Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Eagle in the sky

When we are at our peak of success or gaining success on the ladder of success, we seldom have real friends around us. Many people shall become our friends with a mask of prejudice and we blindly believe them and these people win our trust. However, businessperson, professionals, employees, artists and others should know that when to keep distance with new friends while on the road to success.

Jealousy is the first reason that these new friends will try to ruin everything for us behind our back. It’s always better to guard our tongue and not to divulge much professional or personal information with these new friends. They will do everything to get to know us, by initially revealing their own personal matters, so that in return we might also share our piece of personal information. Its better that we always keep our personal and professional information discreet from them.

Jealousy as per me is a very special form of emotional anxiety, which occurs due to lack of security and mostly would combine components of anger and fear resulting to hatred. I would not exclude envy as a part of jealousy these are like the branches of the same tree when it comes to have grudge about someone else more powerful, successful and happy than oneself.

Many successful people have a natural defense in keeping themselves discreet and at distance than others and therefore, most are always focused on their on career path and don’t get distracted with affairs and scandals created by the jealous people around. Apparently, some people on the successful path develop new friends and develop new problems. It only requires one mistake to ruin ones success path and get back to square one.

I asked one of the successful businessman in India, “What was his key to success and maintaining it, in this competitive world?”. He replied to me ” I don’t meet new people and don’t make friends with them, my relation is purely professional with them and point to point, I don’t discuss religion, politics, or any other common topics of discussion, I keep my discussions short, sweet, with smiles and try to conclude it as soon as possible”.

I met with this same person after 5 years in India and he was more successful and had wider smile on his face as compared to first time I saw him. I asked him again the same question. “What makes you maintain your success and climb higher ? ” and he replied to me ” I don’t make new friends, only new business associates and don’t discuss anything which is off topic and never divulge my personal information with them, my associates know that I am short on time when I meet them so they try to quickly make their point and get things done as they don’t want to miss the deals with me. My family members are my best friends, I give lots of time to my wife, mother, children and not to TV or internet.”

I thought that this businessman makes real sense and we should be short and sweet in our talks, especially when we are at the peak or on our success ladder. The haters would just want to know our weak points or try to do everything to annoy us and make an error. Therefore, why not guard ourselves and be above all like the eagle in the sky.

Read Full Post »

The news of the Indian soldier’s being brutally killed by Pakistani soldiers has made headlines and taken the attention away of public from the Delhi rape case. However, these two incidents might be different in nature, but they are still having the same national interest by common Indian and least interest by the Indian government, other than trying to reprimand Pakistani envoy with diplomatic verbs over the coffee meeting. The Indian government knows well that the Indian common person will talk about it at tea stalls, in trains, buses, at the street corners or at work and then they all get busy with their monotonous life until another incident attracts gossip interest. These incidents have become like live soap operas for Indian mass.

Some Indians say that they are proud for the death of the soldiers and they will always remain alive in their heart. This is a typical statement by Indian who will express their sympathy and go on with their daily routine lifestyle. The common Indian person cannot get entangled into a revolutionary mindset because he/she is too busy trying to meet ends and more ever most Indians are facing the moral bankruptcy syndrome. The incident of Delhi rape case saw the outrage of people being transformed into a street battle with the Delhi police, people demanded action, people demanded stringent laws to punish rapist in future, people demanded many things, but in an unorganised manner and during the protest one policeman died. However, the cause of the policeman’s death is still being debated and obscure, but what bothers me most is the level of interest shown by our government towards death of the Delhi policeman and the two soldiers brutally killed at the LOC. There was not even a single high level politician or government for the funeral of the two soldiers, but for the funeral of the police man the Delhi Police Commissioner and the Ministry did every possible way to make the dead police man look like a martyr and offer state funeral.

Surprisingly there was no protest against the governments inaction anywhere in India as compared to the Delhi rape case. Amazingly Times now news channel came up with awaking prime time live debates. I like the prime time live debates on Times now. It’s very entertaining for people who do not want to watch the Ektaa Kapoor soap opera’s. The Times now telecast of live debate about this issue was great and it raised my adrenaline and I felt like revolutionary while I was having my dinner watching this live broadcast. I Finished my dinner, washed my hands, the live broadcast of the Times now debate was over and I was switched off the TV. Later checked my facebook updates and eventually went to bed. I guess this is what happens to many aspiring revolutionary Indians and they all pass to bed, trying to forecast the activities of the next day and how to organise oneself. The level of animosity by Indians towards Pakistani has increased all of a sudden after the bitter loss in cricket by Indian team against the touring Pakistan team. Before Pakistan was enemy and now its become worst enemy. I am not sure what Indians feel about China now.

Even the supreme commander of Indian armed forces Mr.President has not reacted strongly to Pakistan. However, the politicians are pre-occupied with their political agenda. This incident will not cause a national outrage nor it will create protest spark among people. I presume Indian government will, as usual condemn the horrible killings of Indian soldiers and demand a reply from the Pakistani foreign ministry and in response the Pakistani foreign Minister will look into the matter, revert back, feeling sorry for the loss of life of Indian soldiers and eventually issue a statement that it was not the Pakistani soldiers who crossed the LOC but it was the Indian soldiers and in defense the Pakistani soldiers had to retaliate as a pre-emptive measure or even possibly deny that it was Pakistani soldiers who killed the Indian soldiers but this was all conspiracy theory from the Indian side. There will not be any action from Indian government whatsoever, you can count my words and hold me responsible or even hang me for that. I am sure because, when there were terror strikes in Mumbai in 2008 ( inside the Indian territory ) by the Pakistani trained soldiers or terrorist as Indians may call them. There was no action by the Indian government then, so how could we expect action when only two soldiers have died.

Read Full Post »

In the year 2012, fasting does not succeed against the tyrants. While Anna Hazare is trying his best to fast -unto-death, the UPA government shows no signs of relenting on Anna’s demands. Ironically this is country where millions go hungry and no one ever pays attention, so whats so special about Anna Hazare. Certainly, Anna is following the footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi who also led similar fasts against the colonial Britishers. Today the same tool is useless against our own people. The regular fasts by team Anna are sometimes perceived by some in India as “Drama”. Some have even called Anna’s revolution a revolution with ideas. I guess thats not the case with Anna. He is very clear on his goal, but unfortunately some people who have jumped into Anna’s band wagon have confused the mass and media of India.

Anna seeks to get a very macro-level change in the country in a non-violent manner. However, most politicians in India are not of the same caliber as the British. The generation of politicians in India today are criminally backed or involved in multi-crore scams in which no one has ever been sentenced despite media digging out some valid evidences.

After analyzing team Anna’s failure, its very much evident that India needs a revolution like the arab spring.

Read Full Post »

Old Europe is looking less European these days and that’s giving rise to clash of cultures. Lets look at Brussels, Belgium the heart of old Europe, city that’s been standing there for centuries. Where visitors find lots of excellent beers and very fine chocolates. Think again, Think about one of the biggest and the youngest Muslim population in Europe right when the Belgium’s are worried for their future.

Pilip D​ewinter of Vlaams Belang Partyb says ” It’s terrifying me and its a threat for everybody who lives in Brussels and its important to know that the capital of Europe will be Islamized in 10-20 years”. Belgium needed immigrant workers in the 1960′s and the 70′s, but integration didn’t come easily for the Moroccans and Turks who arrived and today Brussels has 20% of Muslims one of the largest among European cities. Belgium doesn’t see that their children and grand children will be living in future in civil wars and conflicts with the Muslims. The Imam at one of the city mosques takes a similar line and says Muslims should integrate and try to live in peace with the locals, but there is a problem, the Muslim neighborhood is always so dangerous and hostile towards others western culture and growing anti-Semitic sentiments. Street crimes are common in Brussels and many African Muslims conduct illegal business and carry on cons in metals and gold / diamond trading. I remember once when one of the friends was cheated by one Muslim gang in Brussels for the gold dust transactions and later he filed a police complaint, the police were equally afraid to get involve in solving the crime or to arrest the culprits who live in such heavily populated Muslim neighborhood. We were even asked not to come out of police cars and let the police do the work to question some leads on the streets. That is how deep Muslims have installed fear in the heart of Europe.

Many Belgians believe that the growing number of enclaves of Muslims in Belgium is a bad move on the part of government to appease the Muslim community. Well if one looks closely to the Belgium society, you will observe that it’s not the Muslims who are integrating with the local Belgians, but the local Belgians are adapting to radical Islam. Even though the government believe that these Muslim enclaves are not breeding grounds for jihad but many African Muslims have been arrested over the years for terror charges.

It would only be couple of years more that Belgium becomes the first European nation with Muslim majority and this is an indication to the United States and other liberal nations the rise of Islam and destruction of local society. The lack of integration from Muslims will spread like termite on every liberal nation and thus forcing the liberal nation to bend its back to radical Islam.

The debate of the Muslim veil comes at a time when an alarming number of British born Muslims are being indoctrinated to hate the very country they live in. The young men are willing to kill thousands of innocents just for their faith. After the attacks of the 9/11 there was a big push to integrate the nearly 2 million Muslims into British society.

Easier said then done, a recent survey of Muslims shows that :-

44% British Muslims feel Britain is their country.

30% would rather live under Sharia law.

28% would like to see Britain an Islamic state.

and overwhelming majority 81% consider themselves Muslims first and British second.

Many also find it difficult to living in a modern society while remaining devout.

Melanie Phillips ( author of Londonistan ) has documented the rise of Islamic extremism in Britain. “They don’t feel they belong here, as they are stranded between parents value and the society which they reject and the decadence of Britain” says Melanie Phillips.

These young Muslims are not only detaching themselves from the society, but are becoming zealous in their faith. They fall victim to radical Islam, who tell them that Britain and western values are to be despised. Many Muslims move into a strong Muslim community so that they are away from western evil society. I wonder then why don’t they move back to Arabia or their desert lands. Areas like East London , which has the highest Muslim population in the country is the most sought after Muslim real estate in Britain. One Muslim resident living in East London ( fully veiled ) says ” I feel very safe here and I can practice my faith without any distraction”. You spend few minutes on the streets of East London and you will feel as if you are in some capital of Middle East country.

There is no doubt today that Islam has profound impact on British culture and society. For example the Islamic Bank Of Britain, which has the first Sharia check in account.

( Please note that the banks in Gulf countries have stopped functioning the old sharia banks and started good business with charging high interest banks, just like west. The same Middle eastern Sheiks have invested heavily in western countries with Sharia Banks which do no charge interest. This clearly shows that the Gulf Sheiks are trying to manipulate the minds if Muslims in west by setting up such banks )

Muslims are forbidden to do business with Banks which charge interest. Parallel communities like in East London are emerging all across Europe and some Muslims like to claim that these areas are off limit to non-Muslims.

When Britain’s Home Secretary John Reed visited East London in September 2010, a Muslim cleric and radical Islamic leader Abu Issadeen shouted at Mr. Reed stating “How can you come to Muslim area?”. Reed replied ” My friend there is no part of this country which anyone one of us is excluded from…”.

Britain has prided itself on being a multicultural society, but multiculturalism has allowed radical Islam to flourish. Since 9/11 the British government has also fallen backwards to appease and accommodate the radical Muslims. There is growing sentiment in Britain and throughout rest of Europe that Islam and western values don’t mix, some are even beginning to question the idea of multiculturalism. For now criticism of Islam has once again created anger among British Muslims, this time over the veil. Again Britain faces challenge on how to win Muslim hearts and minds that appear closed for the moment.

Read Full Post »

I was reading the news article of IANS posted by Gyanendra Kumar dated 1st Jan 2012 with title “Made in India, faked in China — $5bn loss”. Well I am not going to repeat the entire news here, as the title makes it very clear whats it about. Perhaps I decided to take this news and think freeing about this news article and put my own thoughts about it.

Since China is No.1 expert in faking goods to keep its Communist government rich and people employed I was wondering if China will hallmark Made in India faked products in Chinese language so that we consumers know when we buy Made in India China is worth less than Made in India, Isnt it?

Since ITC cigarette brands are also faked in China and sold in northern India, it has only made my assumptions of doubt about the corruption of Indian vigilance department into facts, that they are indeed drowned in corruption. Next time you have a terrorist attack on Indian soil, please dont ask , How? Why? etc….as its quite evident that our vigilance departments are involved. You will find that it is most often that only indians have engaged the chinese companies to counterfeit popular commodities . And this spurious stuff gets sold in areas where underprivileged live, in poorer areas of big cities and villages. If you go to shop near slums most of the products be it- soap, detergent, shampoo, cool drink and medicines will be fake… there is a thriving cottage industry duplicating stuff in all cities.

Last year one of my close friends married a Chinese woman in India. After six months she died, I was consoling my friend and he wasnt even sad. He replied me “It was Chinese, I was sure she wont last longer”

I assume after 1962, our government has kept China always outside their top agenda and slowly China will encroach upon our eastern borders and swallow our Mongol states and possible we shall have in future our government outsourced in China.

I will not blame the Chinese as its our own people and government and its officials who encourage it, so we should stop blaming China and try to do something in our own backyard.

This article is not made in China !!!!!!!

Happy New Year

Read Full Post »

The information in this German White Book contains alleged documents that record events as they transpired in those last weeks before Adolph Hitler realized there was no way to avoid war.

The masters who controlled the British Prime Minister, French President, Polish President, etc. would not tolerate a peace being negotiated. They MUST have this war, or their Plan for World Dominion is waylaid for a time. We say waylaid, because it’s become clear they’ve never stopped, regardless the setbacks or holdups, and today the beat goes on.

Researchers/authors whose work has been suppressed have confirmed the information herein.

Jackie

July 9th, 2003

______________________________________________

GERMAN WHITE BOOK

DOCUMENTS

Concerning the Last Phase

of the

German-Polish Crisis

GERMAN LIBRARY OF INFORMATION

NEW YORK

The original German white Book, “Documents Concerning the Last Phase of the German-Polish Crisis”, is not available to students of international affairs in the United States in adequate quantities, owing to illicit British interferences with the mails.

The German Library of Information, therefore, issues a reprint of the original for the benefit of such students, with a prefatory note disposing of certain widely-circulated allegations made in the British Blue Book.

Further copies may be obtained from the German Library of Information, 17 battery Place, New York.

______________________________________________

INDEX

Note on the German white Book

I.  The Last Phase of the German-Polish Crisis

II.  Documents

1.  First Note from the Diplomatic Representative of the Republic of Poland in the Free City of Danzig to the President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig, August 4, 1939.  12

2.  Second Note from the diplomatic Representative of the Republic of Poland to the President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig, August 4, 1939

3.  Reply of the President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig to the Diplomatic Representative of the Republic of Poland, August 7, 1939

4.  Communication from the Secretary of State in the German Foreign Office to the Polish Charge d’Affairs in Berlin, August 9, 1939

5.  Communication from the Under-Secretary of State in the Polish Foreign Office to the German Charge d’Affairs in Warsaw, August 10, 1939

6.  Letter from the British Prime Minister to the Fuhrer, Aug. 22, 1939

7.  Fuhrer’s Reply to the British Prime Minister, August 23, 1939

8. Declaration made by the Fuhrer to the British Ambassador on  August 25, 1939, at 1:30 p. m.

9.  Letter of the French Premier to the Fuhrer, August 26, 1939

10. The Fuhrer’s letter of reply to the French premier, August 27, 1939

11. Memorandum from British Government handed to Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the British Ambassador on August 28, 1939, at 10:30 p.m

12. The Fuhrer’s reply to the British Government handed to the British Ambassador august 29, 1939 at 6:45 p.m

13. Telephone Message from the German charge d’Affairs in Warsaw to the German Foreign Office on August 30, 1939 at 5:30 p. m.

14.  Memorandum from the British Government handed to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the British Ambassador on August 30, 1939, at midnight.

15.  Official German Statement published on August 31, 1939, at 9 p.m. containing the Proposal for a settlement of the Danzig and the Polish Corridor Problem, as well as of the question concerning the German and Polish Minorities.

16.  Announcement made by the Polish Broadcasting Station at Warsaw on August 31, 1939, at 11 p.m.

17.  Speech delivered by the Fuhrer before the Reichstag on September 1, 1939

18.  Note handed to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the British Ambassador on September 1, 1939, at 9:30 p. m.

19.  Note handed to the Reich Minister for foreign Affairs by the French Ambassador on September 1, 1939, at 10 p. m.

20. Communication handed to the German Foreign Office by the Italian Ambassador on the morning of September 2, 1939.

21.  Information from the Havas news Agency on September 2, 1939

22.  Extract from a Declaration made by the British Secretary of State for Foreign affairs in the House of Lords on the afternoon of September 2, 1939

23.  Note handed to the German Foreign Office by the British Ambassador on September 3, 1939, at 9 a.m.

24. Note from the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs handed to the German Charge d’Affairs in London on September 3, 1939, at 11:a5 a.m.

25.  Memorandum from the German Government handed to the British Ambassador by the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, September 3, 1939, at 11:30 a.m.

26. Note handed to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the French Ambassador on September 3, 1939, at 12.20 p.m.

_______________________________________________________

 Note on the German White Book

The German White Book, presented herewith, is a collection of official documents and speeches, not a collection of uncontrollable conversations. It does not pretend to cover the entire field of German-Polish relations but, as the title implies, concerns itself solely with the last phase of the German-Polish crisis, from August 4th to September 3rd, 1939.

the Polish-german controversy concerning the Corridor, Upper Silesia and Danzig, began in 1919; it has never, since the signing of the Versailles Treaty, ceased to agitate europe. For many years intelligent commentators and statesmen of all nations, including Great Britain, agreed that the separation of East Prussia from the Reich and, indeed, the whole Polish settlement, was unjust and fraught with danger.

Germany, again and again, made attempts to solve the differences between the two countries in a friendly spirit. It was only when all negotiations proved vain and Poland joined the encirclement front against Germany, that chancellor Hitler cut the Gordian knot with the sword. It was England that forced the sword into his hand.

Great Britain asserts in her Blue Book and elsewhere that she was compelled to “guaranty” Poland against “aggression” for reason of international morality. Unfortunately the British Government subsequently admitted (Under-Secretary of State Butler, House of Commons, October 19, 1939) that the “guaranty” was aimed solely against Germany.

It was not valid in case of conflicts with other powers. In other words, the British “guaranty” was merely a link in the British encirclement chain. The Polish crisis was deliberately manufactured by Great Britain with the connivance of Poland: it was the fuse designed to set off the explosion!

Great Britain naturally attempts to becloud this fact. Official British statements on the outbreak of the war place great emphasis on the allegation that England did not give a formal “guaranty” to Poland until March 31, 193, whereas the German demand on Poland, which Poland rejected, was made on march 21st. Britain contends that the British “guaranty” was merely the consequence of the German demand of March 21st.

Britain denies that her “guaranty” stiffened Polish resistance. She insists that Germany took advantage of a moment of highly strained international tension by springing upon Poland her demand for an extra-territorial road through the Corridor between the Reich and East Prussia.

The British ignore a vital fact in this connection. The existence of the “guaranty”, not its formal announcement, was the decisive factor. The future may reveal when the British promise was first dangled before Poland. In any event, Poland was assured of British aid before March 21st.

Chamberlain’s speech of march 17, 1939, and the statement by Lord Halifax of March 20th, (both reprinted in the British Blue Book) leave no doubt on that question. The British “guaranty” was in the nature of a blank check. Poland did not know when she marched to her doom, that the check would not be honored.

The allegations that the Poles were surprised or overwhelmed by the German proposals, does not hold water. Poland was fully informed of the German demands. When as Herr von Ribbentrop points out in his Danzig speech (October 24, 1939) chancellor Hitler in 1934 concluded a Friendship and Non-Aggression Pact with Marshal Pilsudski, it was clearly understood that the problem of Danzig and the Corridor must be solved sooner or later. Chancellor Hitler hoped that it would be solved within the framework of that instrument.

Poland callously disregarded her obligations under the German-Polish Pact, after the death of Marshal Pilsudski. The persecution of German minorities in Poland, Poland’s measures to strangle Danzig economically, the insolent manner the Polish Government chose to adopt with the British blank check in its pocket and the Polish mobilization frustrated chancellor Hitler’s desire to settle Polish-German differences by peaceful negotiation, as he had solved every other problem arising from the bankruptcy of statesmanship at Versailles.

No one can affirm that the National Socialist Government did not attempt with extraordinary patience to impress upon Poland the desirability of a prompt and peaceful solution. The Polish Government was familiar with the specific solution proposed by Chancellor Hitler since October 24, 1938. The nature of the German proposals was discussed at least four times between the two governments before March 21, 1939.

On October 24, 1938, von Ribbentrop, the German foreign Minister, proposed to the Polish Ambassador, Lipski, four steps to rectify the injustice of Versailles and to eliminate all sources of friction between the two countries.

1).  The return of the Free City of Danzig to the Reich, without severance of its economic ties to the Polish State. (The arrangement vouchsafed to Poland free port privileges and extra-territorial access to the harbor.)

2.)  An exterritorial [sic] route of communication through the Corridor by rail and motor to reunite Germany and East Prussia.

3.)  Mutual recognition by the two States of their frontiers as final and, if necessary, a mutual guaranty of their territories.

4.)  The extension of the German-Polish Pact of 1934 from ten to twenty-five years.

On January 5, 1939, Poland’s Foreign Minister, Josef Beck, conferred with the German chancellor on the problems involved.  At this time Chancellor Hitler offered Beck a clear and definite guaranty covering the Corridor, on the basis of the four points outlined by von Ribbentrop.  The following day, January 6th, at Munich, the German Foreign Minister once more confirmed Germany’s willingness to guaranty, not only the Corridor, but all Polish territory.

The generous offer for a settlement along these line, liquidating all friction between the two countries, was reiterated when Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop paid a state visit to Warsaw (January 23rd to 17th, 1939). On that occasion von Ribbentrop again offered a guaranty of the Polish-German boundaries and a final all-inclusive settlement of German-Polish relations.

Under the circumstances it is absurd to allege that Poland was “surprised” by the German proposal of March 21st, and subsequent developments.  It is possible that Poland may have concealed Germany’s friendly and conciliatory offers from Paris and London.  With or without British promptings, Poland prepared the stage for a melodramatic scene, in which the German villain brutally threatened her sovereignty and her independence.

In spite of Polish intransigence, culminating in threats of war, Chancellor Hitler made one more desperate attempt to prevent the conflict.  He called for a Polish plenipotentiary to discuss the solution presented in Document 15 of the German White book. This solution envisaged the return of Danzig to the Reich, the protection of Polish and German minorities, a plebiscite in the Corridor under neutral auspices, safeguarding, irrespective of the result, Poland’s unimpeded exterritorial access to the sea.

The British are please to describe this reasonable document as an “ultimatum”. This is a complete distortion of the facts.  The German government, it is true, had set a time-limit (August 30th) for the acceptance of its proposal, but it waited twenty-four hours after its expiration before concluding that the possibilities of diplomatic negotiations had been exhausted. There was ample opportunity for England and Poland to act within those twenty-four hours.

The British take the position that Germany’s demands were not known either in Warsaw or London.  That pretense is demolished by the British Blue Book itself, for we find here a dispatch from Sir Nevile Henderson, the British Ambassador to Berlin, which leaves no doubt that he relayed the German proposal to London after his midnight conference with von Ribbentrop on August 30th, and that he understood the essential points of the German proposal. Henderson even transmitted to the British Government Chancellor Hitler’s assurance that the Polish negotiator would be received as a matter of course on terms of complete equality with the courtesy and consideration due to the emissary of a sovereign state.

Henderson sent his night message not only to Downing Street, but also to the British Embassy in Warsaw. There is evidence, which has recently come into the possession of the German Foreign Office that, in spite of all its protestations of ignorance and helplessness, the British Cabinet communicated the substance of Henderson’s midnight conversation with the German Foreign Minister directly to the Polish Government. The London Daily Telegraph, in a late edition of August 31st, printed the following statement:

“At the Cabinet Meeting yesterday, at which the terms of the British Note were approved, it was decided to send a massage to Warsaw, indicating the extent of the latest demands from Berlin for the annexation of territory”.

This item appeared only in a few issues. It was suppressed in later editions.

Germany’s demands were so reasonable that no sane Polish Government would have dared to reject them. They certainly would have been accepted if England had advised moderation. There was one more chance to preserve peace on September 2nd. It was offered by a message from Premier Mussolini (Document 20). The Italian suggestion was acceptable to Germany and France (Document 21). but was rejected by Great Britain (Document 22).

—————————————————————

I

THE LAST PHASE

of the German-Polish Crisis

(pp.7-12)

Appended to this are printed the documents which were exchanged during the last days before the beginning of the German defensive action against Poland and the intervention of the western Powers, or which in any other respect refer to these events. These documents, when shortly recapitulated, give the following general survey:

1).   At the beginning of August the Reich Government was informed of an exchange of notes between the representative of Poland in Danzig and the Senate of the Free City (Danzig), according to which the Polish Government in the form of a short-term ultimatum and under threat of retaliatory measures had demanded the withdrawal of an alleged order of the Senate — an order which, in fact, had never been issued — concerning the activities of Polish customs inspectors (Documents 1 to 3).

This caused the Reich Government to inform the Polish Government, on August 9th, that a repetition of such demands in the form of an ultimatum would lead to an aggravation of the relations between Germany and Poland, for the consequences of which the Polish government would alone be responsible.

At the same time, the attention of the Polish Government was drawn to the fact that the maintenance of the economic measures adopted by Poland against Danzig would force the Free City to seek other export and import possibilities (Document 4).

The Polish government answered this communication from the Reich Government with an aide-Memoire of August 10th, handed to the German Embassy in Warsaw, which culminated in the statement that Poland would interpret every intervention of the Reich Government in Danzig matters, which might endanger Polish rights and interests there, as an aggressive action (Document 5).

2).   On August 22nd, the British Prime Minister, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, acting under the impression of announcements of the impending conclusion of a Non-Aggression Pact between Germany and the U.S.S.R., sent a personal letter to the Fuhrer. Here he expressed on the one hand the firm determination of the British Government to fulfill its pledged obligations to Poland, on the other hand, the view that it was most advisable in the first instance to restore an atmosphere of confidence and then to solve the German-Polish problems through negotiations terminating in a settlement which should be internationally guaranteed (Document 6).

The Fuhrer, in his reply of August 23rd, set forth the real causes of the German-Polish crisis.

He referred in particular to the generous proposal made by him in March of this year and stated that the false reports spread by England at that time regarding a German mobilization against Poland, the equally incorrect assertions about Germany’s aggressive intentions towards Hungary and Roumania and, finally, the guarantee given by England and France to the Polish Government had encouraged the Polish Government not only to decline the German offer but to let loose a wave of terror against the Germans domiciled in Poland and to strangle Danzig economically. At the same time, the Fuhrer declared that Germany would not let herself be kept back from protecting her vital rights by any methods of intimidation whatsoever (Document 7).

3).   Although the above-mentioned letter from the British Prime Minister of August 22nd, as well as speeches made on the subsequent day by British statesmen, showed a complete lack of understanding for the German standpoint, the Fuhrer nevertheless resolved to make a fresh attempt to arrive at an understanding with England.

On August 25th, he received the British Ambassador, once more with complete frankness explained to him his conception of the situation, and communicated to him the main principles of comprehensive and far-sighted agreement between Germany and England which he would offer to the British Government once the problem of Danzig and the Polish Corridor was settled (Document 8).

4).   while the British government were discussing the preceding declaration from the Fuhrer, and exchange of letters took place between the French President, M. Daladier, and the Fuhrer. In his answer the Fuhrer again submitted his reasons for Germany’s standpoint in the German Polish question and once more repeated his firm decision to regard the present Franco-German frontier as final (Documents 9 and 10).

5).   In their answer to the step taken by the Fuhrer on August 25th, which was handed over on the evening of August 28th, the British Government declared themselves prepared to consider the proposal for a revision of Anglo-German relationships. They further stated that a they had received a definite assurance from the Polish Government that they were prepared to enter into direct discussions with the reich Government on German-Polish questions.

At the same time they repeated that in their opinions a German-Polish settlement must be safeguarded by international guarantees (Document 11).

Despite grave misgivings arising from the whole of Poland’s previous attitude and despite justifiable doubts in a sincere willingness on the part of the Polish Government for a direct settlement, the Fuhrer, in his answer handed to the British Ambassador on the afternoon of August 29th, accepted the British proposal and declared that the Reich Government awaited the arrival of a Polish representative invested with plenipotentiary powers on August 30th. At the same time the Fuhrer announced that the Reich Government would immediately draft proposals for a solution acceptable to them and would, if possible, have these ready for the British Government before the Polish negotiator arrived (Document 12).

6).   In the course of August 30th, neither a Polish negotiator with plenipotentiary powers nor any communication from the British Government about steps undertaken by them reached Berlin. On the contrary, it was on this day that the Reich Government were informed of the ordering of a general Polish mobilization (document 13).

Only at midnight did the British Ambassador hand over a new memorandum which, however, failed to disclose any practical progress in the treatment of Polish-German questions and confined itself to a statement that the Fuhrer’s answer of the preceding day was to be communicated to the Polish Government and that the British Government considered it impracticable to establish a German-Polish contact so early as on August 30th (Document 14).

7).   Although the non-appearance of the Polish negotiator had done away with the conditions under which the British government were to be informed of the Reich government’s conception of the basis on which negotiations might be possible, the proposals since formulated by the Reich were none the less communicated and explained in detail to the British Ambassador when he handed over the above-mentioned memorandum.

The Reich Government expected that now at any rate, subsequently to this, a Polish plenipotentiary would be appointed. Instead, the Polish Ambassador in Berlin made a verbal declaration to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs on the afternoon of August 31st, to the effect that the Polish Government had been informed in the preceding night by the British government that there was a possibility of direct negotiations between the Reich Government and the Polish Government, and that the Polish Government were favorably considering the British proposal.

When expressly asked by the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he had the authority to negotiate on the German proposals, the Ambassador stated that he was not entitled to do so, but had merely been instructed to make the foregoing verbal declaration. A further question from the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he could enter into an objective discussion on the matter was expressly denied by the Ambassador.

8).   The Reich Government thus were confronted with the fact that they had spent two days waiting in vain for a Polish plenipotentiary. On the evening of August 31st, they published the German proposals with a short account of the events leading up to them (Document 15).

These proposals were described as unacceptable by Polish broadcast (Document 16).

9).   Now that every possibility for a peaceful settlement of the Polish-German crisis was thus exhausted, the Fuhrer saw himself compelled to resist by force the force which the Poles had long employed against Danzig, against the Germans in Poland, and finally, by innumerable violations of the frontier, against Germany.

10).   On the evening of September 1st, the Ambassadors of Great Britain and France handed to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs two notes couched in the same terms in which they demanded that Germany should withdraw her troops from Polish territory, and declared that if this demand were not conceded, their respective Governments would fulfill their obligations to Poland without further delay (Documents 18 and 19).

11).   In order to banish the menace of war, which had come dangerously close in consequence of these two notes, the Duce made a proposal for an armistice and a subsequent conference for the settlement of the German-Polish conflict (Document 20).

The Germans and the French Government replied in the affirmative to this proposal whilst the British Government refused to accept it (Documents 21 and 11).

That this was so was already apparent in the speeches made by the British Prime Minister and the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the afternoon of September 2nd in the British Houses of Parliament, and a communication to that effect was made to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the Italian Ambassador on the evening of September 2nd. Thus also in the opinion of the Italian Government the initiative of the Duce had been wrecked by England.

12).   On September 3rd, at 9 a.m., the British Ambassador arrived at the German Foreign Office and handed over a note in which the British Government, fixing a time limit of two hours, repeated their demand for a withdrawal of the German troops and, in the event of a refusal, declared themselves to be at war with Germany after this time limit had expired (Document 23).

The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on September 3rd, 1939, at 11:15 a. m. delivered a note to the German Charge d’Affairs in London in which he informed him that a state of war existed between the two countries as from 11 a. m. on September 3rd (Document 24).

On the same day, at 11:30 a. m. the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs handed to the British Ambassador in Berlin a memorandum from the Reich Government in which the Reich rejected the demands expressed by the British Government in the form of an ultimatum and in which it was proved that the responsibility for the outbreak of war rested solely with the British Government (Document 25).

On the afternoon of September 3rd, the French Ambassador in Berlin called on the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs and inquired whether the Reich government were in a position to give a satisfactory answer to the question directed to them by the French government in their note of September 1st. The Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs told the Ambassador that after the English and French Notes of September had been handed to him, the Head of the Italian Government had made a new intermediary proposal, to which the Duce had added, the French Government had agreed.

The Reich Government had informed the Duce on the preceding day that they were also prepared to accept the proposal.

