn Afghanistan and the role played by the United States and its NATO allies, what comes first to mind for most is the ‘War on Terror’ campaign launched in 2001 by George W. Bush almost immediately after the 9/11 attacks. And understandably so, considering that the United States and its allies established a direct “boots-on-the-ground” military presence in the country that year. Not only that, but during the Bush-Cheney years, there was an aggressive propaganda campaign being played out across U.S. media outlets which used women’s rights as one of the pretexts for the continued occupation. The irony of this, however, is not lost on those who understand that the conflict in Afghanistan has a long history which, much like Syria, stretches as far back as the Cold War era — especially when it was the United States that provided support for the Mujahideen in destabilizing the country and stripping away the modernizing, progressive economic and social gains, including Afghan women’s emancipation, which the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) had fought for. With the overthrow of the independent Soviet-aligned PDPA government, the Taliban emerged as a powerful faction of the Mujahideen; the U.S. would develop a working relationship with the Taliban in 1995. The war was never truly about women’s rights or other humanitarian concerns, as Stephen Gowans explains:

“Further evidence of Washington’s supreme indifference to the rights of women abroad is evidenced by the role it played in undermining a progressive government in Afghanistan that sought to release women from the grip of traditional Islamic anti-women practices. In the 1980s, Kabul was “a cosmopolitan city. Artists and hippies flocked to the capital. Women studied agriculture, engineering and business at the city’s university. Afghan women held government jobs.” There were female members of parliament, and women drove cars, and travelled and went on dates, without needing to ask a male guardian for permission. That this is no longer true is largely due to a secret decision made in the summer of 1979 by then US president Jimmy Carter and his national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski to draw “the Russians into the Afghan trap” and give “to the USSR its Vietnam War” by bankrolling and organizing Islamic fundamentalist terrorists to fight a new government in Kabul led by the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan.

The goal of the PDPA was to liberate Afghanistan from its backwardness. In the 1970s, only 12 percent of adults were literate. Life expectancy was 42 years and infant mortality the highest in the world. Half the population suffered from TB and one-quarter from malaria.”

Moreover, and contrary to the commonly held belief that the conflict in Afghanistan started in 2001, it would be more accurate to say that the war started in 1979. As a matter of fact, the Carter Administration’s 1979 decision to overthrow the PDPA and destabilize Afghanistan is at the root of why the country is in the state that it continues to be in today.

Afghan women during the PDPA era vs. Afghan women today.

The Cold War – a new phase in the age of imperialism

The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan’s military welcome their Soviet counterparts

The 1979 to 1989 period of the Mujahideen onslaught is often referred to as the ‘Soviet-Afghan War’ because of the Soviet army’s heavy involvement. Although it is true that they were heavily involved, it is not an entirely accurate descriptor because it completely ignores the fact that it was a war that was actually crafted, instigated, and led by the United States. In what was also known then as the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, the years from 1978 to 1992 are inextricably linked with Soviet history — but not because it was a Soviet “invasion” of Afghanistan and that the West had to intervene to stop it, as U.S. imperialist propaganda would have us believe. The Carter administration had already begun the planning, recruitment, and training for the Mujahideen in 1978 and had launched the attack on Afghanistan months before the Soviet army militarily intervened near the end of 1979. Also, the “Afghan trap” alone did not cause the dismantling of the Soviet Union; however, it was related. But more on that when we look at the Gorbachev years. Nevertheless, the destruction of Afghanistan was declared as a final blow to the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union’s 1991 dissolution was celebrated as “the victory of capitalism over communism” by the United States. To begin to understand the conflict in Afghanistan, it is important to examine the context in which it began: the Cold War.

In the early 1900s, Vladimir Lenin observed that capitalism had entered into its globalist phase and that the age of imperialism had begun; this means that capitalism must expand beyond national borders, and that there is an internal logic to Empire-building and imperialist wars of aggression. Lenin defines imperialism as such:

“the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.”

It should be clear that imperialism is not just merely the imposition of a country’s will on the rest of the world (although that is certainly a part of it). More precisely: it is a result of capital accumulation and is a process of empire-building and maintenance, which comes with holding back development worldwide and keeping the global masses impoverished; it is the international exercise of domination guided by economic interests. Thus, imperialism is less of a cultural phenomenon, and more so an economic one.

Lenin also theorized that imperialism and the cycle of World Wars were the products of competing national capitals between the advanced nations. As he wrote in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, World War I was about the competition between major imperialist powers — such as the competing capitals of Great Britain and Germany — over the control of and the split of plunder from colonies. Thus, finance capital was the driving force behind the exploitation and colonization of the oppressed nations; these antagonisms would eventually lead to a series of world wars as Lenin had predicted. During the First World War, the goals of the two imperial blocs of power were the acquisition, preservation, and expansion of territories considered to be strategic points and of great importance to their national economies. And during the Great Depression, protectionist measures were taken up by Britain, the United States, and France to restrict the emerging industrial nations — Germany, Italy, and Japan, also known as the Axis states — from access to more colonies and territories, thereby restricting them from access to raw materials and markets in the lead up to World War II. In particular, the two advanced capitalist industrialized powers of Germany and Japan, in their efforts to conquer new territory, threatened the economic space of Britain, the U.S., and France and threatened to take their territories, colonies, and semi-colonies by force — with Germany launching a series of aggressions in most of Europe, and Japan in Asia. WWII was, in many ways, a re-ignition of the inter-imperialist rivalry between the Anglo-French bloc and the German bloc, but with modern artillery and the significant use of aerial assaults. It was also a period of the second stage of the crisis of capitalism which saw the rise of Fascism as a reaction to Communism, with the Axis states threatening to establish a world-dominating fascist regime. For the time being, WWII would be the last we would see of world wars.

At the end of WWII, two rival global powers emerged: the United States and the Soviet Union; the Cold War was a manifestation of their ideological conflict. The Cold War era was a new phase for international capital as it saw the advent of nuclear weapons and the beginning stages of proxy warfare. It was a time when the imperialist nations, regardless of which side they were on during WWII, found a common interest in stopping the spread of Communism and seeking the destruction of the Soviet Union. By extension, these anti-communist attacks would be aimed at the Soviet-allied nations as well. This would increase the number of client states with puppet governments acting in accordance with U.S. interests who would join the NATO bloc with the ultimate aim of isolating the Soviet Union. It should also be noted that the end of WWII marked the end of competing national capitals such that now, financial capital exists globally and can move instantaneously, with Washington being the world dominating force that holds a monopoly over the global markets. Those countries who have actively resisted against the U.S. Empire and have not accepted U.S. capital into their countries are threatened with sanctions and military intervention — such as the independent sovereign nations of Syria and North Korea who are, to this day, still challenging U.S. hegemony. Afghanistan under the PDPA was one such country which stood up to U.S. imperialism and thus became a target for regime change.

In addition to implementing land reforms, women’s rights, and egalitarian and collectivist economic policies, the PDPA sought to put an end to opium poppy cultivation. The British Empire planted the first opium poppy fields in Afghanistan during the 1800s when the country was still under the feudal landholding system; up until the king was deposed in 1973, the opium trade was a lucrative business and the Afghan poppy fields produced more than 70 percent of opium needed for the world’s heroin supply. These reforms in 1978 would eventually attract opposition from the United States, which had already embarked on its anti-communist crusade, providing backing to reactionary forces dedicated to fighting against various post-colonial progressive governments, many of which were a part of the ‘Soviet Bloc’ — such as the right-wing Contras in Nicaragua who mounted violent opposition to the Sandinista government. Despite having gained independence on its own merits, Afghanistan under the PDPA — much like other Soviet-allied, postcolonial successes such as Cuba, Nicaragua, Syria, Libya, and North Korea — was seen as a “Soviet satellite” that needed to be brought back under colonial domination, and whose commodities needed to be put under the exclusive control and possession of the United States. Not only that, but it was considered a strategic point of interest that could be used to enclose upon the Soviet Union.