The Duce however had informed them later on in the day that his proposal had been wrecked by the intransigent attitude of the British Government.

The British Government several hours previously had presented German with an ultimatum which had been rejected on the German side by a memorandum which he, the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, would hand over to the French Ambassador for his information.

Should the attitude of France towards Germany be determined by the same considerations as that of the British Government, the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs could only regret this fact.  Germany had always sought understanding with France. Should the French Government, despite this fact adopt a hostile attitude towards Germany on account of their obligations towards Poland, the German people would regard this as a totally unjustifiable aggressive war on the part of France against the Reich.

The French Ambassador replied that he understood from the remarks of the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs that the Reich Government were not in a position to give a satisfactory answer to the French Note of September 1st. Under these circumstances he had the unpleasant task of informing the Reich Government that the French Government were forced to fulfill the obligations which they had entered into towards Poland, from September 3rd at 5 p.m. onwards.

The French Ambassador at the same time handed over a corresponding written communication (CF, Document 26).

The Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs thereupon declared in conclusion the the French Government would bear the full responsibility for the suffering which the nations would have to bear if France attacked Germany.

II

Documents

Documents 1 through 8 (of 26)

1.   First Note from the Diplomatic Representative of the Republic of Poland in the Free City of Danzig to the President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig, august 4, 1939

(Translation)

Danzig, August 4, 1939.

I learn that the local Danzig customs officials posted on the frontier between the Free City of Danzig and East Prussia have declared in an unprecedented statement to the Polish customs officials, that the Danzig executives intend from 7 o’clock a. m. on august 6th onwards to oppose a certain number of Polish inspectors in the exercise of their normal duties, which functions are a part of the prerogatives of the Polish government on the customs frontier. I am convinced that this act on the part of the local authorities depends either on a misunderstanding or on an erroneous interpretation of the instructions of the Senate of the Free city of Danzig.

I am fully convinced that you, Mr. President of the Senate, can have no doubt that this infringement of the fundamental rights of Poland will on no pretext whatever be tolerated by the Polish Government.

I await, by august 5th at 6 p. m. at the latest, your answer with the assurance that you have given instructions cancelling the action of your subordinates.

In view of the fact that the above-mentioned action is one of a series which have taken place on the frontier, I am forced to warn you, mr. president of the Senate, that all Polish customs inspectors have received the order to appear for duty in uniform and bearing arms, on August 6th of the current year and on subsequent days, at every point on the frontier which they consider necessary for examination of the customs.

Every attempt made to hinder them in the exercise of their duties, every attack or intervention on the part of the police will be regarded by the Polish Government as an act of violence against the officials of the Polish State in the pursuance of their duties.

If the above-mentioned illegal actions should take place, the Polish Government will take retaliatory measures (retorsions) without delay against the Free City, as the responsibility for them will rest entirely on the Senate of the Free City.

I hope to receive a satisfactory explanation before the above-mentioned date.

(signed): CHODACKI,

Diplomatic Representative of the Republic of Poland.

________________________________________

2.   Second Note from the Diplomatic Representative of the Republic of Poland to the President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig, August 4, 1939

(Translation)

Danzig, August 4, 1939.

Mr. President of the Senate:

The Polish Government beg to express its astonishment at the fact that the Senate should find technical difficulties in replying to so simple a matter. In the interest of avoiding threatening consequences, I note for the time being that no act of violence will be undertaken against our customs inspectors and that they will be able to proceed in a normal way with their duties. I must repeat nevertheless that the admonitions contained in my note of August 4th, 11:40 p. m. remain in force.

I beg to remain. . .

(signed): CHODACKI

To

His Excellency, Herr Arthur Greiser,

President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig

_____________________________________________

3.   Reply of the President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig to the Diplomatic Representative of the Republic of Poland, August 7, 1939.

(Translation)

Danzig, August 7, 1939

His Excellency

The Diplomatic Representative of the Republic of Poland.

M. Chodacki, Minister with plenipotentiary powers,

Danzig.

Sir:

In reply to your two notes dated the 4th of this month, the second of which I received on August 5th, I must express my astonishment to you that you should make a completely unverified rumor a pretext for sending the Danzig Government a short-term ultimatum from the Polish Government, and thus in this time of political unrest conjure up unfounded danger which may result in inconceivable disaster.

The sudden decree of the Polish Government that all Polish customs officials on duty are to appear in uniform and bearing arms, is a breach of the arrangement agreed upon and can be understood only as an intentional provocation to bring about incidents and acts of violence of the most dangerous nature.

According to facts which I have since ascertained and concerning which I immediately telephoned to you on Saturday morning, the 5th inst., no order announcing that the Danzig executives from August 6th at 7 a. m. onwards are to oppose a certain number of Polish inspectors in the exercise of their normal duties has been issued from an office, certainly not from any administrative quarter of the Customs Office of the Free City of Danzig.

I refer you further to my note of June 3rd of this year, in which I already carefully defined the relationship of the Danzig customs officials and the Polish customs inspectors on the frontier.

The Danzig Government protest with great energy against the threatened retorsions of the Polish Government which they regard as an absolutely inadmissible threat and the consequences of which will devolve on the Polish Government alone.

I beg to remain. . .

(signed): GREISER

__________________________________________________

4.   Communication from the Secretary of State in the German Foreign Office to the Polish Charge d’Affairs in Berlin, August 9, 1939.

(Translation)

Berlin, August 9, 1939.

The Reich Government have received with great astonishment information of the note of the Polish Government to the Senate of the Free City of danzig, in which a demand was made in the form of an ultimatum to revoke an alleged decree intended to hinder the Polish customs inspectors in the exercise of their normal duties (which decree, however, was based on unfounded rumors, and in reality had never been issued by the Senate of the Free City of Danzig). In case of a refusal, the Free City of Danzig was threatened with retaliatory measures.

The Reich Government see themselves obliged to point out to the Polish Government that the repetition of such a demand, in the form of an ultimatum, to the Free City of Danzig and the threat of retaliatory measures would lead to greater tension in the relationship between Germany and Poland, and that the responsibility of such consequences would devolve exclusively on the Polish Government, the German Government already now declining all responsibility for them.

The German Government further draw the attention of the Polish Government to the fact that the measures taken by the Polish Government to prevent the import of certain goods from the Free City of Danzig to Poland are likely to bring about serious economic loss to the population of Danzig.

Should the Polish Government insist on further lending their support to such measures, there would, in the opinion of the Reich Government, be no choice left to the Free City of Danzig, as matters lie, but to seek other export and consequently import possibilities.

_____________________________________________________

5.   Communication from the Under-Secretary of State in the Polish Foreign Office to the German Charge d’Affairs in Warsaw, August 10, 1939.

(Translation)

     With the greatest surprise ‘the Government of the Republic of Poland have taken note of the declaration given in Berlin on August 9, 1939, by the Secretary of State in the German Foreign Office to the Charge d’Affairs a.i. of Poland on the relations existing between Poland and the Free City of Danzig. The Polish Government in fact cannot perceive any legal foundation justifying Germany to interfere in the above-mentioned relations.

Whatever discussions on the Danzig problem may have taken place between the Polish Government and the Government of the Reich, these had their foundation merely in the good will of the Government and did not arise out of any obligation whatsoever.

In reply to the aforesaid declaration of the Government of the Reich, the Polish Government are compelled to point out to the German Government that, as hitherto, they will in the future oppose by such means and measures as the Polish Government alone consider adequate, any attempt made by the authorities of the Free City of Danzig to jeopardize the rights and interests that Poland possesses in Danzig, on the basis of the agreement to which she is a part, and that the Polish Government will consider as an aggressive act any possible intervention of the Government of the Reich which may endanger these rights and interests.

________________________________________________________

6.   Letter from the British Prime Minister to the Fuhrer, August 22, 1939.

10. downing Street, Whitehall,

August 22, 1939.

Your Excellency:

Your Excellency will have already heard of certain measures taken by His Majesty’s Government, and announced in the press and on the wireless this evening.

These steps have, in the opinion of His Majesty’s'y Government, been rendered necessary by the military movements which have been reported from Germany, and by the fact that apparently the announcement of a German-Soviet Agreement is taken in some quarters in Berlin to indicate that intervention by Great Britain on behalf of Poland is no longer a contingency that need be reckoned with.

No greater mistake could be made. Whatever may prove to be the nature of the German-Soviet Agreement, it cannot alter Great Britain’s obligation to Poland which His Majesty’s Government have stated in public repeatedly and plainly, and which they are determined to fulfill.

it has been alleged that, if His Majesty’s Government had made their position more clear in 1914, the great catastrophe would have been avoided. Whether or not there is any force in that allegation, His Majesty’s Government are resolved that on this occasion there shall be no such tragic misunderstanding.

If the case should arise, they are resolved, and prepared, to employ without delay all the forces at their command, and it is impossible to foresee the end of hostilities once engaged. It would be a dangerous illusion to think that, if war once starts, it will come to an early end even if a success on any one of the several fronts on which it will be engaged should have been secured.

Having thus made our position perfectly clear, I wish to repeat to you my conviction that war between our two peoples would be the greatest calamity that could occur. I am certain that it is desired neither by our people, nor by yours, and I cannot see that there is anything in the questions arising between Germany and Poland which could not and should not be resolved without the use of force, if only a situation of confidence could be restored to enable discussions to be carried on in an atmosphere different from that which prevails today.

We have been, and at all times will be, ready to assist in creating conditions in which such negotiations could take place, and in which it might be possible concurrently to discuss the wider problems affecting the future of international relations, including matters of interest to us and to you.

The difficulties in the way of any peaceful discussion in the present state of tension are, however, obvious, and the longer that tension is maintained, the harder will it be for reason to prevail.

These difficulties, however, might be mitigated, if not removed, provided that there could for an initial period be a truce on both sides — and indeed on all sides — to press polemics and to all incitement.

If such a truce could be arranged, then, at the end of that period, during which steps could be taken to examine and deal with complaints made by either side as to the treatment of minorities, it is reasonable to hope that suitable conditions might have been established for direct negotiations between Germany and Poland upon the issues between them (with the aid of a neutral intermediary, if both sides should think that that would be helpful).

But I am bound to say that there would be slender hope of bringing such negotiations to successful issue unless it were understood beforehand that any settlement reached would, when concluded, be guaranteed by other Powers. His Majesty’s Government would be ready, if desired, to make such contribution as they could to the effective operation of such guarantees.

At this moment I confess I can see no other way to avoid a catastrophe that will involve Europe in war.

In view of the grave consequences to humanity, which may follow from the action of their rulers, I trust that Your Excellency will weigh with the utmost deliberation the considerations which I have put before you.

(Signed): NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN.

___________________________________________

7.   The Fuhrer’s Letter in reply to the British Prime Minister, August 23, 1939.

(Translation)

August 23, 1939.

Your Excellency:

The Ambassador to His Britannic Majesty has just handed me a note in which Your Excellency, in the name of the British Government, has drawn attention to a number of points, which, in your opinion, are of extreme importance.

I beg to reply to your note as follows:

1.   Germany has never sought to enter into conflict with Great Britain nor at any time interfered where British interests were concerned. On the contrary, Germany has for many years, although unfortunately without success, attempted to gain the friendship for Great Britain. For this reason, Germany voluntarily undertook a restriction of her own interests throughout a large area in Europe which would otherwise have been difficult to justify from a national political point of view.

2.   The German Reich, however, has, like every other state, certain interests which it is impossible for it to renounce and which lie within the category which Germany’s past history and her economic necessities have rendered of vital importance. Certain of these problems were, and are, of the utmost importance to any German Government bot, from a national political and from a psychological point of view.

One  of these problems is that of the German City of Danzig and the problem of the Polish Corridor connected therewith. Only a few years ago this fact was recognized by numerous statesmen, by authorities in historical research and literary men, even in England.

I should like to add that the civilization of all those areas which come within the sphere of German interests aforementioned, and especially those provinces which have returned to the Reich within the past eighteen months, was developed not by Englishmen but exclusively by Germans, and, in part, during a period of history which covers more than the last thousand years.

3.   Germany was prepared to settle the problem of Danzig and of the Polish Corridor by a very generous proposal, made once for all, and by means of negotiations. The assertions disseminated by Great Britain with regard to the mobilization of German troops against Poland, the assertion concerning aggressive intentions with regard to Roumania, Hungary, etc., as also the more recent so-called guarantees given to Poland, effectually destroyed any inclinations on the part of Poland to negotiate on a basis which would at the same time be acceptable to germany.

4.    The general assurance given by Great Britain to Poland that Great Britain would support Poland in case of conflict in any circumstance, irrespective of the causes giving rise to such conflict, could only be regarded here as an incitement to let loose, under cover of what might be termed a bland cheque, a wave of unspeakable terror against the one and a half million Germans domiciled in Poland.

The atrocities which have taken place there since that time were terrible indeed for those on whom they were inflicted, but intolerable for the German Reich, which, as one of the Great Powers, was expected to watch them idly.

In regard to the Free city of Danzig, Poland has, on countless occasions, infringed its rights, sent demands which were in the nature of an ultimatum and begun a process of economic strangulation.

5.     The Reich government informed the Polish government a short time ago that they were not inclined to accept these developments in silence, that they would not tolerate the dispatch of further notes couched in the form of an ultimatum to Danzig, that they would not tolerate a continuance of acts of violence inflicted on the German section of the population, nor would they tolerate the ruin of the Free City of Danzig by means of economic pressure, that is to say, the destruction of the very existence of the population of Danzig by a form of customs blockade, nor would they tolerate the continuance of such acts of provocation against the Reich. Regardless of the above, a solution must and will be found for the problem of Danzig and of the Polish Corridor.

6.   Your Excellency informs me in the name of the British Government that in the event of any act of interference on the part of Germany, you will be compelled to support Poland. I have taken due note of your statement and can assure you that it can in no way shake the determination of the Reich government to protect the interests of the Reich as set forth in Section 5.

I likewise agree with your assurance that the ensuing war would, in this case, be a long one. If Germany is attacked by Britain, she is prepared and determined to fight.

I have often declared to the German people and to the whole world that there can be no doubts as to the determination of the New German Reich to accept privation and misfortune in any form and at any time rather than sacrifice her national interests or even her honor.

7.   The Reich Government have received information of the fact that the British Government intend to carry out mobilization measures, which in their nature are solely directed against Germany, as is stated in Your Excellency’s note addressed to me. This is stated also to apply to France.

As Germany never intended to adopt military measures other than those of a purely defensive nature against either Great Britain or France and, as has already been emphasized, never intended nor in the future intends to attack either Great Britain or France, the announcement which Your Excellency confirmed in your note can only constitute an intended threat against the Reich. I must therefore, inform Your Excellency that in the event of such military measures being taken, I shall order the immediate mobilization of the German armed forces.

8.   The question of a settlement of European problems in a peaceful spirit cannot be decided by Germany but chiefly by those who, since the crime of the Treaty of Versailles was committed, have steadily and obstinately opposed any peaceful revision of its terms.

Only a change of attitude on the part of the Powers responsible for the Treaty can bring about a change for the better in the existing relations between Britain and Germany.

During my whole life-time I have struggled to achieve a friendship between Britain and Germany, but the attitude adopted by British diplomacy, up to the present at least, has served to convince me of the hopelessness of such an attempt. If the future were to bring a change in this respect, none would welcome it more than I.

_________________________________________________

8.   Declaration made by the Fuhrer to the British Ambassador on August 25, 2939, at 1:30 p.m.

(Translation)

     The Fuhrer declared at the outset that the British Ambassador at the close of their last conversation had expressed the hope that it would still prove possible to arrive at an understanding between Germany and England. He, the Fuhrer, had thereupon considered the situation once more and intended today to take a step in regard to England which was to be as decisive as the step taken in regard to Russia, the result of which had been the recent pact.

Yesterday’s meeting of the House of Commons and the speeches made by Mr. chamberlain and Lord Halifax were further reasons why the Fuhrer had again invited the British Ambassador to meet him.

The assertion that Germany wanted to conquer the world was ridiculous.

The British Empire covered a territory of forty million square kilometers, Russia of nineteen million square kilometers, America of nine and a half million square kilometers and Germany of less than 600,000 square kilometers. It was thus quite clear who wanted to conquer the world.

The Fuhrer informed the British Ambassador of the following:

1)  The acts of provocation committed by Poland had become intolerable, irrespective of who might be responsible for them.

If the Polish government contested their responsibility, this merely proved that they themselves had no longer any influence on their military subordinates. In the preceding night twenty-one new frontier incidents had occurred.

On the German side the utmost discipline had been displayed. All the incidents were due to Polish provocation.

Besides this, civil aeroplanes had been fire on. If the Polish Government declared themselves not responsible, this merely proved that they were unable to keep control over their own people.

2)  Germany was resolved under all circumstances to put an end to these Macedonian conditions on her eastern frontier, not only in the interests of law and order but also for the sake of European peace.

3.  The problem of Danzig and the Corridor would have to be solved.

The British Prime Minister had made a speech which had done nothing towards bringing about a change in the German attitude. This speech might, if anything, give rise to a desperate and incalculable war between Germany and england, a war which would cause far greater bloodshed than that of 1914.

In contrast to the last world war, Germany would not have to carry on a war on two fronts. The agreement concluded with Russia was unconditional and represented a turning point in the foreign policy of the Reich for the longest conceivable time. In no circumstance would Russia and Germany again take up arms against one another. Apart from this fact the agreements made with Russia would safeguard Germany, in economic respects also, for a war of the longest duration.

The Fuhrer had always been strongly in favor of Anglo-German understanding. A war between england and Germany could in the most favorable circumstances bring Germany an advantage, but certainly not the slightest gain to England.

the Fuhrer declared that the German-Polish problem had to and would be settled. He was, however, ready and resolved to approach England again, after his settlement, with a generous and comprehensive offer. He himself was a man of great decisions and he would in this case also be capable of a great action. he approved of the British Empire and was prepared to give a personal undertaking for its existence and to stake the might of the German Reich to that end provided that

1)  His Colonial demands, which were limited and could be settled by peaceful negotiations, were fulfilled, for which he was prepared to concede a most protracted time-limit;

2)  that his obligations to Italy remained untouched; in other words the Fuhrer did not expect England to give up her French obligations and could for his part not abandon his Italian obligations;

3)  he wished also to emphasize Germany’s unalterable resolution never again to enter into a conflict with Russia.

The Fuhrer would then be prepared to enter into agreements with Great Britain which, as he had already emphasized, would not only, on the German side, in any case safeguard the existence of the British empire, but if necessary would guarantee German assistance for the British empire, irrespective of where such assistance might be required. The Fuhrer would then also be ready to accept a reasonable limitation of armaments, in accordance with the new political situation and economic requirements. finally the Fuhrer renewed his assurance that he was not interested in western problems and that he did not for one moment consider any frontier correction in the west.

The western line of fortification which had cost billions, was the final frontier of the Reich in the west.

If the British Government would consider these suggestions, they might end in a blessing not only for Germany but also for the British Empire. If the British Government rejected the suggestions, war would be inevitable. In no circumstances, however, would such a war add to the strength of Great Britain. That this was true, the last war had amply proved.

The Fuhrer repeated that he was a man of great decisions to which he felt himself bound, and that this was his final proposal. Immediately after the settlement of the German-Polish question he would approach the British Government with an offer.

German White Book – Documents

Concerning the Last Phase of the German-Polish Crisis

Documents 9 through 13 (of 26)

9.   Letter of the French Premier to the Fuhrer, August 26, 1939

(Translation)

Paris, August 29, 1939.

Your Excellency:

The French Ambassador in Berlin has brought your personal message to my knowledge.

At an hour when you speak of the gravest responsibility which two Heads of Government can be asked to take, namely, that of shedding the blood of two great peoples desiring only peace and work, I owe it to you personally and to our respective nations to state that the fate of peace still rests in your hands.

You cannot doubt my feelings towards Germany, or the friendly feelings of France for your nation. No Frenchman has done more than I have to ensure not only peace between our two peoples, but also sincere cooperation in your own interests as well as in those of Europe and of the world.

Unless you are prepared to credit the French nation with a lower ideal of honor than the one with which I credit the German people, you cannot doubt that France will faithfully fulfill her obligations towards other powers which, like Poland, are, I am convinced, desirous of living at peace with Germany.

Both convictions are fully compatible with one another.

To this day there is nothing which might prevent a peaceful solution of the international crisis in a spirit of honor and dignity for all nations as long as the same will for peace prevails on all sides.

Together with the good will of France I proclaim that of all her allies.  I personally guarantee the readiness always shown by Poland to have mutual recourse to methods of free conciliation such as can be envisaged between the Governments of two sovereign nations. With a perfectly clear conscience I can give you an assurance that among the differences which have arisen between Germany and Poland with regard to the Danzig question, there is not a single one which could not be submitted to such a procedure with a view to finding a just and peaceful solution.

Upon my honor I can also state that in the clear and sincere solidarity of France with Poland and her allies there is nothing that might in any way impair the peaceful disposition of my country. This solidarity has never prevented us from supporting this peaceful disposition in Poland, and it does not do so today.

At so critical a moment I sincerely believe that no noble-minded person could understand how a war of destruction could be waged without a final attempt at a peaceful settlement between Germany and Poland having been undertaken. Your desire for peace could exercise its influence with full determination towards this end without detracting anything from Germany’s honor. As Head of the French Government, desirous of attaining full harmony between the French and the German nation, yet bound on the other hand to Poland by ties of friendship and my pledged word, I am prepared to make every effort that an honorable man can make to bring this endeavor to a successful end.

Like myself you were a soldier in the last war.  You know as well as I do the feelings of disgust and universal condemnation which the destruction caused by war left in the conscience of all nations, irrespective of its issue. The idea which I cherish of your great part as leader of the German nation on the road to peace towards the fulfillment of its tasks in the common effort towards civilization, prompts me to ask you for an answer to this my proposal.

Should French and German blood once more have to flow, just as it did twenty-five years ago, in an even longer and more murderous war, each nation will fight fully confident of its ultimate victory. Yet we can be sure that ruin and barbarity will be the most certain victors.’

(Signed) DALADIER

__________________________________________________

10.   The Fuhrer’s Letter in reply to the French Premier, August 27, 1939.

Berlin, August 27, 1939

Your Excellency:

I appreciate the concern you have expressed.  I have always been equally conscious of the grave responsibility place upon those who must decide the fate of nations. As an ex-soldier, I know as well as you do the horrors of war.  This spirit and knowledge have guided me in a sincere endeavor to remove all causes of conflict between our two nations.

I once told the French people quite frankly that the return of the Saar territory would be the basis for the achievement of this aim. Once that territory was returned I immediately solemnly renounced any further claims which might affect France.

The German people approved of my attitude.  As you were able to see for yourself when you were in Germany last, the German people, conscious of the way they themselves behaved, did not and still do not entertain any animosity or still less hatred against their former brave opponents. On the contrary; once peace was definitely established along our western frontier, there cam an increasing sympathy, at any rate on the part of the German nation — a sympathy markedly demonstrated on many occasions.

The construction of the great western fortifications which have cost and will still cost many billion Marks, is documentary evidence that Germany has accepted and fixed the final frontier of the Reich. In doing so, the German people renounced two provinces which once belonged to the old German Reich, were later on regained at the price of many lives, and were finally defended at the price of still more lives.

Your Excellency will admit that this renunciation was not merely a gesture for tactical reasons but a decision confirmed by all our subsequent measures.

You cannot, Excellency, cite a single instance in which this final settlement of the German frontier in the West has ever been disputed by one line or word.  I believed that by this renunciation and by this attitude every possible cause of conflict between our two nations, which might have led to a repetition of the tragic years of 1914 to 1918, had been eliminated.

This voluntary limitation of German claims in the West cannot however be regarded as an acceptance of the Dictate of Versailles in all other fields.

Year by year I have tried earnestly to achieve the revision of at least the most impossible and most unbearable of all the conditions of this Dictate through negotiation.  This proved impossible.  Many enlightened men of all nations believed and were convinced that revision was bound to come. Whatever objection may be raised against my methods, whatever fault may be found with them, it cannot be overlooked or denied that I succeeded without any more bloodshed in finding solutions which were in many cases satisfactory not only for Germany.

By the manner in which these solutions were accomplished, statesmen of other nations were relieved of their obligation, which they often found impossible to fulfill, of having to accept responsibility for this revision before their own people.

One thing I fee sure Your Excellency will admit, namely, that the revision was bound to come. The Dictate of Versailles was unbearable. No Frenchman with a sense of honor and certainly not you, M. Daladier, would have acted differently in a similar position than I did. I therefore tried to remove this most insane stipulation of the Dictate of Versailles. I made an offer to the Polish Government which actually shocked the German people.

No one but I could have dared to come forward with such a proposal. Therefore I could only make it once. I am firmly convinced that if Poland at that time had been advised to take a sensible course instead of being incited by a wild campaign of the British press against Germany, accompanied by rumors of German mobilization, then Europe would today be able to enjoy a state of profound peace for the next twenty-five years.

Actually, it was the lie about German aggression that excited public opinion in Poland; the Polish Government were handicapped in making necessary and clear decisions and, above all, their judgment on the extent of Poland’s possibilities was clouded by the subsequent promise of a guarantee.

[The guarantee England made to Poland that England would come to Poland's defense if hostilities ensued. It was, as Hitler said, "a blank cheque for the Polish government to continue its abuse and oppression of the Germans caught in that 'country' -- Poland -- that was created at Versailles.]

The Polish Government rejected the proposals.

Firmly convinced that Britain and France would now fight for Poland, Polish public opinion began to raise demands which might best be described as sheer lunacy were they not so extraordinarily dangerous. At that time unbearable terrorism se in; physical and economic oppression of the more than one and a half millions of Germans living in the territories severed from the Reich. I do not intent to speak of the atrocities which have occurred.

Even in Danzig, the outrages committed by the Polish authorities fully created the impression that the city was apparently hopelessly delivered up to the arbitrary action of a power that is foreign to the national character of the city and its population.

May I ask you, M. Daladier, how you as a Frenchman would act if, by the unfortunate ending of a bravely-fought war, one of your provinces were separated by a corridor in the possession of an alien power, and a large city — let us say Marseilles — were prevented from bearing allegiance to France, while Frenchmen in this territory were being persecuted, beaten, maltreated and even murdered in a bestial manner.

You are a Frenchman, M. Daladier, and I therefore know how you would act. I am a German, M. Daladier, and you will not doubt my sense of honor and my sense of duty which make me act in exactly the same way.

If you had to face a calamity such as confronts us, would you, M. Daladier, understand how Germany, for no reason at all, could use her influence to ensure that such a corridor through France should remain?

That the stolen territories should not be returned, and that Marseilles should be forbidden to join France?

I certainly cannot imagine Germany fighting you for such a cause. I, for Germany, renounced our claim to Alsace-Lorraine in order to avoid further bloodshed. Still less would we shed blood in order to maintain such an injustice as I have pictured, which would be as intolerable for you as it would be meaningless for us.

My feelings on everything expressed in your letter, M. Daladier, are the same as yours. Perhaps we, as ex-soldiers, should readily understand each other on many points. Yet I would ask you to appreciate also this: namely, that no nation with a sense of honor can ever give up almost two million people and see them maltreated on its own frontiers.

I therefore formulated a clear demand: Danzig and the Corridor must return to Germany. The Macedonian conditions prevailing along our eastern frontier must cease. I see no possibility of persuading Poland, who deems herself safe from attack by virtue of the guarantees given to her, to agree to a peaceful solution.

Unless we are determined under the circumstances to solve the question one way or the other, I would despair of an honorable future for my country.

If fate decrees that our two peoples should fight one another once more over this question, it would be from different motives. I for my part, M. Daladier, would fight with my people for the reparation of an injustice, while the others would fight for its retention.

This is all the more tragic in view of the fact that many great men of your nation have long since recognized the folly of the solution found in 1919 and the impossibility of keeping it up for ever. I am fully conscious of the grave consequences which such a conflict would involve.  But I think that Poland would suffer most, for whatever the issue of such a war, the Polish State of today would in any case be lost.

That our two peoples should now engage in another murderous war of destruction causes me as much pain as it does you, M. Daladier. Unfortunately, as stated earlier in my letter, I see no possibility open to us of influencing Poland to take a saner attitude and thus to remedy a situation which is unbearable for both the German people and the German Reich.

(signed) ADOLF HITLER.

________________________________________________________

11.   Memorandum from the British Government handed to the Fuhrer by the British Ambassador on August 28, 1939, at 10:30 p. m.

1.   His Majesty’s Government have received the message conveyed to them from the German Chancellor by H.M. Ambassador in Berlin and have considered it with the care which it demands.

They note the Chancellor’s expression of his desire to make friendship the basis of the relations between Germany and the British Empire and they fully share this desire. they believe with him that if a complete and lasting understanding between the two countries could be established it would bring untold blessings to both peoples.

2.   The Chancellor’s message deals with two groups of questions: — those which are the matters now in dispute between Germany and Poland, and those affecting the ultimate relations of Germany and Great Britain.

In connection with these last, His Majesty’s Government observe that the German Chancellor has indicated certain proposals which, subject to one condition, he would be prepared to make to the British Government for a general understanding. These proposals are of course stated in very general form and would require closer definition, but His Majesty’s Government are fully prepared to take them, with some additions, as subjects for discussion and they would be ready, if the differences between Germany and Poland are peacefully composed, to proceed so soon as practicable to such discussion with a sincere desire to reach agreement.

3.     The condition which the German Chancellor lays down is that there must first be a settlement of the differences between Germany and Poland. As to that, His Majesty’s Government entirely agree.  Everything, however, turns upon the nature of the settlement and the method by which it is to be reached. On these points, the importance of which cannot be absent from the Chancellor’s mind, his message is silent, and His Majesty’s Government will be aware that His Majesty’s Government have obligations to Poland by which they are bound and which they intend to honor.

They could not, for any advantage offered to Great Britain, acquiesce in a settlement which put in jeopardy the independence of a State to whom they have given their guarantee.

4.    In the opinion of His Majesty’s Government a reasonable solution for the differences between Germany and Poland could and should be effected by agreement between the two countries on lines which would include the safeguarding of Poland’s essential interest, and they recall that in his speech of the 28th of April last the German Chancellor recognized the importance of these interests to Poland.

But as was stated by the Prime Minister in his letter to the German Chancellor of the 22nd of August, His Majesty’s Government consider it essential for the success of the discussions which would precede the agreement that it should be understood before hand that any settlement arrived at would be guaranteed by other Powers. His Majesty’s Government would be ready if desired to make their contribution to the effective operation of such a guarantee.

In view of His Majesty’s Government it follows that the next step should be the initiation of direct discussions between the German and Polish Governments on a basis which would include the principles stated above, namely the safeguarding of Poland’s essential interests and the securing of the settlement by an international guarantee.

They have already received a definite assurance from the Polish Government that they are prepared to enter into discussions on this basis, and His Majesty’s Government hope the German government would for their part also be willing to agree to this course.

If, as His Majesty’s government hope, such discussion let to agreement the way would be open to the negotiation of that wider and more complete understanding between Great Britain and Germany which both countries desire.

5.   His Majesty’s Government agree with the German Chancellor that one of the principal dangers in the German-Polish situation arises from the report concerning the treatment of minorities. The present state of tension, with its concomitant frontier incidents, reports of maltreatment and inflammatory propaganda, is a constant danger to peace.

It is manifestly a matter of the utmost urgency that all incidents of the kind should be promptly and rigidly suppressed and that unverified reports should not be allowed to circulate, in order that time may be afforded, without provocation on either side, for a full examination of the possibilities of settlement. His Majesty’s Government are confident that both governments concerned are fully alive to these considerations.

6.   His Majesty’s Government have said enough to make their own attitude plain in the particular matters at issue between Germany and Poland. They trust that the German Chancellor will not think that, because His Majesty’s Government are scrupulous concerning their obligations to Poland, they are not anxious to use all their influence to assist the achievement of a solution which may comment itself both to Germany and to Poland.

That such a settlement should be achieved seems to His Majesty’s Government essential, not only for reasons directly arising in regard to the settlement itself, but also because of the wider considerations of which the German Chancellor has spoken with such conviction.

7.   It is unnecessary in the present reply to stress the advantage of a peaceful settlement over a decision to settle the questions at issue by force of arms. The results of a decision to use force have been clearly set out in the Prime Minister’s letter to the Chancellor of the 22nd of August, and His Majesty’s Government do not doubt that they are as fully recognized by the Chancellor as by themselves.

On the other hand His Majesty’s government, noting with interest the German Chancellor’s reference in the message now under consideration to a limitation of armaments, believe that, if a peaceful settlement can be obtained, the assistance of the world could confidently be anticipated for practical measures to enable the transition from preparation for war to the normal activities of peaceful trade to be safely and smoothly effected.