In order to undermine the then-newly formed and popular PDPA government, the Carter administration and the CIA began the imperialist intervention by providing training, financial support, and weapons to Sunni extremists (the Mujahideen) who started committing acts of terrorism against schools and teachers in rural areas. With the assistance of the Saudi and Pakistani militaries, the CIA gathered together ousted feudal landlords, reactionary tribal chiefs, sectarian Sunni clerics, and cartel drug lords to form a coalition to destabilize Afghanistan. On September 1979, Noor Mohammed Taraki — the first PDPA leader and President of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan — was assassinated during the events of the CIA-backed coup, which was quickly stopped by the Afghan army. However, by late 1979, the PDPA was becoming overwhelmed by the large-scale military intervention by U.S. proxy forces — a combination of foreign mercenaries and Afghan Ancien Régime-sympathizers — and so they decided to make a request to the USSR to deploy a contingent of troops for assistance. The Soviet intervention provided some much-needed relief for the PDPA forces — if only for the next ten years, for the U.S. and Saudi Arabia “upped the ante” by pouring about $40 billion into the war and recruiting and arming around 100,000 more foreign mercenaries. In 1989, Mikhail Gorbachev would call on the Soviet troops to be withdrawn, and the PDPA was eventually defeated with the fall of Kabul in April 1992. Chaos ensued as the Mujahideen fell into infighting with the formation of rival factions competing for territorial space and also wreaking havoc across cities, looting, terrorizing civilians, hosting mass executions in football stadiums, ethnically-cleansing non-Pashtun minorities, and committing mass rapes against Afghan women and girls. Soon afterwards in 1995, one of the warring factions, the Taliban, consolidated power with backing from the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. On September 28, 1996 the last PDPA Presidential leader, Mohammad Najibullah, was abducted from his local UN compound (where he had been granted sanctuary), tortured, and brutally murdered by Taliban soldiers; they strung his mutilated body from a light pole for public display.

A renewed opium trade, and the economic roots of Empire-building

U.S. troops guarding an opium poppy field in Afghanistan.

After the fall of Kabul in 1992, but some time before the Taliban came to power, the reactionary tribal chiefs had taken over the Afghan countryside and ordered farmers to begin planting opium poppy, which had been outlawed by the Taraki government. Prior to that, the Pakistani ISI (Pakistan’s intelligence agency) set up hundreds of heroin laboratories at the behest of the CIA so that by 1981, the Pakistani-Afghan border became the largest producer of heroin in the world. Alfred McCoy confirms in his study, “Drug Fallout: the CIA’s Forty Year Complicity in the Narcotics Trade”:

“Once the heroin left these labs in Pakistan’s northwest frontier, the Sicilian Mafia imported the drugs into the U.S., where they soon captured sixty percent of the U.S. heroin market. That is to say, sixty percent of the U.S. heroin supply came indirectly from a CIA operation. During the decade of this operation, the 1980s, the substantial DEA contingent in Islamabad made no arrests and participated in no seizures, allowing the syndicates a de facto free hand to export heroin.”

It is apparent that by putting an end to the cultivation of opium poppy, in addition to using the country’s resources to modernize and uplift its own population, the independent nationalist government of the PDPA was seen as a threat to U.S. interests that needed to be eliminated. A major objective of the U.S.-led Mujahideen — or any kind of U.S. military-led action for that matter — against Afghanistan had always been to restore and secure the opium trade. After all, it was during the 1970s that drug trafficking served as the CIA’s primary source of funding for paramilitary forces against anti-imperialist governments and liberation movements in the Global South, in addition to protecting U.S. assets abroad. Also, the CIA’s international drug trafficking ties go as far back as 1949, which is the year when Washington’s long war on the Korean Peninsula began. The move by the PDPA to eradicate opium-poppy harvesting and put an end to the exploitation brought about by the drug cartels was seen as “going too far” by U.S. imperialists. A significantly large loss in opium production would mean a huge loss in profits for Wall Street and major international banks, which have a vested interest in the drug trade. In fact, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) reported that money-laundering made up 2-5% of the world economy’s GDP and that a large percentage of the annual money-laundering, which was worth 590 billion to 1.5 trillion dollars, had direct links to the drug trade. The profits generated from the drug trade are often placed in American-British-controlled offshore banks.

The rationale behind the PDPA’s campaign to eradicate the opium poppy harvest was based not only on practical health reasons, but also on the role played by narcotics in the history of colonialism in Asia. Historically, cartel drug lords enabled imperialist nations, served bourgeois interests, and used cheap exploited slave labour. Oftentimes, the peasants who toiled in these poppy fields would find themselves becoming addicted to heroin in addition to being, quite literally, worked to death. Cartels are understood to be monopolistic alliances in which partners agree on the conditions of sale and terms of payment and divide the markets amongst themselves by fixing the prices and the quantity of goods to be produced. Now, concerning the role of cartels in ‘late-stage capitalism’, Lenin wrote:

“Monopolist capitalist associations, cartels, syndicates and trusts first divided the home market among themselves and obtained more or less complete possession of the industry of their own country. But under capitalism the home market is inevitably bound up with the foreign market. Capitalism long ago created a world market. As the export of capital increased, and as the foreign and colonial connections and “spheres of influence” of the big monopolist associations expanded in all ways, things “naturally” gravitated towards an international agreement among these associations, and towards the formation of international cartels.

This is a new stage of world concentration of capital and production, incomparably higher than the preceding stages.”

International cartels, especially drug cartels, are symptoms of how capital has expanded globally and has adapted to create a global wealth divide based on the territorial division of the world, the scramble for colonies, and “the struggle for spheres of influence.” More specifically, international cartels serve as stewards for the imperialist nations in the plundering of the oppressed or colonized nations. Hence the mass campaigns to help end addictions and to crack down on drug traffickers which were not only implemented in Afghanistan under the PDPA, but in Revolutionary China in 1949 and by other anti-imperialist movements as well. Of course, the opium traffickers and their organized crime associates in Afghanistan saw the campaign against opium poppy cultivation, among other progressive reforms, as an affront; this made them ideal recruits for the Mujahideen.

But why the “breakdown” in the relationship between the U.S. and the Taliban from the early 2000s and onwards? Keep in mind that, again, the members of the Taliban were amongst the various factions that made up the Mujahideen whose partnership with the United States extends as far back as the late 1970s; and it was clear that the U.S. was aware that it was working with Islamic fundamentalists. The human rights abuses committed by the Taliban while in power were well-documented before their relations with the U.S. soured by the year 2000. What made these relations turn sour was the fact that the Taliban had decided to drastically reduce the opium poppy cultivation. This led to the direct U.S. military intervention of 2001 in Afghanistan and the subsequent overthrow of the Taliban; the U.S. used the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as a pretext even if there was no proof that the Taliban had a hand in them or had been in contact with Osama bin Laden at all during that time. The U.S. would soon replace the Taliban with another faction of the Mujahideen that was more compliant with the rules that the imperialists had set out. In other words, the Taliban were ousted not necessarily because they posed a significant challenge to U.S. hegemony as the PDPA had, or because of their treatment of women — nor were they hiding Osama bin Laden; it was because they had become more of liabilities than assets. It is yet another case of the Empire discarding its puppets when they have outlived their usefulness due to incompetence and being unable to “follow the rules properly” — not unlike the U.S. removal of military dictator Manuel Noriega who was staunchly pro-American and who, in collaboration with fellow CIA asset and notorious cartel drug kingpin Pablo Escobar, previously sold drugs for the CIA to help finance the anti-communist campaign in Central America.

George W. Bush visits Hamid Karzai, who participated in the Mujahideen in the past and led the puppet government that replaced the Taliban.

By 2002, and as a result of the 2001 intervention, the lucrative opium poppy production had seen a huge boom once again. In 2014, Afghanistan’s opium poppy production made up 90% of the world’s heroin supply, leading to a decrease in opium prices. And according to a report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the opium production in Afghanistan increased by 43% to 4,800 metric tons in 2016.