8.   A just settlement of these questions between Germany and Poland may open the way to world peace. Failure to reach it would ruin the hopes of better understanding between Germany and Great Britain, would bring the two countries into conflict, and might well plunge the whole world into war. Such an outcome would be a calamity without parallel in history.

___________________________________________________________

l2.   The Fuhrer’s Reply to the British Government handed to the British Ambassador on August 29, 1939, at 6:45 p. m.

(Translation)

August 29, 1939.

The British Ambassador in Berlin has informed the British government of certain suggestions which I felt it incumbent upon me to put forward, in order:

1.   to express once more the desire of the German Government for sincere Anglo-German understanding, cooperation and friendship;

2.  to leave no room for doubt that such an understanding cannot be purchased at the expense of Germany’s renunciation of her vital interests or even by the sacrifice of claims based just as much on general human rights as on the national dignity and honor of our nation.

It was with satisfaction that the German Government learned from the written reply of the British government and the verbal declarations of the British Ambassador, that the British government for their part also prepared to improve Anglo-German relations and to develop and to foster these in the spirit of the German suggestions.

The British government are likewise convinced that the removal of the tension between Germany and Poland, which has become intolerable, is indispensable if this hope is to be realized.

Since the autumn of 1938 and for the last time in March 1939, verbal and written proposals have been submitted to the Polish Government, which in consideration of the friendship then existing between Germany and Poland, might have let to a settlement of the questions under dispute which would have been acceptable to both parties.

The British government are aware that the Polish government saw fit to reject these proposals finally in March of this year. At the same time the Polish government made their rejection a pretext or an occasion for the adoption of military measures which have since then been continued on an ever-increasing scale. Poland had, in fact, mobilized as early as the middle of the month.

In connection with the mobilization, numerous incidents took place in the Free City of Danzig at the instigation of the Polish authorities, and demands of a more or less threatening character amounting to an ultimatum were addressed to the Free city of Danzig. The closing of the frontier, which was at first in the nature of a custom measure, was afterwards carried out on military lines and was extended to affect traffic with the object of bringing about the political disintegration and the economic ruin of the German community.

Furthermore, the large group of Germans living in Poland was subjected to atrocious and barbarous ill treatment and to other forms of persecution which resulted in some cases in the death by violence of many Germans domiciled there or in their deportation under the most cruel circumstances.

Such a situation is intolerable for a Great Power and has now forced Germany after months of inactive observation to undertake the necessary steps for the protection of her rightful interests. The German Government can only most seriously assure the British Government that that state of affairs has now been reached for which continued acquiescence or even inactive observation is no longer possible.

The demands of the German government imply a revision of the Treaty of Versailles in this area, a fact which was recognized as necessary from the very outset; they constitute the return of Danzig and the Polish Corridor to Germany and the safeguarding of the German minorities domiciled in those territories remaining in Polish possession.

the Reich Government note with satisfaction that the British Government are also convinced on principle that some solution must be found for the state of affairs which has now developed. They further consider they may assume that the British Government entertain no doubt on the fact that this is a state of affairs which can no longer be remedied in a matter of days or even weeks but for which perhaps only a few hours yet remain. For in view of the disorganized state of Poland we must at any moment be prepared for the possibility of events occurring which Germany could not possibly tolerate.

If the British Government still believe that these grave differences can be solved by direct negotiations, the Reich Government on their part regret at the outset that they are unable to share such an opinion. They have already tried to open up a way for peaceful negotiations of this nature, without meeting with the support of the Polish government, and only seeing their efforts rejected by the abrupt initiation of measures of a military character in accordance with the general development indicated above.

There are two factors which the British Government consider important:

1.  to remove most speedily the imminent danger of a conflagration by means of direct negotiations, and

2.  to give the necessary economic and political safeguards by means of international guarantees for the future existence of the remaining Polish State.

Despite their skeptical judgment of the prospects of such direct negotiations, the Reich Government are nevertheless prepared to accept the English proposal, and to enter into direct discussions. They do so solely because — as already emphasized — the written communication from the British Government, which they have received, gives them the impression that the latter also desire a friendly agreement along the lines indicated to their Ambassador, Sir Nevile Henderson.

The German Government desire in this way to give to the British Government and to the British people a proof of the sincerity of the German intention of arriving at a state of permanent friendship with Great Britain.

The Reich Government nevertheless feel bound to point out to the British Government that in the case of a reorganization of the territorial condition in Poland, the Reich Government are no longer in a position to take upon themselves any guarantees, or to participate in any guarantees, without the cooperation of the U.S.S.R.

The Reich Government in their proposals moreover never had the intentions of attacking vital Polish interests or of questioning the existence of an independent Polish state. Under these conditions, the Reich Government therefore agree to accept the proposed intermediation of the British Government to send to Berlin a Polish representative invested with plenipotentiary powers. They expect his arrival on Wednesday, August 30, 1939.

The Reich Government will immediately draft the proposals for a solution acceptable to them and, if possible, will make such proposals also available for the British government before the Polish negotiator arrives.

____________________________________________________________

13.   Telephone Message from the German Charge d’Affairs in Warsaw to the German Foreign Office on August 30, 1939, at 5:30 p. m.

(Translation)

     Notices ordering a general mobilization have been posted in Poland for one hour. The first day of mobilization is August 31st; everybody in possession of a white mobilization card must report at once.

Documents 14 through 16 (of 26)

14.  Memorandum from the British Government handed to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the British Ambassador on August 30, 1939, at midnight.

1.   His Majesty’s Government appreciate the friendly reference in the declaration contained in the reply of the German Government to the latter’s desire for an Anglo-German understanding and to their statement of the influence which this consideration has exercised upon their policy.

2.   His Majesty’s Government repeat that they reciprocate the German government’s desire for an improvement in relations, but it will be recognized that they could not sacrifice the interests of friends in order to obtain that improvement. They fully understand that the German Government cannot sacrifice Germany’s vital interests, but the Polish government are in the same position, and His Majesty’s Government believe that the vital interests of the two countries are not incompatible.

3.   His Majesty’s government note that the German Government accept the British proposal and are prepared to enter into direct discussions with the Polish Government.

4.   His Majesty’s Government understand that the German government accept in principle the condition that any settlement should be made subject to an international guarantee. the question of who shall participate in this guarantee will have to be discussed further, and His Majesty’s Government hope that to avoid loss of time the German Government will take immediate steps to obtain the assent of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics whose participation in the guarantee His Majesty’s Government have always assumed.

5.   His Majesty’s Government also note that the German Government accept the position of the British government as to Poland’s vital interests and independence.

6.   His Majesty’s government must make an express reservation in regard to the statement of particular demands put forward by the German Government in an earlier passage in their reply. They understand that the German Government are drawing up proposals for a solution. No doubt these proposals will be fully examined during the discussions. It can then be determined how far they are compatible with the essential conditions which His Majesty’s Government have stated and which the German Government have expressed their willingness to accept.

7.   His Majesty’s government are at once informing the Polish Government of the German Government’s reply. The method of contact and the arrangements for discussions must obviously be agreed with all urgency between the German government and the Polish government, but in His Majesty’s Government’s view it would be impracticable to establish contact so early as today.

8.   His Majesty’s Government fully recognize the need for speed in the initiation of discussions and they share the apprehensions of the Chancellor arising from the proximity of two mobilized armies standing face to fact. They would accordingly most strongly urge that both parties should undertake that during negotiations no aggressive military movements will take place.

His Majesty’s Government feel confident that they could obtain such an undertaking from the Polish Government, if the German Government would give similar assurances.

9.     Further His Majesty’s Government would suggest that a temporary modus vivendi might be arranged for Danzig, which might prevent the occurrence of incidents tending to render German-Polish relations more difficult.

____________________________________________________

15.   Official German Statement published on August 31, 1939, at 9 p. m. containing the Proposal for a settlement of the Danzig and the Polish Corridor Problem, as well as of the question concerning the German and Polish Minorities.

(Translation)

     In a note dated August 28, 1939, addressed to the German government, the British Government declared themselves prepared to offer their services as intermediaries in arranging direct negotiations between Germany and Poland for the settlement of the problems under dispute. In this note they left no room for doubt that in view of the continued incidents and the general state of tension throughout Europe they also were aware of the urgency of such action.

In spite of their skepticism regarding the willingness of the Polish Government to reach any agreement, the German government, in a reply dated August 29, 1939, declared themselves prepared in the interests of peace to accept British intermediation or suggestions.

Taking into account all the circumstances prevailing at the moment they considered it necessary to point out in their reply that, if the danger of catastrophe is to be avoided at all, quick and immediate action is indispensable.

The German Government have therefore declared themselves willing to receive a delegate appointed by the Polish government by the evening of August 30, 1939, provided that this delegate should be invested with full power not only to take part in discussions but to negotiate and to take a final decision.

The German government have further expressed the hope that they would be able to submit to the British government the gist of the proposed agreement before the arrival of the Polish delegate in Berlin.

Instead of a declaration regarding the arrival of an authorized Polish representative the German government, in reply to their readiness to negotiate, received firstly the news of the Polish mobilization, and it was only towards midnight on August 30, 1939, that they received the assurance by Britain, couched in more general terms, that she would use her influence to arrange for the opening of negotiations.

Owing to the non-arrival of the Polish delegate who was expected by the Reich Government, the primary condition for informing the British Government, who had themselves recommended direct negotiations between Germany and Poland, of the standpoint taken by the Reich as to the basis for such negotiations, no longer existed.

Nevertheless, Herr von Ribbentrop, the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, acquainted the British Ambassador, when the latter handed over the last British note, with the exact wording of the German proposals as prepared for the expected arrival of the Polish plenipotentiary.

Under these circumstances the German Government considered that they had every right to expect that, at least subsequently to this, the nomination of a Polish delegate would immediately take place. It was clearly too much to expect of the German Government that they should continue not only to reiterate their willingness to enter upon such negotiations, but even to sit and wait and allow themselves to be put off by the Polish side with feeble subterfuges and empty declarations.

In the meantime a demarche by the Polish Ambassador has again shown that not even he is authorized to enter upon any discussion whatsoever, much less to negotiate.

Thus the Fuhrer and the German Government have now waited for two days in vain for the arrival of an authorized Polish delegate.

Under these circumstances the German Government cannot but regard their proposals as having been once more virtually rejected, although they are of the opinion that in the form in which they were also communicated to the British Government, they were formulated in a spirit of more than goodwill and fairness ann could have been accepted.

The Government of the Reich consider it appropriate to inform the public of the proposed basis for negotiation as communicated to the British Ambassador by Herr von Ribbentrop, the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs.

______________________________________________

Proposal for a settlement of the Danzig and the Polish Corridor Problem as well as of the question concerning the German and Polish Minorities.

The situation between the German Reich and Poland is at the present time such that any further incident may lead to an outbreak of hostilities between the military forces of the two countries, which have already taken up their position on the respective side of the frontier.

Any peaceful solution of the problem must be of such a nature that the events which originally brought about this state of affairs cannot be repeated on the next occasion thus causing a state of tension not only in Eastern Europe but also elsewhere.

The causes of this development are to be found in

(1) the intolerable demarcation of the frontiers as dictated in the Treaty of Versailles.

(2.) the intolerable treatment of the minority in the territories cut off from the Reich.

In putting forward these proposals, the Reich government are attempting to find a final solution putting an end to the intolerable situation arising from the present demarcation of frontiers, securing to both parties their vital lines of communication, eliminating as far as possible the problem of the minorities and, in so far as this should prove impossible, rendering the fate of the minorities bearable by effectively guaranteeing their rights.

The Reich Government feel convinced that it is indispensable that economic and personal damage inflicted since 1918 should be investigated, and full compensation made therefore. Of course, the Reich Government regard this obligation as binding upon both parties.

The above considerations give rise to the following concrete proposals:

(1)   By reason of its purely German character and the unanimous will of its population, the Free City of Danzig shall be returned forthwith to the German Reich.

(2)  The territory known as the Polish Corridor, that is to say, the territory bounded by the Baltic Sea and a line running from Marienwerder to Graudenz, Kulm, Bromberg, (including these towns), and then in a westerly direction towards Schonlanke, shall itself decide whether it shall become part of the German Reich or remain with Poland.

(3)  For that purpose, a plebiscite shall be held in this territory. All Germans who were domiciled in this area on the first of January 1918 or who were born there on or before that day, also all Poles, Cassubians, etc. who were domiciled in this area on that day or who were born there on or before the above-mentioned date, shall be entitled to vote. Germans who have been expelled from this territory shall return for the purpose of registering their votes.

In order to ensure an impartial plebiscite and to guarantee that the necessary and extensive preparations for the plebiscite shall be carried out correctly, an International Commission like the one formed in connection with the Saar plebiscite, and consisting of members appointed by the four Great Powers, Italy, the U.S.S.R., France and Great Britain, shall be formed immediately, and placed in charge of this territory.

This commission shall exercise sovereign rights throughout the territory. To that end, the territory shall be evacuated by the Polish military forces, by the Polish police and by the Polish authorities within the shortest possible time to be agreed upon.

(4)  The Polish port of Gdynia to the extent of the Polish settlement is not included in this area but, as a matter of principle, is recognized as Polish territory.

The details of the boundaries of this Polish port shall be decided on by Germany and Poland, and if necessary established by an International Court of Arbitration.

(5)  In order to allow for ample time for the necessary and extensive preparations for the carrying out of an impartial plebiscite this plebiscite shall not take place before a period of twelve months has elapsed.

(6)  In order that during that period, Germany’s lines of communication with East Prussia and Poland’s access to the sea may be unrestrictedly ensured, certain roads and railway lines shall be determined in order to facilitate unobstructed transit. In this connection only such taxes may be levied as are necessary for the upkeep of the lines of communication and for the carrying out of transport.

(7)  The allocation of this territory shall be decided on by the absolute majority of the votes cast.

(8)  In order to secure, after the plebiscite (irrespective of the result thereof), Germany’s unrestricted communication with the province of Danzig — East Prussia, and Poland’s access to the sea, Germany shall, should the territory be returned to Poland as a result of the plebiscite, be given an exterritorial traffic zone running, from say, Butow to Danzig or Dirschau, for the purpose of building a Reich Motor Road (Reichsautobahn) and also a four-track railway line.

The construction of the motor road and of the railway shall be carried out in such a manner that Polish lines of communication are not affected thereby, i.e. they are to be overbridged or underbridged. This zone shall be one kilometer in width and shall be German territory.

Should the result of the plebiscite be in favor of Germany, Poland shall have the same rights as Germany would have had, to build an exterritorial road and railway connection in order to secure her free and unrestricted access to her port of Gdynia.

(9)  In the event of the Polish Corridor being returned to the Reich, the latter declares herself prepared to arrange with Poland for an exchange of population to the extent to which this could be carried out according to the conditions in the Corridor.

(10)  Any special rights claimed by Poland within the port of Danzig shall, on the basis of parity, be negotiated in exchange of equal rights for Germany at the Port of Gdynia.

(11)  In order to avoid any sense of menace or danger on either side, Danzig and Gdynia henceforth shall have a purely commercial character, i.e. neither of these places shall be provided with means of military defence or fortifications.

(12)  The Peninsula of Hela which according to the result of the plebiscite would be allocated either to Poland or to Germany, shall also be demilitarized in any case.

(13)  The Reich Government having most serious complaints to make about the treatment of the minority by the Poles, the Polish Government on the other hand considering themselves entitled to raise complaints against Germany, both parties agree to submit these complaints to an International Commission of Investigation charged to investigate into all complaints and economic and personal damage, as well as other acts of terrorism.

Germany and Poland bind themselves to indemnify the minorities on either side for any economic damages and other wrongs inflicted upon them since 1918; and or to revoke all expropriations or otherwise to completely indemnify the respective person or persons for these and other encroachments upon economic life.

(14)  In order to free the Germans remaining in Poland, as well as the Poles remaining in Germany, from the feeling of being deprived of the benefits of International Law, and above all to afford them the certainty of their not being made to take part in actions and in furnishing services of a kind not compatible with their national convictions, Germany and Poland mutually agree to safeguard the rights of their respective minorities by most comprehensive and binding agreements for the purpose of warranting these minorities the preservation, free development and cultivation of their national customs, habits and traditions, to grant them in particular and for that purpose the form of organization considered necessary by them. Both parties undertake not to draft the members of the minority into military service.

(15)  In case of an agreement on the basis of these proposals being reached, Germany and Poland declare themselves prepared immediately to order and carry through the demobilization of their respective armed forces.

(16)  Any additional measures required to hasten the carrying through of the above agreement shall be mutually agreed upon between Germany and Poland.

___________________________________________________

16.   Announcement made by the Polish Broadcasting Station at Warsaw on August 31, 1939, at 11 p. m.

(Translation)

     the publication today of the official German communique has clearly revealed the aims and intentions of German policy. It proves the undisguised aggressive intentions of Germany towards Poland. The conditions under which the Third Empire is prepared to negotiate with Poland are:

Danzig must immediately return to the Reich.

Pomorze together with the cities of Bromberg and Graudenz are to be subjected to a plebiscite, for which all Germans who left that territory for any reason whatsoever since the year 1918 may return.

The Polish military forces and the police force shall be evacuated from Pomorze.

The police force of England, France, Italy and the U.S.S.R. will be placed in charge of the territory. The plebiscite is to take place after twelve months have elapsed.

The territory of the Hela Peninsula will also be included in the plebiscite, Gdynia as a Polish town is excluded. Irrespective of the result of the plebiscite an exterritorial road one kilometer wide is to be constructed.

The German News Agency announces that the time allowed for the acceptance of these conditions expired yesterday. Germany has waited in vain for a Polish delegate. The answer given was the military orders issued by the Polish Government.

Words can now no longer veil the aggressive plans of the new Huns. Germany is aiming at the domination of Europe and is cancelling the rights of nations with as yet unprecedented cynicism. This impudent proposal shows clearly how necessary were the military orders given by the Polish Government.

17.  Speech delivered by the Fuhrer before the Reichstag on September 1, 1939. [Poland fired the first shots knowing that France and England would jump to their defense.]

(Translation)

Members of the German Reichstag:

For months we have been tormented by a problem once set us by the dictated Treaty of Versailles and which has now assumed such a character as to become utterly intolerable.

Danzig was and is a German city!

The Corridor was and is German!

     All these districts owe their cultural development exclusively to the German people, without whom absolute barbarism would prevail in these eastern tracts of country.

Danzig was separated from us! The Corridor was annexed by Poland! The German minorities living there were ill-treated in the most appalling manner! More than a million persons with German blood in their veins were compelled to leave their homes as early as 1919-1920.

Here, as always, I have attempted to change this intolerable condition of things by means of peaceful proposals for a revision. It is a lie when the world alleges that we always used pressure in attempting to carry out any revision.

There was ample opportunity for fifteen years before National Socialism assumed power to carry through revisions by means of a peaceful understanding. This was not done!

I myself then took the initiative in every single case, not only once, but many times, to bring forward proposals for the revision of absolutely intolerable conditions.

As you know, all these proposals have been rejected. I need not enumerate them in detail: those proposals for a limitation of armaments, if necessary even for the abolition of armaments, those for restrictions on methods of warfare, those for eliminating methods of modern warfare, which, in my opinion, are scarcely compatible with International Law.

You know the proposals which I made as to the necessity of restoring German sovereign rights in certain territories of the Reich, those countless attempts I made to bring about a peaceful solution of the Austrian problem, and later on that of the Sudetenland, Bohemia and Moravia. It was all in vain!

One thing, however, is impossible: to demand that a peaceful revision should be made of an intolerable state of affairs — and then obstinately refuse such a peaceful revision.

And it is just as impossible to assert that in such a situation to act on one’s own initiative in making a revision is to violate a law. For us Germans the dictated Treaty of Versailles is not a law!

It won’t do to blackmail a person at the point of a pistol with the treat of starvation for millions of people into signing a document and afterwards proclaim that this document with its forced signature was a solemn law!

In the case of Danzig and the Corridor, I have again tried to solve the problems by means of peaceful proposals suggesting a discussion. One thing was obvious: they had to be solved!

That the date of this solution may perhaps be of little interest to the Western Powers is conceivable. But this date is not a matter of indifference to us. First and foremost, however, it was not and could not be a matter of indifference to the suffering victims.

In conversation with Polish statesmen, I have discussed the ideas which you have heard me express here in my last speech to the Reichstag. No one can maintain that this was an unjust procedure or even unreasonable pressure.

I then had the German proposals clearly formulated and I feel bound to repeat once more that nothing could be fairer or more modest than those proposals submitted by me.

And I now wish to declare to the whole world that I, and I alone, was in a position to make such proposals. for I know quite definitely that I was thereby acting contrary to the opinion of millions of Germans. Those proposals were rejected!

But more that that! They were replied to by mobilization, increased terrorism, intensified pressure on the German minorities in those areas and by a gradual economic and political strangulation of the Free City of Danzig which, during the past few weeks, found its expression in military measures and traffic restrictions.

Poland virtually began a war against the Free City of Danzig. Furthermore, she was not prepared to settle the problem of the Corridor in a fair manner satisfying the interests of both parties.

And lastly, Poland has never thought of fulfilling her obligations with regard to the minorities.

In this connection I feel it necessary to state that Germany has fulfilled her obligations in this respect! Minorities domiciled in Germany are not subject to persecution. Let any Frenchman get up and declare that French citizens living in the Saar territory are oppressed, ill-treated or deprived of their rights! No one can make such an assertion!

For four months I have watched these developments without taking action but not without issuing repeated warnings. Recently I have made these warnings more and more emphatic. Over three weeks ago the Polish Ambassador was, at my request, informed that: if Poland persisted in sending further notes in the nature of an ultimatum to Danzig and in further oppressing the German minorities, or if attempts were made to bring about the economic ruin of Danzig by means of customs restrictions, Germany would no longer stand aside and remain inactive.

I have left no room for doubt that in this respect the Germany of today is not to be confused with post-war Germany.

Attempts have been made to justify the action against the German minorities by declaring that they had given provocation. I am at a loss to know what “provocation” those women and children are supposed to have given who have been ell-treated and deported or what was the nature of the provocation given by all those who were tortured in the most inhuman and sadistic way before they were finally put to death.

One thing I know however: there is not one single Great Power possessed of a feeling of honor, which would countenance such conditions for any length of time! In spite of all I have made one last attempt.

Although possessed of the innermost conviction that the Polish Government — perhaps also owing to their dependence on a now unchained wild soldiery — are not in earnest as regards a real understanding. I have nevertheless accepted a proposal of mediation submitted by the British government. The latter proposed not to carry on any negotiations themselves, they assured me however of their establishing a direct connection between Poland and Germany for the purpose of thus facilitating once more direct discussions.

I must here state the following: I have accepted that proposal. for these discussions I had drawn up the fundamentals which are known to you. And then I an my Government have sat expectantly for two whole days in order to find out whether the Polish Government saw fit finally to dispatch an authorized representative or not!

Up to last night the Polish Government did not dispatch an authorized representative, but informed us by their ambassador that at present they were considering the question whether and to what extent they might be able to accept the English proposals; of the result they would inform England.

Gentlemen, if such an impertinence could be offered to the German Reich and its ruler, and if the German Reich and its ruler were to tolerate such treatment, the German Nation would not deserve a better fate than to vanish from the political arena.

My love of peace and my endless patience should not be confounded with weakness or even cowardice! Last night I informed the British government that under these conditions I found it impossible to detect any inclination on the part of the Polish government to enter into a really earnest discussion with us.

Thus these proposals of mediation were frustrated, because in the meantime the answer to these offers of mediation had been, first, the order for Polish general mobilization, and second, additional serious outrages. Repetitions of the latter incidents occurred last night. while only recently during one single night twenty-one frontier incidents occurred, last night there were fourteen, three of them of a most serious character.

For that reason, I now have decided to address Poland in exactly the same language applied by Poland to us in recent months.

Now if there are statesmen in the West who declare that their interests are involved, I can only regret such a statement, their opinion, however, cannot for one single minute persuade me to deviate from the execution of my duties. I have solemnly declared and repeat once more that we have no claims at all on these Western States, and shall never demand anything from them. I have declared that the frontier between Germany and France is final. I have repeatedly offered England our friendship, and if necessary closest cooperation.

Love, however, is not a one-sided affair, but must be responded to by the other side. Germany has no interests in the West, our fortifications in the West (Westvail) are for all times to come the frontier of the Reich. We have no other aims in the future, and this attitude of the Reich will remain unchanged.

Some of the other European States understand our attitude. First of all I would thank Italy for having supported us all this time. You will also understand that in connection with this struggle we do not want to make an appeal for any foreign help. This task of ours we shall solve ourselves.

The neutral states have assured us of their neutrality exactly as we previously have guaranteed their neutrality. This assurance we consider a sacred obligation, and as long as nobody infringes upon their neutrality, we too shall painstakingly abide by it. Because, what could we expect or desire from them?

I feel very much gratified at being able to hereby inform you of an event of special importance. You are aware that Russia and Germany are governed by two different doctrines There was only one single question to be cleared: Germany has no intention of exporting her doctrine, and as long as soviet Russia does not intend exporting her own doctrine to Germany, I do not see any longer any reason for our being opponents again.

Both of us are agreed on that point. Any struggle between us would only result in the benefit of others. We have therefore resolved to enter into an agreement which will exclude any application of force between us in the future, which obligates us to consult with each other in certain European questions and facilitates economic collaboration, and above all warrants that the energies of these two great states are not mutually consumed.

Any attempt on the part of the Western States, aiming at a change of the existing facts will prove futile, and in that connection I would like to state one thing: this political decision signifies an enormous change regarding the future, and is absolutely final!

I believe that the whole German people will approve of this political attitude! In the World War, Russia and Germany fought against each other and were the ultimate sufferers. That shall and will never happen again! Yesterday, the Non-Aggression and consultation Pact, which came into force the day it was signed, was ratified in Moscow and in Berlin. In Moscow the Pact was acclaimed with the same satisfaction as in Berlin.

I approve of every word in the speech made by M. Molotov, the Russian Commissar for Foreign Affairs.

Our aims: I am determined to solve: firstly, the Danzig question, secondly, the corridor question, thirdly, to see to it that a change takes place in Germany’s relations to Poland, which will ensure a peaceful co-existence of the two States.

I am determined to fight until either the present Polish government is disposed to effect this change or until another Polish Government is prepared to do so.

I will eliminate from the German frontiers that element of insecurity, that atmosphere which permanently resembles that of civil war.

I will see to it that on the eastern frontier the same peaceful conditions prevail as on the other frontiers. I will at the same time act in such a way as not to contradict what I announced to you, Gentlemen, in the Reichstag as my proposals to the world. That is, I will not wage war against women and children! I have instructed my air force to limit their attacks to military objects. but should the enemy think this leaves him free to fight in the opposite way, then he will get an answer which will drive him out of his senses!

In the night Polish soldiers of the regular Army fired the first shots in our own territory. Since 5:45 a. m. we have been returning their fire. And from now onwards a bomb will be answered by a bomb!

who fights with poison will be fought with poison. Who disregards the rules of human warfare can only expect us to take the same steps.

I will carry on this fight, no matter against whom, until the safety of the Reich and its rights are secured!

For more than six years now I have been at work in building up the German armed forces. during this period more than ninety billions have been expended in creating our armed forces. Today, they are the best equipped in the world and are far superior to those of 1914!

My confidence in them can never be shaken!

When I called up these forces, and when I now expect the German people to make sacrifices, if necessary every sacrifice, I have the right to do so; for I myself am just as ready today as I was in the past to make every personal sacrifice.

There is nothing I demand of any German which I myself was not prepared to do at any moment for four long years.

There shall not be any deprivations for Germans in which I myself shall not immediately share!

From this moment my whole life shall belong more than ever to my people. I now want to be nothing but the first soldier of the German Reich.

Therefore, I have once again put on that uniform which was always so sacred and dear to me. I shall not take it off until after the victory — or I shall not live to see the end.

Should anything happen to me in this fight, my first successor shall be Party Member Goering. Should anything happen to Party Member Goering, his successor shall be Party Member Hess. To these men as your leaders you would then owe the same absolute loyalty and obedience as you owe me!

In the event that something fatal should happen to Party Member Hess, I now have made legal provisions for the convocation of the Senate, which shall then elect the worthiest, that is to say the most valiant among them.

As a National socialist and a German soldier I enter into this fight with a strong heart! My whole life was but one continued struggle for my people, for its rebirth, and for Germany, and above all that struggle there stood one single conviction: The Faith in that People!

One word I have never known: Capitulation.

If, however, there should be anyone thinking that we are at the brink of hard times, I urge him to consider the fact that at one time a Prussian King ruling over a ridiculously small state confronted one of the greatest coalitions, yet ultimately defeated it in three campaigns, simply because he was possessed of that certain undaunted spirit and believing heart also required of us in these times.

The contemporaneous world I would assure however that in the future course of German history a November 1918 will never occur again.

In the same measure in which I myself am prepared to sacrifice my life for my people and for Germany, I demand the same of every other person.

But whosoever believes that he can resist this national decree, be it directly or indirectly, will find himself vastly mistaken.

We will not tolerate traitors.

We thus act in accordance with our old principle, namely, that it is of no importance whether we go on living, but it is vital that our nation and that German should live.

I expect of you, as the emissaries of the Reich, that you will do your duty in whatever position you are called upon to fill.

You must be the standard-bearers of resistance, cost it what it may. Let no one report to me that in his province, his district, his group or his unit the morale is bad. It is you who are responsible for the moral. I am responsible for public feeling throughout Germany and you are responsible for public feeling in your provinces and districts.

No one has the right to refuse this responsibility The sacrifice that is demanded of us is not greater than the sacrifice which has been demanded of many past generations. All those men who have, before us, trod the path of bitter and difficult duty for Germany’s sake did nothing more than we are called upon to do, the sacrifice they made was neither lighter, less painful nor easier than the sacrifice that is demanded of us.

I expect every German woman to join up in strict discipline and do her duty in this great community of combatants.

German youth, needless to say, will fulfill heart and soul what is expected and demanded of them by the nation and by the National-Socialist State.

If we form this community, fused together, ready for anything, determined never to capitulate, our firm resolve will master every need.

I conclude with the words with which I once started my fight for power in the Reich. At that time I said:

“If our will is so strong that no emergency can break it, then our will and our good German sword will master and overthrow need and distress.”

Germany — Sieg Heil!

Documents 18 through 26 (final)

_______________________________________________

18.  Note handed to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the British Ambassador on September 1, 1939, at 9:30 p. m.

Berlin, September 1, 1939.

Your Excellency:

On the instructions of His Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs I have the honor to make the following communication.

Early this morning the German Chancellor issued a proclamation to the German Army which indicated clearly that he was about to attack Poland.

Information which has reached His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the French Government indicates that German troops have crossed the Polish frontier and that attacks on Polish towns are proceeding.

In these circumstances it appears to the Governments of the United Kingdom and France that by their action the German Government have created conditions (viz. and aggressive act of force against Poland threatening the independence of Poland) which calls for the implementation by the Governments of the United Kingdom and France of the undertaking to Poland to come to her assistance.

I am accordingly to inform Your excellency that unless the German government are prepared to give His Majesty’s Government satisfactory assurances that the German Government have suspended all aggressive action against Poland and are prepared promptly to withdraw their forces from Polish territory, His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom will without hesitation fulfill their obligations to Poland.

I avail myself of this opportunity re renew to your Excellency the assurance of my highest consideration.

(Signed): NEVILE HENDERSON

_______________________________________________________

19.  Note handed to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the French Ambassador on September 1, 1939, at 10 p. m.

(Translation)

Berlin, September 1, 1939

Your Excellency:

On the instructions of the French Minister for Foreign Affairs I have the honor to make the following communication.

Early this morning the German Chancellor issued a proclamation to the German Army which indicated clearly that he was about to attack Poland.

Information which has reached the French Government and His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom indicates that German troops have crossed the Polish Frontier and that attacks on Polish towns are proceeding

In these circumstances it appears to the Governments of France and the United Kingdom that by their action the German Government have created conditions (viz. and aggressive act of force against Poland threatening the independence of Poland) which calls for the implementation by the Governments of France and the United Kingdom of the undertaking to Poland to come to her assistance.

I am accordingly to inform Your excellency that unless the German government are prepared to give His Majesty’s Government satisfactory assurances that the German Government have suspended all aggressive action against Poland and are prepared promptly to withdraw their forces from Polish territory, the French government will without hesitation fulfill their obligation to Poland.

I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to your Excellency the assurance of my highest consideration.

(Signed): COULONDRE

__________________________________________

20.  Communication handed to the German Foreign Office by the Italian Ambassador on the morning of September 2, 1939.

(Translation)

     For your information Italy communicates to you, naturally leaving every decision to the Fuhrer, that she is still in a position to obtain the consent of France, England and Poland to a conference on the following basis:

1.  An armistice leaving the armies where they now are;

2.  The calling of a conference within two or three days;

3.  A solution of the Polish-German conflict, which, as matters lie today, would certainly be favorable to Germany.

This idea, which originated with the Duce, is today particularly advocated by France.

 ______________________________________________

21.  Information from the Havas News Agency on September 2, 1939

(Translation)

     The French government as well as several other Governments have been informed of an Italian proposal for a settlement of the European difficulties. After discussing the proposal the French Government gave a reply in the affirmative.

___________________________________________________

22.  Extract from a Declaration made by the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the House of Lords on the afternoon of September 2, 1939*

“. . . . Up to the present no reply has been received to the warning message delivered to Germany last night.

It was possible that delay had been due to proposals put forward by the Italian Government that hostilities should cease and that there would be immediately a conference between Great Britain, France, Poland, Germany and Italy.

The British Government would not find it possible to take part in a conference when Poland was being subjected to invasion and her towns were under bombardment and Danzig had been made the subject of unilateral settlement by force. . .”

*) According to the wording appearing in “The Observer” of September 3, 1939. A similar declaration was made at the same time by the British Prime Minister in the House of Commons.

__________________________________________________

23.  Note handed to the German Foreign Office by the British Ambassador on September 3, 1939, at 9. a.m.

September 3, 1939.

Your Excellency:

In the communication which I had the honor to make to you on September 1st I informed you on the instructions of His Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that, unless the German Government were prepared to give His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom satisfactory assurances that the German Government had suspended all aggressive action against Poland and were prepared promptly to withdraw their forces from Polish territory, His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom would without hesitation fulfill their obligations to Poland.

Although this communication was made more than twenty-four hours ago, no reply has been received, but German attacks upon Poland have been continued and intensified.

I have accordingly the honor to inform you that unless not later than 11 a.m. British Summer Time today, September 3rd, satisfactory assurance to the above effect has been given by the German Government and has reached His Majesty’s Government in London, a state of war will exist between the two countries as from that hour.

I avail myself of this opportunity. . . .

(Signed) NEVILE HENDERSON

_____________________________________________

24.  Note from the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs handed to the German Charge d’Affairs in London on September 3, 1939, at 11:15 s.m.

September 3, 1939.

Sir:

On September 1st H.M. Ambassador in Berlin acting upon my instructions informed the same Government that unless they were prepared to give H.M. Government in the United Kingdom satisfactory assurances that the German Government have suspended all aggressive actions against Poland and were prepared promptly to withdraw their forces from Polish territory, H. M. Government in the United Kingdom would without hesitation fulfill their obligations to Poland.

At 9 a.m. this morning H. M. Ambassador in Berlin acting upon my instructions informed the German Government that unless not later than 11 a.m. British summer time, today, September 3rd, satisfactory assurance to the above effect has been given by the German Government and has reached H. M. Government in London a state of war would exist between the two countries as from that hour.

No such assurances having been received I have the honor to inform you that a state of war exists between the two countries as from 11 a. m. today, September 3rd.

I have the honor. . . .

(Signed) HALIFAX

__________________________________________

25.  Memorandum from the German Government handed to the British Ambassador by the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, September 3, 1939, at 11:30 a.m.

(Translation)

     The Reich government acknowledges receipt of the British Government’s ultimatum of september 3, 1939, to which the Reich Government has the honor to reply as follows:

1)   The Reich Government and the German people refuse to be handed, to accept, and still less, to comply with demands amounting to an ultimatum made by the British Government.

2)   For many months past, a state of war has actually prevailed along our eastern border. Every since the Treaty of Versailles rent Germany in two, all subsequent German Governments were denied any peaceful Settlement.

Since 1933, the National socialist Government have also tried again and again by way of peaceful negotiations to do away with the worst oppression and violations of law perpetrated by that treaty.

Primarily it has been the British Government who, by their intransigent attitude, have frustrated any practical revision. Had it not been for the interference on the part of the British Government, a reasonable solution, doing justice to either party, would undoubtedly have been arrive at between Germany and Poland, a fact which the Reich Government and the German people are convinced of.

For Germany had no intention of destroying Poland, nor did she ever demand Poland’s destruction. All that the Reich demanded was the revision of those articles in the Treaty of Versailles which sensible statesmen of all nations, already when the treaty was drawn up, termed unbearable for any length of time — unbearable both for a great nation and for the entire political and economic interest of Eastern Europe, and therefore impossible.

Even British statesmen declared specifically that the terms which Germany was forced to accept in the East held the seed of future wars. To go away with this danger has been the desire of every German Government, and in particular the aim of the New National Socialist Government of the German people.

The policy of the British Cabinet is to blame for the fact that a peaceful revision has not been reached.

3)   The British government — an unprecedented occurrence in history — has given Poland full power with regard to any action against Germany which she might intend to undertake.

The British Government gave the Polish Government the assurance of their military support in any circumstance, in case Germany should commence hostilities in reply to any provocation or attack.

Thereupon Polish acts of terror against Germans domiciled in the districts torn from Germany immediately assumed intolerable proportions. The treatment to which the Free City of Danzig was subjected was in contravention to all legal provision; it was first threatened with economic ruin and submitted to customs restrictions, and finally encircled by military forces and throttled by transport restriction.

Every one of these infringements of the Danzig Statute was fully known to, and approved by, the British Government, and backed by the blank cheque given to Poland.

The German Government, although greatly distressed by the sufferings of the German minority subjected to atrocities and inhuman treatment by the Poles, nevertheless looked on in patience for five months without once undertaking even the slightest aggressive action of a similar nature against Poland.

Germany merely warned Poland that these actions would not be tolerated in the long run and that she was determined, in the event of no other help forthcoming for the population concerned, to take the matter in hand herself.

The British Government was fully aware of all that was going on. It would have been an easy matter for them to use their great influence in Warsaw to exhort those in authority to conform to the laws of justice and humanity, and to fulfill their existing obligations.

The British Government did not see fit to do anything of the kind. On the contrary, by constantly stressing the fact of their duty to assist Poland under all circumstances, they clearly encouraged Poland to continue in her criminal attitude which still might have saved the peace of Europe, although the Reich Government had expressed their readiness to accept such proposal.

The British Government are thus responsible for all the misery and suffering that has overtaken now, or is about to overtake, so many peoples.

4)   Now that all attempts to find and settle on a peaceful solution have been frustrated owing to the intransigent attitude of the Polish Government as shielded by Great Britain; now that for many months already conditions similar to civil war on the eastern frontiers of the Reich have gradually — without any objection on the part of the British Government — assumed the character of open attacks on Reich territory, the Reich Government have decided to put an end to the continued menace, at first from outside, but later also at home, against the peace of the German nation, a situation no Great Power can be expected to bear with.

In order to defend the peace, the security and the honor of the German Reich, the Reich Government have decided to resort to the only means now left to them, since the Governments of the Democracies have wantonly frustrated all other possibilities of revision.

They have replied to the last Polish attacks threatening Reich territory with similar measures. The Reich Government is not willing, on account of any British intentions or obligations, to tolerate in the East of the Reich conditions similar to those prevailing in the British Protectorate of Palestine.

The German people, however, is certainly not willing to submit to ill-treatment by Poland.

5)  the Reich government therefore reject any attempt to force Germany, by an ultimative demand, to withdraw her troops, called up for the purpose of protecting the Reich, and thus to put up once more with the former unrest and injustice. The treat that war would otherwise be waged against Germany coincides with the intentions, for many years proclaimed, of numerous British politicians.

Innumerable times the Reich Government and the German people have assured the British people of their desire for an understanding and even close friendship with them. If the British Government have hitherto rejected these offers and now reply to them with n open threat of war, the responsibility for this lies not with the German nation and its Government, but exclusively with the British Cabinet, especially with those men who for years have preached the destruction and extermination of the German people.

The German people and the German Government do not intend, as does Great Britain, to rule the world, but they are determined to defend their own freedom, their independence and very life.

We take note of the intentions made known to us by Mr. King Hall on behalf of the British government, to deal the German nation a still more crushing blow than did the Treaty of Versailles and shall therefore reply to any act of aggression on the part of Great Britain with the same weapons and in the same way.

Berlin, September 3, 1939.

_______________________________________________

26.  Note handed to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the French Ambassador on September 3, 1939, at 12:20 p.m.

(Translation)

Berlin, September 3, 1939.

Your Excellency:

As I received no satisfactory reply from the Reich Government at noon on September 3rd to the Note which I handed to you on September 1st at 10 p.m. I have the honor of making the following communication to you on behalf of my Government:

The Government of the French Republic consider it their duty to remind you for the last time of the grave responsibility which the Reich Government incurred when they opened hostilities against Poland without a declaration of war and did not adopt the proposal of the Government of the French Republic and that of His Britanic Majesty to desist from every aggressive action against Poland and to declare themselves ready immediately to withdraw their troops from Polish territory.

The Government of the Republic therefore have the honor of informing the Reich Government that they are themselves in duty bound to fulfill the contractual obligations, from today, September 3rd, 5 p.m. onwards, which they have entered into with Poland and with which the German Government are acquainted.

Permit me . . . .

 

Read Full Post »

By ADRIAN SALBUCHI

In the US, we see untold millions suffering from the impact of mass foreclosures and unemployment; in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy, stringent austerity measures are imposed upon the whole population; all coupled with major banking collapses in Iceland, the UK and the US, and indecent bail-outs of “too-big-to-fail” bankers (Newspeak for too powerful to fail).

No doubt, the bulk of the responsibility for these debacles falls squarely on the shoulders of caretaker governments in these countries that are subordinated to Money Power interests and objectives. In country after country, that comes together with embedded corruption, particularly evident today in the UK, Italy and the US.

As we assess some of the key components of today’s Global Financial, Currency and Banking Model in this article, readers will hopefully get a better understanding as to why we are all in such a crisis, and that it will tend to get much worse in the months and years to come.

Foundations of a Failed and False Model

Hiding behind the mask of false “laws” allegedly governing “globalised markets and economies,” this Financial Model has allowed a small group of people to amass and wield huge and overwhelming power over markets, corporations, industries, governments and the global media. The irresponsible and criminal consequences of their actions are now clear for all to see.

The “Model” we will briefly describe, falls within the framework of a much vaster Global Power System that is grossly unjust and was conceived and designed from the lofty heights of private geopolitical and geo-economic1 planning centres that function to promote the Global Power Elite’s agenda as they prepare their “New World Order” – again, Newspeak for a Coming World Government.2

Specifically, we are talking about key think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, and other similar entities such as the Cato Institute (Monetary Issues), American Enterprise Institute and the Project for a New American Century that conform an intricate, solid, tight and very powerful network, engineering and managing New World Order interests, goals and objectives.

Writing from the stance of an Argentine citizen, I admit we have some “advantages” over the citizens of industrialised countries as the US, UK, European Union, Japan or Australia, in that over the last few decades we have had direct experience of successive catastrophic national crises emanating from inflation, hyper-inflation, systemic banking collapse, currency revamps, sovereign debt bond mega-swaps, military coups and lost wars…

Finance vs the Economy

The Financial system (i.e., a basically unreal Virtual, symbolic and parasitic world), increasingly functions in a direction that is contrary to the interest of the Real Economy (i.e., the Real and concrete world of work, production, manufacturing, creativity, toil, effort and sacrifice done by real people). Over the past decades, Finance and the Economy have gone their totally separate and antagonistic ways, and no longer function in a healthy and balanced relationship that prioritises the Common Good of We the People. This huge conflict between the two can be seen, amongst other places, in today’s Financial and Economic System, whose main support lies in the Debt Paradigm, i.e., that nothing can be done unless you first have credit, financing and loans to do it. Thus, the Real Economy becomes dependent on and distorted by the objectives, interests and fluctuations of Virtual Finance.3

Debt-Based System

The Real Economy should be financed with genuine funds; however with time, the Global Banking Elite succeeded in getting one Sovereign Nation-State after another to give up its inalienable function of supplying the correct quantity of National Currency as the primary financial instrument to finance the Real Economy. That requires decided action through Policies centred on promoting the Common Good of We The People in each country, and securing the National Interest against the perils posed by internal and external adversaries.

Thus, we can better understand why the financial “law” that requires central banks to always be totally “independent” of Government and the State has become a veritable dogma. This is just another way of ensuring that central banking should always be fully subordinated to the interests of the private banking over-world – both locally in each country, as well as globally.

We find this to prevail in all countries: Argentina, Brazil, Japan, Mexico, the European Union and in just about every other country that adopts so-called “Western” financial practice. Perhaps the best (or rather, the worst) example of this is the United States where the Federal Reserve System is a privately controlled institution outright, with around 97% of its shares being owned by the member banks themselves (admittedly, it does have a very special stock scheme), even though the bankers running “Fed” do everything they can to make it appear as if it is a “public” entity operated by Government, something that it is definitely not.

One of the Global Banking Over-world’s permanent goals is – and has been – to maintain full control over all central banks in just about every country, in order to be able to control their public currencies.4 This, in turn, allows them to impose a fundamental (for them) condition whereby there is never the right quantity of public currency to satisfy the true demand and needs of the Real Economy. That is when those very same private banks that control central banking come on scene to “satisfy the demand for money” of the Real Economy by artificially generating private bank money out of nothing. They call it “credits and loans” and offer to supply it to the Real Economy, but with an “added value” (for them): (a) they will charge interest for them (often at usury levels) and, (b) they will create most of that private bank money out of thin air through the fractional lending system.

At a Geo-economic level, this has also served to generate huge and unnecessary public sovereign debts in country after country all over the world. Argentina is a good example, whose Caretaker Governments are systematically ignorant and unwilling to use one of the sovereign state’s key powers: the issuance of high power non-interest generating Public Money (see below for a more detailed definition). Instead, Argentina has allowed IMF (International Monetary Fund) so-called “recipes” that reflect the global banking cartel’s own interests to be imposed upon it in fundamental matters like what are the proper functions of its Central Bank, sovereign debt, fiscal policy, and other monetary, banking and financial mechanisms, that are thus systematically used against the Common Good of the Argentine People and against the National Interest of the country.

This system and its dreadful results, now and in the past, are so similar in so many other countries – Brazil, Mexico, Greece, Ireland, Iceland, UK, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Indonesia, Hungary, Russia, Ukraine… that it can only reflect a well thought-out and engineered plan, emanating from the highest planning echelons of the Global Power Elite.

Fractional Bank Lending

This banking concept is in use throughout the world’s financial markets, and allows private banks to generate “virtual” Money out of thin air (i.e., scriptural annotations and electronic entries into current and savings accounts, and a vast array of lines of credit), in a ratio that is 8, 10, 30, 50 times or more larger than the actual amount of cash (i.e., public money) held by the bank in its vaults. In exchange for lending this private “money” created out of nothing, bankers collect interest, demand collateral with intrinsic value and if the debtor defaults they can then foreclose on their property or other assets.

The ratio that exists between the amount of Dollars or Pesos in its vaults and the amount of credit private banks generate is determined by the central banking authority which fixes the fractional lending leverage level (which is why controlling the central bank is so vital strategically for private banker cartels). This leverage level is a statistical reserve based on actuarial calculations of the portion of account holders who in normal time go to their banks or ATM machines to withdraw their money in cash (i.e., in public money notes). The key factor here is that this works fine in “normal” times, however “normal” is basically a collective psychology concept intimately linked to what those account holders, and the population at large, perceive regarding the financial system in general and each bank in particular.

So, when for whatever reason, “abnormal” times hit – i.e., every time there are (subtly predictable) periodic crises, bank runs, collapses and panics, which seem to suddenly explode as happened in Argentina in 2001 and as is now happening in the US, UK, Ireland, Greece, Iceland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and a growing number of countries – we see all bank account holders running to their banks to try to get their money out in cash. That’s when they discover that there is not enough cash in their banks to pay, save for a small fraction of account holders (usually insiders “in the know” or “friends of the bankers”).

For the rest of us mortals “there is no more money left,” which means that they must resort to whatever public insurance scheme may or may not be in place (e.g., in the US, the state-owned Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that “insures” up to US$250,000 per account holder with taxpayer money). In countries like Argentina, however, there is no other option but to go out on the streets banging pots and pans against those ominous, solid and firmly closed bronze bank gates and doors. All thanks to the fraudulent fractional bank lending system.

Investment Banking

In the US, so called “Commercial Banks” are those that have large portfolios of checking, savings and fixed deposit accounts for people and companies (e.g., such main street names as CitiBank, Bank of America, JPMorganChase, etc.; in Argentina, we have Standard Bank, BBVA, Galicia, HSBC and others). Commercial Banks operate with fractional lending leverage levels that allow them to lend out “virtual” dollars or pesos for amounts equal to 6, 8 or 10 times the cash actually held in their vaults; these banks are usually more closely supervised by the local monetary authorities of the country.

A different story, however, we had in the US (and still have elsewhere) with so-called global “Investment Banks” (those that make the mega-loans to corporations, major clients and sovereign states), over which there is much less control, so that their leveraging fractional lending ratios are far, far higher. This greater flexibility is what allowed investment banks in the US to “make loans” by, for example, creating out of thin air 26 “virtual” Dollars for every real Dollar in cash they held in their vaults (i.e., Goldman Sachs), or 30 virtual Dollars (Morgan Stanley), or more than 60 virtual Dollars (Merrill Lynch until just before it folded on 15 Sept 2008), or more than 100 virtual Dollars in the cases of collapsed banks Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.5

Private Money vs Public Money

At this point in our review, it is essential to very clearly distinguish between two types of Money or Currency:

Private Money – This is “Virtual” Money created out of thin air by the private banking system. It generates interests on loans, which increases the amount of Private money in (electronic) circulation, and spreads and expands throughout the entire economy. We then perceive this as “inflation.” In actual fact, the main cause of inflation in the economy is structural to the interest-bearing fractional lending banking system, even among industrialised countries. The cause of inflation nowadays is not so much the excessive issuance of Public Money by Government as all so-called banking experts would have us believe but, rather, the combined effect of fractional lending and interest on private banking money.

Public Money – This is the only Real Money there is. It is the actual notes issued by the national currency entity holding a monopoly (i.e., the central bank or some such government agency) and, as Public Money, it does not generate interest, and should not be created by anyone other than the State. Anybody else doing this is a counterfeiter and should end up in jail because counterfeiting Public Money is equivalent to robbing the Real Economy (i.e., “we, the working people”) of their work, toil and production capabilities without contributing anything in return in terms of socially productive work. The same should apply to private bankers under the present fractional lending system: counterfeiting money (i.e., creating it out of thin air as a ledger entry or electronic blip on a computer screen) is equivalent to robbing the Real Economy of its work and production capacity without contributing any counter-value in terms of work.

Why We Have Financial Crises

A fundamental concept that lies at the very heart of the present Financial Model can be found in the way huge parasitic profits on the one hand, and catastrophic systemic losses on the other, are effectively transferred to specific sectors of the economy, throughout the entire system, beyond borders and public control.

As with all models, the one we suffer today has its own internal logic which, once properly understood, makes that model predictable. The people who designed it know full well that it is governed by grand cycles having specific expansion and contraction stages, and specific timelines. Thus, they can ensure that in bull market times of growth and gigantic profits (i.e., whilst the system, grows and grows, is relatively stable and generates tons of money out of nothing), all profits are privatised making them flow towards specific institutions, economic sectors, shareholders, speculators, CEO and top management & trader bonuses, “investors”, etc who operate the gears and maintain the whole system properly tuned and working.

However, they also know that – like all roller coaster rides – when you reach the very top, the system turns into a bear market that destabilises, spins out of control, contracts and irremediably collapses, as happened to Argentina in 2001 and to the better part of the world since 2008, then all losses are socialised by making Governments absorb them through the most varied transference mechanisms that dump these huge losses onto the population at large (whether in the form of generalised inflation, catastrophic hyperinflation, banking collapses, bail-outs, tax hikes, debt defaults, forced nationalisations, extreme austerity measures, etc).

The Four-sided Global “Ponzi” Pyramid Scheme

As we know, all good pyramids have four sides, and since the Global Financial System is based on a “Ponzi” Pyramid Scheme, there’s no reason why this particular pyramid should not have four sides as well.

Below is a summary of the Four-side Global “Ponzi” Pyramid Scheme that lies at the core of today’s Financial Model, indicating how these four “sides” function in a coordinated, consistent, and sequential manner.

Side One – Create Public Money Insufficiency. This is achieved, as we explained above, by controlling the National Public entity that issues public money. Its goal is to demonetise the Real Economy so that the latter is forced to seek “alternative funding” for its needs (i.e., so that it has no choice but to resort to private bank loans).

Side Two – Impose Private Banking Fractional Lending Loans. This, as we said, is virtual private money created out of thin air on which bankers charge interest – often at usury levels – thus generating enormous profit for “investors,” creditors and all sorts of entities and individuals who operate as parasites living off other people’s work. This would never have been the case if each local central bank were to flexibly generate the correct quantity of Public Money necessary to satisfy the needs of the Real Economy in each country and region.

Side Three – Promote a Debt-Based Economic System. In fact, the whole Pyramid Model is based on being able to promote this generalised paradigm that falsely states that what really “moves” the private and public economy is not so much work, creativity, toil and effort of workers, but rather “private investors,” “bank loans” and “credit” – i.e., indebtedness. With time, this paradigm has replaced the infinitely wiser, sounder, more balanced and solid concept of corporate profit being reinvested and genuine personal savings being the foundation for future prosperity and security. Pretty much the way Henry Ford, Sr. originally grew his most successful company.

Today, however, Debt reigns supreme and this paradigm has become entrenched and embedded into people’s minds thanks to the mainstream media and specialised journals and publications, combined with Ivy League universities’ Economics Departments that have all succeeded in imposing such “politically correct” thinking with respect to financial matters, especially those relating to the proper nature and function of Public Money.

The facts are that this Model generates unnecessary loans so that banking creditors can receive huge profits, which includes promoting uncontrolled, unwarranted and often pathological consumerism, which goes hand in hand with the increasing abandonment of the traditional value of “saving for a rainy day.”

Such debts having political and strategic goals rather than merely financial ones, are usually given a thin layer of “legality” so that they may be imposed by the creditor on the debtor (i.e., in the case of The Merchant of Venice, the bond entered into between Antonio and Shylock giving the latter the legal right to a pound of the former’s flesh; in the case of chronically indebted countries like Argentina, such “legality” is achieved through a complex public debt laundering6 mechanism carried out by successive formally “democratic” Caretaker Governments to this very day).

Side Four Privatisation of Profits/Socialisation of Losses. Lastly, and knowing full well that, in the long run, the numbers of the entire Cycle of this Model never add up, and that the whole system will inevitably come crashing down, the Model imposes a highly complex and often subtle financial, legal and media engineering that allows privatising profits and socialising losses. In Argentina, this cycle has become increasingly visible for those who want to see it, because in our country the local “Ponzi” Pyramid Cycle lasts on average 15 to 17 years, i.e., we’ve had successive collapses involving brutal devaluation (1975), hyperinflation (1989) and systemic banking collapse (2001), however in the industrialised world, that cycle was made to last almost 80 years (i.e., three generations spanning from 1929 to 2008).

Conclusions

The fundamental cause of today’s on-going global financial collapse that exerts massive distortions over the Real Economy – and the ensuing social hardship, suffering and violence – is clear: Virtual Finance has usurped a pedestal of supremacy over the Real Economy, which does not legitimately belong to it. Finance must always be subordinated to, and in the service of, the Real Economy just as the Economy must heed the law and social needs of the Political Model executed by a Sovereign Nation-State (as we back-engineer this entire system, we thus understand why it is necessary for the Global Power Elite to first erode the sovereign Nation-State and to eventually do away with it altogether, in order to achieve its monetary, financial and political ends).

In fact, if we look at matters in their proper perspective, we will see that most national economies are pretty much intact, in spite of having been badly bruised by the financial collapse. It is Finance that is in the midst of a massive global collapse, as this Model of “Ponzi” Finance has grown into a sort of malignant “cancerous tumour” that has now “metastasised,” threatening to kill the whole economy and social body politic, in just about every country in the world, and certainly in the industrialised countries.

The above comparison of today’s financial system with a malignant tumour is more than a mere metaphor. If we look at the figures, we will immediately be able to see signs of this financial “metastasis.” For example, The New York Times in their 22 September 2008 edition explains that the main trigger of the financial collapse that had exploded just one week earlier on 15 September was, as we all know, mismanagement and lack of supervision over the “Derivatives” market. The Times then went on to explain that twenty years earlier, in 1988, there was no derivatives market; by 2002 however, Derivatives had grown into a global 102 trillion Dollar market (that’s 50% more than the Gross Domestic Product of all the countries in the world, the US, EU, Japan and BRICS nations included), and by September 2008, Derivatives had ballooned into a global 531 trillion Dollar market. That’s eight times the GDP of the entire planet! “Financial Metastasis” at its very worst. Since then, some have estimated this Derivatives global market figure to be in the region of One-Quadrillion Dollars…

Naturally, when that collapse began, the caretaker governments in the US, European Union and elsewhere, immediately sprang into action and implemented “Operation Bail-out” of all the mega-banks, insurance companies, stock exchanges and speculation markets, and their respective operators, controllers and “friends.” Thus, trillions upon trillions of Dollars, Euros and Pounds were given to Goldman Sachs, Citicorp, Morgan Stanley, AIG, HSBC and other “too big to fail” financial institutions… which is newspeak for “too powerful to fail”, because they hold politicians, political parties and governments in their steel grip.

All of this was paid with taxpayer dollars or, even worse, with uncontrolled and irresponsible issuance of Public Money bank notes and treasury bonds, especially by the Federal Reserve Bank which has, in practice, technically hyper-inflated the US Dollar: “Quantitative Easing” they call it, which is Newspeak for hyperinflation.

So far, however, like the proverbial Naked Emperor, nobody dares to state this openly. At least not until some “uncontrolled” event triggers or unmasks what should by now be obvious to all: Emperor Dollar is totally and completely naked.7 When that happens, we will then see bloody social and civil wars throughout the world and not just in Greece and Argentina.

By then, however, and as always happens, the powerful bankster clique and their well-paid financial and media operators, will be watching the whole hellish spectacle perched in the safety and comfort of their plush boardrooms atop the skyscrapers of New York, London, Frankfurt, Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo…

Footnotes

1. The concept of “Geoeconomics” was coined by the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, through a studies group honouring Maurice Greenberg, the financier who was for decades CEO of American International Group (AIG) which collapsed in 2008 and had strong conflict-of-interest ties with major insurance and reinsurance broker Marsh Group whose CEO was his son Jeffrey. Both father and son were indicted for fraud by then New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer. Spitzer would later pay a very heavy price for this after becoming Governor of New York State when someone “discovered” his sex escapades which were quickly blown up into a major scandal by The New York Times

2. We have described the basic Global Power Elite structure, model and objectives in our e-Book The Coming World Government: Tragedy & Hope?, available through www.asalbuchi.com.ar.

3. For more information, see the Third Pillar of the Second Republic Project “Reject the Debt-Based Economy” on www.secondrepublicproject.com.

4. Some notable exceptions: Today: Libya, Iran, Syria, China; In the past: Peron’s Argentina, Germany and Italy in the 30’s and 40’s….  Are we seeing a pattern here?

5. See The New York Times, 22 September 2008

6. See White Paper comparing Debt Laundering mechanisms to Money Laundering mechanisms, lodged under Pillar No 3 “Reject the Debt-Based Economy” of Second Republic Project in www.secondrepublicproject.com.

7. This is more fully described in the author’s book The Coming World Government: Tragedy & Hope?, in the chapter “Death & Resurrection of the US Dollar”. Details on www.asalbuchi.com.ar. Also available upon request by E-mail: salbuchi@fibertel.com.ar.

ADRIAN SALBUCHI is a political analyst, author, speaker and radio talk-show host in Argentina. He has published several books on geopolitics and economics in Spanish, and recently published his first eBook in English: The Coming World Government: Tragedy & Hope? which can be ordered through his web site www.asalbuchi.com.ar, or details can be requested by E-mail to arsalbuchi@gmail.com. Salbuchi is 58 years of age, married, with four adult children, and works as strategic consultant for domestic and international companies. He is also founder of the Second Republic Project in Argentina, which is expanding internationally (visit: www.secondrepublicproject.com).

Read Full Post »

Nearly three centuries ago Great Britain could send anti-social elements to the farer most lands of Americas, Canada  & Australia. England has a different scene when we look at the rioters looting shops and burning infrastructue, blaming the government for lack of welfare, Today even containing these rioters is a difficult task for the police. Great Britain which could manage one of the largest empire in the history is currently unable to manage these hundreds of oportuntistic criminal rioters.

While one family sits on the throne and luxuriously enjoys the tax payers benifits and even get the royal wedding paid by people. One the other hand the common middle class man or woman is still struggling to make ends meet. I am speaking of the common man or woman who slogs their butt day and night to earn a respectable living for their family and pay taxes for the government to survive and also supports the thousands of unemployed people living on welfare. Many bloggers and media personnel have gone to great length to mention that these so called rioters are immigrants. Well these media broadcasters or half educated bloggers are wrong these rioters are basically mix of all white, black, asian , arab and younsters from all background, who automatically fall in the group of just criminals. Just blaming someone by race or ethnicity or nationality is trying to create a prejudice against a particular class of people is wrong. When I observe the news, photos published across the web and the sad videos, I see that these rioters contain not a particular race or ethnicity but a mob united loosely with one cause, to steal, to loot and to spread terror. These rioters are not some intellects or free thinking reformers of the renaisance peroid but purely criminals.

“Nobody is doing nothing for us — not the politicians, not the cops, no one,” a 19-year-old who lives near Tottenham, the blighted London neighborhood where the riots started.

I am not sure if, Britains highest crime rate in Europe only indicates the problems a multi-cultural / multi-national society has caused for its citizens or a lack of proper parenting on these youth. The major contributing factor for the unrest among the youth is the matrialistic wave which is flowing around in the western world, while they see the bling bling on TV. Watch the bad guys around live a high spending life and ultimately these bad guys become the role model for the youth. Parents struggle to share any substantial education or even impart these kids with culture, since the parents are too busy trying to make ends meet or perhaps themselves living a troubled marriage life. When society looses its morality and culture, it becomes difficult to render on the kids a moral way of living. We are so much filled with voilence, Films, porn, sex, rich lifestyle on television, then how are we going to impart a hard working climb through the ladder of success life. Now these kids want quick money, whether its through stealing, selling drugs or even an ambition of becoming gangster.

The government owes nothing to anyone anywhere in this world. All governments are corrupt and work for their own favour and eventually fill up their pockets., oops sorry or maybe their bank accounts. These youth cant blame the government or the police, they rather get educated, work and make their own destiny. Governments dont make our destinies. For example in a country like India, we dont have any social benefits or welfare, yet people get educated, work and create their own destinies and as compared to UK, Indian government is more corrupt. It doesnt mean that the youth in India are burning the entire nation. Comparatively India is only getting econmically stronger, because of its people and not because of its government.  Despite the fact that India was robbed and reduced to poverty by their colonial Britishers.

Its for sure these rioters are not protesting against the government or the police, but these rioters are basically criminals. I dont see them looting food, but electronics and clothing stores. Mostly the rioters have looted their own neighbourhood and especially some shopkeepers who had their entire lifes work reduced to debris. Is this what is called protest against the government? Well this is not a protest but this a violent crime and I feel these offenders are just a bunch of criminals and not some 17th century reformers or free thinkers who want to change the plight of soceity for better. This kind of looting has nothing to do with governments spending cuts or policies. Did burning some shops and looting the stores change the governments policy? Was this an attack on common hardworking people or government? The intention of these rioters have nothing to do with good cause but with evil. Being young and desperate doesnt give anyone right to steal and loot. These criminals should be tried and punished or shot at sight as they are nothing less than terrorists. It’s just people with no morals. Well this is one way I assume dealing with these criminals, I guess there isnt another.
Lots of people have had it tough but they don’t go smashing windows to steal flat screens. These youth ought to be ashamed as they live in one of the great countries which gives its citizens ample opportunities to create a considerable successful lifestyles and they didnt take advantage to shape up their career. They or their parents had a chance to work and make it happen but they didn’t. Did they party from their youth up, did they sit around at night and watch TV?
When people lose they usually try to blame it on someone else.No one owes anyone anything. Seek and you shall find, ask and it shall be given you, knock, and the door shall be opened to you. Don’t just barge in and get the stuff you don’t pay for. Since when was stealing a right?