Although the United States has always been one of the top producers of oil in the world, another reason for establishing a permanent U.S. military presence in Afghanistan was to gain control over its vast untapped oil reserves, which the U.S. had known about prior to 9/11. Oil is yet another lucrative commodity, and ensuring that Afghanistan had a compliant government that would acquiesce to its demands was important for the U.S. in this aspect as well. Naturally, the nationalist government of the PDPA was also seen as a threat to the profit-making interests of U.S. oil companies, and any nation that was an independent oil producer (or merely a potential independent oil producer, in Afghanistan’s case) was seen as an annoying competitor by the United States. However, Afghanistan would not begin its first commercial oil production until 2013, partly because of the ongoing geopolitical instability, but also because opium production continues to dominate the economy. Plus, it is likely that neither the monarchy nor the PDPA realized that there existed such vast untapped oil reserves since there were very limited volumes of oil (compared to the higher volumes of natural gas) being produced from 1957 to 1989, and which stopped as soon as the Soviet troops left. Later, reassessments were made during the 1990s; hence the U.S. ‘discovery’ of the untapped petroleum potential. But, when intensive negotiations between U.S.-based oil company Unocal and the Taliban went unresolved in 1998 due to a dispute over a pipeline deal that the latter wanted to strike with a competing Argentine company, it would lead to growing tensions between the U.S. and the Taliban. The reason for the dispute was that Unocal wanted to have primary control over the pipeline located between Afghanistan and Pakistan that crossed into the Indian Ocean. From this point on, the U.S. was starting to see the Taliban as a liability in its prerogative of establishing political and economic dominance over Central and West Asia.

In either case, oil and other “strategic” raw materials such as opium are essential for the U.S. to maintain its global monopolistic power. It is here that we see a manifestation of the economic roots of empire-building.

*

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

Continued in Part 2.

Originally published by LLCO.org on March 30, 2019. For the full-length article and bibliography, click here.

Janelle Velinais a Toronto-based political analyst, writer, and an editor and frequent contributor for New-Power.org andLLCO.org. She also has a blog at geopoliticaloutlook.blogspot.com.

All images in this article are from the author; featured image: Brzezinski visits Osama bin Laden and other Mujahideen fighters during training.

Shadow of Sarajevo 1914 Hangs Over Trump’s Golan Coup

Martin Sieff
April 26, 2019
Trump and Netanyahu still congratulate themselves on getting the United States to recognize Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights. They should not.

It looked like an absurd petty vanity in 1908 when the Austro-Hungarian Empire formally annexed the obscure Balkan provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina: Six years later that move set off the greatest war in human history and destroyed the old empire forever.

The Israelis have just made the same mistake in getting the United States under President Donald Trump to recognize their annexation of the Golan Heights.

Israel took control of the Golan Heights on June 11, 1967 after a fiercely fought war over the territory with Syria. Israeli settlements in the northern Jordan Valley directly below the Golan had been repeatedly shelled during the previous two decades of fragile peace. The Israelis were therefore determined to keep control of the Golan area to prevent a future invasion by Syria and its allies into northern Israel. That nearly happened in the 1973 Yom Kippur War or War of Ramadan when hugely outnumbered Israeli screening forces were taken by surprise by the Syrians and only held them off in ferocious tank battles that are still closely studied today by war colleges all around the world.

That experience left the Israelis more determined than ever to hold on to the Golan territories and the Syrians more determined than ever to regain them.

Right wing nationalist Israeli Prime Minister Menahem Begin proved willing – eventually – to give up all of the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt in the 1977-79 peace process with then-Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. But Begin proved implacable in his refusal to consider a similar bargain with President Hafez Assad, Syria’s leader for 30 years. In December 1981, Begin unilaterally annexed the Golan Heights.

Ironically, Yitzhak Rabin, Israel’s guiding strategic genius for three decades from his assumption of command as Army Chief of Staff in 1964 to his assassination while serving as prime minister in 1995, was prepared to consider returning the Golan to Syria before he was gunned down, shot in the back by Yigael Amir, a young Israeli religious-nationalist fanatic and student at Israel’s ultra-Orthodox religious center of higher education Bar-Ilan University.

For the previous two decades, Rabin, during his long terms as Israeli defense minister had actually come to a remarkable quiet understanding with Assad. Both men quietly respected each other and they both loathed and distrusted Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat. As a result, they proved highly effective in keeping the peace.

Clashes between Syrian and Israeli ground forces during Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 were carefully kept extremely limited in scope on both sides. And apart from that brief conflict, not a single Israeli or Syrian soldier was killed in action along their joint border during all the years Rabin and Assad senior held power.

As long as Rabin and Hafez Assad both lived there was a surprising amount of stability and peace between Tel Aviv and Damascus. That condition at first continued following the passing of both men. Assad died in office in 2000 and was succeeded by his son Bashir who still rules Syria now.