Britain and the US have created entitlement hungry individuals…we need to stop giving folks these entitlements when they don’t provide anything to the economy or humanity other than producing more entitlement babies and crime. Enough is enough work or don’t work, but stop trying to live hard working tax payer  and those that try to better themselves in this world!!!  It doesn’t give anyone the right to destroy, steal, or harm another human! Get a life, and growup already, no one promised you anything, nor are you entitled to anything!!!!!
I dont have to work hard and save to get ahead – I can rob, kill, and beat people and thats because im poor – well I was poor and had to work for what I got – now I wouldnt  want  to give it to criminals.

I understand that global migration at lightning pace is straining communities around the globe. You cant put multiple cultures next to each other so quiclky and expect them to blend together. Simply too fast too soon or maybe I am just wrong about it. Maybe someone has a better solution.

Read Full Post »

The Great Scandal: Christianity’s Role in the Rise of the Nazis by Gregory S. Paul


“You know what happens when atheists take over—remember Nazi Germany?” Many Christians point to Nazism, alongside Stalinism, to illustrate the perils of atheism in power.1 At the other extreme, some authors paint the Vatican as Hitler’s eager ally. Meanwhile, the Nazis are generally portrayed as using terror to bend a modern civilization to their agenda; yet we recognize that Hitler was initially popular. Amid these contradictions, where is the truth?

A growing body of scholarly research, some based on careful analysis of Nazi records, is clarifying this complex history.2 It reveals a convoluted pattern of religious and moral failure in which atheism and the nonreligious played little role, except as victims of the Nazis and their allies. In contrast, Christianity had the capacity to stop Nazism before it came to power, and to reduce or moderate its practices afterwards, but repeatedly failed to do so because the principal churches were complicit with—indeed, in the pay of—the Nazis.

Most German Christians supported the Reich; many continued to do so in the face of mounting evidence that the dictatorship was depraved and murderously cruel. Elsewhere in Europe the story was often the same. Only with Christianity’s forbearance and frequent cooperation could fascistic movements gain majority support in Christian nations. European fascism was the fruit of a Christian culture. Millions of Christians actively supported these notorious regimes. Thousands participated in their atrocities.

What, in God’s name, were they thinking?

Before we can consider the Nazis, we need to examine the historical and cultural religious context that would give rise to them.

 

Christian Foundations

Early Christian sects promoted loyalty to authoritarian rulers so long they were not intolerably anti-Christian or, worse, atheistic. Christian anti-Semitism sprang from one of the church’s first efforts to forge an accommodation with power. Reinterpreting the Gospels to shift blame for the Crucifixion from the Romans to the Jews (the “Christ killer” story) courted favor with Rome, an early example of Christian complicity for political purposes. Added energy came from Christians’ anger over most Jews’ refusal to convert.3

Christian anti-Semitism was only intermittently violent, but when violence occurred it was devastating. The first outright extermination of Jews occurred in 414 c.e. It would have innumerable successors, the worst nearly genocidal in scope. At standard rates of population growth, Diaspora Jewry should now number in the hundreds of millions. That there are only an estimated 13 million Jews in the world4 is largely the result of Christian violence and forced conversion.5

Anti-Semitic practices pioneered by Catholics included the forced wearing of yellow identification, ghettoization, confiscation of Jews’ property, and bans on intermarriage with Christians. European Protestantism bore the fierce impress of Martin Luther, whose 1543 tract On the Jews and Their Lies was a principal inspiration for Mein Kampf.6 In addition to his anti-Semitism, Luther was also a fervent authoritarian. Against the Robbing and Murdering Peasants, his vituperative commentary on a contemporary rebellion, contributed to the deaths of perhaps 100,000 Christians and helped to lay the groundwork for an increasingly severe Germo-Christian autocracy.7

With the Enlightenment, deistic and secular thinkers seeded Western culture with Greco-Roman notions of democracy and free expression. The feudal aristocracies and the churches counterattacked, couching their reactionary defense of privilege in self-consciously biblical language. This controversy would shape centuries of European history. As late as 1870, the Roman Catholic Church reaffirmed a reactionary program at the first Vatican Council. Convened by the ultraconservative Pope Pius IX (reigned 1846–1878), Vatican I stridently condemned modernism, democracy, capitalism, usury, and Marxism.8 Anti-Semitism was also part of the mix; well into the twentieth century, mainstream Catholic publications set an intolerant tone that later Nazi propaganda would imitate. Anti-Semitism remained conspicuous in mainstream Catholic literature even after Pope Pius XI (reigned 1922–1939) officially condemned it.

Protestantism, too, was largely hostile toward modernism and democracy during this period (with a few exceptions in northern Europe). Because Jews were seen as materialists who promoted and benefited from Enlightenment modernism, most Protestant denominations remained anti-Semitic.

With the nineteenth century came a European movement that viewed Judaism as a racial curse. Attracting both Protestant and Catholic dissidents within Germanic populations, Aryan Christianity differed from traditional Christianity in denying both that Christ was a Jew and that Christianity had grown out of Judaism.9 Adherents viewed Christ as a divine Aryan warrior who brought the sword to cleanse the earth of Jews.10 Aryans were held to be the only true humans, specially created by God through Adam and Eve; all other peoples were soulless subhumans, descended from apes or created by Satan with no hope of salvation.11 Most non-Aryans were considered suitable for subservient roles including slavery, but not the Jews. Spiritless yet clever and devious, Jews were seen as a satanic disease to be quarantined or eliminated.

During the same years neopagan and occult movements gained adherents and incubated their own form of Aryanism. Unlike Aryan Christians, neopagan Aryans acknowledged that Christ was a Jew—and for that reason rejected Christianity. They believed themselves descended from demigods whose divinity had degraded through centuries of interbreeding with lesser races. The Norse gods and even the Atlantis myth sometimes decorated Aryan mythology.

Attempting to deny that Nazi anti-Semitism had a Christian component, Christian apologists exaggerate the influence of Aryan neopaganism. Actually, neopaganism never had a large following.

German Aryanism, whether Christian or pagan, became known as “Volkism.” Volkism prophesied the emergence of a great God-chosen Aryan who would lead the people (Volk) to their grand destiny through the conquest of Lebensraum (living space). A common motto was “God and Volk.” Disregarding obvious theological contradictions, growing numbers of German nationalists managed to work Aryanism into their Protestant or Catholic confessions, much as contemporary adherents of Voudoun or Santería blend the occult with their Christian beliefs. Darwinian theory sometimes entered Volkism as a belief in the divinely intended survival of the fittest peoples. Democracy had no place, but Nietzschean philosophy had some influence—a point Christian apologists make much of. Yet Nietzsche’s influence was modest, as Volkists found his skepticism toward religion unacceptable.12

Though traceable to the ancient world, atheism first emerged as a major social movement in the mid-1800s.13 It would be associated with both pro- and antidemocratic worldviews. Strongly influenced by science, atheists tended to view all humans as descended in common from apes. There was no inherent anti-Semitic tradition. Some atheists accepted then-popular pseudoscientific racist views that the races exhibited varying levels of intellect due to differing genetic heritages. Some went further, embracing various forms of eugenics as a means of improving the human condition. But neither of these positions was uniquely or characteristically atheistic. “Scientific” racism is actually better understood as a tool by which Christians could perpetuate their own cultural prejudices—it was no accident that the races deemed inferior by Western Christian societies and “science” were the same!

When we seek precursors of Nazi anti-Semitism and authoritarianism, it is among European Christians, not among the atheists, that we must search.

Following World War I, the religious situation in Europe was complex. Scientific findings about the age of the Earth, Darwin’s theory of evolution, and biblical criticism had fueled the first major expansion of nontheism at Christianity’s expense among ordinary Europeans. The churches’ support for the catastrophic Great War further fueled public disaffection, as did (in Germany) the flight of the Kaiser, in whom both Protestant and Catholic clergy had vested heavily.14 But religion was not everywhere in retreat: postwar Germany experienced a Christian spiritual renaissance outside the traditional churches.15 Religious freedom was unprecedented, but the established churches enjoyed widespread state support and controlled their own education systems. They were far more influential than today.

Roughly two-thirds of Germans were Protestant, almost all of the rest Catholic. The pagan minority claimed at most 5 percent. Explicit nontheism was limited to an intellectual elite and to committed socialists. Just 1.5 percent of Germans identified themselves as unbelievers in a 1939 census, which means either that very few Nazis and National Socialist German Worker’s Party supporters were atheists, or that atheists feared to identify themselves to the pro-theistic regime.

Most religious Germans detested the impiety, secularism, and hedonistic decadence that they associated with such modernist ideas as democracy and free speech. If they feared democracy, they were terrified by Communism, to the point of being willing to accept extreme countermethods.

Thus it was a largely Christian, deeply racist, often antidemocratic, and in many respects dangerously primitive Western culture into which Nazism would arise. It was a theistic powder keg ready to explode.

 

Nazi Leaders, Theism, and Family Values

According to standard biographies, the principal Nazi leaders were all born, baptized, and raised Christian. Most grew up in strict, pious households where tolerance and democratic values were disparaged. Nazi leaders of Catholic background included Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, and Joseph Goebbels.

Hitler did well in monastery school. He sang in the choir, found High Mass and other ceremonies intoxicating, and idolized priests. Impressed by their power, he at one time considered entering the priesthood.

Rudolf Hoess, who as commandant at Auschwitz-Birkinau pioneered the use of the Zyklon-B gas that killed half of all Holocaust victims, had strict Catholic parents. Hermann Goering had mixed Catholic-Protestant parentage, while Rudolf Hess, Martin Bormann, Albert Speer, and Adolf Eichmann had Protestant backgrounds. Not one of the top Nazi leaders was raised in a liberal or atheistic family—no doubt, the parents of any of them would have found such views scandalous. Traditionalists would never think to deprive their offspring of the faith-based moral foundations that they would need to grow into ethical adults.

So much for the Nazi leaders’ religious backgrounds. Assessing their religious views as adults is more difficult. On ancillary issues such as religion, Party doctrine was a deliberate tangle of contradictions.16 For Hitler consistency mattered less than having a statement at hand for any situation that might arise. History records many things that Hitler wrote or said about religion, but they too are sometimes contradictory. Many were crafted for a particular audience or moment and have limited value for illuminating Hitler’s true opinion; in any case, neither Hitler nor any other key Nazi leader was a trained theologian with carefully thought-out views.

Accuracy of transcription is another concern. Hitler’s public speeches were recorded reliably, but were often propagandistic. His private statements seem more likely to reflect his actual views, but their reliability varies widely.17 The passages Christian apologists cite most often to prove Hitler’s atheism are of questionable accuracy. Apologists often brandish them without noting historians’ reservations. Hitler’s personal library has been partly preserved, and a good deal is known about his reading habits, another possible window onto Hitler’s beliefs.18 Also important, and often ignored by apologists, are statements made by religious figures of the time, who generally—at least for public consumption—viewed Hitler as a Christian and a Catholic in good standing. Meanwhile, the silent testimony of photographs is irrefutable, much as apologists struggle to evade this damning visual evidence.

Despite these difficulties, enough is known to build a reasonable picture of what Hitler and other top Nazis believed.

Hitler was a Christian, but his Christ was no Jew. In his youth he dabbled with occult thinking but never became a devotee. As a young man he grew increasingly bohemian and stopped attending church. Initially no more anti-Semitic than the norm, in the years before the Great War he fell under the anti-Semitic influence of the Volkish Christian Social Party and other Aryan movements. After Germany’s stunning defeat and the ruinous terms of peace, Hitler became a full-blown Aryanist and anti-Semite. He grew obsessed with racial issues, which he unfailingly embedded in a religious context.

Apologists often suggest that Hitler did not hold a traditional belief in God because he believed that he was God. True, Hitler thought himself God’s chosen leader for the Aryan race. But he never claimed to be divine, and never presented himself in that manner to his followers. Members of the Wehrmacht swore this loyalty oath: “I swear by God this holy oath to the Führer of the German Reich and the German people, Adolf Hitler.” For Schutzstaffel (S.S.) members it was: “I pledge to you, Adolf Hitler, my obedience unto death, so help me God.”

Hitler repeatedly thanked God or Providence for his survival on the western front during the Great War, his safe escape from multiple assassination attempts, his seemingly miraculous rise from homelessness to influence and power, and his amazing international successes. He never tired of proclaiming that all of this was beyond the power of any mere mortal. Later in the war, Hitler portrayed German defeats as part of an epic test: God would reward his true chosen people with the final victory they deserved so long as they never gave up the struggle.

Reich iconography, too, reveals that Nazism never cut its ties to Christianity. The markings of Luftwaffe aircraft comprised just two swastikas—and six crosses. Likewise the Kreigsmarine (German Navy) flag combined the symbols. Hitler participated in public prayers and religious services at which the swastika and the cross were displayed together.

Hitler openly admired Martin Luther, whom he considered a brilliant reformer.19 Yet he said in several private conversations that he considered himself a Catholic. He said publicly on several occasions that Christ was his savior. As late as 1944, planning the last-ditch offensive the world would know as the Battle of the Bulge, he code-named it “Operation Christrose.”

Among his Nazi cronies Hitler criticized the established churches harshly and often. Some of these alleged statements must be treated with skepticism,20 but clearly he viewed the traditional Christian faiths as weak and contaminated by Judaism. Still, there is no warrant for the claim that he became anti-Christian or antireligious after coming to power. No reliably attributed quote reveals Hitler to be an atheist or in any way sympathetic to atheism. On the contrary, he often condemned atheism, as he did Christians who collaborated with such atheistic forces as Bolshevism. He consistently denied that the state could replace faith and instructed Speer to include churches in his beloved plans for a rebuilt Berlin. The Nazi-era constitution explicitly evoked God. Calculating that his victories over Europe and Bolshevism would make him so popular that people would be willing to abandon their traditional faiths, Hitler entertained plans to replace Protestantism and Catholicism with a reformed Christian church that would include all Aryans while removing foreign (Rome-based) influence. German Protestants had already rejected a more modest effort along these lines, as will be seen below. How Germans as a whole would have received this reform after a Nazi victory is open to question. In any case, Hitler saw himself as Christianity’s ultimate reformer, not its dedicated enemy.

Hitler was a complex figure, but based on the available evidence we can conclude our inquiry into his personal religious convictions by describing him as an Aryan Volkist Christian who had deep Catholic roots, strongly influenced by Protestantism, touched by strands of neopaganism and Darwinism, and minimally influenced by the occult. Though Hitler pontificated about God and religion at great length, he considered politics more important than religion as the means to achieve his agenda.

None of the leaders immediately beneath Hitler was a pious traditional Christian. But there is no compelling evidence that any top Nazi was nontheistic. Any so accused denied the charge with vehemence.

Reich-Führer Himmler regularly attended Catholic services until he lurched into an increasingly bizarre Aryanism. He authorized searches for the Holy Grail and other supposedly powerful Christian and Cathar relics. A believer in reincarnation, he sent expeditions to Tibet and the American tropics in search of the original Aryans and even Atlantians. He and Heydrich modeled the S.S. after the disciplined and secretive Jesuits; it would not accept atheists as members.21 Goering, least ideological among top Nazis, sometimes endorsed both Protestant and Catholic traditions. On other occasions he criticized them. Goebbels turned against Catholicism in favor of a reformed Aryan faith; both his and Goering’s children were baptized. Bormann was stridently opposed to contemporary organized Christianity; he was a leader of the Church Struggle, the inconsistently applied Nazi campaign to oppose the influence of established churches.22

The Nazis championed traditional family values: their ideology was conservative, bourgeois, patriarchal, and strongly antifeminist. Discipline and conformity were emphasized, marriage promoted, abortion and homosexuality despised.23

Traditionalism also dominated Nazi philosophy, such as it was. Though science and technology were lauded, the overall thrust opposed the Enlightenment, modernism, intellectualism, and rationality. It is hard to imagine how a movement with that agenda could have been friendly toward atheism, and the Nazis were not. Volkism was inherently hostile toward atheism: freethinkers clashed frequently with Nazis in the late 1920s and early 1930s. On taking power, Hitler banned freethought organizations and launched an “anti-godless” movement. In a 1933 speech he declared: “We have . . . undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” This forthright hostility was far more straightforward than the Nazis’ complex, often contradictory stance toward traditional Christian faith.

 

Destroying Democracy: a Political-Religious Collaboration

As detailed by historian Ian Kershaw, Hitler made no secret of his intent to destroy democracy. Yet he came to power largely legally; in no sense was he a tyrant imposed upon the German people.

The Nazi takeover climaxed a lengthy, ironic rejection of democracy at the hands of a majority of German voters. By the early 1930s, ordinary Germans had lost patience with democracy; growing numbers hoped an authoritarian strongman would restore order and prosperity and return Germany to great-power status. Roughly two-thirds of German Christians repeatedly voted for candidates who promised to overthrow democracy. Authoritarianism was all but inevitable; at issue was merely who the new strongman would be.

What made democracy so fragile? Historian Klaus Scholder explains that Germany lacked a deep democratic tradition, and would have had difficulty in forming one because German society was so thoroughly divided into opposing Protestant and Catholic blocs. This division created a climate of competition, fear and prejudice between the confessions, which burdened all German domestic and foreign policies with an ideological element of incalculable weight and extent. This climate erected an almost insurmountable barrier to the formation of broad democratic center. And it favored the rise of Hitler, since ultimately both churches courted his favor—each fearing that the other would complete the Reformation or the Counter-Reformation through Hitler.24

Carefully plotting his strategy, Hitler purged some of the Volkish Nazi radicals most belligerent toward the traditional Christian churches. In this way he lessened the risk of ecclesiastical opposition. At the same time, he knew that the presence of both Catholics and Protestants among the Nazi leadership would ease churchmen’s fears that the Party might engage in sectarianism.

Though it had many Catholic leaders (including Hitler), the Nazi Party relied heavily on Protestant support. Protestants had given the Party its principal backing during the years leading up to 1933 at a level disproportionate to their national majority.25 Evangelical youth was especially pro-Nazi. It has been estimated that as many as 90 percent of Protestant university theologians supported the Party. Indeed, the participation of so many respected Protestants gave a early, comforting air of legitimacy to the often-thuggish Party. So did the frequent sight of Sturmabteilung (S.A.) units marching in uniform to church.

As German life between the wars grew more desperate, some Protestant pastors explicitly defended Nazi murders of “traitors to the Volk” from the pulpit. Antifascist Protestants found themselves marginalized. The once-unlikely topic of Volkist-Protestant compatibility became the leading theological subject of the day.26 This is less surprising when we consider that Volkism and German Protestantism were both strongly nationalistic; Lutheranism in particular had German roots.

This mirage of harmony enticed Hitler into a naïve attempt to unite the German Protestant churches into a single Volkish body under Nazi control. Launched shortly after the Nazis came to power, this project failed immediately. The evangelical sects proved as unwilling as ever to get along with one another, though much of their clergy eventually Nazified.

 

Catholicism and the Nazi Takeover

Ironically—but, as we shall see, for obvious reasons—Chancellor Hitler had greater initial success reaching accommodation with Roman Catholic leaders than with the Protestants. The irony lay in the fact that the Catholic Zentrum (Center) Party had been principally responsible for denying majorities to the Nazis in early elections. Although Teutonic in outlook, German Catholics had close emotional ties to Rome. As a group they were somewhat less nationalistic than most Protestants. Catholics were correspondingly more likely than Protestants to view Hitler (incorrectly) as godless, or as a neo-heathen anti-Christian. Catholic clergy consistently denounced Nazism, though they often undercut themselves by preaching traditional anti-Semitism at the same time.

Even so, and despite Catholicism’s minority status, it would be German Catholics and the Roman Catholic Church that whose actions would at last put total power within the Nazis’ reach.

Though it was not without antimodernists, the Catholic Zentrum party had antagonized the Vatican during the 1920s by forming governing coalitions with the secularized, moderate Left-oriented Social Democrats. This changed in 1928, when the priest Ludwig Kaas became the first cleric to head the party. To the dismay of some Catholics, Kaas and other Catholic politicians participated both actively and passively in destroying democratic rule, and in particular the Zentrum.

The devoutly Catholic chancellor Franz von Papen, not a fascist but stoutly right-wing, engineered the key electoral victory that brought Hitler to power. Disastrously Papen dissolved the Reichstag in 1932, then formed a Zentrum-Nazi coalition in violation of all previous principles. It was Papen who in 1933 made Hitler chancellor, Papen stepping down to the vice chancellorship.

The common claim that Papen acted in the hope that the Nazis could be controlled and ultimately discredited may be true, partly true, or false; but without Papen’s reckless aid, Hitler would not have become Germany’s leader.

The church congratulated Hitler on his assumption of power. German bishops released a statement that wiped out past criticism of Nazism by proclaiming the new regime acceptable, then followed doctrine by ordering the laity to be loyal to this regime just as they had commanded loyalty to previous regimes. Since Catholics had been instrumental in bringing Hitler to power and served in his cabinet, the bishops had little choice but to collaborate.

German Catholics were stunned by the magnitude and suddenness of this realignment. The rigidly conformist church had flipped from ordering its flock to oppose the Nazis to commanding cooperation. A minority among German Catholics was appalled and disheartened. But most “received the statement with relief—indeed with rejoicing—because it finally also cleared the way into the Third Reich for Catholic Christians” alongside millions of Protestants, who joined in exulting that the dream of a Nazi-Catholic-Protestant nationalist alliance had been achieved.27 The Catholic vote for the Nazis increased in the last multi-party elections after Hitler assumed control, doubling in some areas, inspiring a mass Catholic exodus from the Zentrum to the fascists. After the Reichstag fire, the Zentrum voted en masse to support the infamous Enabling Act, which would give the Hitler-Papen cabinet executive and legislative authority independent of the German Parliament. Zentrum’s bloc vote cemented the two-thirds majority needed to pass the Act.

Why did the church direct its party to provide the critical swing vote? It had its agenda, as we shall see below.

 

Deal Making with the Devil

Even after the Enabling Act, Hitler’s position remained tenuous. The Nazis needed to deepen majority popular support and cement relations with a skeptical German military. Hitler needed to ally all Aryans under the swastika while he undermined and demoralized regime opponents. What would solidify Hitler’s position? A foreign policy coup: the Concordat of 1933 between Nazi Germany and the Vatican.

The national and international legitimacy Hitler would gain through this treaty was incalculable. Failure to secure it after intense and openly promoted effort could have been a crushing humiliation. Hitler put exceptional effort into the project. He courted the Holy See, emphasizing his own Christianity, simultaneously striving to intimidate the Vatican with demonstrations of his swelling power.

Catholic apologists describe the Concordat of 1933 as a necessary move by a church desperate to protect itself against a violent regime which forced the accord upon it—passing over the contradiction at the heart of this argument. Actually, having failed in repeated attempts to negotiate the ardently desired concordat with a skeptical Weimar democracy, Kaas, Papen, the future Pius XII (who reigned 1939–1958), the sitting Pius XI, and other leading Catholics saw their chance to get what they had been seeking from an agreeable member of the church—that is, Hitler—at an historical moment when he and fascism in general were regarded as a natural ally by many Catholic leaders.28 Negotiations were initiated by both sides, modeled on the mutually advantageous 1929 concordat between Mussolini and the Vatican.

Now Zentrum’s pivotal role in assuring passage of the Enabling Act can be seen in context. It was part of the tacit Nazi-Vatican deal for a future concordat.29 The Enabling Act vote hollowed Zentrum, leaving little more than a shell. Thus, a clergy far more interested in church power than democratic politics could take control on both sides of the negotiating table. In a flagrant conflict of interest, the devout Papen helped to represent the German state. Concordat negotiations were largely held in Rome, so that Kaas could leave his vanishing party yet more rudderless. Papen, Kaas, and the future Pius XII worked overtime to finalize a treaty that would, among other things, put an end to the Zentrum. In negotiating away the party he led, Kaas eliminated the last political entity that might have opposed the new Führer.30 Nor did the Vatican protect Germany’s Catholic party. Contrary to the contention of some, evidence indicates that the Vatican was pleased to negotiate away all traces of the Zentrum, for which it had no more use save as a bargaining chip. In this the Holy See treated Zentrum no differently than it had the Italian Catholic party, which it negotiated away in the Concordat with Mussolini.

Hitler sought to eliminate Catholic opposition in favor of obligatory loyalty to his regime. For its part, the church was obsessed with its educational privileges,31 and especially with securing fresh sources of income. It would willingly sacrifice political power to protect them. As both sides worked in haste to produce a treaty that would normally have required years to complete, Hitler took masterful advantage of Vatican overeagerness. Filled with “certainty that Rome neither could nor would turn back, [Hitler] was now able to steer the negotiations almost as he wanted. The records prove he exploited the situation to the full.”32 Indeed, Hitler was so confident that he had the Church in his lap that he went ahead and promulgated his notorious sterilization decree before the Concordat’s final signing. Hitler’s project for involuntary sterilization of minorities and the mentally ill was an direct affront to Catholic teaching. But as Hitler surmised, not even this provocation could deflect the Holy See in its rush toward the Concordat. Because ordinary Catholics largely supported the Nazis, the party even felt free to use violence against the remaining politically active Catholics, frequently disrupting their rallies.

Signed on July 20, 1933, the Concordat was a fait accompli, the negotiations having been conducted largely in secret. Most German bishops gave their loyal, though impotent, approval to the pact that would strip away their power. A few bishops objected, criticizing the Nazi regime’s lack of morality (but never its lack of democracy).

The Concordat was a classic political kickback scheme. The church supported the new dictatorship by endorsing the end of democracy and free speech. In addition it bound its bishops to Hitler’s Reich by means of a loyalty oath. In exchange the church received enormous tax income and protection for church privileges. Religious instruction and prayer in school were reinstated. Criticism of the church was forbidden. Of course, nothing in the Concordat protected the rights of non-Catholics.

If Catholic officials were disappointed with the Concordat’s terms, they did not show it, sending messages of congratulation to the dictator. In Rome, a celebratory mass followed the treaty’s signing by Papen and the future Pius XII amid great pomp and circumstance. In Germany, the church and the Berlin government held a joint service of thanksgiving that featured a mix of Catholic, Reich, and swastika banners and flags. The musical program mixed hymns with a rousing performance of the repugnant Nazi anthem “Horst Wessel”—which was set, by the way, to the traditional hymn “How Great Thou Art.” All of this was projected by loudspeaker to the enthusiastic crowd outside; as most German Catholics welcomed the Concordat, the thanksgiving service drew far more than Berlin’s cathedral could hold.

Scholder comments that “anyone who saw things from the Roman perspective could come to the conclusion that . . . the treaty was . . . an indescribable success for Catholicism. Even a year before, the Holy See had only been able to dream of the concessions which the concordat contained. . . . On the Catholic side the concordat was accordingly described as ‘something very great,’ indeed as nothing short of a ‘masterpiece.’”33 Catholic response was so exuberant that Hitler felt it necessary to defend himself to Protestant clerics and Nazi radicals who viewed this sudden amity with Rome as a betrayal.

The practical results of the collaboration were clear enough. Most Catholics “soon adjusted to the dictatorship”34; indeed they flocked to the Party. Post-Concordat voting patterns suggest that Catholics, on average, even outdid Protestants in supporting the regime, further undermining any efforts by the clergy to challenge Nazi policies. In any case much of the Catholic clergy was Nazifying. Even the idiosyncratic S.S. welcomed Catholics, who would ultimately compose a quarter of its membership.

The Concordat’s disastrous consequences cannot be exaggerated. It bound all devout German Catholics to the state—the clergy through an oath and income, the laity through the authority of the church. If at any time the regime chose not to honor the agreement, Catholics had no open legal right to oppose it or its policies. Opponents of Nazism, Catholic and non-Catholic, were further discouraged and marginalized because the church had shown such want of moral fiber and consistency.

Apologists have insisted that the church had no choice but to accept the Concordat for the modest protections it provided. But those provisions were never needed. Major Protestant denominations suffered no more than Catholicism, though the Protestant churches lacked protective agreements and had snubbed Hitler’s early attempt to unite them. Apologists make much of Vatican “resistance” to Nazism, but the net effect of Vatican policy toward Hitler was collaborative.

Indeed, the 1933 Concordat stands as one of the most unethical, corrupt, duplicitous, and dangerous agreements ever forged between two authoritarian powers. Perhaps the Catholic strategy was to outlast the Nazi’s frankly popular tyranny rather than try to bring it down. But the Catholic Church made no attempt to revoke the Concordat and its loyalty clause during the Nazi regime. Indeed, the 1933 Concordat is the only diplomatic accord negotiated with the Nazi regime that remains in force anywhere in the world.

Germany’s Protestant sects were too decentralized to be coopted by a single document. To this extent Protestants who disputed Nazi policies could be said to enjoy a more favorable position than Catholics. But opposition was rare among Protestants too. Hitler cynically courted the major denominations even as they cynically courted him. Most smaller traditional Christian sects did little better. For example, Germany’s Mormons and Seventh-Day Adventists bent over backwards to accommodate National Socialism.35

 

Christian Comfort with the Rising Regime

Catholics and Protestants at first embraced the new German order. Germany was regaining international prestige, the economy improving thanks to growing overseas support.36 Industrialists like Henry Ford invested heavily in the new Reich. German Christians also looked to the Nazis for a revival of “Christian” values to help counter the rise of nontheism. Most welcomed the Nazis’ elimination of chronic public strife by terrorizing, imprisoning, and killing the fast-shrinking German Left. The leftists had long been despised by traditionalists, who composed four fifths of the population. The state purged a far higher proportion of atheists than traditional Christians. In newspapers and newsreels the Nazis proudly publicized their new concentration camps. Reports sanitized the camps’ true nature, but no one could mistake that they were part of a new police state—to which most German followers of Jesus raised no objection. The very high rate of “legal” executions reported in the press also met with mass indifference or positive approval.

Far from being hapless victims, the great bulk of German Christians joined, eagerly supported, collaborated with, or accommodated to a greater or lesser degree, the new tyranny.

 

Hitler: the Popular Oppressor

Apologists for Christian conduct during the Nazi era imagine that the regime suppressed dissent ruthlessly, no matter whom—or how many—it needed to slaughter to achieve its ends. Hitler’s regime is portrayed as Stalinesque in its response to dissent. This simplistic view reveals a failure to understand the complicated actuality of a popular terror state. The keyword is popular: Hitler was Europe’s most popular leader, and his goal was universal Aryan support. The Party obsessively tracked public opinion, something never seen in the USSR.37 Before the war, foreign tourism was encouraged; Hitler knew most Germans would speak well of the Reich to visitors, in sharp contrast to the USSR, whose leaders prudently feared interaction between foreigners and a citizenry of dubious loyalty. During most of the Reich, any unprovoked attempt to liberate Germany would have met fierce majority resistance.

Though there were assassination attempts, the top Nazis had little to fear from ordinary Germans.38 Hitler’s personal security was shockingly lax; Goering regularly drove his open convertible around Berlin.

If the apologists were right, we should expect the Gestapo to have been a massive organization, relentlessly searching out and crushing widespread dissent. Analysis of surviving Gestapo records reveals that in fact it was surprisingly small.39 Germany’s Christian population being largely satisfied, there was little resistance to suppress. Most cases the Gestapo handled were initiated by ordinary citizens looking to settle petty disputes and had no ideological content.

The Führer had been successful in buying off his Aryans with false egalitarian prosperity, stolen Jewish wealth, and his refusal to put Deutschland on a full war footing until well into the war. During the early war years civilians were under much tighter control in submarine-blockaded England than in Germany. Since nearly all Aryans were Protestant and Catholic, Hitler had to keep both sects reasonably happy, and he did. After all, the main focus of Nationalist Socialism was to make the divinely favored Aryan Volk, both Protestant and Catholic, thrive in order to transform the German population into a unified machine of domination over the lesser peoples. Contrary to Catholic apologists, the nominally Catholic Hitler had not the slightest desire to slaughter masses of the very Aryan people to whom he belonged, and whom he wanted to elevate to supreme power. Leaving aside the fact that doing so would have been ideological and racial suicide, the record makes clear that Hitler’s intention was to reform and standardize Aryans’ political, social, and ultimately their religious beliefs, not to purge them or to kill off groups of Aryans. Doing that would have grossly violated Nazi doctrine, undermined the myth of Aryan solidarity, grievously weakened the state, and risked religious civil war. Disloyalty of the Catholic third of the population would have been disastrous to a modest-sized nation trying to expand its resources in preparation for epic wars of conquest; it was this fact, not the Concordat, that would be the main constraint on Nazi actions. For that reason, apologist claims that thousands or millions of Catholics and Protestants would have joined the Jews had they protested Nazis policies are false. The proof is found in the historical record.

 

Rosenstrasse: the Power of Resistance

Far from exercising absolute power at home, Hitler often discontinued, modified, or concealed initiatives that threatened his regime’s precious popular approval. Stout public objection could and repeatedly did alter Nazi behavior. Flummoxed when the Protestant churches refused to unite, Hitler deferred his grand effort to reform German Christianity to a dreamlike utopian future. Later attempts by Nazi authorities to hamper church activities were often frustrated by sizeable demonstrations.40 When Party elements stripped Bavarian schools of their crucifixes without Hitler’s approval, vigorous protests by, among others, the mothers of schoolchildren quickly brought about their replacement.41 When Hitler denounced Protestant opposition bishops Hans Meiser and Theophil Wurm and ordered their ouster, public anger boiled over. One protest drew 7,000 demonstrators. Hitler reversed course and reinstated Meiser and Wurm with fulsome praise. Strong opposition to the mass killing of the mentally disabled circa 1941 drove it further underground, saving many lives, even though this program too enjoyed the Führer’s approval.

This is not to say that protesters courted no danger. Opposition figures were frequently harassed, sometimes killed. But the top Nazis knew how limited their power was. When regime officials contemplated forcing the removal of Muenster’s Catholic bishop, Clemens Galen, Goebbels warned that the “the population of Muenster could be regarded as lost during the war if anything were done against the bishop . . . [indeed] the whole of [the state] of Westphalia.”42 Though Galen suffered harassment, he remained active throughout the war and held his office.

In occupied countries from Norway to Italy, residents successfully opposed Nazi racial policies and saved hundreds of thousands of Jews. In Denmark, political and ecclesiastical leaders forcefully protested Nazi policies; the whole nation worked under the noses of the Gestapo to save almost all of Denmark’s Jews. Neither leaders or citizens suffered severe retaliation. French bishops who opposed Nazi actions against Jews likewise survived the war.

Most extraordinary and telling is the Rosenstrasse incident.43 Some 30,000 Jews lived openly in Germany as the spouses of Christians. Nine in ten such marriages remained intact despite ceaseless harassment. Oriented toward family values as they were, the Nazis could not decide how to handle these Jews without violating the sanctity of marriage. Early in 1943, Goebbels, then in charge of Berlin, decided it was time to cleanse the capital by rounding up these last Jews. Hitler agreed. Some 2,000 Jewish men from mixed marriages were seized and taken to a large downtown building on the Rosenstrasse, from which they would be deported to the camps.

For a week their Gentile wives stood in the winter cold, chanting “We want our husbands back!” Ordinary Germans sometimes joined them. All told, the protests involved about 6,000 people. They continued in the face of S.S. and Gestapo threats, even threats to use machine guns. They continued though British bombers pounded the city by night. But the Nazis dared not fire upon these defenseless, unorganized Aryan women. Berliners saw the protests directly. Foreign diplomats spread word of it to the world press. The British Broadcasting Company broadcast the story back into Germany.

What was the outcome of Nazi Germany’s only mass demonstration to save Jews? The 2,000 Jewish husbands were released with Hitler’s approval. Two dozen who had already been sent to Auschwitz were returned. Jewish-Christian couples continued to live openly and survived the war. They would comprise the great majority of German Jewish survivors.

Goebbels later commented to an associate that the regime relented “in order to eliminate the protest from the world, so that others didn’t begin to do the same.” Sadly, this strategy was successful: during the rest of the war, no similar action would ever be taken in defense of Jews in general.

Nor does this exhaust the catalogue of successful opposition. When Goebbels called for mass employment of housewives in war industries, also early in 1943, refusal was widespread. Again, reprisals were rare, partly because of the regime’s established emphasis on traditional roles for women. On a broader scale, Germans who refused to participate in atrocities—even if they were soldiers, party members, or S.S. men—almost never suffered retaliation. This was so well known that, after the war, Nazis accused of war crimes were forbidden to claim fear of retaliation as a defense.

These incidents suggest that the Nazi regime was at root cowardly, happy to pick on the weak and disorganized but intimidated by public demonstrations. When it came to the Volk, Nazi leaders preferred propaganda, education, persuasion, and social pressure to terror. They knew that terror worked best when its objective was supported by many and opposed by few. Only toward the end of the war was widespread domestic terror resorted to in Germany, and it was often ineffective.

Clearly ordinary citizens could oppose and alter state policy, all the more so if powerful nongovernemental institutions supported them.44 As Sarah Gordon comments, the “failure of German churches to speak out against racial persecution is a disgrace . . . because the Nazis feared the propaganda or political power of the churches, it is almost certain that church leaders could have spoken out more vehemently against racial persecution.”45

The apologist claim that Germany’s traditional Christians were impotent in the face of Nazi terror is an exaggeration on a scale that Goebbels might have appreciated. As the wives of Berlin discovered, Christians had the power to protect the lives and well-being of others and the potential to confound Hitler and his minions. Had they wished to, they need only have applied it.

Read Full Post »

March 29, 2011

Source: By Dr. Webster G. Tarpley

http://www.blacklistednews.com/The_CIA%E2%80%99s_Libya_Rebels%3A_The_Same_Terrorists_who_Killed_US%2C_NATO_Troops_in_Iraq/13276/0/27/27/Y/M.html

Serpents, thirst, heat, and sand … Libya alone can present a multitude of woes that it would beseem men to fly from.” Lucan, Pharsalia

Washington DC, March 24, 2011 — The current military attack on Libya has been motivated by UN Security Council resolution 1973 with the need to protect civilians. Statements by President Obama, British Prime Minister Cameron, French President Sarkozy, and other leaders have stressed the humanitarian nature of the intervention, which is said to aim at preventing a massacre of pro-democracy forces and human rights advocates by the Qaddafi regime.

But at the same time, many commentators have voiced anxiety because of the mystery which surrounds the anti-Qaddafi transitional government which emerged at the beginning of March in the city of Benghazi, located in the Cyrenaica district of north-eastern Libya. This government has already been recognized by France and Portugal as the sole legitimate representative of the Libyan people. The rebel council seems to be composed of just over 30 delegates, many of whom are enveloped in obscurity. In addition, the names of more than a dozen members of the rebel council are being kept secret, allegedly to protect them from the vengeance of Qaddafi. But there may be other reasons for the anonymity of these figures. Despite much uncertainty, the United Nations and its several key NATO countries, including the United States, have rushed forward to assist the armed forces of this rebel regime with air strikes, leading to the loss of one or two coalition aircraft and the prospect of heavier losses to come, especially if there should be an invasion. It is high time that American and European publics learned something more about this rebel regime which is supposed to represent a democratic and humanitarian alternative to Gaddafi.

The rebels are clearly not civilians, but an armed force. What kind of an armed force?

Since many of the rebel leaders are so difficult to research from afar, and since a sociological profile of the rebels cannot be done on the ground in the midst of warfare, perhaps the typical methods of social history can be called on for help. Is there a way for us to gain deeper insight into the climate of opinion which prevails in such northeastern Libyan cities as Benghazi, Tobruk, and Darnah, the main population centers of the rebellion?

It turns out that there is, in the form of a December 2007 West Point study examining the background of foreign guerrilla fighters — jihadis or mujahedin, including suicide bombers — crossing the Syrian border into Iraq during the 2006-2007 timeframe, under the auspices of the international terrorist organization Al Qaeda. This study is based on a mass of about 600 Al Qaeda personnel files which were captured by US forces in the fall of 2007, and analyzed at West Point using a methodology which we will discuss after having presented the main findings. The resulting study1 permits us to make important findings about the mentality and belief structures of the northeastern Libyan population that is furnishing the basis for the rebellion, permitting important conclusions about the political nature of the anti-Qaddafi revolt in these areas.

Darnah, northeast Libya: World Capital of Jihadis

The most striking finding which emerges from the West Point study is that the corridor which goes from Benghazi to Tobruk, passing through the city of Darnah (also transliterated as Derna) them represents one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists to be found anywhere in the world, and by some measures can be regarded as the leading source of suicide bombers anywhere on the planet. Darnah, with one terrorist fighter sent into Iraq to kill Americans for every 1,000 to 1,500 persons of population, emerges as suicide bomber heaven, easily surpassing the closest competitor, which was Riyad, Saudi Arabia.

According to West Point authors Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman, Saudi Arabia took first place as regards absolute numbers of jihadis sent to combat the United States and other coalition members in Iraq during the time frame in question. Libya, a country less than one fourth as populous, took second place. Saudi Arabia sent 41% of the fighters. According to Felter and Fishman, “Libya was the next most common country of origin, with 18.8% (112) of the fighters listing their nationality stating they hailed from Libya.” Other much larger countries were far behind: “Syria, Yemen, and Algeria were the next most common origin countries with 8.2% (49), 8.1% (48), and 7.2% (43), respectively. Moroccans accounted for 6.1% (36) of the records and Jordanians 1.9% (11).”

This means that almost one fifth of the foreign fighters entering Iraq across the Syrian border came from Libya, a country of just over 6 million people. A higher proportion of Libyans were interested in fighting in Iraq than any other country contributing mujahedin. Felter and Fishman point out: “Almost 19 percent of the fighters in the Sinjar Records came from Libya alone. Furthermore, Libya contributed far more fighters per capita than any other nationality in the Sinjar Records, including Saudi Arabia.” (See the chart from the West Point report, page 9)

But since the Al Qaeda personnel files contain the residence or hometown of the foreign fighters in question, we can determine that the desire to travel to Iraq to kill Americans was not evenly distributed across Libya, but was highly concentrated precisely in those areas around Benghazi which are today the epicenters of the revolt against Colonel Gaddafi which the US, Britain, France, and others are so eagerly supporting.

As Daya Gamage of the Asia Tribune comments in a recent article on the West Point study, “…alarmingly for Western policymakers, most of the fighters came from eastern Libya, the center of the current uprising against Muammar el-Qaddafi. The eastern Libyan city of Darnah sent more fighters to Iraq than any other single city or town, according to the West Point report. It noted that 52 militants came to Iraq from Darnah, a city of just 80,000 people (the second-largest source of fighters was Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which has a population of more than 4 million). Benghazi, the capital of Libya’s provisional government declared by the anti-Qaddafi rebels, sent in 21 fighters, again a disproportionate number of the whole.”4 Obscure Darnah edged out metropolitan Riyadh by 52 fighters to 51. Qaddafi’s stronghold of Tripoli, by contrast, barely shows up in the statistics at all. (See chart from West Point report, page 12)

What explains this extraordinary concentration of anti-American fighters in Benghazi and Darnah? The answer seems related to extremist schools of theology and politics which flourished in these areas. As the West Point report notes: “Both Darnah and Benghazi have long been associated with Islamic militancy in Libya.” These areas are in theological and tribal conflict with the central government of Colonel Gaddafi, in addition to being politically opposed to him. Whether such a theological conflict is worth the deaths of still more American and European soldiers is a question which needs urgently to be answered.

 

Felter and Fishman remark that “The vast majority of Libyan fighters that included their hometown in the Sinjar Records resided in the country’s northeast, particularly the coastal cities of Darnah 60.2% (52) and Benghazi 23.9% (21). Both Darnah and Benghazi have long been associated with Islamic militancy in Libya, in particular for an uprising by Islamist organizations in the mid-1990s. The Libyan government blamed the uprising on ‘infiltrators from the Sudan and Egypt’ and one group—the Libyan Fighting Group (jama-ah al-libiyah al-muqatilah)—claimed to have Afghan veterans in its ranks. The Libyan uprisings became extraordinarily violent.”5

Northeastern Libya: Highest Density of Suicide Bombers

Another remarkable feature of the Libyan contribution to the war against US forces inside Iraq is the marked propensity of the northeastern Libyans to choose the role of suicide bomber as their preferred method of struggle. As the West Point study states, “Of the 112 Libyans in the Records, 54.4% (61) listed their ‘work.’ Fully 85.2% (51) of these Libyan fighters listed “suicide bomber” as their work in Iraq.”6 This means that the northeastern Libyans were far more apt to choose the role of suicide bomber than those from any other country: “Libyan fighters were much more likely than other nationalities to be listed as suicide bombers (85% for Libyans, 56% for all others).”7

The anti-Qaddafi Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) Merges with al Qaeda, 2007

The specific institutional basis for the recruitment of guerrilla fighters in northeastern Libya is associated with an organization which previously called itself the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). During the course of 2007, the LIFG declared itself an official subsidiary of al Qaeda, later assuming the name of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). As a result of this 2007 merger, an increased number of guerrilla fighters arrived in Iraq from Libya. According to Felter and Fishman, “The apparent surge in Libyan recruits traveling to Iraq may be linked the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s (LIFG) increasingly cooperative relationship with al-Qaeda, which culminated in the LIFG officially joining al-Qaeda on November 3, 2007.”8 This merger is confirmed by other sources: A 2008 statement attributed to Ayman al-Zawahiri claimed that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group has joined al-Qaeda.9

Terrorist “Emir” Touts Key Role of Benghazi, Darnah in al Qaeda

The West Point study makes clear that the main bulwarks of the LIFG and of the later AQIM were the twin cities of Benghazi and Darnah. This is documented in a statement by Abu Layth al-Libi, the self-styled “Emir” of the LIFG, who later became a top official of al Qaeda. At the time of the 2007 merger, “Abu Layth al-Libi, LIFG’s Emir, reinforced Benghazi and Darnah’s importance to Libyan jihadis in his announcement that LIFG had joined al-Qa’ida, saying: ‘It is with the grace of God that we were hoisting the banner of jihad against this apostate regime under the leadership of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which sacrificed the elite of its sons and commanders in combating this regime whose blood was spilled on the mountains of Darnah, the streets of Benghazi, the outskirts of Tripoli, the desert of Sabha, and the sands of the beach.’”10

This 2007 merger meant that the Libyan recruits for Al Qaeda became an increasingly important part of the activity of this organization as a whole, shifting the center of gravity to some degree away from the Saudis and Egyptians who had previously been most conspicuous. As Felter and Fishman comment, “Libyan factions (primarily the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group) are increasingly important in al-Qa’ida. The Sinjar Records offer some evidence that Libyans began surging into Iraq in larger numbers beginning in May 2007. Most of the Libyan recruits came from cities in northeast Libya, an area long known for jihadi-linked militancy.”11

The December 2007 West Point study concludes by formulating some policy options for the United States government. One approach, the authors suggest, would be for the United States to cooperate with existing Arab governments against the terrorists. As Felter and Fishman write, “The Syrian and Libyan governments share the United States’ concerns about violent salafi-jihadi ideology and the violence perpetrated by its adherents. These governments, like others in the Middle East, fear violence inside their borders and would much rather radical elements go to Iraq rather than cause unrest at home. U.S. and Coalition efforts to stem the flow of fighters into Iraq will be enhanced if they address the entire logistical chain that supports the movement of these individuals—beginning in their home countries — rather than just their Syrian entry points. The U.S. may be able to increase cooperation from governments to stem the flow of fighters into Iraq by addressing their concerns about domestic jihadi violence.”12 Given the course of subsequent events, we are on firm ground in concluding that this option was not the one selected, neither in the closing years of the Bush administration nor during the first half of the Obama administration.

The West Point study also offers another, more sinister perspective. Felter and Fishman hint that it might be possible to use the former LIFG components of Al Qaeda against the government of Colonel Qaddafi in Libya, in essence creating a de facto alliance between the United States and a segment of the terrorist organization. The West Point report notes: “The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s unification with al-Qa’ida and its apparent decision to prioritize providing logistical support to the Islamic State of Iraq is likely controversial within the organization. It is likely that some LIFG factions still want to prioritize the fight against the Libyan regime, rather than the fight in Iraq. It may be possible to exacerbate schisms within LIFG, and between LIFG’s leaders and al-Qa’ida’s traditional Egyptian and Saudi power-base.”13 This suggests the US policy we see today, that of allying with the obscurantist and reactionary al Qaeda fanatics in Libya against the Nasserist modernizer Qaddafi.

Arming the Rebels: The Experience of Afghanistan

Looking back at the tragic experience of US efforts to incite the population of Afghanistan against the Soviet occupation in the years after 1979, it should be clear that the policy of the Reagan White House to arm the Afghan mujahedin with Stinger missiles and other modern weapons turned out to be highly destructive for the United States. As current Defense Secretary Robert Gates comes close to admitting in his memoirs, Al Qaeda was created during those years by the United States as a form of Arab Legion against the Soviet presence, with long-term results which have been highly lamented.

Today, it is clear that the United States is providing modern weapons for the Libyan rebels through Saudi Arabia and across the Egyptian border with the active assistance of the Egyptian army and of the newly installed pro-US Egyptian military junta.14 This is a direct violation of UN Security Council resolution 1973, which calls for a complete arms embargo on Libya. The assumption is that these weapons will be used against Gaddafi in the coming weeks. But, given the violently anti-American nature of the population of northeast Libya that is now being armed, there is no certainty that these weapons will not be soon turned against those who have provided them.

A broader problem is represented by the conduct of the future Libyan government dominated by the current rebel council with its large current majority of northeastern Islamists, or of a similar government of a future Cyrenaica rump state. To the extent that such regimes will have access to oil revenues, obvious problems of international security are posed. Gamage wonders: “If the rebellion succeeds in toppling the Qaddafi regime it will have direct access to the tens of billions of dollars that Qaddafi is believed to have squirreled away in overseas accounts during his four-decade rule.”15 Given the northeast Libyan mentality, we can imagine what such revenues might be used for.

What is al Qaeda and Why the CIA Has Used It

Al Qaeda is not a centralized organization, but rather a gaggle or congeries of fanatics, dupes, psychotics, misfits, double agents, provocateurs, mercenaries, and other elements. As noted, Al Qaeda was founded by the United States and the British during the struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Many of its leaders, such as the reputed second-in-command Ayman Zawahiri and the current rising star Anwar Awlaki, are evidently double agents of MI-6 and/or the CIA. The basic belief structure of Al Qaeda is that all existing Arab and Moslem governments are illegitimate and should be destroyed, because they do not represent the caliphate which Al Qaeda asserts is described by the Koran. This means that the Al Qaeda ideology offers a ready and easy way for the Anglo-American secret intelligence agencies to attack and destabilize existing Arab and Muslim governments as part of the ceaseless need of imperialism and colonialism to loot and attack the developing nations. This is precisely what is happening in Libya today.

Al Qaeda emerged from the cultural and political milieu of the Moslem Brotherhood or Ikhwan, itself a creation of British intelligence in Egypt in the late 1920s. The US and the British used the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood to oppose the successful anti-imperialist policies of Egyptian President Nasser, who scored immense victories for his country by nationalizing the Suez Canal and building the Aswan High Dam, without which modern Egypt would be simply unthinkable. The Muslim brotherhood provided an active and capable fifth column of foreign agents against Nasser, in the same way that the official website of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb is trumpeting its support for the rebellion against Colonel Qaddafi.

I have discussed the nature of Al Qaeda at some length in my recent book entitled 9/11 Synthetic Terrorism: Made in USA, and that analysis cannot be repeated here. It is enough to say that we do not need to believe in all the fantastic mythology which the United States government has spun around the name of Al Qaeda in order to recognize the basic fact that militants or patsies who spontaneously join al Qaeda are often sincerely motivated by a deep hatred of the United States and a burning desire to kill Americans, as well as Europeans. The Bush administration policy used the alleged presence of Al Qaeda as a pretext for direct military attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. The Obama administration is now doing something different, intervening on the side of a rebellion in which Al Qaeda and its co-thinkers are heavily represented while attacking the secular authoritarian government of Colonel Gaddafi. Both of these policies are bankrupt and must be abandoned.

Rebel Leaders Jalil and Younis, Plus Most of Rebel Council are Members of the al Qaeda-linked Harabi Tribe

The result of the present inquiry is that the Libyan branch of Al Qaeda represents a continuum with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group centered in Darnah and Benghazi. The ethnic base of the Libyan Islamic fighting group is apparently to be found in the anti-Qaddafi Harabi tribe, the tribe which makes up the vast majority of the rebel council including the two dominant rebel leaders, Abdul Fatah Younis and Mustafa Abdul Jalil. The evidence thus suggests that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the elite of the Harabi tribe, and the rebel council supported by Obama all overlap for all practical purposes. As the late Foreign Minister of Guyana Fred Wills, a real fighter against imperialism and neo-colonialism, taught me many years ago, political formations in developing countries (and not just there) are often a mask for ethnic and religious rivalries; so it is in Libya. The rebellion against Qaddafi is a toxic brew compounded of fanatical hatred of Qaddafi, Islamism, tribalism, and localism. From this point of view, Obama has foolishly chosen to take sides in a tribal war.

When Hillary Clinton went to Paris to be introduced to the Libyan rebels by French President Sarkozy, she met the US-educated Libyan opposition leader Mahmoud Jibril, already known to readers of Wikileaks document dumps as a favorite of the US.16

While Jibril might be considered presentable in Paris, the real leaders of the Libyan insurrection would appear to be Jalil and Younis, both former ministers under Qaddafi. Jalil seems to be the primus inter pares, at least for the moment: “Mustafa Abdul Jalil or Abdul-Jalil (Arabic: مصطفى عبد الجليل, also transcribed Abdul-Jelil, Abd-al-Jalil, Abdel-Jalil or Abdeljalil; and frequently but erroneously as Abud Al Jeleil) (born 1952) is a Libyan politician. He was the Minister of Justice (unofficially, the Secretary of the General People’s Committee) under Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi…. Abdul Jalil has been identified as the Chairman of the National Transitional Council based in Benghazi… although this position is contested by others in the uprising due to his past connections to Gaddafi’s regime.”17

As for Younis, he has been closely associated with Qaddafi since the 1968-9 seizure of power: “Abdul Fatah Younis (Arabic: عبد الفتاح يونس) is a senior military officer in Libya. He held the rank of General and the post of Minister of Interior, but resigned on 22 February 2011….”18

What should concern us most is that both Jalil and Younis come from the Haribi tribe, the dominant one in northeast Libya, and the one that overlaps with al Qaeda. According to Stratfor, the “…Harabi tribe is a historically powerful umbrella tribe in eastern Libya that saw their influence wane under Col. Gadhafi. The Libyan leader confiscated swaths of tribal members’ land and redistributed it to weaker and more loyal tribes…. Many of the leaders now emerging in eastern Libya hail from the Harabi tribe, including the head of the provisional government set up in Benghazi, Abdel Mustafa Jalil, and Abdel Fatah Younis, who assumed a key leadership role over the defected military ranks early in the uprising.”19 This is like a presidential ticket where both candidates are from the same state, except that Libya’s ferocious tribal rivalries make the problem infinitely worse.

The Rebel Council: Half the Names Are Kept Secret; Why?

This picture of a narrow, sectarian tribal and regional base does not improve when we look at the rebel council as a whole. According to one recent version, the rebel council is “chaired by the well-spoken former justice minister for Libya, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, [and] consists of 31 members, ostensibly representatives from across Libya, of whom many cannot be named for “security reasons”…. “The key players on the council, at least those who we know about, all hail from the north-eastern Harabi confederation of tribes. These tribes have strong affiliations with Benghazi that date back to before the 1969 revolution which brought Gaddafi to power.”20 Other accounts agree about the number of representatives: “The council has 31 members; the identities of several members has not been made public to protect their own safety.”21 Given what we know about the extraordinary density of LIFG and all Qaeda fanatics in northeast Libya, we are authorized to wonder as to whether so many members of the council are being kept secret in order to protect them from Qaddafi, or whether the goal is to prevent them from being recognized in the west as al Qaeda terrorists or sympathizers. The latter seems to be a more accurate summary of the real state of affairs.

Names released so far include: Mustafa Abduljaleel; Ashour Hamed Bourashed of Darna city; Othman Suleiman El-Megyrahi of the Batnan area; Al Butnan of the Egypt border and Tobruk; Ahmed Abduraba Al-Abaar of Benghazi city; Fathi Mohamed Baja of Benghazi city; Abdelhafed Abdelkader Ghoga of Benghazi city; Mr. Omar El-Hariri for Military Affairs; and Dr. Mahmoud Jibril, Ibrahim El-Werfali and Dr. Ali Aziz Al-Eisawi for foreign affairs.22

The State Department needs to interrogate these figures, starting perhaps with Ashour Hamed Bourashed, the delegate from the terrorist and suicide bomber stronghold of Darnah.

How Many al Qaeda Members, Veterans, or Sympathizers are on the Rebel Council?

Seeing as clearly as we can in the fog of war, it looks like slightly more than a dozen of the members of the rebel council have had their names officially published — in any case, not more than half of the reported 31 members. The US and European media have not taken the lead in identifying for us the names that are now known, and they above all have not called attention to the majority of the rebel council who are still lurking in the shadows of total secrecy. We must therefore demand to know how many LIFG and/or al Qaeda members, veterans, or sympathizers currently hold seats on the rebel council.

We are thus witnessing an attempt by the Harabi tribe to seize dominance over the 140 tribes of Libya. The Harabi are already practically hegemonic among the tribes of Cyrenaica. At the center of the Harabi Confederation is the Obeidat tribe, which is divided into 15 sub-tribes.23 All of this might be of purely academic ethnographic interest, were it not for the fact of the striking overlap between the Harabi tribe and the LIFG and al Qaeda.

The Senussi Movement of Libya — Monarchist Democracy?

The political-religious tradition of northeast Libya makes this area such fertile ground for the more extreme Muslim sects and also predisposes it to monarchism rather than to the more modern forms of government favored by Qaddafi. The relevant regional tradition is that of the Senussi or Sanussi order, an anti-western Moslem sect. In Libya the Senussi order is closely associated with monarchism, since King Idris I, the ruler installed by the British in 1951 who was overthrown by Gaddafi in 1969, was also the leader of the Senussi order. The Senussi directed the rebellion against Italian colonialism in the person of Marshal Rodolfo Graziani and his army in the 1930s. Today, the rebels use the monarchist flag, and may advocate the return to the throne of one of the two pretenders to the Idris line. They are far closer to monarchism than to democracy

King Idris, Revered by the Libyan Rebels of Today

Here is the Stratfor view of King Idris and the Senussi: “King Idris came from a line of rulers of the Sanussi order, a Sufi religious order founded in 1842 in Al Bayda, that practices a conservative and austere form of Islam. The Sanussiyah represented a political force in Cyrenaica that preceded the creation of the modern state of Libya, and whose reverberations continue to be felt to this day. It is no coincidence that this region is the home of Libyan jihadism, with groups like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). The Gadhafi family has thus been calling the current uprising an elaborate Islamist plot….”24 Under the monarchy, Libya was by some estimates absolutely the poorest country in the world. Today, Libya ranks 53 on the UN Human Development Index and qualifies as the most developed country in Africa, ahead of Russia, Brazil, Ukraine, and Venezuela. Qaddafi’s stewardship has objective merits which cannot be seriously denied.

Glen Ford’s Black Agenda Report has correctly sought to show the racist and reactionary character of the Libyan insurrection. The tribes of southern Libya, known as the Fezzan, are dark skinned. The tribal underpinning of the Gaddafi regime has been an alliance of the tribes of the West, the center, and the southern Fezzan, against the Harabi and the Obeidat, who identify with the former monarchist ruling class. The Harabi and Obeidat are known to nurture a deep racist hatred against the Fezzan. This was expressed in frequent news reports from the pro-imperialist media at the beginning of the rebellion evidently inspired by Harabi accounts, according to which black people in Libya had to be treated as mercenaries working for Gaddafi — with the clear implication that they were to be exterminated. These racist inventions are still being repeated by quackademics like Dean Slaughter of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton. And in fact, large numbers of black Africans from Chad and other countries working in Libyan have been systematically lynched and massacred by the anti-Gaddafi forces. The Obama White House, for all its empty talk of not wanting to repeat the massacre in Rwanda, has conveniently ignored this shocking story of real genocide at the hands of its new racist friends in Cyrenaica.

Against the obscurantism of the Senussi, Qaddafi has advanced the Moslem equivalent of the priesthood of all believers, arguing that no caliphate is necessary in order to discover the meaning of the Koran. He has supplemented this with a pan African perspective. Gerald A. Perreira of the Black Agenda Report writes the following about the theological division between Gaddafi and the neo-Senussi of northeast Libya, as well as other obscuranitsts: “Al Qaeda is in the Sahara on his borders and the International Union of Muslim Scholars is calling for [Qaddafi] to be tried in a court…. [Qaddafi] has questioned the Islam of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda from a Quranic/theological perspective and is one of the few political leaders equipped to do so…. Benghazi has always been at the heart of counter-revolution in Libya, fostering reactionary Islamic movements such as the Wahhabis and Salafists. It is these people who founded the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group based in Benghazi which allies itself with Al Qaeda and who have, over the years, been responsible for the assassination of leading members of the Libyan revolutionary committees.”25 And what would be for example the status of women under the neo-Senussi of the Benghazi rebel council?

Al Qaeda from Demon to US ally in Libya

For those who attempt to follow the ins and outs of the CIA’s management of its various patsy organizations inside the realm of presumed Islamic terrorism, it may be useful to trace the transformation of the LIFG-AQIM from deadly enemy to close ally. This phenomenon is closely linked to the general reversal of the ideological fronts of US imperialism that marks the divide between the Bush-Cheney-neocon administrations and the current Obama-Brzezinski-International Crisis Group regime. The Bush approach was to use the alleged presence of Al Qaeda as a reason for direct military attack. The Obama method is to use Al Qaeda to overthrow independent governments, and then either Balkanize and partition the countries in question, or else use them as kamikaze puppets against larger enemies like Russia, China, or Iran. This approach implies a more or less open fraternization with terrorist groups, which was signaled in a general way in Obamas famous Cairo speech of 2009. The links of the Obama campaign to the terrorist organizations deployed by the CIA against Russia were already a matter of public record three years ago.26

But such a reversal of field cannot be improvised overnight; it took several years of preparation. On July 10, 2009, The London Daily Telegraph reported that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group had split with Al Qaeda. This was when the United States had decided to de-emphasize the Iraq war, and also to prepare to use the Sunni Moslem Brotherhood and its Sunni Al Qaeda offshoot for the destabilization of the leading Arab states preparatory to turning them against Shiite Iran. Paul Cruikshank wrote at that time in the New York Daily News about one top LIFG honcho who wanted to dial back the relation to al Qaeda and the infamous Osama Bin Laden; this was “Noman Benotman, a former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. While mainstream Muslim leaders have long criticized Al Qaeda, these critics have the jihadist credentials to make their criticisms bite.”27 But by this time some LIFG bosses had moved up into al Qaeda: the London Daily Telegraph reported that senior Al Qaeda members Abu Yahya al-Libi and Abu Laith al-Libi were LIFG members. Around this time, Qaddafi released some LIFG fighters in an ill-advsided humanitarian gesture.

Northeast Libyan Jihadis Killing US, NATO Forces in Afghanistan Right Now

One of the fatal contradictions in the current State Department and CIA policy is that it aims at a cordial alliance with Al Qaeda killers in northeast Libya, at the very moment when the United States and NATO are mercilessly bombing the civilian northwest Pakistan in the name of a total war against Al Qaeda, and US and NATO forces are being killed by Al Qaeda guerrillas in that same Afghanistan-Pakistan theater of war. The force of this glaring contradiction causes the entire edifice of US war propaganda to collapse. The US has long since lost any basis in morality for military force.

In fact, terrorist fighters from northeast Libya may be killing US and NATO troops in Afghanistan right now, even as the US and NATO protect their home base from the Qaddafi government. According to this account, a top Al Qaeda commander in northwest Pakistan was killed by US action as recently as October 2010: “A senior al Qaeda leader who serves as al Qaeda’s ambassador to Iran, and is wanted by the US, is reported to have been killed in a Predator air strike in Pakistan’s Taliban-controlled tribal agency of North Waziristan two days ago…. [This was] Atiyah Abd al Rahman, a Libyan national who has been based in Iran and served as Osama bin Laden’s ambassador to the mullahs. Unconfirmed press reports indicate that Rahman was killed in an airstrike….”28 The US State Department’s Rewards for Justice page for Atiyah Abd al Rahman notes that he was al Qaeda’s “emissary in Iran as appointed by Osama bin Ladin.” Atiyah “recruited and facilitated talks with other Islamic groups to operate under” al Qaeda and was “also a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and Ansar al Sunna.”29 Rahman was ranked high enough in al Qaeda to be able to give orders to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al Qeada in Iraq, in 2005.

Also killed in Pakistan was another apparent northeast Libyan going by the name of Khalid al Harabi, whose choice of a nom de guerre may well link him to the jihadi farm among the Harabi tribe in Cyrenaica. According to one account, “Khalid al Harabi is an alias for Khalid Habib, al Qaeda’s former military commander who was killed in a US Predator strike in October 2008.”30

The Scenario Uncovered by the 1995 Shayler Affair is Operative Today

In 1995, David Shayler, an official of the British counterintelligence organization MI-5, became aware that his counterpart at the British foreign espionage organization MI-6 had paid the sum of £100,000 to an Al Qaeda affiliate in exchange for the attempt to assassinate Qaddafi. The assassination attempt did occur, and killed several innocent bystanders, but failed to eliminate the Libyan ruler. As Shayler understood the MI-6 scenario, it included the liquidation of Gaddafi, followed by the descent of Libya into chaos and tribal warfare, with a possible option for a direct seizure of power by al Qaeda itself. This situation would then provide a pretext for Britain, probably but not necessarily acting together with the United States or other countries, to invade Libya and seize control of the oil fields, probably establishing a permanent protectorate over the oil regions, the pipelines, and the coast.31 This remains the goal today.

Timed to coincide with the attempt to assassinate Qaddafi, MI-6 and other Western secret intelligence agencies fomented a considerable insurrection in northeast Libya, almost precisely in the same areas which are in rebellion today. Its insurrection was successfully crushed by Qaddafi’s forces by the end of 1996. The events of 2011 are simply a reprise of the imperialist attack on Libya 15 years ago, with the addition of outside intervention..

The War Against the Nation State

Today’s attack on Libya comes in the context of a broad attack on the institution of the sovereign nation state itself, as it has existed since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The United States and the British are deeply concerned by the large number of nations which are seeking to escape from Anglo-American hegemony by actively pursuing large-scale cooperation with Russia on security, with China on economic questions, and with Iran for geopolitical considerations. The CIA/MI-6 response has been a wild orgy of destabilizations, people power coups, color revolutions, and palace putsches, signaled by the document dumps by the CIA limited hangout operation known as Wikileaks, which has targeted names of the CIA hit mist from Ben Ali to Qaddafi. The Obama strategy would have preferred an exclusive reliance and the illusion that the Arab Spring was really a matter of youthful visionary idealists gathering in the public square to praise democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. This was never the reality: the actual decisions were being made by brutal cliques of generals and top officials bribed or blackmailed by the CIA who were moving behind the scenes to oust such figures as Ben Ali or Mubarak. Whatever else Qaddafi has done, he has undoubtedly forced the CIA and NATO to drop the pleasant mask of youthful idealism and human rights, revealing a hideous visage of Predator drones, terror bombing, widespread slaughter, and colonialist arrogance underneath. Qaddafi has also ripped the mask of “Yes We Can” off Obama, revealing a cynical warmonger intent on the continuation of Bush’s infamous “Dead or Alive” and “Bring it on” policies, although by other means.

A Distant Mirror for Imperialists in Libya: Lucan’s Pharsalia

Modern imperialists eager to rush into Libya should ponder Lucan’s Pharsalia, which treats of warfare in the Libyan desert during the contest between Julius Caesar and Pompey the Great at the end of the Roman Republic. A critical passage in this Latin epic is the speech by Cato of Utica, a follower of Pompey, who urges his soldiers to undertake a suicide mission into Libya, saying: “Serpents, thirst, heat, and sand … Libya alone can present a multitude of woes that it would beseem men to fly from.” Cato goes forward, and finds “a little tomb to enclose [his] hallowed name, Libya secured the death of Cato….”32

Let us not imitate this folly.

Investigative leads from the West Point Study: An Appeal to Scholars

The West Point study, as noted, was conducted on the basis of almost 700 Al Qaeda personnel files captured by coalition forces in Iraq.33 The authors of the study have promised to keep available online the documentary basis of this investigation, both in the form of the raw Arabic language al Qaeda personnel files34, and also of the same file cards in English translation.35 Assuming that this material remains available, it might be possible for researchers and reporters, and especially those with capabilities in Arabic not possessed by the present writer, to investigate the Libyan fighters who went into Iraq with a view to determining whether any of them are family members, neighbors, or even political associates of the known members of the Benghazi rebel council or of other anti-Qaddafi forces. Such a procedure could contribute to allowing the European and American public as well as others around the world to better understand the nature of the military adventure currently unfolding in Libya by gaining a more specific knowledge of who the Libyan rebels :

Notes

1 Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman, “Al Qa’ida’s Foreign Fighter in Iraq: A First Look at the Sinjar Records,” (West Point, NY: Harmony Project, Combating Terrorism Center, Department of Social Sciences, US Military Academy, December 2007). Cited as West Point Study.

2 Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman, “Al Qa’ida’s Foreign Fighter in Iraq: A First Look at the Sinjar Records,” (West Point, NY: Harmony Project, Combating Terrorism Center, Department of Social Sciences, US Military Academy, December 2007). Cited as West Point Study.
3 West Point Study, pp. 8-9.
4 Daya Gamage, “Libyan rebellion has radical Islamist fervor: Benghazi link to Islamic militancy, U.S. Military Document Reveals,” Asian Tribune, March 17, 2011, at http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/03/17/libyan-rebellion-has-radical-islamist-fervor-benghazi-link-islamic-militancyus-milit
5 West Point Study, p. 12.
6 West Point Study, p. 19.
7 West Point Study, p. 27.
8 West Point Study, p. 9.
10 West Point Study, p. 12.
11 West Point Study, p. 27.
12 West Point Study, p. 29.
13 West Point Study, p. 28.
14 See “Egypt Said to Arm Libya Rebels, Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2011, at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704360404576206992835270906.html; see also Robert Fisk, “America’s secret plan to arm Libya’s rebels,” Independent, Mach 7, 2011, at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebels-2234227.html
15 Gamage.
19 Stratfor, “Libya’s Tribal Dyanmics, February 25, 2011, available at http://redstomp.org/forums/showthread.php?1109-Libya-s-Tribal-Dyanmics
20 Venetia Rainey, “Who are the rebels we are fighting to protect,” The First Post, http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/76660,news-comment,news-politics,who-are-the-rebels-we-are-fighting-to-protect#ixzz1HMRIrUP9
22 Statement by “Transition National Council,” Benghazi, March 5, 2011 at http://www.libyanmission-un.org/tnc.pdf; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Transitional_Council
23 Massimo Introvigne, “L’occidente alla guerra delle tribù,” La Bussola quotidiana, March 22, 2011, at http://www.cesnur.org/2011/mi-rivolte-05.html
24 Stratfor, “Libya’s Tribal Dyanmics, February 25, 2011, available at http://redstomp.org/forums/showthread.php?1109-Libya-s-Tribal-Dyanmics
25 Gerald A. Perreira, “Libya, Getting it Right: A Revolutionary Pan-African Perspective,” Black Agenda Report, March 2, 2011, at http://blackagendareport.com/content/libya-getting-it-right-revolutionary-pan-african-perspective
26 Webster G. Tarpley, “Obama Campaign Linked To Chechen Terrorism: Grant Of Taxpayer-Funded U.S. Asylum For Chechen Terror Envoy Gave Obama Foreign Policy Guru Zbigniew Brzezinski ‘One Of The Happiest Days Of My Life,’” February 2, 2008, Obama the Postmodern Coup: The Making of a Manchurian Candidate (Joshua Treet CA: Progressive Press, April 2008), pp. 97-115, online at http://tarpley.net/2008/02/03/obama-campaign-linked-to-chechen-terrorism/


 

Read Full Post »

Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya. War on terror. George Bush. George W Bush and now Obama.

Certainly the Libyan government hasn’t invited US & its allies to bomb its nation and neither have the rebels ( These rebels do not have an organized leadership to dictate terms ). We only know these rebels as Al Qaeda or foreign mercenaries trying a provoke an international attention, which only attracts the west. The initial condemnation of the Russian, Indians & Chinese have become soft and now these three nations do not oppose Allied attacks on Libya and have given a blind eye to this crises. The rest of the world has just become a spectator of the drama created by west. Its been almost 1000 years of religious bloodshed, imperialism, invasion and power which have torn apart the worlds developing nations and most nations still strive to be under the chains of western rule, directly or indirectly.The mess that the West has created in the Middle East, namely a number of rogue states (not just Israel), corrupt oil sheiks and puppets, a mosaic of CIA failures which the Islamic world has been duped, is suddenly threatened by forces that are fighting to modernize and democracy. Gaddafi’s despotic rule has no political base and is funded by all of us when we buy gasoline. Gaddafi went on one day with his checkbook to Israel to order arms and 50,000 mercenaries. Stories about deserted troop and tank brigades appear fictitious.

It is easy to see that countries like the United States, Britain and Australia are under the control of the kabbalistic associations. Any legitimate opposition to the status quo is immediately discredited by a mix of paid and unpaid disinformation agents. Those who most news achieve from the Internet are unable to distinguish and run the risk to be deceived. Add here the “researchers” who have no experience in the real world and have learned to survive in a university atmosphere where cronyism and cowardice long ago have replaced activism and originality, and the deception is complete.

The internet is full of stories about U.S. and British oil companies who try to take-off Gaddafi. First they should need to throw out BP and Halliburton. They and 300 other British and American companies control Libya since 2004. Gaddafi took power in 1969 after a military coup. He was never able to allow elections and a constitution is prohibited. The party congress of the Libyan comprises 2,700 members, chosen by the regime. In fact, Gaddafi was a Marxist, but he is flexible enough to handle his billions of oil money to buy a circle of friends.

US and its allies are embarking on yet another regime change and this is done all at the cost of their tax payers. Little less the tax payers in US and in the allied countries know that how much financial burden its going to cause on its country, while they are spending huge amounts on this war on terror. There isn’t any internet website which will show anything related to the financial situation on its country. Dont waste your time google this, cause the topics in US, UK , French or German money matters is not and cannot be studied by common man. All that is at common mans disposable is youtube and some other internet sites which will keep their curiosity rolling. The conspiracy theory followers will be happy with the stories given on internet, which are in reality only behind veils. The real intentions of the white house and their allies never get published on websites.

If US and its allies were so concerned about Democracy then I wonder why they didn’t attack North Korea or Burma or Zimbabwe or Sudan. It’s difficult to get those answers. One reason is sure, its slow and steady strategy of the west to have a sovereign world government, to get rid of all the despotic rulers and to have their command in all major economies around the world. This has nothing to do with religion. This has nothing to do with people thinking that this is some Zionist or Jewish agenda and the Jews are the ones controlling the world, no it’s not. This is just a cover, so that weak people will continue to discuss about Jews in control of the world and be busy in this anti-semitic drama. No one has been deprived of their success in the world or to become successful in the world. Today we have more Indians, Chinese, Persian gulf Arabs who are richer than the jews. The entire game is about money, about power about economic gains. Whereas the weaker and ignorant mass will be busy in the religious drama. Once Gaddafi is ousted we will have the similar situation in the peaceful Libya like how we have in Iraq or Afghanistan today. Libya will be torn to pieces, western contracts will dominate all  businesses in Libya, ethnic groups will fight against each other and Libya will never be peaceful again.

I know Libya from last 20 years and I don’t think anyone there has ever disrespected Gaddafi or even doubted his ability to run the country. The people in Libya knew that they have no rights to vote, but at least the have employment and best basic necessities provided to them by Gaddafi.

There was law & order in the country , people lived happily and in peace. Libya had the best standard of living in the African continent and the best GDP. Libya had given equal rights to woman, as compared to other Islamic countries where woman are denied of their rights. Libya according to my eye-witness experience was the best nation in Africa & Middle east.

The protest and the protesters which marked the beginning of Gaddafi downfall is surely not bred in Libya. I only hope that Libya doesn’t become like the next Iraq or Afghanistan.

Read Full Post »

War on Libya

Libya was always on the agenda of west, even before the Iraq invasion. The western forces then, were not prepared to tackle Libya as they had extreme pressure from the Saudis and Kuwaitis to topple Saddam. The Iraqi dictator then and his team from the Ministry persuaded the Saudis & Americans not to attack Iraq. USA & Saudi never paid heed to Saddam, as his days were already numbered. Today we have a same scenerio with Libya. What surprises me is that I have not heard the Libyans ever complaint about their lifestyle of any economic problems. Although the regime controls the nation with a iron fist, yet I do not see why thats wrong?

Even countries like India or England or France , for that instance which have democracy still have large numbers of people who are unhappy with the ruling party or their corrupt governments. For example in India, you can hear every other day about millions of dollars worth of scam done by the government.

Look at Sudan, how many civilians have been killed by Bashirs regime, does west not count such atrocities under Human rights or peoples right to vote?

Look at the scene of Zimbabawe , Robert Mugabe, he is certainly more brutal and killed many more people than Saddam Hussein.

 

On March 19, ironically on the eighth anniversary of “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” a White House Office of the Press Secretary quoted Obama saying:

“Today I authorized the Armed Forces of the United States to (attack) Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians,”
he, in fact, doesn’t give a damn about. “That action has now begun,” he added, claiming military action was a last resort.

 

 

In fact, it was long-planned. All military interventions require months of preparation, including target selections, strategy, enlisting political and public support, troop deployments, and post-conflict plans.

Weeks, maybe months in advance, Special Forces, CIA agents, and UK SAS operatives were in Libya, enlisting, inciting, funding, and arming so-called anti-Gaddafi opposition forces, ahead of Western aggression for imperial control. More on it below.

A March 19 Department of Defense (DOD) Armed Forces Press Service release announced America’s led “Operation Odyssey Dawn,” saying:

“Coalition (of the willing) forces launched “Operation Odyssey Dawn” today to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973 to protect the Libyan people from the country’s ruler….Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people.”

False! In fact, Washington-led naked aggression was launched to replace one despot with another, perhaps assassinate Gaddafi, his sons and top officials, colonize Libya, control its oil, gas and other resources, exploit its people, private state industries under Western (mainly US) control, establish new Pentagon bases, use them for greater regional dominance, perhaps balkanize the country like Yugoslavia and Iraq, and prevent any democratic spark from emerging.

According to DODspeak, Libya is being attacked, its people killed, civilian targets destroyed, and a humanitarian disaster created to save it. In other words, “destroying the village to save it” on a nationwide scale like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 70s, and Korea in the 1950s since WW II alone. Besides numerous proxy wars in Central America, Africa and elsewhere. Wherever America shows up, blood spills followed by horrific human suffering, what Libyans can now expect.

Military and government targets include:

  • command-and-control centers;
  • air defense systems;
  • Gaddafi, his sons and senior officials;
  • communications systems;
  • government buildings and other facilities; and
  • military air fields, tanks, artillery, other weapons, munitions, fuel depots, mobile and other targets.

About 25 US, UK, French, Canadian and Italian ships are involved, 11 from America, including three nuclear submarines. The Pentagon is providing command, control and logistics support. Air and surface-launched munitions are being used, including against Tripoli, the capital and Gaddafi stronghold.

Moreover, invasion and perhaps occupation may follow, despite official denials.

Either way, widespread death and destruction is likely. Surgical war is an oxymoron. Expect considerable “collateral damage,” the Orwellian designation for war crimes against noncombatants and civilian targets.

In his 1992 book titled, “Beyond Hypocrisy,” Edward Herman referred to “nuclear chicken analysis,” defining “collateral casualties” as “civilians killed as a regrettable ‘spillover effect’ of a nuclear attack on a military target’ more generally, allegedly unintended casualties” of any type attack.

In other words, “inadvertent and tragic errors” that, in fact, constitute wanton murder and destruction of schools, hospitals, vital infrastructure and other non-military targets.

Pack Journalism Promotes War

A previous article explained how it enlists public support for imperial war, accessed through the following link:

http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/9211-promoting-war-on-libya.html

Western media, including BBC and Al Jazeera incite it, no matter how lawless, mindless, destructive and counterproductive. Smell it. It arrived again because inflammatory journalism stoked reasons to attack. As a result, America, Britain and France primarily readied strikes. Ground and submarine-launced cruise missiles inflicted widespread destruction. In addition, French jets struck “targets of opportunity,” preceded by exaggerated/unverified/inflammatory reports like the following:

On March 19, New York Times writers David Kirkpatrick and Elisabeth Busmiller headlined, “Reports Say Attacks by Regime Against Rebels Continue,” saying:

Unverified “(r)eports indicated that Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces were continuing to press their attacks despite warnings that such moves would provoke military action.”

On March 19, Financial Times writer Tobias Buck headlined, “Gaddafi launches assault on Benghazi,” saying:

Forces loyal to Gaddafi attacked “in violation of the regime’s promise of a ceasefire.”

Libyan state TV channel, Al Jamahiriya, reported it differently, saying “the people of Benghazi have risen up against the rebels and raised the flag of Libya over the government building in the middle of the city.”

On March 19, New York Times writers Steven Erlanger and David Kirkpatrick headlined “Allies Open Push in Libya to Block Qaddafi Assaults,” saying:

“American, European and Arab leaders began the largest international intervention” since 2003 against Iraq, omitting the illegality of both aggressions.

On March 19, New York Times writers David Kirkpatrich and Elisabeth Musmiller headlined, “France Sends Military Flights Over Libya,” saying:

Flying reconnaissance missions, it’s “the first sign” of premeditated war, launching new hostilities against a war-torn region, without explanation why.

On March 19, Times writers Steven Erlanger and David Kirkpatrick headlined, “Allies Open Push in Libya to Block Qaddafi Assaults,” saying:

Hostilities began to stop “Qaddafi’s war on the Libyan opposition,” after a no-fly zone was established.

As a result, war arrived preemptively. French President Sarkozy said it’s to stop Gaddafi’s “murderous madness,” no matter that he responded to violence. He didn’t instigate it. So would Sarkozy, Obama or any leader against armed insurrection.

Love or hate him, Gaddafi said:

“Libya is not yours. Libya is for all Libyans. This is injustice, it is clear aggression, and it is uncalculated risk for its consequences on the Mediterranean and Europe. You will regret it if you take a step toward intervening in our internal affairs.”

Hours earlier, he pledged a ceasefire. Conflicting reports disagree if he honored it. Is he or Western intervention stoking violence? US media reports point fingers one way.

Washington, Britain, France, other NATO allies, and complicit Arab States back armed anti-Gaddafi insurrection. They’re promoting it, inciting it, funding it, arming it, with clear imperial aims. A previous article explained, accessed through the following link:

http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/9399-un-war-resolution-on-libya.html

On March 19, ahead of intervention, Al Jazeera headlined, “Gaddafi forces encroaching on Benghazi,” saying:

Gaddafi unleashed “a fresh act of defiance even as the United States and its allies prepared to launch military attacks on Libya.”

Unverified “(r)eports from Libya say pro-government forces have entered the western outskirts of the opposition stronghold of Benghazi, with the city also coming under attack from the coast and the south.”

Unnamed “(w)itnesses….said they heard large explosions….Government troops reportedly bombed the southern Benghazi suburb of Goreshi among other places.”

No verification was given, except to quote Mustafa Abdel Jalil, opposition National Libyan Council leader. More on him below. Al Jazeera’s Tony Birtley reported “a lot of jittery people…a lot of activity and a lot of firing going on.”

In contrast, Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim told the BBC that “the ceasefire is real, credible and solid. We are willing to receive (international and NGO) observers as soon as possible.” He insisted no air strikes were launched.

Hours later Al Jazeera headlined, “Airstrikes begin on Libya targets,” saying:

“French warplanes hit four tanks….on a day when opposition fighters in (Benghazi) reported coming under constant artillery and mortar fire.” Expect sustained strikes to follow.

Al Jazeera and other media reports don’t explain that  “opposition” officials from organizations like the National Libyan Council and National Front for the Salvation of Libya have close Western ties, pretending they’re credible. More about them below.

Headquartered in Qatar, moreover, Al Jazeera noticeably abstains from criticizing its government, now part of Washington’s anti-Gaddafi coalition-of-the-willing, complicit in illegal aggression.

On March 18, Obama stopped short of declaring war, announcing “all necessary measures” against Gaddafi without full compliance with UN Resolution terms, including an immediate ceasefire, withdrawing his forces, reestablishing essential services to all parts of the country, and letting in “humanitarian assistance,” including foreign imperial forces opposed to his leadership.

In other words, impossible terms to accept to be followed by others likely demanding he step down, permit balkanization, predatory Western investment, US bases, and free exploitation of his resources and people. Imagine comparable demands made on America – non-negtiable to be followed by military action for non-compliance.

On March 18, NATO Secretary-General Anders Rogh Rasmussen signaled war, saying the alliance was “completing its planning to be ready to take appropriate action in support of the UN resolution as part of the broad international effort.”

Launched the next day, the resources of another resource-rich Arab state will be divided among Western belligerents, to benefit Libyans, they claim.

On March 20, New York Times writers David Kirkpatrick, Steven Erlanger and Elisabeth Busmiller headlined, “Qaddafi Pledges ‘Long War’ as Allies Pursue Air Assault,” saying:

“On Sunday, American (stealth) B-2 bombers were reported to have struck a major Libyan airfield,” following initial attacks against Libya’s air defense systems, “missile, radar and communications centers around Tripoli,” Misurata and Surt.

Reuters said “US fighter planes backed by electronic warfare aircraft” attacked Gaddafi’s ground troops and air defenses. A Pentagon statement stated:

“US Navy Growlers provided electronic warfare support over Libya while AV-8B Harriers from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit conducted strikes….”

Parliamentary secretary Muhammad Zweid said attacks “caused some real harm against civilians and buildings.” According to an unnamed US official, Libya’s air defenses are now “severely disabled.”

As of Sunday morning, visible destruction also included 14 tanks, 20 armored personnel carriers, two or more trucks, rocket launchers, dozens of pick-ups, and exploding munitions. Ahead of cruise missile attacks, France initiated reconnaissance flights and aggression.

On March 19, Middle East/Central Asian analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya’s Global Research.ca article headlined, “Breaking News: Libyan Hospitals Attacked. Libyan Source: Three French Jets Downed,” saying:

Regime change-planned naked aggression was launched. “The war criminals are back at it again,” Washington, of course, in the lead. On March 19, “sources in Libya have reported that three medical facilities were bombarded. Two were hospitals and one a medical clinic. These were civilian facilities.”

Targets attacked included Al-Tajura and Saladin hospitals as well as a clinic near Tripoli, unrelated to military necessity, distant from combat areas. Moreover, civilian air facilities were struck as well as “all Libyan military bases” – air, naval and ground. In addition, “a vast naval blockade around Libya has now been imposed,” America the lead belligerent.

Further, Libyan sources report “two French jets were also shot down….near Janzour” plus another “near Anjile.” Washington and co-belligerents “are creating a real humanitarian disaster,” waging war for peace, killing civilians to save them, and destroying Libya by “humanitarian intervention.”

Moreover, Washington enlisted Egypt and Saudi Arabia to supply “opposition forces” with weapons, in violation of Resolution 1973 prohibiting any sent. Of course, international and US law forbid aggressive war, but that never deterred imperial America from preemptively attacking, invading, occupying and colonizing nations illegally, Libya its latest target.

Libya’s So-Called “Opposition”

Included are the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, its officials with ties to the CIA and Saudi Arabia. Also, Muhammad as-Senussi, Libya’s so-called heir to the Senussi Crown, concerned only for his own self-interest.

Central is the National Libyan Council (NLC), announced on February 26, established officially on March 5, led by former Libyan Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, a Western-allied opportunist.

NLC is an umbrella group of local so-called opposition leaders headquartered in Benghazi. Bogusly, it claims to represent all Libyans. Abdel-Jalil calls it a “transitional government” ahead of future elections after Gaddafi is deposed.

At the same time, Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga, a Benghazi lawyer, refuted his leadership, calling himself NLC’s official spokesman. Both men, however, have similar aspirations, including controlling Libya by ousting Gaddafi.

As of now, Abdel-Jalil remains NLC’s official head, Ghoga its spokesman, and Omar El-Hariri in charge of military operations. General Abdel Fattah Younis may be another key member, his status, however, not confirmed. In total, NLC has about 30 members. Most aren’t named. Two known include, Mahmoud Jebril and Ali al-Essawi, former Libyan ambassador to India in charge of foreign affairs.

On March 5, Reuters headlined, “Rebel National Libya Council sets up (a three-member) crisis committee,” saying:

In charge of military and foreign affairs, members include Omar El-Hariri, Ali al-Essawi, and Mahmoud Jebril as leader.

Western Hypocrisy – Denouncing Violence While Backing It

At Obama’s behest, about 1,000 Saudi troops invaded Bahrain guns blazing, attacking peaceful protesters, arresting opposition leaders and activists, occupying the country, denying wounded men and women medical treatment, and imposing police state control in support of the hated monarchy.

Not an angry Western demand was heard to stop hostilities and leave. Nor against similar Egyptian army attacks or on civilians in Tunisia, Jordan, Algeria, Oman, Iraq, and Yemen, let alone daily against Palestinians.

On March 18, in fact, dozens of Yemenese were killed, scores more wounded in Sanaa, the capital, when security forces attacked thousands, demanding President Ali Abdullah Saleh step down.

Ally turned bete noire Gaddafi was targeted for removal. In contrast, Saleh is supported because of Yemen’s strategic location near the Horn of Africa on Saudi Arabia’s southern border, the Red Sea, its Bab el-Mandeb strait (a key chokepoint separating Yemen from Eritrea through which three million barrels of oil pass daily), and the Gulf of Aden connection to the Indian Ocean.

Instead of denouncing his brutality, Obama endorsed it, calling on “all sides (to pursue) a peaceful, orderly and democratic path to a stronger and more prosperous nation.”

Friday’s massacre was the bloodiest since resistance erupted in mid-February. Security forces and plainclothes police opened fire on demonstrators, shooting to kill, hitting some in the back of the head as they fled. Afterward, Saleh imposed a state of emergency and nationwide curfew.

Demonstrations, nonetheless, persist, Yemenese wanting his 32-year dictatorship ended. Achieving it, however, entails overcoming Washington’s imperial grip on regional client states, all run by favored despots.

A Final Comment

On March 19, Professor As’ad AbuKhalil’s Angry Arab.com headlined, “Bush Doctrine revised: Obama puts his stamp,” saying:

“Western/Saudi/Qarari military intervention in Libya sets a dangerous precedent.” Under Bush, ousting regimes for democracy “was a bloody farce….” Obama’s model may be installing puppets “without having ‘boots on the ground,’ ” but don’t discount them. He expanded Bush’s Afghan war, began his own in Pakistan as well as in Somalia, Yemen and Bahrain, backing favored despots besides the Saudi monarchy.

AbuKhalil calls NLC’s Abdel-Jalil “a useful idiot.” Moreover, “Western enthusiasm for (Libyan) intervention” was never properly explained beyond nonsensical platitudes about “humanitarian intervention” to protect civilians.

In contrast, “why (didn’t) the hundreds of deaths in Egypt or Tunisia….warrant” similar outrage, let alone Israel’s Cast Lead, occupation and daily aggression against defenseless Palestinians.

Intervening militarily is Libya “is far more dangerous: it is intended to legitimize the return of colonial powers, (and) abort democratic uprisings all over the region. Bahrain (Yemen and Saudi Arabia) of today (are) the vision for Libya for tomorrow,” Western-dominated, of course.

Will it work? Love or hate Gaddafi, Libyans know what Iraqis, Afghans and Palestinians endure. Moreover, its society is fractious, divided by tribal loyalties, suspicious of Western intervention, and long-governed locally as well as nationally.

Against them is America’s military might under leaders not shy about using it. As a result, Libyans are experiencing firsthand what’s ahead under Western control, what makes Iraqis yearn for Saddam, almost saintly compared to Washington.

After I watched a number of news shows about Libya and saw that very few of them were trying to show an objective outlook on Gadhafi or on Libya, I decided that another perspective really needed to be presented to the American people. I have decided to write on the information presented to me and let the readers of this article make their own judgment on the information presented.

First of all, very few good things have been presented on Col. Gadhafi. I would like to mention some of the things that have taken place in Libya since he overthrew the monarchy in 1969 in a popular revolution against the US supported King.

Some aspects of Libyan progress since the downfall of the monarchy in 1969:

  1. Literacy rates have risen from 10% of the nation to around 90% of the population. (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_literacy_rate_in_Libya)
  2. Women have the right to go to school and hold down a job.
  3. The life expectancy of Libyans has risen by twenty years and the infant mortality rate has dropped dramatically.
  4. Libya had the highest Human Development Index ranking in Africa. This is a U.N. measurement of life expectancy, educational attainment and adjusted real income.  (http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/)
  5. Most basic necessities: food, housing, fuel, healthcare and education were either heavily subsidized or became entirely free. Subsidies were considered the most effective way to redistribute the national wealth.
  6. Libya had a lower incarceration rate than the Czech Republic (or the United States). Libya ranked 61st in the world while the US has been number one for years.
  7. Libya has the third highest GDP on the African continent, South Africa has the highest, Algeria is second.(http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/)

Who is behind the insurgency in Libya?

This is the question that most people following the situation there would like to know. The details are far from clear. There are more questions than answers. One question in particular seems to be elusive, and that is why does the United States take such an active interest in a nation that has less than 6.5 million people? Egypt by comparison (with a population of almost 79 million) was a resolute ally that had a peace agreement with our other ally Israel and controlled the Suez Canal, the oil gateway into the Middle East. Why does Libya provoke such a response like the one Secretary of State Hillary Clinton articulated from the Middle-East yesterday when she said “all of our options regarding actions towards Libya are on the table” (This is euphemism for military options). Yesterday President Obama made the statement that Gadhafi’s time was up and that he should resign. This is a much harder stance than the one the United States took towards Mubarak in Egypt.

The primary opposition group most widely quoted is the National Front for the Salvation of Libya. According to Wikipedia:

“NFSL was based in Sudan until 1985 when the regime of Colonel Nimeiry fell. It opposed military and dictatorial rule in Libya, and called for a democratic government with constitutional guarantees, free elections, a free press, and separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. NFSL launched a wide campaign to topple Gaddafi in Libya, establishing a short-wave radio station, a commando military training camp and also published a bi-monthly newsletter, Al Inqadh (Salvation). According to various sources, Saudi Arabia and the United States Central Intelligence Agency had supported the NFSL.”

The facts are that the United States has considered Gadhafi an enemy of the U.S. for well over 35 years. The NFSL now operates out of Virginia. According to Sara Flounders, writing for Global Research:

“The U.S. carried out numerous assassination and coup attempts against the Gadhafi regime and financed armed opposition groups, such as the NFSL. Some U.S. attacks were blatant and open. For example, without warning 66 U.S. jets bombed the Libyan capital of Tripoli and its second-largest city, Benghazi, on April 15, 1986. Gadhafi’s home was bombed and his infant daughter killed in the attack, along with hundreds of others.”

Looking at the situation in Libya now, according to past history, the United States is not behaving in any way that could be described as anything new. She also states that:

“Even if Gadhafi were as quiet and austere as a monk and as careful as a diplomat, as president of an oil-rich, previously underdeveloped African country he still would have been hated, ridiculed and demonized by U.S. imperialism if he resisted U.S. corporate domination. That was his real crime and for that he has never been forgiven.”

As Americans, what can we do to stop American involvement in the affairs of Libya, A country we have been engaged against for almost 40 years?

It is clear from the outset that it is our political establishment and not our military that are calling for interference in another nation’s internal affairs. The Secretary of defense, Robert Gates has warned that a No-Fly Zone begins with a military attack on Libya’s air defense facilities.

“Let’s just call a spade a spade. A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya. That’s the way you do a no-fly zone. And then you can fly planes around the country and not worry about our guys being shot down.”

That is calling a spade a spade indeed. We need people like Gates to stop another war being waged against another nation that has not attacked us. Once the military option is used in any situation, it is hard to control. We have enough debt to deal with and even without intervention in Libya we spend 53% of our total Federal spending on defense (defense, really?) Politicians like John Kerry are calling for a no fly zone in order to stop Gadhafi from bombing his people.  According to the Associated Press, “Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that despite media reports of Libyan aircraft attacking rebel areas, the Pentagon had not confirmed any air attacks.”

How often are we going to allow the American military to act as the world’s policemen? In the long run, we stand to gain nothing from interfering in the politics of Libya. This will only turn out to be another in a long list of military attacks on sovereign nations. The truth of the matter is that we would not be thinking of acting militarily against Libya if they did not sit on oil reserves estimated at over 40 billion barrels of high-quality crude. If Russia or China launched military operations against Libya we would be screaming at the top of our lungs.

The American people need to see this as what it is, and that is just another attempt by the United States to secure resources by force. We are already fighting a war in Afghanistan in order to stabilize the country so that we can build the Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indian pipeline (T.A.P.I.). Our attempt to control the oilfields of Iraq has yielded no significant gains for the U.S. Sending America’s military to Libya will be a grave mistake. Obama’s entire presidency will be gauged by what we do in Libya and other potential trouble spots in the resurgent Middle-East. I don’t want to be writing about what I wrote today years from now.

Resources:

http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/articles_2002/rk_secret_war.html
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/Test-CIA/LIBYA
http://empirestrikesblack.com/2011/02/libya-the-rest-of-the-story/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23472
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/24-02-2011/117000-libya_surface-0/#
http://davidrothscum.blogspot.com/2011/02/world-cheers-as-cia-plunges-libya-into.htm

Read Full Post »


Since Obama will stay in a hotel that is on sea front, elaborate coastal security arrangements have been made by the US Navy in consonance with the Indian Navy and the Coast Guard. “There will be US naval ships, along with Indian vessels , patrolling the sea till about 330-km from the shore. This is to negate the possibility of a missile being fired from a distance,” the officer said.

The President will be accompanied by his chefs, not because he would not like to savour Indian cuisine, but to ensure his food is not spiked.

US President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama are scheduled to land in Mumbai on November 6.….The NCPA, where the President is expected to meet representatives from the business community, has also been entirely booked.

The officer said, “Obama’s contingent is huge. There are two jumbo jets coming along with Air Force One, which will be flanked by security jets. There will be 30 to 40 secret service agents, who will arrive before him. The President’s convoy has 45 cars, including the Lincoln Continental in which the President travels.”

Maybe his mission in Mumbai is to help send more US jobs over there?

This makes Michelle’s trip to Spain look like a weekend stay at a Holiday Inn.

Do you know what it costs to mobilize the Navy?

this excursions will cost near 1 billion bucks like true said navy involved and added security

at least mc hammer spent his own money lord Obama is spending hours and for what.

people still out of work people losing their homes and what does he do all expenses trip to india.

Read Full Post »

He was greeted by applause when he walked into the United Nations General Assembly, and applauded again, even after questioning 9/11 and claiming that the American government may have been behind the attack.

That’s right, applauded after questioning the motivation for the terrorist attacks, who was  responsible for them, and essentially suggesting they were a U.S. plot.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made a variety of claims over the years during his appearances here, but he never has gone this far when talking about 9/11.

During his General Assembly address, the Iranian President called for a “U.N. fact-finding group” to investigate 9/11.

He also said that ”the majority of the American people as well as most nations and politicians around the world” believe that “some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining of the American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order to save the Zionist regime.”

Before his speech, the Obama administration must have had high hopes that Ahmadinejad would have listened to the offers of diplomacy as presented by the administration and its allies on the Security Council. Members of the U.S. delegation remained in their seats. In years past, only what is called a “low-level note taker” has often been posted behind the little plastic “United States” sign, when Ahmadinejad took the stage.

On Tuesday, when Ahmadinejad spoke during the global summit on poverty, the American delegation remained even as he predicted the defeat of capitalism.

But true to form, he quickly went over the line with his 9/11 remarks and that prompted the U.S. diplomats, and others, to get up and walk out.

“ It’s outrageous,”  said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley. “a short distance from here, nine years ago, three-thousand people were killed in an attack perpetrated by nineteen people, and an attack that was orchestrated by Al Qaeda. We know exactly who did it, they’ve admitted it, the facts are not in dispute, so for the President of Iran to come here and make the suggestion that somehow this was an American plot, is simply outrageous.”

But as Ahmadinejad walked from the podium, he did so rewarded by applause in the august chamber of the world body.

**********************************

Read Full Post »

Something Indians should wake up to this and rise against a government that swindles people’s hard-earned money. This shameful event should not take away the importance of the other atrocities & acts of corruptions happening in India. I just want to give below the letter sent to the Prime Minister of India by the Professionals Party of India. I want to see what kind of action will be taken against the Sports Minister and the others involved.

Dear Prime Minister,

As per news reports, the extraordinary bungling and corruption in your government�s organizing of the Commonwealth Games has brought us nothing but shame and humiliation, after having squandered away our nation�s hard earned Rs 70,000 crores. 

What is more, there is serious concern about the widespread impression your government may have given, that your government�s ineptness represents the capabilities and competence of the people of India to manage a large project. 

Nothing could be further from the truth, and believe me, we will do everything in our power to correct this impression, because this false impression about our great nation will hurt us and our next generation too.

Let it be clearly understood that the systematic mismanagement of the prestigious games represents the dismal capability of the politicians in your government who you put in charge, and it does not at all reflect the capabilities of the people of India. 

India comprises people of very high caliber and competence.  India comprises of world renowned engineers, administrators and planners.  A large section of highly qualified Indians undertake projects of mammoth magnitudes in India and all over the world and are widely applauded for their successful completion, often ahead of schedule and within budgets.  Indians are at the forefront of global capabilities in every sphere of industry and project management.

It is clearly a severely flawed electoral system that allows characterless criminals, crooks and incompetents to get elected and then form a government of them to systematically splurge and squander national wealth without any accountability.

So what is the solution now?  The solution lies with you as the head of the government. 

You are widely considered a man of integrity.  To live up to that image, you must now publicly resolve and take severe action against all acts of corruption and bring back to the national exchequer every rupee of the Rs 70,000 crores that has been stolen away through corruption or mismanagement.  Thereafter, apply all the pressure your office can bring to bear on electoral reforms so that (i) criminals cannot contest elections, (ii) any kind of bribing of voters instantly disqualifies the candidate concerned, and (iii) the option of �None of the above� as per Rule 49(O) is prominently provided on the ballot during the next elections.

In conclusion may we reiterate, the scale of reported looting in organizing the Games virtually amounts to treason against the state.  This is something you may like to address to clear your government�s name in the long term.

Best wishes,

Professionals Party of India

http://www.ppi.net.in

Pune

September 27, 2010

…………………………………

The Professionals Party of India (PPI) is a rapidly growing innovative movement of the Indian middle class and professionals like you to bring honest and progressive governance in our country.

Read Full Post »

Indian Idol

Last couple of months the news headlines has been showing the naxal attacks in the eastern parts of India. This news feature has been regular but without much notice taken by most Indians. The Naxals have been attacking government administrators, Policemen, CRPF jawans and civilians. This morning when I saw the news of Maoists’ blasting the train tracks and causing the derailment of the train which resulted in loss of innocent lives and hundreds of injured passengers. I was shaken to see the site on the news channel; the naxals have gone one step further in butchering the lives of innocent civilians. Although the railway Minister & the West Bengal Police chief had different versions of stories to tell about the cause of blast. However, the state Chief Minister has displayed relatively a calm gesture and assured the citizens of some firm action. We have been seeing & hearing the firmness of action against the naxals, even from the Home Minister & Prime Minister of India in last few months, but less to the delight of the civilian life and more friendly towards the agenda of Naxals.

Today the nation is busy watching “Indian Idol, Bidaai, Dance India Dance, Boggie Woggie and other soap operas on television and the breaking news just passes off their channel browsing. I don’t even hear people speak about such incidents now days, offfcourse they do speak about “Three Idiots and how Rakesh Roshan should have directed Kites to make it a hit”. When I discuss these issues with some people in our community and the ineffectiveness of government to curb the naxalite menace, they call me cynical or say “Hey buddy don’t bother about it the army will deal with it”.

I sit in my garden having tea late in the afternoon because we have power failure for almost 10-12 hours a day. Perhaps I shouldn’t call it power failure; in India they call it as “Load Shedding”. Whatever, load shedding or power cut or electricity failure, my dad who suffers from cancer has a tough time this summer because our inverter back up batteries won’t run the one fan & one tube light more than few hours? I don’t know what must be happening to older people, new born, children studying and extremely sick people who don’t have inverter battery back up to support the power failures. Guess what? Our town is just 15kms away from the financial capital of India (Mumbai), if this is this case here then I don’t know about the rest of the villages in India. People are mum about this issue and they have even stopped complaining about the power failure issue. They have probably started to live with it, possibly that’s how we were living few hundred years ago, where was electricity. Indeed India was not even that hot and humid those days. The cities of India have been rated as one of the most polluted cities in the world; I am still not talking about the crowd. There is not even single Indian city which is not the world’s most polluted list. The civic authorities in such cities regularly call for strike for less salary and better working conditions. The workers are always ending on a winning note against the government and get their demands fulfilled. Maybe some people don’t know but even the sweeper in Mumbai Municipal Corporation gets higher pay than the Computer Engineer working for a private company, plus the sweeper works less or hardly works get full perks, benefits and retirement pensions.

That’s why now days I tell the youngsters that after the completion of education they should only opt for government jobs as that would ensure their security and get after retirement tensions eased.

I visited the Department of Agriculture to renew my family business chemical license. I did see many desks & chairs in the office of DOA but very people at their desks. With great difficulty one staff there agreed to speak to me and give me some information about the clerk I had to meet to renew the license. I thought probably I am an Alien, that’s why the staff is speaking to me that way. I had to wait for hour and half before the desired clerk approached his desk. He was already showing signs of frustration on his face, as if he was suffering from constipation. He called the office boy (Peon) in a sentence which started with a bad word and ended with much more worse bad word. I guess he wanted to order tea. I went towards the desk of that clerk and asked him if his name was Mr. Y, he didn’t reply, and then I decided that I must sit in the chair opposite to his desk. I sat down, the clerk raised his head towards me a gave me a dirty look and then he started to run through his papers on his desk. He was talking to himself, “When this work load will get over” I wish if he ever started that work on his desk, so I don’t think that was ever supposed to get over. Then he asked me why am I here, I responded that I wanted to renew the chemical business license. He took the file from my hand without asking me. It was ok with me, that atleast he took that file. He turned some pages in that file and was nodding his head. He said that it can’t be don’t, the file is incomplete. Isn’t it funny that a running business file is incomplete for license renewal, which has already been earlier renewed thrice? I said “What can be done sir”, in mean time the office boy returned with the tea for that clerk. The clerk looked at the office boy and was discussing about my file. The office boy asked me to come with him; I did walk with the office boy some distance in the corridors of that building. He said if I paid about Rs. 15000 then all the paper work would be done today and the license will get renewed. But in replied “That’s not fair I am already having the license and its just renewal”. He replied “Ok forget it you will never have your license renewed”. I apologized to him and agreed to pay him. Finally we bargained for Rs. 4000 and I got my license renewed the same day. This is not surprising as this is the scenario at all government offices in India. No work can be done without overwhelming and bribing your way through these bureaucrats. However, the scene was not that bad few decades ago but now it’s just a working mechanism which the citizens of India have got used too. I wonder if this is what exactly our freedom fighters had dreamed of India becoming a red tape nation after independence.

Well after so many years away from India and now I am back, all I do is trying to fit myself in the system. For the first few days when I returned here, I was complaining about the traffic, bad roads, no street lights, no proper water supply, no law and order, pollution, etc etc….now I stopped complaining, just trying to push my way as if I am getting into a Mumbai local train.

What I had seen India as a teenager was much better than how its now. Today its criminalization of India. Although many Indians living here would disagree with me as they have been totally absorbed into the corrupt system and the influence of politics. In July 2008 The Washington Post reported that nearly a fourth of the 540 Indian Parliament members faced criminal charges, “including human trafficking, immigration rackets, embezzlement, rape and even murder”. At state level, things are often worse. In Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections 2002, candidates with criminal records won the majority of seats. Gone are those days when people would patriotically support the political parties which had national agendas, this was when the parties were less as compared to today. I observed the local civic polls here in our district that there are many parties or perhaps many larger parties have broken down into smaller ones. The party workers who participate during the election campaigns are not really interested in the agenda of the political party, although there are few hardcore criminal elements within the party supporting the cause. Otherwise the party has to pay the supporters/workers on daily basis in order to do the campaigning. There was a period few decades ago when gangsters were to be feared but now the time has evolved gangsters have interlinked with politics. In the modern day India the citizens are scared of politicians, because this breed is more dreadful then the gangsters of past. Animosity with the politician could end up a person and also his entire family.

I am not sure if the current India can be termed as Democracy but I will rather call it “Idiocracy”. That’s what has become of people within India today, intelligent people are full of doubts and idiots are damn sure about themselves. What the nation needs today a total revolution, something which will only replace the present government mechanism with much more liberal and leaders who are educated and not criminals. The leaders who will lead the nation just like the big conglomerate company is lead by a CEO or COO. Everyone in serving in the government administration has to be qualified i.e. Graduate, IPS, IIT,IAS etc so why not the politicians. They are currently the only lot who are tarnishing and destroying the society of India. A surge in such attitude of politics will only cause total mess in future for a great nation like India. What we need today is not some singing or dancing Indian Idol but a real Indian Idol who will lead the nation into an era which the world will only follow as example.

Read Full Post »

We are all pretty much educated and rational, so I don’t want to add any words of fanaticism on this topic. Somehow the long history of bitter Polish-Russian relations and history of betrayal & murder. Makes me really question the current scenario in Poland. Since WW2 till 1989 the entire Polish population has been fed with pro-Soviet government supported lies, why I shouldn’t wonder that this incident of Smolensk air crash is a similar lie. This is the beginning of Communist strategy of deception & disinformation. I was sure by the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 that soon Poland will be under threat. However, the signing of the missile defense shield treaty between Poland & USA had put a pause on Russian intentions. George W Bush was a hard nut to crack for the Russian, but the coming of Obama saw the Polish-American missile defense shield breaking off. This gave a push to the Russians to continue their act against Poland. With Obama getting elected and Poland loosing its American support, President Lech Kaczynski had a surge in opposition from within and soon he was not the favorite. Now an equally strong and pro-Russian party wants to defy the odds of Kaczynski’s, conspiracy theory is not the order of the day. But the entire Polish top brass gone, the country is open to the new leadership. Although Lech Kaczynski was good for Poland in terms of economic reforms and maintained adequate GDP growth. The indecisiveness and lack of getting the nation together was the only demerit for him. There was no clear distinctive ideology for the new breed of Polish citizens. The former Presidents since 1989 were not very strong on international diplomacy and many wrong decisions taken, like taking part in Iraq war, going against the top order of EU and much more.

 

What the government failed was to build the confidence of Polish people, making them independent, creating for them good employment opportunities, infrastructure and attracting international investments. The government didn’t optimize the resources and thus creating red-tapism, corruption.

If Poland has to continue and grow as a powerful country, they need to come out of the Soviet shadow, throw the Russian ghost out of the closet and concentrate on internal reformation rather than international politics. Secure itself as strong business nation, use its resources, trade & commerce are the only means by which the nation can withstand the current economic turmoil. Poland needs to create a platform for international investments and parallel enhance its tourism trade, still untapped by the rest of the world. The method of business is the best way that a country can become a sustainable economy. By which employment opportunities increase proper health care & infrastructure. Any international disputes only retard the countries growth and keep the nations busy in it. Business mind politics today is the best method for a country to convert foes into friends. Make the invested countries depended upon Poland, so that they don’t look at Poland with imperialistic goals or political issues.  The best example can me taken from the GCC countries in Middle East, despite being Islamic countries they have been able to keep Iran, Russia, China, Korea, USA, UK , India, Pakistan & others deeply interested in business in GCC. The result GCC countries have made their own population 100 times richer then what they were before 30 years. These countries are not embroiled in political disputes, as their agenda is only business & diplomacy. Country like UAE which doesn’t have much oil strives purely on trade, commerce & tourism. UAE in desert has the best infrastructure in the world, which has become a large tourist attraction.

 

I feel Poland has to change their perspective on reforms, politics and have a broader view on economic growth. Poland has the ability to become strong economic nation in Europe, and then they could head for the world scene. But the government has to first change their thinking cap so that the rest of the population starts following the same path. It’s not the difficult path but the most secured way a nation can transform in this century. We don’t live in 17th or 18th century, today no nation wants to entire war because the repercussions are felt by both the oppressor and victim nation.

I am not sure on the agenda of the new elected government will be in Poland , but I hope they get this message and create an economically friendly Poland for all Americans, British, French, Russian, Chinese, Indians, etc…

People from the developing nations and rest of the world should say “ I want to go to Poland to earn money and make a good future”, that’s what the most of the people did in last thirty years “Lets go to Gulf countries to make future”….Poland can do it if they change their agenda. I know I started this article on a political note and ending it on business conclusion, but now days Poland is become a 2nd most hot topic around the world and everyone is creating a hype about Poland’s political instability and thus misleading the Polish people and making them more emotional and hostile towards its neighbors’. Now it’s not a time to resent and sleep in the past memories, but if Poland needs to teach a lesson to its rivals they need to do it in such a way that the response has to be economical might.

Read Full Post »

The Smolensk plane crash tragedy in which the top brass of Poland’s politics died has raised serious theories, about who is to be blamed for it.

Media, conspiracy theorists and bloggers are first to jump the story telling band wagon. What requires here is not just an ability to quickly relay a story, just to create hype or to sell publication. Someone should have in-depth political, historical knowledge and physical presence in Poland. So let’s forget about someone just writing an article from one corner of the world, or by researching the internet & news.

There are many theories arising from speculations in & around the Poland’s political scene and Poland-Russia relationship of last several decades. However, a person without in-depth knowledge and studies of both is just trying to cover the article for attention or TRP. Before we go to the detailed report on research, speculations and assumptions about this tragedy, let’s look at what led this tragic event in a nutshell.

THEORY 01 – Russian behind the crash, as the whole polish delegation in the plane is enemy number one for the Russian, who are trying to blame today’s Russia for Katyn massacre and push for a compensation & apology.

THEORY 02 – United States to be blamed, as they are from time to time creating a regional conflicts for Russia with her neighbors’, to weaken her & to stop Russian might in EU.

THEORY 03 – Russia and the USA to blame, as their signature few days ago was a part of a bigger agreement to include cancelling the missile defense system and get rid of anyone who is pushing for it and putting the superpowers at a collision course, also to mention the polish president wanted a compensation from the USA, if they had to withdraw from the missile plans, and leave Poland only with troubles with the Russians.

THEORY 04 – The unlikely truth – NO ONE TO BLAME!!!

___________XXXX_________

Many consider that the air crash was merely due to human error as the pilot declined the instructions given by the ATC, that not to land due to bad weather conditions. Some even went on to say that it was a serious mistake by the Polish President to order the pilot to land the aircraft; a similar forced landing was done few months back in Mongolia by the same President. Alarmingly some eye witnesses say that there was no fog at all and the weather conditions weren’t bad. Contradictions like these raise more doubts about this tragedy.

But why didn’t Poland buy a brand new aircraft from Germany or France, I am sure the Polish government can afford it and not risk lives of their President with a 20-year-old problematic flight. Didn’t the engineers pass this aircraft and approve for flying, yes., so why does media go on to term this as a “dodgy aircraft”, did they get proof from the black box? Or has it been declared at the crash site that this was a dodgy aircraft??

If we consider what happened was just due to malfunction and human error, then the whole argument ends and it just concludes as an accident. Perhaps, with the Russians the Polish have always had their one eye full of doubt. Russia has been systematically killing its own people who revolt against the government, even opposing politicians, businessmen, journalists, writers & reformists are killed till date in Russia…in an accident. Case close….you see it’s very easy with the Russian government to do that. So why can’t the same strategy be not been used to arrange the Smolensk air crash. Stalin’s government was able to hide the Katyn massacre for many decades and blame it on Germans; if the site was not located then no one would have come to know about the Katyn massacre. Today Russia doesn’t have any opposition and also there is no international investigation on the incident. More over Mr. Putin himself is heading the investigation, why aren’t the Poles invited in joint investigation, if this was just an accident. This just shows that it’s not only an accident but there is a larger conspiracy or truth involved.

The Polish President and the entire top officials dead in the crash were anti-Russian; wiping them off in one incident just makes the way for Russia clearer once again in Poland. The resources and strategic placement of Poland in central Europe makes it very important in terms of Political & geographical. Having a pro-Russian government in Poland makes Russia stronger in Europe, although Russia doesn’t require adding something to their military might but having a nation like Poland under their belt adds to the decisions making strength in Europe. Last few months President Lech Kaczynski has been even opposing the EU dictatorship for the benefit of entire Europe, I guess he was already on a suicidal path. This is not the first time that Poland’s patriots have been killed in an accident whenever they tried to react against the Russians, every time earlier a top anti-Russian official dying in an accident has led to several understandings thereof.

When Georgia invaded Russia on 8/8/2008 many of the weapons used to kill Russians had been delivered by Poland. After the Georgian surprise invasion and attack against Russia the Russian president Medvedev said that the Russian authorities “know” who dispatched arms and why to Tbilisi in advance of the conflict and who has been sending arms there since in order to rebuilt Georgia’s military establishment.” We will not forget [such actions] and will naturally consider [them] in the course of our practical policy,” the Russian president said, underscoring that he “would like that everyone keep this in mind.” The Russian government has accused Warsaw of “illegal arms” sales to Georgia. Ever since Lech Kaczynski has been on Russian radar, this doesn’t rule out a probable long-term plan in process that one day will act against Kaczynski and one can’t rule out a possible support from the Polish officials also who opposed Kaczynski’s policies. Now since the top brass all dead, it doesn’t matter if it’s a conspiracy or accident, it clearly benefits Russia.

Russia is going slowly and swiftly first with Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine and now Poland. It’s very evident that Putin is trying to get back the fallen pieces of the old Soviet Union together. Although Poland has become of the best growing economies in last five years, what it lacks is the best political leadership which makes proper decisions and acts on its own without getting influenced by West or East. A stupid leadership is likely to thrust bad luck upon a nation and Polish people have to realize this, wake up and not let their nation fall again for the fourth time in history.

Read Full Post »

Vatican’s denial of Nazi Holocaust

Some might call this as a conspiracy theory and some may call this as rumors. I was always perturbed as person born in a Roman Catholic family that the Pope could be biggest coward and a supporter of evil. I do not wish condemn pope or the Vatican, but I will just take you through all my notes that I have gathered through last 20 years of investigations into the biggest denial in Catholic Church. The Vatican has also gone through an extent of totally rubbishing the Jewish holocaust, but what alarmed me most is that, the Nazi death camps were not only limited to Jews. A systematic approach by the Nazis towards the strategies of death camps and who should be killed and who should be sent for experiments. (These were in literal sense human rats or guinea pigs ). If the WW2 had its perpetuator Adolf Hitler, then its stupidity to rule out in involvement of the Pope. Perhaps some of you must be thinking “This guy is crazy”, but I don’t write these things just from some books or internet research. I have first hand information from several people working at the Vatican (Whose names cannot be mentioned here due to security reasons) and also the survivors of WW2.

 

The pope is the central figure of the Roman Catholic religion. He is termed as vicar of Christ, I wonder even Jesus Christ must be thinking “Did I make vicar, or ?, errr that’s not for me to think what Jesus is thinking. Apparently all this fairy tale stories of the Catholics and catechism classes is just a diversion and misleading as the Pope. Alright, lets start with a little background of the this pope during the WW2.

 

Eugenio Pacelli born in 1876, Rome. He was ordained in 1899, became cardinal in 1929 and appointed as secretary of State in 1930. He lived in Germany from 1917 and was appointed papal nuncio in Bavaria, was there until 1929. He became Pope in 1939 and took the name Pius XII. Those days the pope was the most influential & powerful person in the world. He held three positions, Head of the Roman Catholic Church, Chief of State for Vatican and Bishop of Rome. He was one person who could influence his views over 400 million Catholics around the world. Yet his silence during the world war causes a stir even today for the Vatican spokespersons and officials. I understand Catholics revere their Pope almost to a degree as Jesus Christ and look at him as a Holy person, but not necessary all Christians in the world have the same view of him. Although the immense power and anarchy of the popes has diminished in last couple of centuries, but it has not stopped the huge amounts of funds the Vatican gathers for the guilt of most Sunday Mass Catholics.

 

The Pope was extremely worried and scared about the intensions of Hitler’s Nazis, because much of his life he lived in Germany and he exactly knew the ideology of Adolf. He believed that Socialism is profoundly anti-Christian. Catholics need not worry because the pope had a follow up plan for Hitlers intention. Any blow on the Vatican or its command would once and for all destroy the power and centre of Roman Catholicism. The revival of Roman Catholicism, would be impossible if the Nazis had to attack the Vatican. There are thousands of documents, scriptures, things which are highly scandalous in nature. For sure the Nazis would discover the facts of the Vatican, inform the rest of the world the horrors of Vatican and that would mark the end of the popes power over Catholics and would be a permanent end of the Catholic Church. Subsequently, the pope had to act steadfastly on a strategy which would save his throne and maintain the guilt’s of the Catholics for few more centuries. One of my Swiss guard friend had told me once “If the world discovers the Vatican’s library the entire Catholic faith would become topsy-turvy and the Catholics themselves would burn the Vatican including all the bishops, priest and nuns”, this showed me the intensity of the lies locked behind the doors of Vatican. However, I will write more about Vatican lies in my next article, let’s stick to the pope and the WW2.

As a Cardinal Pacelli sometimes condemned Hitler’s Nazi action, but no sooner it appeared that Hitler’s popularity rose in Germany. Maybe Hitler could also target the Catholic Church in the process of cleansing the world. In a shrewd attempt Cardinal Pacelli signed an agreement with German diplomat Franz Von Papen that granted freedom to Roman Catholics. In return Cardinal Pacelli agreed to separate Church from politics. Dissolved any and all Catholic political parties & labor unions in Germany. Hitler saw this as his first diplomatic victory that reduced western involvement in Germany through Catholic church. During the early 1939s the Jewish population became precarious, Pius XII did intervene the month he was elected Pope, March 1939, and obtained 3,000 visas to enter Brazil for European Jews who had been baptized and converted to Catholicism. Two-thirds of these were later revoked, however, because of “improper conduct,” probably meaning that the Jews started practicing Judaism once in Brazil. At that time, the Pope did nothing to save practicing Jews

Thereafter, a series of cries of help from the Jews, were hitting the deaf ears of the Pope. In 1940, Chief Rabbi of Palestine Isaac Herzog asked the Vatican to stop the deportation the Jews to Nazi camps in Germany & Poland from Spain & Lithuania, the Pope didn’t act on this request.

In 1941, the Cardinal of Vienna Theodar Innitzer informed Pope Pius XII that the Jews from Slovakia would be sent to death camps, once again no action.

In late August 1942, after more than 200,000 Ukrainian Jews had been killed, Ukrainian Metropolitan Andrej Septyckyj wrote a long letter to the Pope, referring to the German government as a regime of terror and corruption, more diabolical than that of the Bolsheviks. The Pope replied by quoting verses from Psalms and advising Septyckyj to “bear adversity with serene patience.”

On September 18, 1942, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Pope Paul VI, wrote, “The massacres of the Jews reach frightening proportions and forms.” Yet, that same month when Myron Taylor, U.S. representative to the Vatican, warned the Pope that his silence was endangering his moral prestige, the Secretary of State responded on the Pope’s behalf that it was impossible to verify rumors about crimes committed against the Jews and there were no death camps or extermination of Jews by Germans…(Ha Ha Ha Ha……….)

Wladislaw Raczkiewicz, president of the Polish government-in-exile, appealed to the Pope in January 1943 to publicly denounce Nazi violence. Bishop Preysing of Berlin did the same, at least twice. Pius XII refused & denied such actions of atrocities by Nazis, was this Pope a Nazi henchman ?

The Pope throughout the WW2, claimed a “neutral” stance, he was given a blind eye towards the Jewish mistreatments and giving a deaf ear to any requests of intervention on behalf of Jews. The constant denial of death camps and staying mum towards Nazi, one can only understand that the Pope was either trying to protect his chair and support Hitler. Other then the British & German intelligence the Vatican was the only European state that was highly informed about Holocaust. On September 8, 1943, the Nazis invaded Italy and, suddenly, the Vatican was the local authority. But, hold on, why didn’t Hitler’s army invade a defenseless Vatican? This is the most controversial question in the history of WW2. Perhaps, experts come up with speculations, but with no substantial proofs.

Historians point out that any support the Pope did give the Jews came after 1942, once U.S. officials told him that the allies wanted total victory, and it became likely that they would get it. Furthering the notion that any intervention by Pius XII was based on practical advantage rather than moral inclination is the fact that in late 1942, Pius XII began to advise the German and Hungarian bishops that it would be to their ultimate political advantage to go on record as speaking out against the massacre of the Jews.

In fact, Catholic Poles were the most outspoken critics of his silence. Pius did not speak out effectively after Germany overran Poland and the restrained remarks that did come from the Vatican about the oppression of the Catholic Poles ceased after Germany protested.

 

In a letter dated November 20, 1946, showing that Pope Pius XII ordered Jewish babies baptized by Catholics during the Holocaust not to be returned to their parents.

The Popes reactions, actions, inability to act and fluctuations still stand mysterious. Although, he did assist the Jews sometimes, but it was only when the Russian had turned the war table against the Germans. This clearly shows that the Pope lost his defenders ( Nazi Germans ) and now, the Russians could uproot and wipe out Vatican from the face of the earth. It was necessary in such times that the new western power United States of America was coming to join the war scene. If the pope failed to help few thousands ( Less then 5000 ) Jews on different occasions, then that might get him the favor from the Americans. The Jews in America were strongly lobbying for the US forces to get involved in the war. The helping hand of Pope extended to help Jews only in 1942s.

 

What a wonderful player he was, the master politician of all. Yet the Catholics were deceived to believe that “This is the Vicar of Christ”.

Read Full Post »

In the 10 April 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, all 96 persons aboard (88 passengers and 8 crew members) died. Some early reports were wrong about the number or composition

 

Presidential and governmental figures

  1. Lech Kaczyński, President of Poland
  2. Maria Kaczyńska, First Lady of Poland
  3. Mariusz Handzlik, Undersecretary of State in the Office of the President of the Republic of Poland
  4. Ryszard Kaczorowski, the former President of the Polish government-in-exile
  5. Andrzej Kremer, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs
  6. Tomasz Merta, Deputy Minister of Culture
  7. Sławomir Skrzypek, President of the National Bank of Poland
  8. Władysław Stasiak, Chief of the Office of the President of the Republic of Poland
  9. Aleksander Szczygło, Head of the National Security Bureau
  10. Paweł Wypych, Secretary of State in the Office of the President of the Republic of Poland

Military figures

  1. Lieutenant General Andrzej Błasik, Commander of the Polish Air Force
  2. Major General Tadeusz Buk, Commander of the Polish Land Forces
  3. General Franciszek Gągor, Chief of the General Staff of the Polish Armed Forces
  4. Brigadier General Kazimierz Gilarski, Commander of the Warsaw Garrison
  5. Vice Admiral Andrzej Karweta, Commander of the Polish Navy
  6. Stanisław Komorowski, Deputy Minister of National Defence
  7. Lieutenant General Bronisław Kwiatkowski, Commander of the Polish Armed Forces Operational Command
  8. Major General Włodzimierz Potasiński, Commander of the Polish Special Forces

Six of the seven highest military commanders (the Commander-in-Chief, i.e. President, the Chief of the General Staff and all four Branch Commanders) of the Polish Armed Forces were killed. The Minister of Defence, Bogdan Klich, was not on the plane.

 Senate members

  1. Krystyna Bochenek, Deputy Speaker of the Senate
  2. Janina Fetlińska
  3. Stanisław Zając

Sejm members

  1. Leszek Deptuła
  2. Grzegorz Dolniak
  3. Grażyna Gęsicka
  4. Przemysław Gosiewski
  5. Izabela Jaruga-Nowacka
  6. Sebastian Karpiniuk
  7. Aleksandra Natalli-Świat
  8. Krzysztof Putra, Deputy Speaker of the Sejm
  9. Arkadiusz Rybicki
  10. Jerzy Szmajdziński, Deputy Speaker of the Sejm
  11. Jolanta Szymanek-Deresz
  12. Zbigniew Wassermann
  13. Wiesław Woda
  14. Edward Wojtas

Religious figures

  1. Archbishop Miron Chodakowski, Orthodox Ordinary of the Polish Army
  2. Tadeusz Płoski, bishop of the Military Ordinariate of the Polish Army
  3. Ryszard Rumianek, Rector of the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński  University

Crew members

  1. Arkadiusz Protasiuk
  2. Robert Grzywna
  3. Andrzej Michalak
  4. Artur Ziętek
  5. Barbara Maciejczyk
  6. Natalia Januszko
  7. Justyna Moniuszko

Others

  1. Joanna Agacka-Indecka, President of the Polish Bar Council
  2. Janusz Kochanowski, Polish Ombudsman for Citizen Rights
  3. Janusz Kurtyka, historian and President of the Institute of National Remembrance
  4. Piotr Nurowski, President of the Polish Olympic Committee
  5. Maciej Płażyński, President of the Polish Community Association, former Speaker of the Sejm, Sejm member
  6. Andrzej Przewoźnik, Secretary-General of the Council for the Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom Sites
  7. Wojciech Seweryn, Polish-American artist 
  8. Anna Walentynowicz, one of the major activists of the free trade union Solidarity in the late 1970s and early 1980s
  9. Janusz Zakrzeński, actor

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 79 other followers