But today we see a very different situation. The US and Israeli obsession with toppling Bashir Assad and ending his close ties with Iran and Hezbollah led to the catastrophic Western support of extreme Islamists, ludicrously presented as democratic forces in the Arab Spring of 2011. The US government driven by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and supported by the United Kingdom and France as well as Israel believed Assad could be quickly toppled – which indeed proved to be the fate of Libya’s veteran leader Muammar Qadafi.

But Bashir Assad proved to be made of sterner stuff. The half of Syria forced from his government’s control did not experience some golden age. Most of it fell into the merciless hands of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The ancient Assyrian Christian and other minority communities of Syria who had been protected by the Assad governments were virtually annihilated in those terrible years. The Assad government fought back. Backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, it survived and has reestablished itself. The United States and its allies refuse to recognize these realities. Trump’s move to boost Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s standing by legally recognizing Israel’s annexation of the Golan plunges both countries further into dangerous delusion.

Balkan Report: Pauvre Serbie, Pauvres Serbes

Source

March 10, 2019

Balkan Report: Pauvre Serbie, Pauvres Serbes

by Stephen Karganovic for The Saker Blog

In World War I, there was a popular refrain in France and the West generally expressing sympathetic support for their gallant Serbian allies, who were standing up to combined enemy armies on the Salonica front: Pauvres Serbes…That refrain still very much resonates but is no longer exclusively confined to the moral sphere, as it largely was a hundred years ago. Today, it epitomizes the dismal overall condition of the broken Serbian nation (on that subject, more in a later dispatch). For accuracy and clarification it should undoubtedly be amended, or expanded if you will, to read Pauvre Serbie, as well.

Following three serious bloodlettings in the course of a century (World War I, with up to a third of the population missing on Armistice day in 1918, World War II, with three quarters of a million slaughtered in the genocide committed by the Nazi satellite Croatia in 1941 – 1945, and a minimum of 100,000 of the best, brightest, and most able Serbs executed and exiled on ideological grounds by the Tito regime after it was installed in 1945) present-day Serbia is the ravaged land of an exhausted, dispirited, and dispossessed people. Its ambitions are low and its defenses are down.

Serbia today is ruled by a Uganda-style madman and his coterie of venal incompetents. This sorry bunch is manifestly unfit to govern any country (African or European, or even just Balkan for that matter).

Serbia’s current regime was conceived, by all accounts, as a clever stratagem of Western intelligence services in the early years of this century. It was an attempt to politically profit from the leadership vacuum in the rabidly nationalist Radical Party, whose leader had been safely locked away at the Hague, battling trumped-up (no pun intended) war crimes charges. His two main deputies in Belgrade were correctly diagnosed as ripe for recruitment. The “main prize” (to borrow a famous meme from the Ukrainian crisis) in that particular game of thrones was formal recognition by Serbia of the NATO-sponsored “independence” of Serbia’s resource-laden province of Kosovo, with some subsequent collateral benefits such as Serbia’s humiliating incorporation into NATO, for instance.

One of the two turncoats was even lionized as Serbia’s potential De Gaulle, perhaps with the prospect of a drastically devalued Nobel Peace prize dangled before him, and just for the trifle of signing off on the Kosovo land grab, unilaterally declared under Western auspices in 2008.

The false analogy was missed by all the interested parties. For whatever reasons that concern the French alone, De Gaulle did stop the colonial war in Algeria, giving up a territory that had no link whatsoever to historical France and coming under French rule relatively recently in 1830 when in a fit of anger its tactless bey slapped a French diplomat. Kosovo, on the other hand, is the historical and cultural heartland of the Serbian nation and its Orthodox church. There is no comparison. Renouncing Kosovo would not be the meritorious act of a Serbian De Gaulle, but conjures up more precisely the treachery of Mexican president Santa Ana, when he signed the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

A small but by no means insignificant detail that was inexplicably missed by all the geniuses involved.

Hence, as Robert Burns pointed out, even the best-laid schemes of mice and men tend to sometimes go awry or be seriously delayed at any rate. So far, that exactly has been the case with the legalization of the Kosovo robbery, with its booty of mouth-watering riches. After many fumbling attempts, the Serbian regime has so far failed to come up with the correct formula to hand over Kosovo while protecting its back from the fury of the country’s public, all the while dangerously eroding the patience of the foreign sponsors who installed it and expect a return for their investment. They are still turning a blind eye to the regime’s mischief, but precisely on condition that the Kosovo issue is settled forthwith to their greedy satisfaction. (Note might be taken of the fact that all the major and still influential actors of the 1999 aggression on Yugoslavia, which resulted in NATO’s occupation of Kosovo, such as Madeleine Albright and General Wesley Clark have helped themselves to generous pieces of the Kosovo pie and are, naturally, eager to secure their ill-gotten acquisitions.)

ENTREFILET: Serbian “opposition leaders” were caught on Candid Camera in early February taking orders from US Embassy officials at the Belgrade Hilton. That strongly suggests that weekly Saturday street protests in Belgrade and towns across Serbia are foreign embassy coordinated and that “opposition” leaders are lying when they claim to be advocating for the interests of citizens. They are acting on behalf of their foreign bosses and paymasters and their task is to produce internal destabilization designed to serve foreign interests.

Serbian “opposition” taking orders at the Belgrade Hilton:

“Opposition protest leader,” actor Sergej Trifunovic, in his latest role: pow-wow with Embassy officers at the Belgrade Hilton

In a pathetic attempt to test the waters, the regime’s capo di tutti capi may have inadvertently let the cat out of the bag in a recent interview with an Italian journalist when he averred that “Serbia might legally renounce Kosovo, but only if it receives something in return.” In the wake of the popular uproar that ensued, the regime put pressure on the news agencies that quoted from the interview to drop the embarrassing phrase and explained the gaffe as a “mistranslation.” (It never occurred to anyone to ask to listen to the recording in order to easily verify that convenient claim.)

There is not the slightest doubt, however, that the Kosovo noose is rapidly tightening. Matthew Palmer, State Department official in charge of disciplining Balkan chieftains, has just made it crystal clear on March 8 that the signing of a comprehensive treaty of mutual recognition with the NATO-run narco outfit of Kosovo “is the essence” of what Serbia is expected to do, and that was not a mistranslation. There is not much wiggle room left for Serbia’s Santa Ana.

To drive the point home, Serbia’s Guaidos-in-waiting are staging weekly demonstrations (peaceful for the moment) to demand a variety of abstract-sounding democratic concessions from the regime. Significantly, demonstration organizers make no mention of the Kosovo issue, which is uppermost in the hearts and minds of most Serbs. Not to be overlooked, Belgrade just happens to be the location of the headquarters of Otpor, the Western-intelligence funded outfit famous for its leading role in organizing protests which toppled Slobodan Milosevic. Otpor is now renamed Canvas. Canvas is renting out its experience and services to their paymasters around the world, wherever a “color revolution” is deemed needed. By a huge coincidence, no doubt, Canvas was recently detected as having trained Juan Guaido personally in Belgrade as far back as 2005 and boasts of its role in Venezuela on its internet site. Add to that London Freedom House’s ominous “assessments” of the Serbian situation (e.g. “Serbia’s status declined from Free to Partly Free due to deterioration in the conduct of elections, continued attempts by the government and allied media outlets to undermine the independent journalists through legal harassment and smear campaigns, and […] de facto accumulation of executive powers that conflict with constitutional role”), and all the elements are in place for insomnia at the presidential palace.

Not to be outdone, just days ago, after visiting the imperial metropolis for “consultations,” one of the potential Serbian Guaidos, former foreign minister Vuk Jeremic, accused the regime of having already secretly committed itself to capitulate on Kosovo within weeks, hinting that this information was disclosed to him at the highest levels (never mind that Jeremic’s hypothetical regime would continue where the present regime left off). Another Guaido hopeful, Dragan Djilas, was off to Skopje to pay respects to NATO-installed local puppet and presumably his future model Zoran Zaev, gushing excitedly that being received by a statesman of such caliber was an unforgettable “honor.” With Freedom House greasing the skids for “partly fee” Serbia’s enlistment in the next axis or troika of evil, Canvas close at hand to pull off the street job, eager candidates ready to declare themselves “interim president” on Belgrade’s main square, and rumors of a “Balkan spring” in the air, for the beleaguered Belgrade officials a quick Google search for countries without an extradition treaty with Serbia would not be an entirely foolish waste of time.

%d bloggers like this: