Les Grecs de la Mer Noire

Erich Körner-Lakatos :

Les Grecs de la Mer Noire

Quand les Pontiki, les Grecs de la Mer Noire, rêvaient d’un Etat à eux

Vers les heures du midi, le 29 mai 1453 la Rome orientale, soit l’Empire byzantin, bascule définitivement dans le passé. La nuit précédente, l’Empereur Constantin XI Paléologue et ses sujets, Grecs et Latins réunis, avaient prié en commun dans Sainte-Sophie. Ensuite, chacun s’en est allé à son poste. Juste avant les premières lueurs de l’aube, les Turcs lancèrent leur attaque contre Constantinople, dernier bastion de l’ancien Empire byzantin. Cette « Polis », jadis très étendue, a été réduite à une population de 36.000 habitants. Pendant quelques petites heures, les défenseurs soutiennent l’assaut des janissaires puis, par une poterne de la muraille, ceux-ci parviennent à s’engouffrer dans la ville et à atteindre son centre. Les chrétiens succombent à la puissance musulmane. Les Ottomans sont sous le commandement de Mehmet II, qui vient de prendre le titre de « Mehmet le Grand », parce qu’il s’est rendu maître de la capitale byzantine.

La métropole est tombée mais quelques restes épars de l’ancien Empire byzantin continuent à se défendre bec et ongles contre les fidèles de Mohammed. D’une part nous avons la Morée byzantine dans le Péloponnèse qui résistera pendant six ans sous le commandement de Demetrios, un frère du dernier empereur. D’autre part, deux Etats du Pont Euxin (la Mer Noire), peuplé de Grecs dits « pontiques » (Pontiki), résistent aussi : Trébizonde et Theodoros.  A l’est du littoral méridional de la Mer Noire se trouve l’Empire de Trébizonde, qui existe depuis 1204, l’année où les chevaliers catholiques de la Quatrième Croisade ont pris Constantinople et l’ont pillée. L’Empire grec-byzantin survit alors en exil à Nicée et autour de cette vieille Cité grecque d’Asie Mineure. L’Empire de Trébizonde, lui, va tenir jusqu’en 1461. Le dernier empereur de Trébizonde, David Comnène (Komnenos) sera exécuté le 1 novembre 1463.

La principauté de Theodoros se trouvait en Crimée, dans l’arrière-pays d’un littoral alors dominé par les Génois qui tenaient le port de Caffa (Theodosia pour les Grecs, Feodossia pour les Russes aujourd’hui). Cette principauté s’était constituée au 13^ème siècle comme partie de la région byzantine de Cherson en Crimée, qui ne sera jamais une colonie génoise. Elle fut toujours étroitement liée à l’Empire de Trébizonde. Les habitants de Theodoros étaient un mélange de Grecs, de Goths de Crimée (qui parlaient toujours leur langue germanique), d’Alains et de Karaïmes (variante très particulière du judaïsme). Tous cependant se servaient du grec comme langue véhiculaire et avaient adopté la religion grecque-orthodoxe.

En mai 1475, les Ottomans prennent la ville de Caffa et chassent définitivement les Génois de la Crimée. Le tour de la principauté de Theodoros est venu : le Grand Vizir ottoman, commandant de l’armée, Ahmed Pacha, entame le siège de la capitale Mangup qui durera six mois. Les défenseurs ne capitulent qu’en décembre 1475. Ce morceau byzantin de la Crimée sera le dernier territoire indépendant qui relevait de l’Empire. Alexandre, le dernier Prince de Theodoros, appartenait à la dynastie grecque-arménienne des Gabras. Son sort sera pitoyable : il sera réduit en esclavage et mourra prisonnier à Constantinople.

Revenons au 20^ème siècle. Pendant la première guerre mondiale, les Français font distribuer en secret dans toute l’Anatolie des cartes d’une future République Pontique ou République du Pont. Les Grecs pontiques, habitants du littoral méridional de la Mer Noire se soulèvent en mai 1919. Au même moment, les puissances de l’Entente donnent le feu vert au premier ministre grec Eleftherios Venizelos pour qu’il envahisse l’Anatolie : il ne se passe pas un mois pour que les troupes grecques débarquent à Smyrne. D’autres puissances européennes débarquent également des troupes en Asie Mineure : les Italiens à Adalia (aujourd’hui Antalya) et les Français plus à l’est, en Cilicie. Tous veulent un morceau aussi gros que possible du gâteau anatolien.

Les Grecs pontiques descendent de la population de l’Empire de Trébizonde. Les insurgés de mai 1919 réclament la création d’un Etat grec pontique. Leur métropole, la ville portuaire de Trébizonde n’est pourtant pas habitée que par des Grecs pontiques ; il y a aussi des Arméniens et ceux-ci réclament la ville pour que la future Grande Arménie, dont ils rêvent, puisse disposer d’une fenêtre sur la Mer Noire. Venizelos déclare devant le Parlement d’Athènes qu’il ne voit aucun inconvénient à ce que la future Arménie prenne Trébizonde. Ilkomonos, Président de la Ligue nationale du Pont, déçu, critiquera sévèrement la Grèce pour cet abandon. L’Etat des Grecs du Pont ne sera qu’un rêve et une ébauche : il n’existera jamais, d’abord parce que Trébizonde et toute la région du Pont ont été attribués à la République d’Arménie lors du Traité de Sèvres en 1920. Ce sera un autre plan non réalisé : à la fin de l’année 1920, les troupes nationalistes turques battent et repoussent les Arméniens. Le rêve des Grecs du littoral méridional de la Mer Noire s’évanouit définitivement. Pire : le Traité de Lausanne de 1923, dont les clauses sont plus favorables aux Turcs que celles du Traité de Sèvres, prévoit un échange de population entre la Grèce et la Turquie. Après avoir vécu pendant plus de 3000 ans dans la région, les Grecs orthodoxes du Pont sont contraints de quitter leur pays. 300.000 d’entre eux sont évacués de force vers la Grèce, où la population autochtone ne les accueille pas de manière amicale parce qu’ils parlent un dialecte jugé bizarre et qu’on les prend pour des « demi-Turcs ».

Aujourd’hui encore, existent de par le monde des associations de Grecs pontiques qui se donnent pour but de cultiver leur héritage culturel.

Erich Körner-Lakatos.

(article paru dans « zur Zeit », Vienne, n°10/2015, http://www.zurzeit.at ).

La « Megali Idea »

« Megali idea », la « Grande Idée », pour les Grecs, est l’union de toutes les régions peuplées de Grecs ethniques, la création d’une très grande Grèce. Cette idée s’est développée à la fin du 19^ème siècle et au début du 20^ème : à cette époque, le Royaume de Grèce, qui, au départ, en 1832, ne comprenait qu’une infime partie des terres habitées par des Hellènes, s’était agrandi. En 1864, les Iles ioniennes autour de Corfou se joignent au royaume. En 1881, c’est au tour de la Thessalie. En 1913, les Grecs héritent de la Crète et de la Macédoine. Lors des traités de la région parisienne de 1919, le premier ministre grec Venizelos réclame l’annexion de toute la Thrace, y compris Constantinople, qui ne serait plus la capitale ottomane d’Istanbul. Constantinople serait reconquise, rêve de tous les patriotes grecs. Venizelos demande aussi le retour à la mère –patrie de toutes les îles de l’Egée, la région de Smyrne sur la côte occidentale de l’Anatolie jusqu’à l’actuelle Antalya, une bande territoriale de 400 km de long et de 50 km de profondeur sur la côte méridionale de la Mer Noire (le territoire peuplé de Grecs pontiques) et, enfin, Chypre.

Le Traité de Sèvres ne satisfait pas les Grecs. Ils reçoivent certes toute la Thrace, sauf Istanbul. Egalement les îles de l’Egée, à l’exception de l’archipel du Dodécanèse, autour de Rhodes, donné à l’Italie, et la région de Smyrne. Le littoral méridional de la Mer Noire reste turc. Les Anglais ne cèdent évidemment pas Chypre, car l’île est un élément stratégiquement trop important sur la route des Indes. Après l’échec de leur campagne d’Anatolie et le Traité de Paix de Lausanne, les Grecs perdent la Thrace orientale et la région de Smyrne. La « Megali idea » appartenait au passé.

EKL.

Démocratie bourgeoise contre démocratie populaire : un enjeu au cœur de la Constitution de 1958

Démocratie bourgeoise contre démocratie populaire : un enjeu au cœur de la Constitution de 1958

Auteur : Michel J. Cuny

Ex: http://zejournal.mobi

Je poursuis ici nos investigations dans les documents de mise en oeuvre de la Constitution de la Cinquième République telle qu’elle a été portée sur les fonts baptismaux par Charles de Gaulle en 1958.
(Cf.http://reseauinternational.net/quand-le-vote-populaire-bloque-a-lextreme-gauche-en-1958-revient-par-lextreme-droite-un-demi-siecle-plus-tard/ )

Nous avions laissé Edmond Barrachin au moment où il s’inquiétait d’obtenir du général de Gaulle et de son gouvernement que soit mise en place, par le biais d’une loi organique dûment prévue dans la nouvelle Constitution, une barrière à l’expression des voix communistes. Cela se passait à l’occasion de la séance du 31 juillet 1958 du Comité consultatif constitutionnel, et concernait la rédaction de l’article 23 dont la première phrase était ainsi libellée :

« Une loi organique fixe la durée des pouvoirs de chaque Assemblée, le nombre de ses membres, leur mode d’élection et le calcul de leur indemnité. » (Volume II, page 576)

Nous apprenons que, dans sa réunion spécialisée du 1er août 1958, le groupe de travail a reçu communication d’une suggestion d’amendement tendant à retoucher, non plus l’article 23 qui traite de cette loi organique, mais l’article 2 qui définit la « souveraineté nationale », en lui adjoignant un article 2bis dont voici la première phrase :

« La liberté de pensée, d’expression ou d’association, considérée comme une conquête essentielle et inaliénable, est garantie à tous. » (Vol. II, page 118)

Jusqu’à cet endroit, il n’y a rien à redire. Au contraire, il vaut la peine de noter l’extrême importance des éléments qui sont ici rassemblés : liberté de pensée, d’expression ou d’association. En tant que tel, un peuple peut-il renoncer à quoi que ce soit sur ce terrain-là ? Non, certainement. Ou bien alors, c’est qu’il est question de se référer à un système étatique dans lequel le peuple est subordonné à une autorité sur laquelle il est censé n’avoir pas la moindre prise. Mieux : entravé dans sa liberté de penser, de s’exprimer et de s’associer, il se trouverait sous un diktat permanent en ce qui concerne ses allées et venues, ses paroles et son for intérieur.

À le tenir ainsi, on le soumet à une dictature qui risque de ne plus avoir de fin et qui pourra tout se permettre, puisque, au moindre dérapage de quelque individu que ce soit et dans quelque direction que ce soit, il y aura une infraction à sanctionner, jusques et y compris dans le cerveau de quiconque.

Voici, alors, ce contre quoi met en garde la suite de l’amendement proposé :

« Cependant, cette liberté ne saurait être invoquée pour couvrir les idéologies ou entreprises qui tendent à l’abolir. »

Ici, la contradiction est criante. Il s’agit d’abolir la liberté dans les cas où elle-même risquerait d’être abolie… Mais qui décide d’abolir quoi ? De fait, l’amendement organise l’une des abolitions au détriment de l’autre : à quel titre ? C’est ce que la suite nous apprendra :

« Les partis politiques et tout groupement dont le programme intéresse le corps social sont libres. Mais leurs structures et leur vie intérieure doivent être limitées et ils ne doivent avoir aucune obédience envers les États étrangers. » (Vol. II, page 118)

La liberté est donc « limitée ». Rappelons qu’il s’agit de la liberté de se réunir, de s’exprimer et même de penser… Voilà ce qu’il faut « limiter ».

Mais, « structures » et « vie intérieure » des partis en question… Y aura-t-il la moindre « limite » à l’ensemble de ces « limites »-là ?

Non, dès qu’il y a soupçon d’ »obédience envers les États étrangers« . Lesquels ? Les États-Unis ? L’U.R.S.S. ? La Chine ?

Pour l’instant, nous n’en savons rien… La suite et fin de l’amendement nous en disent-ils davantage ?

« Une loi organique fixe les obligations de civisme auxquelles doivent satisfaire les groupements pour qu’ils puissent devenir une menace pour la souveraineté publique, la liberté d’opinion et l’indépendance nationale. La participation des individus ou des groupements à l’exercice de l’autorité est réglementée par la loi. » (Vol II, page 118)

Ne sera donc « citoyen » que l’individu répondant à certaines « obligations de civisme« . Et lui seul ou les groupements soumis aux mêmes « obligations de civisme » pourront interférer dans « l’exercice de l’autorité« .

Maintenant que nous tenons la bride qu’il s’agit d’ajouter à l’article 2, revenons vers celui-ci… Dans son état initial, cet article décisif est remarquable pour ses trois premiers alinéas :

« La souveraineté nationale appartient au peuple.

Aucune section du peuple ni aucun individu ne peut s’en attribuer l’exercice.

Le peuple l’exerce par ses représentants et par le référendum. » (Vol. II, page 564) On le voit : le peuple est ici indivisible. Sans doute est-ce trop démocratique…

Voici maintenant la version définitive de l’amendement tendant à anéantir cette indivisibilité par un article 2bis ainsi libellé :

« La liberté d’opinion et d’expression est garantie à tous. Toutefois les associations et groupements politiques doivent s’inspirer de principes démocratiques et n’accepter aucune obédience étrangère. » (Vol II, page 118)

Ils étaient trois à faire ce sale boulot, et nous reconnaissons l’un d’eux : MM. Bruyneel et Barrachin (Indépendants et paysans d’action sociale) et M. Chardonnet (professeur à l’Institut d’Études politiques de Paris), membre désigné par le chef du gouvernement, Charles de Gaulle…

- Source : Michel J. Cuny

Michael Torigian’s Every Factory a Fortress

Michael Torigian’s Every Factory a Fortress

By Eugène Montsalvat

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com

Michael Torigian
Every Factory a Fortress: The French Labor Movement in the Age of Ford and Hitler
Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1999

Michael Torigian’s Every Factory a Fortress: The French Labor Movement in the Age of Ford and Hitler chronicles the rise and decline of the French Labor movement from the years surrounding the First World War to the outbreak of the Second, culminating in a storm of labor agitation from 1934-1940.

It tells the story of how the working class responded to the social changes introduced by the Fordist-Taylorist model of production that became prevalent during World War I. The rise of the labor movement in these decades lead to the establishment of the Parti Communiste Français (PCF) as a major political force. They faced a great deal of challenges that manifested as strife on the factory floor, within the unions, against the various other factions in French politics, and internationally.

Torigian focuses particularly on the most powerful and radical element of the labor movement, the metal workers, termed métallos in French. These workers were involved in the various trades of steel making, shipbuilding, re-forging, mechanical manufacturing, electrical manufacturing, airplane, automobile, and defense manufacturing, and other miscellaneous metal fabrication. They would play a pivotal role in the wave of strikes and factory occupations that occurred in the years immediately preceding the Second World War.

In addition to the labor struggle, the threat of a Fascist coup in 1934 and the impending war with Germany, made the labor movement a part of the left wing French resistance to Fascism, yet the tension between the international political concerns and economic issues facing the workers would prove to deleterious to the unions and the PCF as the nation lurched towards the Second World War.

Every Factory a Fortress begins with an overview of the transformation of the French metal industry in the years surrounding the First World War. Perhaps the most drastic of all the changes was the adoption of the Fordist-Taylorist mode of production. In the years before the First World War, the metal industry was essentially based in craft workshops, which required a certain amount of skilled labor, and some familiarity with mathematics and drafting as well as manufacturing. It was an essentially artisanal trade.

The First World War would be the beginning of the end for the small workshop. Industrial production would be concentrated in large factories, often employing thousands of workers, which would utilize mechanized, standardized mass production techniques as developed by Henry Ford and Frederick W. Taylor. These would be detrimental to the conditions of the worker. In the old workshops, the craftsman enjoyed a degree of independence and the respect of the foremen. Management rarely intervened in the day-to-day life of the worker.

The Fordist-Taylorist system would replace much of the skilled labor needed with machines, and their operators would be subjected to dehumanizing “scientific management.” Engineers and management would dictate the most effective means of production to the workers, who were reduced to performing repetitive and often dangerous industrial routines as part of an assembly line, often timed by a stopwatch. Failure to keep pace would result in the dismissal of the worker, thus making employment less secure.

This was compounded by the fact that the bosses, termed the patronat, viewed themselves as rulers of the workers, and refused to recruit higher level positions from the laborers, preferring to hire engineers and managers from outside. This lack of social mobility would compound the divide between the workers and the patronat.

The conditions of the war furthered the problems inherent in the system. The fact that many men were out at the front, and would die as a result of the war, meant that women, immigrants, and boys were brought in to fill their roles in the war years and those following. Paid less and easily replaced, this furthered the degradation of skilled labor.

The high turnover in the metal industry following the First World War would have serious social consequences as well. The lack of job security and the flux of employment that resulted from workers constantly leaving factories in search of higher wages led to a fairly nomadic existence. The rooted communities based upon the skilled workers of the workshop ceased to exist and workers crowded into hastily constructed suburbs, which lacked adequate electricity, sanitation, and other basic amenities. Tuberculosis, diphtheria, and other communicable diseases took their toll, and child mortality increased.

The decline of the traditional working communities and the rise of atomized life in the slums provided an opening for mass, consumer culture to replace the organic bonds of society. Sports, radio broadcasts, and cinema became popular diversions French culture became Americanized, Hollywoodized, as one trade unionist noted, “Today, life inside and outside the factories is similar to life in America and has no other aim than the pursuit of crass material satisfaction . . . To achieve this satisfaction people seem willing to accept any kind of servitude.” Moreover, the rise of consumerism distracted the working class from political and economic goals.

The labor movement in France was descended from the ideology of revolutionary syndicalism, which held that the workers would rise up and seize control of the workshops. In the aftermath of the First World War, it proved to be antiquated, as it focused on the concerns of skilled workers in the atmosphere of the workshops that dominated before the rise of the mass industrial system.

Represented by the Confédération Générale du Travail (CGT), they adopted an anarchist position and refused to negotiate with political parties or form their own to represent themselves, codifying their beliefs in the 1906 Charter of Amiens. Opposed to negotiation with bosses and politicians, the CGT used wildcat strikes, boycotts, and sabotage to advocate for worker control. However, membership remained low, and poor organization stifled its ability to pursue extended strikes.

Divergences between the more reformist and the revolutionary wings began to arise and were furthered by the First World War, as the working class was unequivocally patriotic in their support of the war effort. This lead the CGT to reject direct action in favor of negotiation. However, the new workers in the war industry did not take to the CGT, preferring more mass movement-oriented action over the skilled labor elite of the CGT.

In 1917 there was a round of strikes, opposed by CGT representatives, who sought to protect the interests of skilled laborers from the demands of the masses. In March 1918, another round of strikes lead by anti-reformist dissident stewards broke out. Furthermore, the Russian Revolution had piqued the interest of the more revolutionary segments of the labor movement.

In the waning months of the war, reformist elements sought to codify some of the state-directed socialist aspects of the war economy to mitigate the threat of revolution, proposing nationalization, collective management, and state resolution of contract disputes. However, the end of the war restored the full free market, and the unions lost whatever leverage they enjoyed during the war.

This strengthened the hand of revolutionary syndicalists and the new Soviet-oriented groups. In June 1919, anarchist stewards lead nearly 180,000 workers in a month long strike, where a Soviet was proclaimed in Saint-Denis. The refusal of the CGT leadership to endorse the strikes only exacerbated tensions between the revolutionaries and the reformists. This led to creation of the PCF from a split in the Socialist Party in 1920, and workers began to rally to this new “worker’s party.”

The reformist leadership began to purge the revolutionaries aligned with the PCF, who formed the Confédération Générale du Travail Unitaire (CGTU) in 1922. The CGTU experienced infighting between syndicalists, anarchists, and communists, but by 1923 had enough control to bring the CGTU into the Soviet backed Red International of Labor Unions and organize the union according to Bolshevism. The Unitaires, as CGTU members were called, in the metal industry were used as the political laboratory of the CGTU, where “every change of line, every new directive, every political imperative cooked up by the French and international communist movement would thus find its way into the union’s daily operations.”

One particular organizational change used by the CGTU was to shift the base of operations from the section locale, which represented union by neighborhood, to the section syndicale, which represented workers directly on the factory floor, thus implanting the CGTU into the daily workings of the factory. Unfortunately, the factory sections were hampered by management intimidation and logistics. Both the CGTU and the “confederal” CGT failed to achieve much progress throughout the twenties in terms of concrete gains for their members.

It was the onset of the Great Depression that would strengthen the hand of labor in France. The contraction in the labor movement would end the high turnover in the factories. Immigration, migration from the countryside, and female labor participation decreased, and skilled workers and family men were given priority. This essentially stabilized the environment on the factory floor, which would allow the labor movement to take root. Moreover, the conditions inside the factory worsened in terms of stagnating wages, production speedups, and longer hours. The stabilization of the workforce, combined with more unpleasant conditions lead to a greater need for labor activism.

The CGT tried to organize within the communist dominated suburbs, but were hampered by the union locale mode of organization where unions were represented by locals outside the factory, which led to a lack of contact between the worker and union. The unitaires were better prepared to unionize the métallos, using the section syndicale to reach workers directly on the factory floor. The PCF also utilized factory cells to recruit.

In 1930, direct orders from the Soviet Union forced the CGTU and PCF to reduce their revolutionary rhetoric and focus more on the day-to-day struggles of the workers, which helped end the marginalization they suffered in the preceding years. In 1932 the CGTU started making more concrete demands than full scale revolution like the 40 hour week, guaranteed minimum wages, collective bargaining, and health and safety guarantees. However, the revolutionary core was still present in the party, though reigned in. These radical activists would prove useful in leading future agitation. An increase in strike activity by the CGTU from 1931 to 1933 would result from the turn towards the concerns of the common worker. The CGTU took on the prominent French auto manufacturer, Renault, in November 1931 after a large wage cut was announced. The strike broke out on a shop by shop level, leading to a two month struggle with management. While the strike failed, it raised the credibility of the CGTU in the eyes of the workers. In 1933, the CGTU fomented a massive strike at the plant of Citroen after wage cut announcements were made. After a work stoppage by 300 craftsmen, CGTU agitation eventually caused Citroen to lockout 18,000 workers. Strike committees were formed as intermediaries between union leadership and the workers. Citroen eventually reopened its factories and the promised a mitigation of the wage cut, and the workers returned in blocs, who would engage in slowdowns to force the factory to keep their promises and rehire strikers. While the strike did not bring Citroen to heel completely, it solidified the role of the CGTU as the leader of labor activism in the metal industry.

The events of February 1934 France would have a major impact on the labor movement. The Stavisky Affair, which revealed that several members of the cabinet were connected to the Jewish swindler Serge Stavisky, inflamed the passions of the far right, and led to a series of demonstrations in January 1934 by organizations like Action Française and Croix de Feu of a generally an anti-democratic character.

On February 3rd, Premier Daladier dismissed the right-wing prefect of the police, leading to massive demonstrations on the 6th. 100,000 rightists marched on the Chamber of Deputies, and police opened fire, killing 18 and leaving 18,000 wounded. Fearing impending civil war, the government resigned.

The initial response of the communists was indifferent. PCF leader Maurice Thorez stated that there was “ no difference between bourgeois democracy and fascism. They are two forms of capitalism . . . Between cholera and the plague one does not choose.” On the 7th of February, the PCF rejected a socialist overture to form a united front against what was widely perceived as a Fascist coup attempt.

Interestingly enough, it was PCF member and future Fascist Jacques Doriot that broke ranks with the party leadership to propose an alliance with the Section Française de l’Internationale Ouvrière (SFIO) against the anti-republican forces. In response, Thorez announced a demonstration on February 9th against fascism and Daladier’s cabinet. The demonstration was banned, but it went ahead anyhow, resulting in street fighting that left six dead. In response a general strike was called on February 12th, mobilizing four million workers across the country.

In this action, the strikers saw themselves not as agents of revolutionary class struggle, but as defenders of French democratic institutions derived from the French Revolution. This in turn would lead to the formation of alliances between the PCF and the less revolutionary factions of the French left. The PCF joined the SFIO to formulate a “united action pact.” With German rearmament posing a threat to Soviet Union, the PCF was forced to abandon its criticism of French democracy and seek alliances with potential allies against a future German assault within the political sphere. Steps were taken to reunify the CGT and the CGTU, but they had yet to produce any results. The new-found moderation of the PCF and CGTU and their symbolic defense of the republic proved to be quite successful in convincing workers to join, swelling the ranks in the metal union enough for them to put out a weekly paper, Le Métallo.

The Franco-Soviet Pact of Mutual Assistance in May 1935 forced further rapprochement between the PCF and the French state, which opened the way for an alliance with the Radicals, the bourgeois liberal party. The PCF increasingly appealed to French patriotism against the threat of Germany, wrapping themselves “so tightly in the French flag that the hammer and sickle would barely be visible.” The May 1935 election would also see the formation of a People’s Front observing “republican discipline,” where voters would vote for the strongest Left-wing party on the second ballot. This lead to massive gains for the PCF, moving the number of cities and towns under PCF control from 150 to 297.

In June 1935, the Comité de Rassemblement Populaire was formed to bring together the PCF, SFIO, CGT, CGTU, and Radicals to organize a pro-republican Bastille Day rally. However, it decided to maintain itself afterwards and align with the People’s Front in support of republican defense. However, the various factions were in dispute on a number of issues, and it would take until January 1936 for them to codify a program, based around international defense against fascism, suppression of the right-wing leagues, and some fairly vague promises of restoring the worker’s purchasing power harmed by the depression through a fairly Keynesian program. A GCT-CGTU merger would follow in March of 1936.

The political gains and consolidation of the left would help support and organize labor activism in the future. In 1935, the first major successes of the CGTU soon followed, the Gnome-et-Rhône aircraft works granted labor demands after the threat of a strike, and similar victories in the Panhard-Levassor auto plant, the Chausson auto works, Hispano-Souza, and the aircraft plants of Bloch, CAMS, and Loiré-Olivier soon followed.

The 1936 parliamentary elections would intensify the momentum of the French labor movement, the Communists growing from 10 to 72 seats. However, parties of the extreme right had also made significant gains. The atmosphere of polarization grew as the moderate bourgeois liberal parties were reduced in strength. 120,000 workers rose in a May Day strike. The Bréguet aviation plant fired two militants in reprisal for their role in the May Day strike, which triggered an occupation. When police arrived to evict them, they barricaded themselves into the workshop bearing the company’s prototypes. The management recalled the police and opened negotiations when they refused to leave. The striker’s demands were satisfied. Another strike broke out, possibly encouraged by the PCF’s Toulouse branch, in the Latécoère aviation plant and it was settled in the workers favor in a manner similar to the Bréguet strike. The wave of factory occupations struck the capital region, notably at the Bloch plant, where a strike aided by PCF deputies and the Communist mayor of Courbevoie succeeded in granting a new contract with a large raise to the workers.

However, the leadership of the PCF, was not entirely pleased by these actions, as they had joined the People’s Front to maintain the force of the French government against the rising power of German Fascism. PCF organ L’Humanité urged the workers to “refrain from wild revolutionary gestures.” However, the new People’s Front government had buoyed the worker’s hope for economic reform, and they would go ahead with or without Communist support.

A demonstration in memory of the Paris Commune of 1871 on May 24th drew 600,000 workers, furthering the fervor of the movement, as syndicalist Pierre Monatte remarked, “When you feel strong in the streets, you can no longer feel like a slave in the factory.” The Tuesday following the commemoration of the Commune, 4,000 workers occupied six metal plants. This strike would spread, on Thursday 33,000 Renault workers would join. Attempts to resolve the strikes on June 1st failed when the employers refused to sign a contract. On June 2nd, 60 factories were occupied, and the strike had spread to other regions of France. The union leaders who had advocated caution in order to maintain their political position were ignored as the movement gained a life of its own.

On June 7th, an agreement, dubbed the Matignon Accords, was reached, which promised recognition of the union, a 7 to 15 percent raise, and a system of shop stewards. Other demands would be resolved later. However, the employers immediately had reservations, and the most of the striking workers saw no reason to leave, believing the accords were too loose. By the 9th of June, four million workers remained on strike.

Fear of a revolution reached fever pitch as labor delegates rejected the employers’ concessions, demanding four non-negotiable things: a serious wage increase, paid vacation, payment for the days on strike, and satisfaction of the striking technicians’ demands. The government, fearing civil war, hurriedly passed a forty-hour week, paid vacation, and collective bargaining. Thorez, fearing that that the strike would break the People’s Front, called on workers to bring the strikes to an end, and on the 12th of June, the union signed a contract with the employer’s collective, the UIMM, which granted paid vacation, raises, and shop stewards, and the union was recognized as the sole bargaining agent of the workers. Further bargains between individual factories were struck on the 13th and 14th, and work resumed on the 15th. The workers viewed this as a great triumph, and the strikers evacuated the plants to great fanfare.

The employers responded to the new system with a series of indirect attacks on the Matignon Accords, firing stewards, reclassifying categories of workers, and delaying the implementation of the contract. The employers’ actions intensified the workers’ defiance, augmented by the fact that many of the new union recruits were inexperienced in dealing with the formalities of negotiation and came to unionism in the surge of labor radicalism. The union leadership was presented with problems from the confrontational attitude of the new stewards, who sought to flex their new found power at the least provocation from management. The PCF worried that further conflicts with the patronat would damage the political strength of the People’s Front. CGT leader Jouhaux urged employees to ignore “employer provocations” and wait for the government to arbitrate disputes.

The advent of the Spanish Civil War would further the rifts developing in the People’s Front further. The Blum government bowed to public pressure and refused to aid the loyalists in the conflict. For the PCF and the CGT this was akin to the endorsement of fascism. A one-hour general strike in protest of France’s non-intervention was called for on the 7th of September. While supported by the Communists, it had the effect of inflaming the tensions between them and the syndicalists and socialists opposed to further warfare in Europe, and the SFIO announced its opposition to the strike on the grounds that it would threaten the People’s Front government.

To counter the Communist influence in the factories, the SFIO formed the Amicales Socialistes d’Enterprise, a rival union. Some former confederals in the CGT also took an anti-communist, pacifist line spread through their organ Syndicats. About a third of the CGT, sympathetic to revolutionary syndicalism supported the Syndicats group. At the first meeting of the Metal Federation’s congress after CGT-CGTU reunification, attempts were made to preserve the spirit of unity, and two of six executive positions were reserved for confederals. However, following the passage of a compulsory government arbitration bill for strikes, which the CGT accepted, and Blum’s increasingly conservative policies in the midst of financial crisis, workers became increasingly disgruntled with the union’s willingness to support the government, and anarchist and Trotskyites formed the Cercle Syndicaliste “Lutte de Classes” in opposition to CGT.

Worker support for the People’s Front government was further eroded in 1937 following the rise of the fascist Parti Sociale Français (PSF). Following the fatal shootings of six workers by policemen in an anti-fascist demonstration at Clichy on March 16th, which lead to a call for a half-day strike in protest of the killings, Blum threatened to resign if the strike went ahead, and then failing to do so, ordered the police to crackdown on the workers who allegedly instigated the violence at Clichy.

Worker anger at the PCF’s collaboration with Blum was unabashed; one Communist stated, “They massacre the workers, they let revolutionary Spain perish, and it’s L’Humanité and the party that makes us swallow it all.” Violent protests erupted in factories throughout the Paris metal industry. In response, employers increased their repression of the unions, locking out workers and firing militants, even refusing to abide by settled contracts in some cases.

The resignation of Blum, who was replaced by Chautemps, only diminished the workers’ faith in the People’s Front and increased the anger they felt towards the union leadership for collaborating with it. The Amicales, Cercle Syndicaliste, and Syndicats, as well as Catholic and Fascist unions attracted workers. Following the failure of the unions and the employers to agree on a new contract after the expiration on the 31st of December 1937, and the failure of the government to arbitrate new terms, the stage was set for another major wave of conflict between labor and management.

1938 saw the reinstatement of Blum as premier following Chautemps’ resignation. This in turn gave the union leadership impetus to demand an anti-fascist foreign policy in addition to their contractual demands. Blum would increase defense spending to counter Germany’s rearmament, but he demanded the unions make a concession concerning the forty-hour work week. The union was willing to abide by this, provided they received a new contract, but the proposed deal fell through. This failure strengthened the hand of the anti-CGT, anti-PCF groups like the Amicales, Cercle Syndicaliste, and Syndicats, who claimed that the union was overtaken by “war psychosis” to the extent that it ignored the economic objectives close to the workers. The metal unions attempted to convince the Blum government that the employers were sabotaging war production through their treatment of the workers. In twenty metal plants workers struck in 20- to 90-minute waves for a new contract and the opening of the Spanish border. However, this in turn lead to large scale strikes, shutting down Citroen’s seven Paris plants, which did not mention foreign policy concerns at all. The union leadership was unprepared for an intensification of the strike activity, but they had no choice but to allow them to continue if they want to maintain the respect of the laborers. However, when the sections syndicales initiated more strike activity, under orders from the central leadership, the leadership then refused to take responsibility or seize the initiative to guide them, torn between the demands of the workers and the political imperatives of maintaining the government against German rearmament. The indecision of the union leadership, combined with their failure to adequately provide strike pay, soup kitchens, or elect strike committees, left the strikers feeling abandoned, which in turn provided an opportunity for Trotskyites to demonstrate leadership of the strike and agitate for further work stoppages. The PCF response was violent and decisive, and PCF thugs beat any Trotskyite agitators approaching the factories. To compound issues, Catholic and Fascist unions were also attempting to turn the workers against the union leaders, and this resulted in several violent confrontations. In the face of mounting divides in the strikers, the employers saw no reason to soften their stance towards them and adamantly refused to entertain their demands. An offer by union leaders to end the strike following government arbitration and a token wage increase was rebuffed by the employers. This failure only spurred further strikes, by April 8th it consisted of 68,000 workers occupying 40 factories. Blum once again resigned in the face of mounting pressure after failing to obtain special powers to end the strikes.

The Daladier succeeded in gaining the special powers denied to Blum and he ordered troops to occupy Paris. A deal called the Jacomet Sentence was struck for workers in the nationalized aviation sector, providing a 45-hour week and a 7 percent wage increase. This was extended to private sector plants on April 13th, and ratified on the 14th. The entire Paris metal industry returned to work on the 19th.

However, workers began to notice how much the agreement curtailed their rights, effectively destroying many of the gains won with the Matignon Accords. Section meetings, posting of union information, and the collection of dues were restricted or prohibited. Furthermore, employers used punitive firings against labor militants, in express violation of the contract they agreed to. Membership in the metal unions declined by nearly a third. In response to criticism among the ranks, CGT leadership labeled unruly members Trotskyites, fascists, or provocateurs.

Further pressure on the unions arose when the Daladier government appointed center-right politician Paul Reynaud as Finance Minister. His decrees proved particularly intolerable, raising taxes, imposing new pro-employer mechanisms to resolve industrial strife, reestablishing the six-day work week, and giving employers the right to fire or blacklist employees for refusing overtime. These decrees would give the CGT a reason to strike against the Daladier government, with the intent of forcing its resignation. A series of strikes on November 21st to the 24th broke out and raised further pressure of a general strike, forcing police to use violence to remove the occupying strikers. They police succeeded in evicting the strikers from all the plants but Renault, whose management further inflamed tensions by announcing an increase in hours. Union leaders attempting to defuse the situation were ignored and workers prepared a last stand, barricading the doors, and gathering pieces of metal to use as projectiles in the face of a coming police onslaught. 6,000 police faced down 10,000-15,000 workers. The ensuing “Battle of Renault” saw the police deploy tear gas to clear the factory and resulted in serious injury to 46 police, 22 workers, hundreds of lesser injuries, and 500 arrests. Renault locked out 28,000 workers the next day and declared their contract null and void. Between the 25th and 30th, union leadership wavered, giving the government time to prepare further measures against future unrest. A general strike planned for the 30th of November was impeded by the government’s deployment of troops and its requisitioning of workers necessary to the basic functioning of national infrastructure. It is estimated around 75% of the Paris region metal industry participated in the strike, but the end result was total defeat. Entire factories were locked out or had their workforce dismissed, union stewards were fired, 500 strikers were sentenced to prison. Rehired workers had to deal with significantly less protections than the ones they had earned two years earlier, and the non-socialist factions of the state shunning cooperation with the unions and communists.

Following the March 1939 annexation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia by the Germans, repressive conditions in the factories only intensified as a result of hurried military production. However, labor leaders following the Comintern anti-German line, were loath to interrupt the militarization of France against Germany. Then the Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Pact between the Soviet Union and Germany threw the leadership into chaos. Daladier accused the PCF of being unfaithful to France and CGT leader Johaux condemned the pact, but resisted calls to remove communists from the CGT. The PCF was thrown into even worse disarray than the CGT, as a third of its elected officials resigned in protest, and the government seized their publications. The German invasion of Poland, forced PCF leader Thorez to accept the war effort, but a direct Soviet order demanded that the PCF denounce the war and sabotage the French war effort. The CGT responded by purging the Communists from its ranks. The PCF was proscribed and forced to go underground. The Communist- dominated metal union was disbanded on the 26th of September. The government’s polices towards labor once again became more repressive, banning collective bargaining, strikes, and freezing wages. Those who objected were interned.

However, government concerns about the threat of labor unrest let to an agreement between labor and management to collaborate in the war effort, called the Majestic Agreement. Yet this collaboration failed to deliver any concrete benefits to the workers. Finally, German victory over France in May 1940 would put the factories at the disposal of the victors, thus ending the period of labor strife that had lasted for six years.

Lessons for White Nationalists

The rise and fall of the French labor movement provides many lessons for any budding political movement. Those on the right should not be afraid of learning from the successes and failures of a supposedly left-wing movement. Indeed, many of the concerns articulated by the labor movement were inherently conservative, if not reactionary, as Torigian notes in his Epilogue.

The rise of the unions had its origin in the reaction to the social dislocations caused by mass production and industrialization. Economic events tore asunder the traditional communities centered around the craft workshop; the spirit of camaraderie that craft workers enjoyed was replaced by mechanized drudgery. The strikes provided the first opportunity in years for workers — who stood shoulder-to-shoulder, bound to machines — to form bonds with one another. During the six years of labor unrest, the unions set up schools, concerts, and vacation homes for their members, giving them some semblance of a community they had lost in the preceding years. The goal of restoring the historical ties of a community severed by modernity shows the deep conservatism beneath the outward trappings of leftist unionism.

Another conservative facet of labor’s rise was the fact that it was jolted from its previous malaise by an appeal to patriotism. It was the call to defend the Republic, and the heritage of the French Revolution, that started the six years of struggle in 1934. As Alain Soral states in “Class Struggle Within Socialism: 1830-1914 ^[2],” “It is historically demonstrated that the people are always patriotic,” noting that even the Communards of 1871 were reacting against the defeat of Sedan and the Prussian occupation agreed to by the bourgeois government. It was the leadership’s willingness to follow the foreign dictates of Comintern, at the expense of economic and social concerns dear to the average worker, that destroyed the benefits they had achieved through the Matignon accords.

The failure of the People’s Front should also be a lesson to any radical political movement about the dangers of mainstreaming. The willingness to sacrifice the gains the union had achieved for the survival of a political party proved disastrous. The equivocation and willingness to compromise demonstrated by the CGT and PCF in the years following Matignon weakened the resolve in the ranks, diminished membership in the movement, and opened the door for more radical elements to outflank them. The concerns of the people within the movement should take priority over any desire for political expediency. The idea that some politician will be the savior of any particular extreme struggle, left or right, has been disproved time and time again. Those who fail to grasp that would greatly benefit from reading Every Factory A Fortress.

Furthermore, anyone wishes to see how a mass movement can become strong enough to challenge the entrenched interests of the political and economic elite should read Every Factory a Fortress. As the struggles of labor continue in the face of globalization, multiculturalism, unchecked immigration, and other consequences of untrammeled neo-liberalism, the need for a movement to raise its banner against this brazen exploitation grows daily. Only by assimilating the lessons of the period from 1934 to 1940 will it emerge victorious.

Related

---

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/03/michael-torigian-every-factory-a-fortress/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: https://secure.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/EveryFactoryaFortress.jpg

[2] Class Struggle Within Socialism: 1830-1914: http://openrevolt.info/2012/03/23/alain-soral-class-stuggle-within-socialism-1830-1914/

Bismarck’s system of continental alliances

Bismarck’s system of continental alliances

By Srdja TRIFKOVIC (USA)
Ex: http://orientalreview.org

In an interview for the German news magazine Zuerst! (April 2015) Srdja Trifkovic considers the significance of Otto von Bismarck’s legacy, 200 years after his birth.

Dr. Trifkovic, how would Bismarck react if he could see today’s map of Europe?

Trifkovic: He would be initially shocked that the German eastern border now runs along the Oder and Neisse rivers. Otto von Bismarck was a true Prussian. In his view, cities such as Königsberg, Danzig or Breslau were more properly “German” than those in the Rhineland. His first impression therefore would be that Germany has “shifted” to the West, and that an important social and cultural aspect of his Germany has been lost. Once he’d overcome this initial shock, he would look at the map of Europe again in more detail. The considerable distance between Germany and Russia would probably amaze him. What in Bismarck’s time was the border between Germany and Russia is now a “Greater Poland” which did not exist at his time. And former provinces of the Russian Empire are now independent states: the three Baltic republics, Belarus and Ukraine. Bismarck would probably see this as an unwelcome “buffer zone” between Germany and Russia. He had always placed a great emphasis on a strong German-Russian alliance and would no doubt wonder how all this could happen. He would probably consider how to bring back to life such a continental partnership today. That would be a diplomatic challenge worthy of him: how to forge an alliance between Berlin and Moscow without the agitated smaller states in-between throwing their spanners into the works.

What would he advise Angela Merkel?

Trifkovic: He would probably tell her that even if you cannot have a close alliance with Russia, at least you should seek a better balance, i.e. more equidistant relations with Washington on the one hand and Moscow on the other. The concept of the Three Emperors’ League of 1881 is hardly possible today, but there are other options.

Security and the war in Ukraine would focus Bismarck’s attention…

Trifkovic: Merkel has adopted a very biased position on Ukraine, which Bismarck would have never done. He was always trying to cover his country from all flanks. In Ukraine we can clearly observe a crisis scenario made in Washington. Bismarck’s policy in the case of modern Ukraine would be for Berlin to act as a trusted and neutral arbiter of European politics, and not just as a trans-Atlantic outpost.

You said earlier that Germany since the time of Bismarck has shifted to the west. Do you mean this not only geographically?

Trifkovic: Even as a young man, as the Prussian envoy to the Bundestag in Frankfurt, Bismarck detested the predominantly western German liberals. At the same time, he later endeavored to ensure that Catholic Austria would be kept away from the nascent German Empire. Even at an early age we could discern Bismarck’s idea of Germany: a continental central power without strong Catholic elements and liberal ideas. He also knew that such a central European power must always be wary of the possibility of encirclement. Bismarck knew that he had to prevent France and Russia becoming partners.

At all times the rapport with Russia appeared more important than that with France…

Trifkovic: Here is an oddity in Bismarck’s policy. After the 1870-71 war against France, the newly created German Empire annexed Alsace and Lorraine and thus ensured that there would be permanent tensions with a revanchist France. In real-political terms it should have been clear that any benefits of Alsace-Lorraine’s annexation would be outweighed by the disadvantages. French irredentism made her permanently inimical to Germany. No political overture to Paris was possible. The entire policy of the Third French Republic (1870-1940) was subsequently characterized by deep anti-German resentment.

As an American with Serb roots, you know East and West alike. Are there some differences in their approach to Otto von Bismarck?

Trifkovic: Apart from a few individuals in the scientific community, I am sorry to say that Otto von Bismarck is not adequately evaluated either in the West or in the East. On both sides, you will often encounter a flawed caricature of Bismarck as a bloodthirsty warmonger and nationalist who was ruthlessly pursuing Germany’s unification and whose path was paved with corpses. Nothing is further from the truth. The three wars that preceded unification were limited armed conflicts with clear and limited aims. Bismarck ended two of those wars without unnecessarily humiliating the defeated foe; France was an exception. The war against Austria in 1866 in particular showed that Bismarck’s only concern was to secure Prussia’s supremacy in German affairs. Only a few years later he concluded an alliance with Austria-Hungary. Let me repeat: Bismarck was not a brutal warmonger; he was a brilliant political realist who quickly grasped his advantages and his opponents’ weaknesses. Therein lies an irony that today’s moralists find difficult to explain: Bismarck was a cold calculator and his decisions were rarely subjected to ethical criteria – but the result of his Realpolitik was a relatively stable German state which under Bismarck’s chancellorship managed Europe’s adjustment to its rise without armed conflicts. Between 1871 and 1890, the German Empire was on the whole a stabilizing factor in Europe. During the Berlin Congress to end the Balkan crisis in 1878, Bismarck effectively presented himself as an honest broker, respected by all of Europe. However, with Bismarck’s departure in 1890, this period of the relaxation of European tensions and Germany’s stabilizing influence was over.

What changed after 1890 for Europe?

Trifkovic: After Bismarck there was no longer a steadfastly reliable Chancellor and the German policy lost its sureness of touch. Suddenly the neurotic spirit of the young Emperor, Wilhelm II, started prevailing, a feverish “we have-to-do-something” atmosphere. The massive naval program was initiated, while the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia was not renewed – and it was the cornerstone of Bismarck’s scenario to prevent a war in Europe. Initially the Czarist Empire urged the renewal of the bilateral agreement with Berlin. The Kaiser took the view that the Reich could be better protected by its own military buildup than through alliances. And suddenly, Bismarck’s nightmare came true. Since Russia abruptly found herself with no international allies, and the German-Russian relations cooled more and more, it approached France and arranged the military convention of 1892. In 1894 a firm alliance was signed. It was not ideological. The liberal, Masonic, secular and republican France was allied with the Orthodox Christian, deeply conservative, autocratic Russian Empire. And Germany was in the middle. Bismarck always dreaded this sort of two-front alliance, which laid the foundations of the blocs of belligerent powers in World War I. You can see some current parallels in the policy shift of 1890.

In what way?

Trifkovic: The often neurotic policy of Berlin after Bismarck’s dismissal reminds one of the aggressive style of the likes of Victoria Nuland and John McCain today. Looking at Germany from 1890 to 1914, one sees striking parallels with today’s U.S. neoconservatives. The obsession with Russia as the enemy is one similarity. After Bismarck’s dismissal, Russia was depicted in the media of the German Empire in darkest colors, as backward, aggressive and dangerous. If we take today’s Western mainstream media – including those in Germany – this image has just been reinforced: the dangerous, backward, and aggressive Putin Empire.

Bismarck was not a German Neocon?

Trifkovic: (laughs) No, he was the exact opposite! He was not a dreamer, nor an ideologue. He did not want to go out into the world to bring Germanic blessings to others, if necessary by the force of arms. Bismarck was always a down-to-earth Prussian landowner. While Britain as a naval power opened up trading posts and founded colonies all over the world, and British garrisons were stationed all over in India or Africa, Bismarck’s Germany was created as a classic land-based continental power. I would even suggest that Bismarck himself had an aversion to the sea. Very reluctantly he was persuaded in the 1880’s to agree to the acquisition of the first protectorates for the German Reich. On the whole, Germany’s colonial program was economically questionable. What Germany was left with in the 1880’s was what the other major colonial powers had left behind, especially the United Kingdom. Bismarck knew that, and he saw that all the important straits and strategic points, such as the Cape of Good Hope, were under British control. In Germany the colonial question was mostly about “prestige” and “credibility” – and Bismarck the master politician had no time at all for such reasoning.

Bismarck also had a clear position on the Balkans. In 1876, he said in a speech that the German Empire in the Balkans had no interest “which would be worth the healthy bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier.” This seems to have changed, however: Today German soldiers are in Kosovo, the Federal Republic of Germany was the first country to recognize the independence of Slovenia and Croatia from Yugoslavia in 1991…

Trifkovic: Otto von Bismarck was always weary of tying Germany’s fate to that of Austria-Hungary. His decision to steer clear of the conflicts in the Balkans was sound. After Bismarck’s dismissal Germany saw the rise of anti-Russian and anti-Serbian propagandistic discourse which emulated that in Vienna. Incidentally, there is another quote by Bismarck which was truly prophetic. “Europe today is a powder keg and the leaders are like men smoking in an arsenal,” he warned. “A single spark will set off an explosion that will consume us all. I cannot tell you when that explosion will occur, but I can tell you where. Some damned foolish thing in the Balkans will set it off.” In relation to Serbia there are parallels to the current situation in Europe. In 1903 a dynastic change in Belgrade ended Austria-Hungary’s previous decisive influence in the small neighboring country. The house of Karadjordjevic oriented Serbia to the great Slav brother, to Russia. Vienna tried to stop that by subjecting Serbia to economic and political pressure. But out of this so-called “tariff war” Serbia actually emerged strengthened. We recognize the parallels to Russia today: one can compare the Vienna tariff war against Belgrade with the sanctions against Russia. Sanctions force a country to diversify its economy, thus making it more resistant. In Serbia it worked well a hundred years ago, in Russia it may work now. When Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1908, there was a serious emergency and only Germany taking sides with Vienna ended the Bosnian crisis. In the end Germany picked up the tab: After the outbreak of World War I Austrian-Hungarian troops failed to defeat Serbia. They needed military assistance from Germany. Prussian Field Marshal August von Mackensen finally defeated Serbia, and proved to be a truly chivalrous opponent: “In the Serbs I have encountered the bravest soldiers of the Balkans,” he wrote in his diary. Later, in 1916, Mackensen erected a monument to the fallen Serbs in Belgrade with the inscription “Here lie the Serbian heroes.”

When we in Germany think of Bismarck today, we come back time and over again to the relationship with Russia … [Trifkovic: Indeed!] … Is it possible to summarize the relations as follows: If Germany and Russia get along, it is a blessing for Europe; if we go to war, the whole continent lies in ruins?

Trifkovic:  The only ones who are chronically terrified of a German-Russian understanding are invariably the maritime powers. In the 19th century the British tried to prevent the rise of an emerging superpower on the continent, such as a German-Russian alliance. Looking at the British Empire and its naval bases, one is struck by how the Eurasian heartland was effectively surrounded. Halford Mackinder formulated it memorably: “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world.” Dutch-American geo-strategist Nicholas J. Spykman developed Mackinder’s theory further. It is the “Rimland” – which surrounds the heartland – that is the key to controlling the land mass. Spykman is considered as a forerunner of the U.S. containment policy after the war.

Spykman was focused especially on the communist Soviet Union, not so much on Germany…

Trifkovic: He was concerned with controlling the “Heartland” quite independently of the dominant land power’s ideology. Spykman wrote in early 1943 that the Soviet Union from the Urals to the North Sea, from an American perspective, was no less unpleasant than Germany from the North Sea to the Urals. A continental power in Eurasia had to be curtailed or at least fragmented – that is exactly the continuity of the global maritime power’s strategy to this day.

On sanctions against Russia, and U.S.-EU disputes, Germany is in the middle. What would Chancellor Bismarck do today?

Trifkovic: He would swiftly end the sanctions regime against Russia because he’d see that Germany was paying a steep price for no tangible benefit. He would also seek to reduce the excessive U.S. influence on German policymaking. But Europe does not necessarily need a new Bismarck: as recently as 50 years ago we had several European politicians of stature and integrity. People like Charles de Gaulle or Konrad Adenauer had more character and substance than any of the current EU politicians. Europe in its current situation is in great need of them.

Source: Chronicles

Het einde van (de) geschiedenis

Door: Dirk Rochtus

Ex: http://www.doorbraak.be

Het einde van (de) geschiedenis

Nee, dit is niet Fukuyama revisited. Dit gaat over linkse plannen om het vak geschiedenis af te schaffen.

Leraars geschiedenis in Duitsland maken zich zorgen. De regering van de Oost-Duitse deelstaat Brandenburg wil namelijk het vak geschiedenis in zijn huidige vorm afschaffen. De vakken geschiedenis, aardrijkskunde en politieke vorming zouden moeten versmelten tot het vak 'Gesellschaftslehre' (maatschappijleer). Ook fysica, chemie en biologie zouden onder de gemeenzame noemer 'Naturwissenschaften' vallen. De regering, die bestaat uit SPD (sociaaldemocraten) en 'Die Linke' (radicaal-links), meent dat het onderwijs meer moet worden afgestemd op de leefwereld van de scholieren. In plaats van in vakjes te denken moet er een overkoepelende leerinhoud komen, in plaats van een chronologische aanpak van het geschiedenisonderwijs moet er rond thema's gewerkt worden. De leraar zou bepaalde thema's kunnen uitdiepen in functie van de situatie in de klas en de competenties van de leerlingen.

De bedoeling is om de hervorming vanaf het schooljaar 2016-'17 te laten ingaan in Brandenburg. Volgens de christendemocratische oppositie (CDU) doelt het plan van de rood-rode regering erop het tekort aan leerkrachten 'statistisch' weg te cijferen. Als een leerkracht biologie immers ook onderwijs geeft in vakken waarvoor hij of zij niet opgeleid is, lost dat probleem zich immers vanzelf op, merkt de CDU in deze deelstaat schamper op. Maar het verzet tegen de hervormingen stoelt natuurlijk op een nog veel fundamentelere bezorgdheid. Als de chronologie uit het geschiedenisonderwijs wordt gebannen, bestaat het gevaar dat de leerling geen overzicht meer heeft en geen verbanden meer zal kunnen leggen. Een puur chronologische benadering van de geschiedenis kan tot datafetisjisme, een puur thematische tot een onderwijs à la carte leiden. De ideale aanpak is een evenwichtige koppeling van chronologie en thematiek. Het is ook een goede zaak dat er dwarsverbindingen worden gelegd tussen geschiedenis, aardrijkskunde en politieke vorming, maar al die vakken in één pot gooien heft de consistentie op die elk van hen eigen is.

Plannen zoals die van de rood-rode regering in Brandenburg hoeven niet te verwonderen. Ze passen in een tijdgeest waarin het geheugen niet meer 'getergd' mag worden met feitenkennis, waarin discuteren over thema's leuk is, en meer algemeen geschiedenisonderwijs als saai en irrelevant wordt beschouwd. Maar wanneer de geschiedenis niet meer gekend is, zal het woord van Karl Marx in de praktijk nog bewaarheid worden, namelijk dat ze zich herhaalt 'das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce' (uit: Der achtzehnte Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte, 1852). Overigens, Louis Bonaparte wie?

L’AUSTRIA TRA PASSATO E PRESENTE

L’AUSTRIA TRA PASSATO E PRESENTE

Cristiano Puglisi

Ex: http://www.eurasia-rivista.org

Le relazioni austro-russe hanno costituito una costante dello scenario geopolitico dell’Europa centrale fin dal XVIII secolo. Ai tempi in cui l’Austria era parte dell’allora Sacro Romano Impero, le relazioni tra le due corone imperiali (quella degli zar e quella della casata d’Asburgo) furono centrali nel costituire una barriera cristiana all’espansione dell’Impero Ottomano verso nordest e nordovest. A testimonianza di quanto strategiche a livello territoriale fossero considerate queste relazioni da parte della corona d’Asburgo, va ricordato che le prime notizie di carattere etnografico sul popolo russo, entrarono in Europa occidentale nel XVI secolo grazie al Rerum Moscoviticarum Commentarii, opera del diplomatico imperiale Sigmund Von Heberstein, che fu due volte ambasciatore del Sacro Romano Impero in Russia(1).

Peraltro è curioso osservare come, già ai tempi di Von Heberstein, sul piano ideale e spirituale le due corone fossero unite non solo da interessi strategici, ma anche dalla stretta correlazione di stampo tradizionale tra il potere politico e il potere religioso. Il termine slavo “Tsar” derivava infatti dal latino “Caesar”(2), utilizzato quindi per indicare una monarchia di stampo imperiale nel senso medioevale del termine. Tre secoli più tardi tale unità ideale trae nuova linfa nell’ambito delle guerre napoleoniche, quando fu lo zar Alessandro I a farsi promotore di quella Santa Alleanza che includeva anche l’Austria e la Prussia e il cui compito, sconfitto Napoleone, era quello di prevenire il riemergere di focolai di carattere antimonarchico in Europa occidentale, ponendovi come argine un significativo blocco mitteleuropeo(3). A suggellare la sacralità di tale missione era venuta in soccorso, già dal biennio 1806-1807, la presa di posizione della Chiesa Ortodossa russa, da parte della quale il Bonaparte era frequentemente presentato come l’Anticristo(4). Tale affinità ideologica tra Russia ed Austria perdurò in maniera significativa fino alla conclusione dei moti del 1848.

Dalla seconda metà del XIX secolo, le pulsioni panslaviste dell’impero russo, che minavano le sostanziali fondamenta dell’impero austroungarico, accesero un periodo di ostilità intermittente tra i due Paesi che si concluse solamente al termine del secondo conflitto mondiale, quando l’Austria fu suddivisa in quattro zone d’influenza (americana, francese, inglese e sovietica), salvo recuperare pienamente la propria sovranità nel 1955. Fu allora che le relazioni tra due Paesi (l’Austria democratica e l’Unione Sovietica) ripresero quota, questa volta su un filo conduttore per certi aspetti diametralmente opposto a quello che aveva caratterizzato il sodalizio di un secolo prima, dato che all’opposizione al liberalismo si sostituì, quale collante, il socialismo. Primo cancelliere, già dal 1945, dell’Austria liberata dai nazisti fu infatti il socialista Karl Renner, il quale godeva del favore di Stalin(5) e che per questo solo dopo diversi mesi fu riconosciuto quale legittimo governante dalle altre forze alleate.

Proprio Karl Renner fu uno dei leader della corrente cosidetta “austromarxista” che, formatasi nella polveriera culturale dell’ultimo impero austroungarico, sviluppò all’interno del Partito Socialdemocratico (SPO) una propria e autonoma visione del socialismo che tentava di realizzare una sintesi tra il rispetto dell’autodeterminazione delle comunità etniche locali e il concetto di stato nazionale(6). Tale terzietà di pensiero rispetto alle posizioni politiche dominanti a livello globale (gli austromarxisti si opponevano decisamente alla critica dell’interesse nazionale quale “stratagemma borghese”(7)), all’interno del mondo politico austriaco non fu tuttavia esclusiva del fronte socialista. Basti qui citare la figura di Julius Raab, cancelliere del Partito Popolare Austriaco (OVP) dal 1953 al 1961 e precedentemente membro del Governo di Engelbert Dollfuss (1934-38). Raab nel 1955 si fece promotore della Commissione congiunta dei prezzi e dei salari, una chiara rievocazione del pensiero corporativista, che era appunto alla base dell’esecutivo Dollfuss ma anche, come è noto, della dottrina economica fascista(8). E proprio in una prospettiva di collaborazione consociativa e corporativa, a differenza di altri Paesi europei, l’Austria si caratterizzò nel dopoguerra per una coalizione tra le due principali forze politiche (socialisti e popolari) che fino agli anni ’60 produssero governi di unità nazionale che procedettero alla nazionalizzazione di comparti industriali strategici e alla costruzione di un moderno sistema di welfare.

Sia tale carattere di terzietà, che la presenza di un forte partito socialista come il SPO, ebbero un ruolo non secondario nel determinare il comportamento dell’Austria durante la Guerra Fredda. Il 26 ottobre del 1955, il giorno seguente all’abbandono del territorio austriaco da parte delle ultime truppe alleate, il parlamento approvò infatti la neutralità del Paese, che è ancor oggi parte del diritto internazionale(9). Questo fu un successo della diplomazia di Mosca, che, tramontato definitivamente nel 1950 il tentativo di inglobare il Paese nella sua orbita con l’appoggio di socialisti e comunisti, evitò in questo modo una “nuova Germania” contesa tra il blocco atlantico e quello sovietico. Che il sentimento di indipendenza rispetto ai principali attori geopolitici fosse sentito realmente dalla classe dirigente austriaca è del resto ben rappresentato dal fatto che il 26 ottobre è tutt’ora celebrato come giorno festivo.

Dalla fine degli anni ’80, con il progressivo venir meno della pressione di Mosca a Est per il mantenimento di una rigida posizione di neutralità, si ripropose la questione di un ingresso del Paese nella Comunità Europea(10), che fu infine formalizzato nel 1995 e, salvo eccezioni nell’ala sinistra dell’SPO, appoggiato trasversalmente negli anni dalle forze politiche di Governo. Un’integrazione del Paese alla NATO, opzione questa tradizionalmente vista, soprattutto a partire dagli anni ’60 che videro la fine dei governi di coalizione, con favore dai popolari dell’OVP e invece osteggiata dai socialdemocratici del SPO(11). Il ruolo del SPO nei rapporti con l’Unione Sovietica meriterebbe una trattazione più approfondita. Basti però citare come, negli anni ’50 e ’60, il partito fosse frequentemente sospettato di lassismo nei confronti dell’intelligence sovietica(12).

Tali atteggiamenti restarono sostanzialmente immutati fino ai primi anni 2000. Gli eventi subirono un’accelerazione con la guerra in Bosnia Erzegovina, che vide l’Austria siglare il documento Partnership for Peace (1995) per poi inviare le proprie truppe a sostegno dei contingenti NATO nei balcani e di nuovo nel 1999 in Kossovo. Nel luglio 2002, il presidente austriaco Thomas Klestil incontrò il Segretario Generale della NATO, Lord Robertson, incontro che precedette l’invio di truppe austriache a supporto del contingente atlantico in Afghanistan. Nel giugno 2011 si registrò la visita ufficiale di Anders Fogh Rasmussen (Segretario Generale della NATO) a Vienna(13). Politicamente significativo è infine stato il processo di valutazione svoltosi dal 21 al 30 maggio del 2013 alla base di Allentsteig, dove funzionari NATO hanno supervisionato il livello di preparazione delle truppe destinate al progetto PfP per verificare che fossero compatibili con gli standard dell’alleanza per il progetto EURAD13(14). D’altra parte è bene dire che, se da un lato i servizi di intelligence sovietica ebbero per l’Austria un interesse particolare, dall’altro sebbene al di fuori della NATO oggi il Paese ha sul suo territorio due basi militari americane: si tratta di Neulengbach e Konigswarte, gestite e coordinate dal Comando generale statunitense della National Security Agency di Fort Meade (nel Maryland) e organizzate in cooperazione con i servizi segreti britannici, canadesi, australiani e neozelandesi(15).

Il processo di integrazione europea non ha però troncato le relazioni dell’Austria con la Federazione Russa. Anzi. Secondo un analista della The Jamestown Foundation, lo scomparso austro-americano Roman Kupchinski, anche dopo la fine della Guerra Fredda, l’Austria è rimasto uno degli hub favoriti dall’intelligence di Mosca tanto che, secondo il medesimo autore, l’SVR (servizio di intelligence russo all’estero) avrebbe proprio a Vienna la sua centrale più importante in Europa(16). Quel che è certo tuttavia, è la presenza proprio in Austria di numerose compagnie legate al mercato delle commodities e connesse con la compagnia di stato russa Gazprom. Proprio il comparto energetico è centrale nell’attuale assetto di relazioni commerciali tra Austria e Russia. Il 24 aprile del 2010, la partecipata statale OMV, prima tra le aziende dei Paesi europei a siglare accordi commerciali con l’Unione Sovietica nel 1968, siglò un accordo di cooperazione con Gazprom per la costruzione della sezione austriaca di South Stream mentre il 29 aprile del 2014, già in piena crisi ucraina, il CEO di OMV, Gerhard Roiss siglò con Gazprom un memorandum che prevedeva la partecipazione della compagnia russa nel Central European Gas Hub, situato nel piccolo comune di Baumgarten, nello stato federato del Burgenland(17). Un luogo quasi simbolico: governato dal 1964 da esponenti dell’SPO, il Burgenland, trovandosi al confine con l’Ungheria, Paese del quale ospitava un significativa minoranza etnica, era negli anni della “cortina di ferro” strategicamente significativo.

Lungi dal rappresentare un atto di sudditanza, l’accordo tra OMV e Gazprom rientrava in una logica di mutuale convenienza. Dipendente per il 60% dalle forniture di gas provenienti dalla Federazione Russa, OMV aveva avviato nel 2012 un progetto per estrarre gas dalle coste rumene del Mar Nero attraverso una partnership tra la Petrom (compagnia rumena controllata a maggioranza da OMV) ed Exxon Mobil. In questo modo OMV, qualora South Stream avesse visto la luce, avrebbe paradossalmente potuto utilizzare le infrastrutture realizzate con la collaborazione di Gazprom per ridurre la propria dipendenza dal mercato russo, come osservato anche dal New York Times in un articolo dello scorso 22 luglio(18).

Visto lo scenario, non sorprende dunque che nel mese di dicembre, anche in seguito all’annuncio da parte del presidente russo Vladimir Putin della cancellazione del progetto South Stream, il cancelliere austriaco del PSO Werner Faymann abbia preso rigidamente posizione sia contro le sanzioni alla Russia (17 dicembre)(19), sia contro il Trattato transatlantico di libero scambio (TTIP)(18 dicembre)(20), che prevede un’integrazione tra il mercato europeo e quello nordamericano. Relativamente al TTIP, Faymann ha spiegato come l’Austria non intenda avallare una concessione di privilegi alle affermato multinazionali americane, mentre relativamente alle sanzioni, il cancelliere ha che l’Unione Europea non deve essere “una versione in abiti civili della NATO”.

Tale dichiarazione, più che la prima, è significativa in quanto rappresenta non solo una presa di posizione squisitamente pratica, ma anche e soprattutto ideologica (per il rifiuto di un trattato estremamente liberomercatista) rispetto ai rapporti di Vienna con l’alleanza atlantica che, come abbiamo visto, dalla metà degli anni ’90 si sono evoluti in un sostanziale crescendo. Tale presa di posizione dimostra come l’Austria, sebbene oggi integrata nel contesto dell’Europa comunitaria, sia ancora pronta a tornare a svolgere, all’occorrenza, un ruolo di autonomia, terzietà e alterità nel contesto politico europeo. Una possibilità questa che, rispetto ad altri Paesi europei, deriva, oltre che dal diritto internazionale, anche da una ridotta presenza militare straniera sul proprio territorio. L’Austria può dunque appresentare, nell’ambito dell’attuale momento di forte criticità nei rapporti tra la Federazione Russa, l’Unione Europea e la NATO, un cuscinetto in grado di ammorbidire in seno all’Europa le posizioni atlantiste più intransigenti, rappresentando così per Mosca un potenziale partner di primissimo piano anche per gli anni a venire e, data la sua lunga storia, un punto di riferimento strategico per il panorama mitteleuropeo.

NOTE
1. http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/germanica/Chronologie/16Jh/Sigismund/sig_intr.html
2. G.Davidson, Coincise English Dictionary, Wordsworth Editions Ltd. 2007, ISBN 1840224975, pag.1000
3. cfr. H.Troyat, Alessandro I. Lo zar della Santa Alleanza, Bompiani, 2001, ISBN 8845291170, 9788845291173
4. P.G.Dwyer, Napoleon and Europe, Routledge, 2014, ISBN 1317882717, 9781317882718, pag.255
5. H.Picks, Guilty victims: Austria from the holocaust to Haider, I.B.Tauris, 2000, ISBN 1860646182, 9781860646188, pag.35
6. M.Cattaruzza, La nazione in rosso: socialismo, comunismo e questione nazionale, 1889-1953, Rubbettino Editore, 2005, ISBN, 8849811772, 9788849811773, pag.17
7. M.Lallement, Le idee della sociologia, volume 1, EDIZIONI DEDALO, 1996, ISBN 8822002024, 9788822002020, pag.108
8. P.S.Adams, The Europeanization of the Social Partnership: The Future of Neo-corporatism in Austria and Germany, ProQuest, 2008, ISBN 0549663916, 9780549663911, pag.171
9. J.A.K.Hey, Small States in World Politics: Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003, ISBN 1555879438, 9781555879433, pag.96
10. R.Luther – W.C.Mueller, Politics in Austria: Still a Case of Consociationalism, Routledge, 2014, ISBN 1135193347, 9781135193348, pag.203
11. G.Bischof-A.Pelinka-M.Gehler, Austrian Foreign Policy in Historical Context, Transaction Publishers, 2006, ISBN 1412817684, 9781412817684, pag.212
12. B.Volodarsky, The KGB’s Poison Factory, Frontline Books, 2013, ISBN 1473815738, 9781473815735 , pag.118
13. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_75912.htm?selectedLocale=en
14. http://www.aco.nato.int/nato-evaluates-the-capability-of-the-austrian-armed-forces.aspx
15. http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/dal-mare-nostrum-al-gallinarium-americanum-basi-usa-in-europa-mediterraneo-e-vicino-oriente/15230/
16. http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=34516#.VJ2_KV4BY
17. http://www.south-stream.info/press/news/news-item/south-stream-returning-to-austria/
18. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/business/energy-environment/an-austrian-company-in-gazproms-grip.html?_r=0
19. http://derstandard.at/2000009627760/Faymann-zieht-EU-Sanktionen-in-Zweifel
20. http://www.krone.at/Oesterreich/Faymann_droht_im_Ernstfall_mit_TTIP-Klage-Auch_im_Alleingang-Story-432130

Entretien avec David Cumin sur Carl Schmitt

Entretien avec David Cumin: «Carl Schmitt est un catholique prussien, un Prussien catholique»

Maître de conférences (HDR) à l’Université Jean Moulin-Lyon III, Faculté de Droit, et membre du CLESID, David Cumin est un spécialiste reconnu de l’œuvre de Carl Schmitt dont il a publié une Biographie politique et intellectuelle en 2005. Nous revenons ici sur l’actualité et la réalité d’une pensée controversée.

PHILITT : Dans votre biographie politique et intellectuelle de Carl Schmitt, vous relativisez sans occulter le rôle qu’il a joué dans l’administration du III^e Reich. Pourquoi réduit-on l’œuvre de Schmitt à cet épisode, et pourquoi est-ce, selon vous, une erreur ?

David Cumin : J’ai été le premier en France, dans ma thèse soutenue en 1996 à démontrer l’engagement de Carl Schmitt dans le III^e Reich. Autrefois, cet engagement était plus ou moins occulté, négligé voire oublié. Et c’est en 1994 à la bibliothèque universitaire de Strasbourg que j’ai exhumé tous les textes de Carl Schmitt juriste et politiste de la période qui s’étend de 1933 à 1945. Personne ne l’avait fait depuis la Libération, et c’est en lisant, traduisant, analysant ces textes que j’ai pu avérer ce fait là.

Son engagement a été très fort, mais on ne peut pas réduire la production intellectuelle de Schmitt aux années 1939-1945. Il a écrit avant et après cette période, et il y a des points de ruptures certes, mais aussi une vraie continuité sur certains sujets. Par exemple après 1933, par opportunisme, il intègre la doctrine raciale dans sa conception du droit et de la politique, mais de façon superficielle et controversée. Controversée par les nationaux-socialistes eux-mêmes ! On lui reprochera, à la suite d’une enquête de la SS en 1936, d’être un vrai catholique et un faux antisémite. Dès lors, sa carrière est bloquée. Il aurait peut-être apprécié d’être le juriste du III^e Reich, mais il n’y est pas parvenu, parce que sa conception raciale était superficielle. Le véritable juriste du III^e Reich était un rival de Schmitt : Reinhard Höhn.

Si on réduit le personnage et son œuvre à cette période c’est évidemment pour des raisons polémiques, pour les discréditer. Et pourtant, nombreux sont les critiques de Schmitt qui ne connaissent pas ses écrits de la période 1939-1945, qui n’ont toujours pas été traduits pour nombre d’entre eux. Il y a d’ailleurs des textes de cette période qui n’ont rien d’antisémites ou de raciaux, notamment sur le concept discriminatoire de guerre qui reste un texte majeur de droit international.

PHILITT : Voyez-vous une contradiction entre l’héritage intellectuel des grands penseurs politiques classiques (Hobbes, Thucydide, Machiavel, Bodin) porté par Carl Schmitt d’une part, sa catholicité d’autre part, et son adhésion au NSDAP (Parti national-socialiste des travailleurs allemands) ?

David Cumin : Effectivement, Schmitt est un classique, imprégné de culture française, latine, catholique. Il a pour références Bonald, Maistre, Cortès… C’est un Européen catholique ! Mais en même temps il est un nationaliste allemand. Et il se trouve qu’il a, en 1933, les mêmes ennemis qu’Hitler. Il est contre Weimar, contre Versailles et contre le communisme. Or, c’est à ce moment qu’il arrive au sommet de sa carrière, mais il doit concilier sa culture classique et sa catholicité avec son adhésion au NSDAP. Même si ce dernier n’est pas anticatholique dès 1933 puisqu’un Concordat relativement favorable à l’Église catholique est signé, le problème se pose plus tard, et se cristallise autour du problème de l’embrigadement de la jeunesse. Cette lutte contre l’Église met Schmitt dans une situation inconfortable, mais il la surmonte : depuis toujours il a connu la difficulté d’être à la fois catholique et prussien de naissance. En 1938 dans un livre sur Hobbes il formule une critique de l’Église qu’il accuse d’avoir une influence indirecte ou cachée, lui qui faisait l’éloge d’une autorité visible. Mais définitivement, Schmitt est un paradoxe ! Tout en étant catholique, il a divorcé. Ses deux épouses étaient des orthodoxes serbes, autre paradoxe… Mais ce qui est absolument essentiel chez Schmitt, c’est l’ennemi. Pour lui l’ennemi primait sur tout, il disait :  « l’ennemi est la figure de notre propre question ».

PHILITT : Faut-il donc considérer la pensée de Schmitt, et celle de la Révolution conservatrice allemande de manière globale, comme un réel moteur du NSDAP ou comme une simple caution intellectuelle ? 

David Cumin : Ce n’est pas un moteur, ce n’est pas non plus une caution. C’est davantage une connivence. Le NSDAP est un parti de masse, un parti de combat, mais qui n’a pas de réelles idées neuves. Toute la production intellectuelle est due à la Révolution conservatrice allemande, pour autant beaucoup d’auteurs sont distants : Ernst Jünger se distingue immédiatement, Martin Heidegger s’engage mais sera vite déçu. Carl Schmitt est peut-être celui qui s’est le plus engagé, mais comme nous l’avons dit dès 1936 sa carrière est bloquée. Et n’oublions pas que le NSDAP est composé, tout comme la Révolution conservatrice allemande, de différents courants. Par exemple certains sont catholiques, d’autres se réclament du paganisme etc…

Mais il y a tout au plus des passerelles, des connivences, le principal point commun étant le nationalisme et l’ennemi : Weimar, Versailles, le libéralisme et le communisme. D’ailleurs, le NSDAP méprisait les intellectuels, et plus particulièrement les juristes. Encore un problème pour Schmitt, donc.

PHILITT : Une erreur du NSDAP n’est-elle pas d’avoir voulu bâtir une notion d’État stable et pérenne sur des idées (celles de la Révolution Conservatrice Allemande) nées d’une situation d’urgence et d’instabilité, celle de l’entre-deux guerres ?

David Cumin : Effectivement, des deux côtés il y a une pensée de l’urgence, de l’exception, de la crise, de la guerre civile. Les partis communistes, socialistes, le NSDAP, ont tous à l’époque leurs formations de combats. Mais attention sur la question de l’État. Si la plupart des conservateurs, comme Schmitt, mettent au départ l’accent sur l’État, le NSDAP lui met le Volk, le Peuple, la race, au centre. Et après 1933, Schmitt va désétatiser sa pensée : il théorise la constitution hitlérienne selon le triptyque État – Mouvement – Peuple. L’État n’est plus qu’un appareil administratif, judiciaire et militaire. C’est donc le parti qui assume la direction politique, et la légitimité est tirée de la race, du peuple. L’État est en quelque sorte déchu, et le Peuple est réellement au centre. Schmitt pense alors le grand espace, qui reste une pensée valable au lendemain de la guerre ! Dans le contexte du conflit Est-Ouest, ce n’est pas l’État qui est au centre mais c’est bien cette logique des grands espaces qui domine.

PHILITT : Toujours s’agissant du contexte historique, l’appellation de Révolution conservatrice allemande est-elle justifiée ? Les penseurs de ce mouvement intellectuel peuvent-ils réellement être rangés dans le triptyque réaction/conservatisme/progressisme ou faut-il considérer ce mouvement comme spécifique à une époque donnée et ancrée dans celle-ci ?

David Cumin : C’est un moment spécifique à une époque, en effet, et l’expression me semble très judicieuse. Armin Mohler, qui fut secrétaire d’Ernst Jünger, a écrit La Révolution conservatrice allemande en 1950, traduit en France une quarantaine d’années plus tard. C’est donc lui qui a forgé l’étiquette, qui me semble très appropriée. Ce sont des conservateurs, qui défendent les valeurs traditionnelles, mais ils sont révolutionnaires dans la mesure où ils luttent contre la modernité imposée à l’Allemagne (le libéralisme, le communisme). Ils sont révolutionnaires à des fins conservatrices. Ils admettent la modernité technique, qui les fascine, mais veulent la subordonner aux valeurs éternelles. Leurs valeurs ne sont pas modernes. Et ce qui est intéressant, c’est qu’ils s’approprient les concepts modernes de socialisme, de démocratie, de progrès notamment, pour les retourner contre leurs ennemis idéologiques. Par exemple la démocratie pour Schmitt n’est pas définie comme le régime des partis, la séparation des pouvoirs, mais un Peuple cohérent qui désigne son chef.

PHILITT : Vous êtes professeur et auteur d’ouvrages sur l’Histoire de la guerre et le droit de la guerre et de la paix. Avec le recul, pensez-vous que les travaux de Schmitt (sur la figure du partisan, sur le nomos de la terre, par exemple) restent des clés de lectures valides et pertinentes après les bouleversements récents de ces deux domaines ?

David Cumin : Absolument, Le Nomos de la terre et L’Évolution vers un concept discriminatoire de guerre restent deux ouvrages tout à fait incontournables. Le Nomos de la terre est absolument fondamental en droit international, en droit de la guerre. De même que la théorie du partisan, qui pourrait être améliorée, amendée, actualisée, mais demeure incontournable. On peut d’ailleurs regretter que ce ne soit que très récemment que les spécialistes français en droit international se soient intéressés à Schmitt. Pourtant il y a toujours eu chez lui ces deux piliers : droit constitutionnel et droit international. Par exemple, ses écrits sur la Société des Nations sont tout à fait transposables à l’ONU et donc tout à fait d’actualité.

PHILITT : Peut-on considérer qu’il y a aujourd’hui des continuateurs de la pensée de Carl Schmitt ? 

David Cumin : Schmitt a inspiré beaucoup d’auteurs, dans toute l’Europe. Il a été beaucoup cité mais aussi beaucoup pillé… Très critiqué également notamment par l’École de Francfort et Habermas qui a développé son œuvre avec et contre Schmitt. Un ouvrage britannique, Schmitt, un esprit dangereux, montrait bien toute l’influence de Schmitt dans le monde occidental et dans tous les domaines. Le GRECE et la Nouvelle Droite se sont réclamés de Schmitt, mais dans une perspective plus idéologique.

Dans un registre plus scientifique, en science politique, Julien Freund a revendiqué deux maîtres : Raymond Aron et Carl Schmitt. Il en a été un continuateur. Pierre-André Taguieff a été inspiré par Schmitt également, et plus récemment Tristan Storme. Schmitt a influencé énormément d’auteurs à droite comme à gauche. Giorgio Agamben, Toni Negri, la revue Telos aux États-Unis située à gauche sont fortement imprégnés de l’œuvre de Carl Schmitt. On peut difficilement imaginer travailler sur le droit international sans prendre en considération l’œuvre de Carl Schmitt.

PHILITT : Finalement, comment résumeriez-vous la pensée de Carl Schmitt ? 

David Cumin : Tout le paradoxe de l’existence et de l’œuvre publiée de Schmitt se résume ainsi : Carl Schmitt est un catholique prussien, un Prussien catholique. Sa catholicité expliquant son rapport à l’Église qui est pour lui le modèle de l’institution. Son origine prussienne expliquant son rapport à l’État, et surtout à l’armée. Il avait donc ces deux institutions, masculines, pour références, qui fondent le parallèle entre la transcendance et l’exception. Les polémistes disent « Schmitt le nazi », ce qui correspond à une période de sa vie, où il n’était pas forcément triomphant. Je préfère parler du « Prussien catholique », qui met en exergue le paradoxe de son existence et de son œuvre toutes entières.

Il ’68 lo ha inventato D’Annunzio a Fiume

È un tale anticipatore che ha rinnovato la letteratura italiana dell’800 quando pubblicò Il Piacere, subito diffuso in tutto il mondo, quando all’estero nessuno conosceva Manzoni. Ha rinnovato la poesia italiana, i rapporti con la borghesia, con la politica, con la vita militare. Soprattutto ci lascia oggi un messaggio molto importante, “Conservare intera la libertà fin nell’ebbrezza” e “Non chi più soffre ma chi più gode conosce”. E qui non si tratta di edonismo, ma di godimento come vita intellettuale libera e gioiosa. Questi sono i suoi messaggi, oltre a quello di guardare sempre avanti, progettare e imporre il proprio futuro, saper far sognare agli altri uomini i propri sogni.

 

di Giordano Bruno Guerri

 

Ex: http://www.lintellettualedissidente.it 

Ci racconti un episodio OFF dell’inizio della tua carriera?
Un giorno ho pubblicato il mio libro su Bottai, che era la mia tesi di Laurea, da Feltrinelli. Ebbe un immenso successo soprattutto di discussioni sollevate, perché per la prima volta si sosteneva e si dimostrava che non solo era esistita una cultura fascista, ma che erano esistiti anche dei fascisti onesti e in gamba come Bottai. Il fatto poi che l’avesse pubblicato Feltrinelli… puoi immaginare l’emozione e il disorientamento che provocò. Un giorno ricevetti una chiamata da un ragazzo a me ignoto, mi disse che aveva letto il libro e avrebbe avuto piacere di incontrarmi con alcuni amici. Andai volentieri a quel pranzo in Corso Sempione, dove trovai e conobbi le menti migliori della Nuova Destra di allora, che erano Solinas, Cabona, Tarchi, e non so quanti altri. La cosa buffissima, che mi fece molto ridere, era che il ristorante – tutt’altro che ‘Nuova Destra’ – era tenuto da un signore in camicia nera che ci salutò con il saluto romano e che aveva l’intero ristorante tappezzato di ritratti di Mussolini. Fu un curioso incontro, abbastanza OFF, mi sembra!

Sei uno scrittore, un giornalista, uno degli storici più apprezzati d’Italia e in questo momento sei il Presidente del Vittoriale degli Italiani, la casa museo di Gabriele D’Annunzio. Quest’anno si chiudono le celebrazioni del 150° anniversario della sua nascita, che cosa ha lasciato D’Annunzio all’arte e alla cultura italiana?
D’Annunzio non solo ha lasciato, ma dona ancora. È un tale anticipatore che ha rinnovato la letteratura italiana dell’800 quando pubblicò Il Piacere, subito diffuso in tutto il mondo, quando all’estero nessuno conosceva – e tuttora nessuno conosce – Manzoni. Ha rinnovato la poesia italiana, i rapporti con la borghesia, con la politica, con la vita militare. Soprattutto ci lascia oggi un messaggio molto importante, “Conservare intera la libertà fin nell’ebbrezza” e “Non chi più soffre ma chi più gode conosce”. E qui non si tratta di edonismo, ma di godimento come vita intellettuale libera e gioiosa. Questi sono i suoi messaggi, oltre a quello di guardare sempre avanti, progettare e imporre il proprio futuro, saper far sognare agli altri uomini i propri sogni.

Le battaglie politiche di D’Annunzio oggi sono ancora attuali?
Sono sempre attuali. Contrariamente a quello che si pensa, con questa etichetta di ‘filofascista’ che gli è stata attribuita – lo era anche, perché era un superuomo e quindi aveva adottato il superomismo che poi combaciava in qualche modo con il fascismo –, era sostanzialmente un libertario e la difesa della libertà dell’individuo deve essere un nostro compito, dovrebbe essere una delle missioni della Destra, peraltro…

D’Annunzio fa di Fiume “città di vita, città di arte”, quella è una pagina molto importante…
È una pagina straordinaria, qualsiasi Paese disponesse di un episodio simile nella propria storia lo avrebbe mitizzato con film, romanzi e quant’altro, invece sembra quasi che ce ne vergogniamo. Fiume fu un’anticipazione del ’68 da destra, perché nello spirito libertario di Fiume e di d’Annunzio c’era anche questa componente superomista, per cui il ‘capo’ era gran parte della cosa, ma Fiume fu un’avventura indimenticabile che insieme al futuro ripercorre il passato dell’Italia, il Rinascimento. D’Annunzio conquistò Fiume come un condottiero rinascimentale e la mantenne come un pirata di oggi.

La musica è un elemento centrale nella Carta del Carnaro…
Sì, nella costituzione c’è la musica come strumento di vita e di elevazione del popolo, che deve essere quasi distribuita, donata nelle scuole e a tutti quanti, così come la bellezza delle città; l’arredo urbano, così chiamato oggi con una definizione tremenda, non è stato inventato dagli assessori dei vari Comuni, ma è stato inventato da d’Annunzio.

Nell’ultima biografia “La mia vita carnale” racconti un D’Annunzio privato, quotidiano, amante: come corteggiava le donne il Vate?
Lui aveva il grande vantaggio di essere corteggiato, arrivava in un salotto e le donne erano tutte lì a pendere da un suo sorriso – sdentato, peraltro – perché il suo carisma, la sua fama, la sua eleganza, soprattutto il suo eloquio erano tali da incantare tutte quante. Credo che le seducesse con la parola straordinaria di cui disponeva; a trent’anni disse di aver usato, e gli si può credere, 15.000 parole, mentre noi ne usiamo mediamente da 2.000 a 3.000. Faceva sentire le donne regine della propria vita – questo era un dono magnifico – e secondo il suo motto riceveva quel che donava, una dedizione assoluta.

Un aspetto poco conosciuto di D’Annunzio è l’esoterismo, il suo rapporto con l’aldilà. È vero che ti è capitato di metterti in contatto con il fantasma di D’Annunzio al Vittoriale?
Vivo nella casa dell’Architetto Maroni – come tutti i Presidenti quando sono al Vittoriale – dove Maroni, D’Annunzio e Luisa Baccara facevano delle sedute spiritiche e si mettevano in contatto con l’aldilà. Ogni tanto mi passano accanto dei venti, sento dei soffi, però credo fermamente che sia dovuto alle finestre, che sono ancora quelle degli anni Venti!

Un’altra biografia molto importante che hai affrontato è quella di un grande uomo e artista italiano del Novecento, Filippo Tommaso Marinetti…
Marinetti fu l’ultimo uomo importante che vide D’Annunzio vivo; venti giorni prima della morte andò a trovarlo con tutta la famiglia e gli portò un dono magnifico: una scultura che era il doppio comando di un bimotore Caproni con una dedica che diceva: “Noi siamo i motori della nuova Italia”. Ho scritto questi due libri insieme, prima è uscito D’Annunzio e poi Marinetti, perché fanno parte di uno stesso magnifico progetto culturale inconscio della cultura italiana e mondiale. Due innovatori, uno che parte dal passato (D’Annunzio), uno che guarda direttamente al futuro, ma entrambi vogliono cambiare tutto, due rivoluzionari.

All’inizio tra i due correva buon sangue, poi ci fu uno scontro di personalità. Tu citi sempre una battuta bellissima di D’Annunzio nei confronti di Marinetti…
Marinetti lo stuzzicava dandogli del passatista, del vecchio trombone, e D’Annunzio, da grande creatore della lingua, lo fulminò con un epiteto straordinario: ‘cretino fosforescente’. È futurista al massimo!

Secondo te la vita di D’Annunzio è stata più futurista dei Futuristi? Lui veniva nominato ‘passatista’, in realtà la biografia del Vate affronta tutte le tematiche dell’uomo futurista…
Non tutti i Futuristi sono riusciti a vivere una vita futurista, D’Annunzio sì. Basti pensare a quello che ha fatto con il Vittoriale. Si dice che i Futuristi volessero distruggere i musei, non è vero, era una provocazione. D’Annunzio, al rovescio, creò il museo della propria vita che in realtà non è un museo, è il tempo che si è fermato al momento della sua morte per perpetuare la sua vita. Ha progettato il proprio futuro nel mondo dopo la propria morte ed è riuscito a realizzarlo straordinariamente. Il Vittoriale oggi gode di una salute pienissima, ti voglio dire con orgoglio in anteprima per OFF (perché i dati ufficiali verranno comunicati soltanto a fine anno) che a fine novembre avevamo già avuto 16.000 visitatori in più, ovvero l’8% in più del 2012, e che gli incassi sono di conseguenza aumentati. Il Vittoriale non produce solo cultura e bellezza, ma anche ricchezza. Credo che D’Annunzio, a 75 anni dalla morte, possa essere contento.

Qui su OFF abbiamo intervistato Mimmo Paladino e Velasco, che hanno collaborato con te…
Sono due donatori del Vittoriale, hanno dato al Vittoriale delle opere straordinarie, Mimmo Paladino il suo cavallo blu, che è diventato quasi un simbolo del nuovo Vittoriale, così dominante sul lago, e Velasco la sua muta di cani che accompagnano D’Annunzio e i suoi dieci compagni seppelliti nel Mausoleo, quindi mi fa piacere questa comunione.

Oggi che cosa farebbe D’Annunzio nella situazione politica italiana?
Verrebbe d’istinto dire che cercherebbe di prendere in pugno la situazione. Purtroppo sono smentito dal fatto che non lo fece nel 1921 quando avrebbe potuto, ma era tale la disillusione di Fiume – ricordiamoci che fu costretto ad abbandonare Fiume a cannonate dal governo in carica di Giolitti – che si disgustò profondamente e si ritirò al Vittoriale. Chissà, oggi magari non lo farebbe, certo non passerebbe per il Parlamento!

Le similitudini che qualcuno ha fatto, secondo me azzardando un po’, tra Grillo e D’Annunzio, secondo te sono giuste?
Ma per carità, prima di tutto c’è una differenza culturale pari alla Fossa delle Marianne di 11 km. Certo, i grandi eversori sono sempre accostabili, non a caso Grillo tempo fa mise nel suo mitico blog una frase che sembrava totalmente sua ed era di D’Annunzio. Era una frase che incitava alla necessità di rovesciare l’attuale mondo politico per rinnovare tutto, per riprenderci la gioia di vivere, l’economia, la libertà. Erano parole di d’Annunzio che Grillo ha fatto proprie. Dubito che D’Annunzio avrebbe fatto proprie delle parole di Grillo…

Fonte:
Il Giornale

Ein deutscher Revolutionär

Ein deutscher Revolutionär

von Philip Stein

Ex: http://www.blauenarzisse.de

 

Vor 75 Jahren wurde der führende 68er Rudi Dutschke geboren. Etablierte Medien erinnern an ihn als „Ikone der Linken”. Doch Dutsche war Patriot und Querdenker.

Als am 11. April 1968 vor dem Büro des „Sozialistischen Deutschen Studentenbundes” (SDS) am West-​Berliner Kurfürstendamm drei Schüsse fallen, geht ein Ruck durch Deutschland. Rudi Dutschke, das charismatische Sprachrohr, die Ikone einer ganzen Generation, war Opfer eines Attentates geworden und schwebt in Lebensgefahr.

Die Bilder dieser hinterlistigen Attacke, bei der Dutschke zweimal in den Kopf und einmal in die linke Schulter getroffen wurde, füllen tagelang die deutschen Fernsehsendungen und Magazine, beschäftigen Journalismus und Politik.

Linksnationale 68er?

Unter den Studenten verbreitet sich die Nachricht vom Dutschke-​Attenat wie ein Lauffeuer. Es folgen Massenproteste, Kundgebungen und schlussendlich schwere Ausschreitungen vor dem Gebäude des Springer-​Verlags. Der schwerverletzte Dutschke überlebt knapp das Attenat. Doch auf die große Bühne kehrt er nie zurück, bleibt fortan ein Schatten seiner selbst. Der Mythos um Dutschke lebt jedoch weiter. Auch heute ist der einstige Studentenführer, der Provokateur und charismatische Intellektuelle der 68er-​Generation, nicht aus den Diskursen von links bis rechts verschwunden.

Der Name Dutschkes steht vor allem für das linke, sich als revolutionär begreifende studentische Milieu von 1968. Bei genauerer Betrachtung symbolisiert er jedoch auch für eine merkwürdige Art von Querfront, eine bisweilen linksnationale Ausprägung der 68er-​Generation. Diese sprach durchaus deutlich von einer nationalen Identität und deutschen Traditionen. Wie stark Dutschke selbst dieser Identität verbunden blieb, zeigt schon seine Biographie: Auch durch seine Verwurzelung im evangelischen Christentum hat er viele konservative Werte gelebt.

Politisch links, privat konservativ

Dutschke war ein absoluter Familienmensch, vom bäuerlichen Leben geprägt, und als seine Freunde die freie Liebe predigten, heiratete er früh – nämlich im Alter von 26 Jahren. Mit seiner US-​amerikanischen Frau Gretchen Dutschke-​Klotz hatte er drei Kinder. 75 Jahre nach seiner Geburt fragen wir uns nun: Wer war Rudi Dutschke? Und wie national tickte er?

Der im brandenburgischen Luckenwalde am 7. März 1940 geborene und dort aufgewachsene Dutschke verbrachte seine Jugend in der DDR. Schon in jungen Jahren entwickelte der sowohl evangelisch als auch sozialistisch geprägte Dutschke eine Renegatenhaltung: Sie äußert sich vor allem in der Ablehnung der SED und der von ihr angestrebten Gesellschaft. Als im August 1961 der Bau der Berliner Mauer beginnt, handelt Dutschke wie viele junge Deutsche in der DDR. Er begeht „Republikflucht“ gen Westen.

Mit seiner Immatrikulation an der Freien Universität (FU) in West-​Berlin – in den Fächern Soziologie, Philosophie, Ethnologie und Geschichtswissenschaft – beschreitet der junge Student einen Weg, der ihn zum entscheidenden Kopf der 68er-​Bewegung machen sollte. Zusammen mit Bernd Rabehl gründet Dutschke 1962 die Berliner Gruppe der „Subversiven Aktion“ und wird auch politisch tätig.

Hassobjekt des Bürgertums

Ab 1965 – Dutschke war nun im politischen Beirat des SDS – bestimmt er maßgeblich dessen Richtung und organisiert in Folge eine Vielzahl von provokanten, doch wirksamen Demonstrationen und bundesweiten, international besuchten Kongressen. Der SDS verknüpft realpolitische Probleme – vorrangig den Vietnamkrieg und die Notstandsgesetze der ersten großen Koalition – mit der angeblich fehlenden sowie verdrängten gesellschaftlichen Aufarbeitung des Nationalsozialismus durch die deutsche Eltern– und Großelterngeneration.

Was 1967 folgt, verändert die junge Bundesrepublik nachhaltig. Im Mittelpunkt stehen nun die Erschießung Benno Ohnesorgs und die bundesweiten Proteste und Ausschreitungen der Studentenbewegung. Dutschke wird medial und politisch zum Rädelsführer einer aufsässigen, unverständlichen Generation stilisiert. Er gilt nun als Symbol des Bruches zwischen Jung und Alt, zwischen der „autoritären“ Bundesrepublik und einer neuen, herbeigesehnten freien Welt der Gleichheit und des Sozialismus. Dutschke wird aber nicht nur zur Ikone einer jungen Generation, sondern auch zum Feind und Hassobjekt der etablierten Medien und Politik. So wird er mehrfach körperlich attackiert, in Zeitungen und Magazinen als „Volksfeind“ dargestellt und schlussendlich Opfer eines beinahe tödlichen Attentates.

Antikapitalistischer Patriot

Er wollte für die „Abschaffung von Hunger, Krieg und Herrschaft“ durch eine „Weltrevolution“, und gegen eine „autoritäre“ und „faschistische“ Gesellschaft kämpfen. Einen weltweiten, ausbeuterischen und unfreiheitlichen Kapitalismus sah er als Wurzel des Übels an. Doch Dutschke äußerte sich nach dem Attenat auf seine Person auch oft und dezidiert zur nationalen Frage. Seine Äußerungen – immerhin die Worte eines überzeugten „revolutionären Marxisten“ – werden in heutigen linken Zusammenhängen gerne und kategorisch verschwiegen.

Verschiedene Renegaten der 68er-​ Bewegung, etwa Günter Maschke, Horst Mahler oder Dutschkes Freund und Weggefährte Bernd Rabehl, haben nach ihrem „Seitenwechsel” zur politischen Rechten versucht, die Geschichte Rudi Dutschkes aus nationaler Sicht zu rekonstruieren. Viele Renegaten behaupten überdies, Dutschke würde im Deutschland dieser Tage mit seinen politischen Ansichten rechts der Mitte stehen. Dass solche Prognosen gehört, doch durchaus auch kritisch beleuchtet werden müssen, steht außer Frage. Die nationalen Traditionslinien innerhalb der „Neuen Linken“ werden durch Dutschke jedenfalls deutlicher denn je.

Gegen die Besatzer

So sprach Dutschke etwa von einer „Kontinuität von Dresden bis Vietnam“, scheute sich nicht, von „Kriegsverbrechen gegen das deutsche Volk“ zu schreiben oder die Teilung Deutschlands auch als Verlust der eigenen deutschen Identität zu titulieren. Zur Teilung seiner Heimat äußerte sich Dutschke vielfach. Er schreibt etwa: „Gleichermaßen empfinde ich es aber als Beleidigung, Jahre nach dem Kriege noch besetzt zu sein. Die Amerikanisierung der BRD und die Russifizierung der DDR, drückt die Spaltung, die Verunmöglichung der Einheit des Landes aus.“

Und weiter: „Es ist für mich außer Zweifel: In der DDR ist alles real, bloß nicht der Sozialismus, in der Bundesrepublik ist alles real, bloß nicht die Freiheit, Gleichheit, Brüderlichkeit, bloß keine reale Demokratie. Wie gesagt, Amerikanisierung und Russifizierung sind vorangeschritten, leider aber nicht die Wiedergewinnung eines realen Geschichtsbewusstseins der Deutschen. Ganz zu schweigen von einem nationalen Klassenbewusstsein der deutschen Arbeiterklasse.“

Mit seiner gleichermaßen vorhandenen Ablehnung sowohl der Sowjetunion als auch des Westens unter Führung der USA ist Dutschke derzeit aktueller denn je.

Denn ein nicht unerheblicher Teil der deutschen Rechten sowie verschiedener Querfrontbewegungen blickt gegenwärtig hoffnungsvoll gen Osten. Als „Putin-​Versteher“ erhoffen sie, der Russe bringe dem Deutschen als neuer Bündnispartner die nationale Identität zurück.

Weder Ost noch West

Doch Dutschke argumentiert dagegen unverblühmt national. Er weiß klug zu differenzieren: „Anlässlich des ungarischen Volksaufstandes von 1956 wurde mir eines klar. Welches Volk sich auch immer in Mitteleuropa erheben möge, die Amerikaner und Russen werden ihre Herrschaftszonen mit allen Mitteln verteidigen und die andere nicht berühren. Selbstständigkeit, heute Autonomie genannt, ist nicht erwünscht.“

In Bezug auf die Wiedervereinigung erklärt Dutschke weiter, dass beide Großmächte selbstverständlich imperiale Interessen verfolgten: „Warum ist die Linke in der Bundesrepublik so blind in Bezug auf die deutsche Frage? Die USA wünschen sich so wenig ein wiedervereinigtes Deutschland wie die Sowjetunion. Wünschen es überhaupt noch die Deutschen?“ Schlussendlich bringt er mit einer Kritik an den Linken seiner Zeit zum Ausdruck, dass die nationale Frage für ihn von ungeahnter Bedeutung ist: „Die Verquickung der Nationen im internationalen, kapitalistischen Produktionsprozess hat nicht die geschichtlich nationale Substanz aufgehoben. Das gilt besonders für unser Land, für die sozialistische Wiedervereinigung zwischen Rhein und Oder-​Neiße. Diese Aufgabe wird immer mehr eine der Arbeiterklasse in der DDR und BRD.“

Linke Ansätze zum Nationalismus

Dutschke machte sich also für die nationale Frage stark, ohne dabei zu verkennen, dass sowohl „Amerikanisierung“ als auch „Russifizierung“ auf das deutsche Volk einen destruktiven Einfluss ausübten. Ein weiteres prägnantes Dutschke-​Zitat bringt es auf den Punkt. Es stammt aus einem 1978 publizierten Aufsatz Dutschkes mit dem bemerkenswerten Titel Wer hat Angst vor der Wiedervereinigung?: „Über die kapitalistische Amerikanisierung ging der zyklische Auflösungsprozess der geschichtlichen und nationalen Identität bruchlos vor sich. Über die asiatische Russifizierung erfolgte dagegen eine subversive und widersprüchliche Festigung derselben – das ist eine These von mir.“ Eine solch kluge und differenzierte Analyse zu finden, die vor allem die nationale Frage sinnvoll in den Vordergrund stellt, ohne sich klar gen Westen oder Osten zu richten, ist heute äußerste Mangelware. Schon deshalb lohnt sich eine eingehende Lektüre der Schriften Rudi Dutschkes. Zahlreiche der hier genannten Zitate – und interessante Aufsätze – finden sich in der Dutschke-​Textsammlung Mein langer Marsch. Reden, Schriften und Tagebücher aus zwanzig Jahren.

Sein langjähriger Weggefährte und Freund Bernd Rabehl äußerte überdies schon 1967: „Die marxistische Linke muss Ansätze des Nationalismus weiterentwickeln, gerade auf den neuralgischen Punkt, dass Deutschland geteilt wurde, durch den Bundesgenossen USA, der diese Teilung ab Teheran sanktionierte. Der Nationalismus in dieser Form ist eine Art Sammlung, schafft ein Bündnis zwischen den einzelnen Sozialisten, die dadurch aktiv werden können.“ Dutschke selbst greift das erst nach dem Attentat auf seiner Person dezidiert wieder auf. Er schreibt zehn Jahre nach Rabehl folgende Sätze im Allgemeinen Deutschen Sonntagsblatt: „Unter solchen Bedingungen fängt der linke Deutsche an, sich mit allem möglichen zu identifizieren, aber einen Grundzug des kommunistischen Manifestes zu ignorieren: Der Klassenkampf ist international, in seiner Form aber national.“

Die nationale Arbeiterklasse

Schon 1977 ernteten Dutschkes Aussagen innerhalb der deutschen Linken Empörung, Distanzierung und Unverständnis. Doch auch heute hagelt es für Dutschke Kritik. Der ehemalige Maoist und heutige Politikwissenschaftler Götz Aly stellt Dutschke in seinem Buch Unser Kampf. 1968 – ein irritierter Blick zurück etwa indirekt in Reihe mit Dr. Joseph Goebbels, wenn er schreibt: „Ähnlich wie später Dutschke forderte Goebbels sein akademisches Publikum zur Bildung revolutionärer Bewusstseinsgruppen auf (…)“. Auch Jürgen Elsässer, der heute vor allem durch sein Magazin Compact bekannt ist, übte am 22. April 1998 in der Jungle World noch in dem Artikel Rudis Reste-​Rampe scharfe Kritik an „Rudi Dutschkes Metamorphose“.

Es ist erstaunlich, wie sehr Dutschke die nationale Frage in den Siebzigerjahren zu beschäftigen schien. Von einem Wandel seiner politischen Ansichten zu sprechen, ginge vermutlich zu weit. Doch Sätze wie die folgenden, geschrieben im Jahr 1976, lassen wenig Zweifel an einem nationalen Verständnis des eigentlichen Marxisten: „Die deutsche Sozialismusfrage ist auch eine Frage der Identifikationsgeschichte. Die italienischen Sozialisten und auch die französischen haben einen ungeheuren Vorteil: Sie haben noch eine nationale Identität, nicht die Identität der Bourgeoisie, sondern eine nationale Identität des Volkes und der Klasse. Nach dem 2. Weltkrieg, durch die Teilung des Landes, ist eine Situation entstanden, wo die Arbeiterklasse in diesem Land einen besonderen Identitätsverlust erlitten hat. (…) Auf der einen Seite gilt es, die nationale Besonderheit als solche zu reflektieren, und damit wieder Identität zu gewinnen. Schwer genug, in der Tat — ein gebrochenes Land — damit Identität zu gewinnen, national und sozial, extrem schwierige Angelegenheit. Aber auf der anderen Seite unerläßlich, um die Sozialismusfrage hier stellen zu können.“

Weder links noch rechts

Bei allen nationalen Bekenntnissen Rudi Dutschkes darf jedoch nie vergessen werden, dass er schlussendlich auch für eine antiautoritäre und marxistische Welt eines „Internationalismus“ kämpfte und nicht leichtfertig, gar ausschließlich national interpretiert werden kann. Ihn ohne entsprechende Hinweise als „nationalrevolutionär“ einzuordnen, so wie Henning Eichberg es tat, geht fehl. Dutschke war vieles, aber ein Nationalist im klassischen Sinne definitiv nie. Vielmehr kann Dutschke als Beweis dafür gesehen werden, dass die Kategorien „links“ und „rechts“ schon damals nicht mehr aktuell waren.

Ob Dutschke nun einen neuen Typus des „Linksnationalen“ verkörperte, ist nicht von Relevanz. Viel wichtiger ist es, in ihm einen Anstoß zu sehen, Gedanken aus einem vermeintlich anderen politischen Lager nicht kategorisch abzulehnen, sondern sich zumindest stückweise gegenüber einer sogenannten „Querfront“ aus kompatiblen Elementen offen zu zeigen. Unsere europäischen Mitstreiter haben das längst erkannt. Dutschke ist mit seinem Engagement bei den frühen, nationalen Grünen – u.a. mit Herbert Gruhl und Baldur Springmann – diesen Schritt kurz vor seinem Tod am 24. Dezember 1979 noch gegangen.

Le premier propriétaire esclavagiste américain était noir

Le premier propriétaire esclavagiste américain était noir

Ex: http://www.contre-info.com

« Avant 1655 il n’y avait aucun esclave légal dans les colonies américaines britanniques qui deviendront les Etats-Unis, seulement un contrat bilatéral appelé « indenture » pour des serviteurs qui proposaient leur service en échange d’une aide matérielle. Concrètement des noirs acceptaient de partir dans ces colonies britanniques et de travailler pendant un certain nombre d’années pour rembourser leur voyage et leur entretien. Avec cette pratique tous les maîtres étaient tenus de libérer leurs serviteurs après un certain temps. La durée limite de ces contrats était de sept ans. À leur départ on leur accordait 50 acres de terre (environ 20 hectares). Cela était valable pour n’importe quel Africain acheté à des marchands d’esclaves. Eux aussi avaient droit à leurs 50 acres à l’expiration de leur contrat.

Anthony Johnson était un africain venu de l’actuel Angola. Il avait été amené aux Etats Unis pour travailler dans une ferme de tabac en 1619. En 1622, il  a failli mourir quand des Indiens Powhatan attaquèrent sa ferme. 52 des 57 personnes présentes périrent dans l’attaque.  Et c’est aussi pendant son passage dans cette ferme qu’il épousa une servante noire.

Quand Anthony fut libéré, il fut aussi légalement reconnu comme “Noir libre” et fit fructifier son lopin de terre avec beaucoup de succès grâce à son dur labeur et son intelligence. En 1651, il possédait 250 acres et cinq serviteurs africains en « indenture ».

Puis, en 1654, Johnson aurait dû libérer John Casor, un de ses serviteurs. Au lieu de cela, Anthony  dit à Casor qu’il prolongeait son temps. Casor s’enfuit et devint l’employé d’un fermier blanc, Robert Parker.

Anthony Johnson poursuivi aussitôt en justice Robert Parker devant  le tribunal de Northampton et en 1655 la cour jugea qu’Anthony Johnson pourrait retenir John Casor indéfiniment. La cour autorisa ainsi les noirs libres à posséder des êtres de leur propre race comme  biens meubles, c’est-à-dire comme esclaves. Voilà comment John Casor est devenu le premier esclave à vie et Anthony Johnson le premier propriétaire américain d’esclave.

Les blancs eux par contre ne pouvaient toujours pas  légalement avoir un serviteur noir comme esclave. Mais en 1670 l’assemblée coloniale passa une loi donnant le droit à des blancs libres (ndlr : des blancs pouvaient aussi être en « indenture ») ainsi qu’aux noirs et aux indiens de posséder des noirs comme esclaves.

En 1699 le nombre d’africains libres suscita de telles craintes de voir une insurrection raciale que l’état de Virginie  ordonna le rapatriement des noirs libérés en Afrique. Beaucoup de noirs se vendirent alors à des maîtres blancs pour ne pas retourner sur le continent Africain. Mais des milliers d’autres furent rapatriés dans des pays comme la Sierra Leone et le Libéria qui de fait devinrent des colonies d’anciens esclaves africains américains longtemps financées par les divers gouvernements d’Amérique.

Monrovia, la capitale du Libéria a été ainsi nommée en honneur du Président US James Monroe et Freetown, la capitale du Sierra Leone, en honneur à la liberté accordée par l’Amérique.

Néanmoins les propriétaires noirs d’esclaves noirs continuèrent à prospérer aux États-Unis.

En 1830 il y avait 3775 familles noires vivant au Sud ayant des esclaves noirs.
Et avant la guerre de sécession en 1860 il y avait environ 3,000 esclaves appartenant aux ménages noirs dans la seule ville la Nouvelle-Orléans.

Des faits qui nous donnent à méditer la vision d’Orwell : « Qui contrôle le passé contrôle le présent. Qui contrôle le présent contrôle le passé. » »

Source : Henri Guillaumet ici

World War Two, a View From Different Eyes

World War Two, a View From Different Eyes

By Bionic Mosquito

Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com

I have in the past written much about the Second World War, from Pearl Harbor to the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; from Roosevelt’s manipulations to get the US into the war to the forced migrations of millions of Germans and other Europeans after the war.  While much of this was based on work from revisionist historians (even Herbert Hoover!), most of the authors on which my posts were based were from the United States or otherwise affiliated with the victorious side.

I am now beginning to go through another history of the war, this one by a German revisionist historian.  The book is entitled “1939 – The War That Had Many Fathers,” by Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof.

About the author:

Schultze-Rhonhof was born in Weimar. He entered military service in 1959 a few years after the Bundeswehr was founded. When he retired in 1996, he was Territorial Commander-in-chief in charge of Lower Saxony and Bremen and held the rank of Generalmajor (Major General).

The book is quite controversial, even (or especially) in Germany:

In his book “Der Krieg, der viele Väter hatte” [The War that had many Fathers], he argues that Adolf Hitler had not wanted to risk war right until September 1939. Thus, Schultze-Rhonhof especially blames Poland for the outbreak of World War II as a result the rejection of German willingness of negotiations. Besides, also Great Britain, France, the United States and the Soviet Union had taken their part in the outbreak of the war because they had driven Poland into the war.

It should be noted that the author does not seem to be introducing a book that exonerates Hitler.  He suggests that the war had many fathers – not just one.  This is certainly an uncontroversial suggestion to anyone with even a moderate understanding of the roots of the war.

From my past reading, it is quite clear that the US, Great Britain, and France did, in fact, push Poland into war and did cause Poland to not negotiate with Hitler and Germany, for example from “Freedom Betrayed,” by Herbert Hoover:

Further American activities were disclosed after the Germans had invaded Poland in September 1939 and seized the Polish Foreign Office records.  The Germans released a mass of documents which certainly indicated that the American Ambassador to France, William C. Bullitt, who could only act on Mr. Roosevelt’s authority, had made a profusion of oral assurances to officials of Poland and France which they could only interpret as a promise of assistance of some kind of force from the United States.

Hoover documents his conversations with US Ambassador to Britain, Joseph Kennedy, during the run-up to the war.  Hoover met with Kennedy in May, 1945.  According to Kennedy:

…Roosevelt and Bullitt were the major factors in the British making their guarantees to Poland and becoming involved in the war.  Kennedy said that Bullitt, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the Poles not to make terms with the Germans and that he Kennedy, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the British to make guarantees to the Poles.

He said that after Chamberlain had given these guarantees, Chamberlain told him (Kennedy) that he hoped the Americans and the Jews would now be satisfied but that he (Chamberlain) felt that he had signed the doom of civilization.

Kennedy said that if it had not been for Roosevelt the British would not have made this most gigantic blunder in history.

Further from the Polish Ambassador Potocki to the Polish Foreign Office, dated two months before the British guarantee to Poland, in which he summarizes his conversations with U.S. Ambassador Bullitt:

…2) the war preparations of the United States on land, sea, and air, which will proceed in an accelerated tempo and will cost the colossal sum of $1,250,000,000.  3) the definite opinion of the President that France and Britain should abandon all policy of compromise with the totalitarian countries and should not enter into any discussion with them which might be directed towards any territorial changes.  4) a moral assurance that the United States is abandoning the policy of isolation and is ready, in case of war, to participate actively on the side of Great Britain and France, placing all its resources, financial and in raw materials, at their disposal.

So I find no reason on this basis to take exception with Schultze-Ronhof.

Others apparently criticize the author for ignoring certain other well-known sources, for example:

Well-known sources revealing Hitler’s will to war (for instance the Halder War Diary) are ignored or doubted.

Overall, the response to the author’s work was not favorable:

Schultze-Rhonhofs writings on the origins of World War II have not been accepted as accurate by professional historians. His claim that Hitler had been against a war with Poland goes against the conventional opinion in historical research and academic teaching. Schultze-Rhonhofs book has been reviewed by important German newspapers as Die Welt and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Both articles assessed it as “myth-creating” and “abstruse”.

In other words, a good candidate for a revisionist view of the war from the German perspective!  As with every historical work – mainstream or revisionist – there are certain to be gems of truth to be discovered.  Just as I have found items of significant note in books generally acceptable to the mainstream – despite my cynical bent – I expect there will be worthwhile tidbits buried within this book.

I will begin with two, both found in the preface written by the author.  First, the author suggests that the victors of the Second World War imposed on Germany the requirement that documents be made consistent with, and in the future all official versions of the history of the war align with the official, desired version as told by the victorious powers:

It was baffling for me to find in the German literature that the early historiography after the war was obviously drawn up under the effect of legal requirements which gave to German research a quite definite direction.  In the Transition Treaty (Überleitungsvertrag) of 1954, Article 7 (1), it is bindingly laid down that “all judgments (Urteile) from the Nuremberg Trials “remain valid and effective in every regard according to German law and are to be treated accordingly by German courts and authorities.”  Included, as an integral part, in the text of the judgments of the main Nuremberg Trial of 1946 is an exactly 200 pages long account of the German war and pre-war history from the perspective of the Soviets, the Americans, the British and the French….this account of “German history” from the victors’ perspective was recognized by the (German) Federal Government as “in all respects valid and effective” (rechtswirksam und rechtskräftig) and thus binding for German courts and authorities. (Pages 12-13)

I find nothing terribly shocking in this claim. Victorious governments have chosen to ensure that history is written as they want it to be written.  They do so in their own countries – why not do so in the defeated nations as well?  Allied leaders made such statements regularly in any case, stating that the Germans, blamed for causing both major wars, must be cleansed of their lust for war.  Where better to start than with the history?

Certainly, and understandably, the Allies implemented a policy of denazification.  It also seems that they went further (from Wikipedia):

After World War II, the Allied powers (Soviet Union, France, Britain, and the USA) ensured that Nazi ideology was eliminated from the curriculum. They installed educational systems in their respective occupation zones that reflected their own ideas.

The author states something similar:

Included among these authorities [bound to respect German history from the victors’ perspective] are the regional ministers of culture who examine and authorize the contents of the school history textbooks.

The effect of this treaty is still in force.  The author describes that the Transition Treaty was replaced in 1990 by a new Two-Plus-Four Treaty, with this entire clause inserted intact.  (Page 13)  This treaty allowed for the reunification of East and West Germany:

The Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany, German: Vertrag über die abschließende Regelung in bezug auf Deutschland (or the Two Plus Four Agreement, German: Zwei-plus-Vier-Vertrag; short: German Treaty) was negotiated in 1990 between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic (the titular “Two”), and the Four Powers which occupied Germany at the end of World War II in Europe: France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. In the treaty the Four Powers renounced all rights they held in Germany, allowing a united Germany to become fully sovereign the following year.

While all rights might have been renounced, many conditions were included in the treaty, including conditions regarding the size and scope of the German military, for example.

The second interesting bit of information I found in the preface regards the first threats of war between Poland and Germany.  The author claims that it was Poland that first made threats regarding the port city of Danzig:

It was pronounced in March 1939 by the Polish Ambassador in Berlin, even before Hitler gave the command to the Wehrmacht’s High Command to prepare for war against Poland. (Page 12)

This is an interesting point.  To my recollection, nothing is directly mentioned of this in Hoover’s book, although a hint might be found in the warning from Beck to von Moltke:

[Hitler] now turned his attention to Poland.  On March 21, 1939, less than a week after his armies had rolled into Prague, he made a demand upon Poland for the annexation of Danzig, the return of other Germans in Polish territory, and restrictions of the Polish Corridor to the Baltic.

On March 25, the Polish Government replied, denying Hitler’s claims and refusing any consequential concessions.  Three days later, Foreign Minister Beck of Poland warned H. A. von Moltke, the German Ambassador in Warsaw, against any German action involving Danzig. (Page 128)

From Patrick Buchanan’s book, “Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War,” is a further clue – perhaps a somewhat corroborating bit of evidence.  As an aside, Buchanan describes the guarantee to Poland as a “fatal blunder,” “the most fateful British declaration of the twentieth century.”

Buchanan writes of a secret directive from Hitler:

… [On] March 25, Hitler had issued a secret directive to his army commander in chief: “The Feuhrer does not wish to solve the Danzig question by force.  He does not wish to drive Poland into the arms of Britain by this.”  Hitler did not want war with Poland, he wanted an alliance with Poland. (Page 254)

Buchanan attributes this quote to a book by Simon Newman, “March 1939: The British Guarantee to Poland,” page 184.

From “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace,” Edited By Harry Elmer Barnes

In this new and exalted mood Chamberlain moved rapidly in the direction of a momentous pledge to Poland.  In March, 1939, Hitler was exerting strong pressure upon Poland in favor of concessions which seemed quite reasonable. He wished to incorporate Danzig within the Reich (after confirming Polish economic privileges in the city) and desired permission to construct an extra-territorial motor road across the Corridor.  In 1933 President Roosevelt had spoken of the possibility of a German elevated railway across the Corridor. But, in 1939, the Polish Foreign Minister refused to grant these concessions, and war clouds gathered along the Polish horizon.

Following the German and Soviet invasion, no help from Britain or France materialized:

Poland was betrayed by both Britain and France and her own statesmen were too stupid to understand the simplest lessons in Realpolitik.

So, perhaps, there is some truth in the claim by Schultze-Rhonhof.

I will continue to write on this book.  From my reading so far, there are several topics worth further exploration.

Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.

The Best of Bionic Mosquito

The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable

The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable

By Bionic Mosquito

Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com

Review: The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkableby George Victor

In this book, George Victor addresses the several questions regarding Pearl Harbor: did U.S. Intelligence know beforehand? Did Roosevelt know? If so, why weren’t commanders in Hawaii notified? It is a well-researched and documented volume, complete with hundreds of end-notes and references.

Twelve days before the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt surprised his advisors by saying that war with Japan was about to begin. Secretary of War Stimson noted in his diary:

The question was what we should do. The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.

Mr. Victor admits he is an admirer of Roosevelt. While he is clear that Roosevelt manipulated the country into war, he does not condemn him for it:

History has recorded many, many rulers’ manipulations of their people into war without their subordinates blowing the whistle. Presidents James Polk, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, and Woodrow Wilson did it before [Roosevelt], and others have done it after him.

This is difficult for many to accept, especially the idea that honorable and upright military leaders would allow such a thing to occur. General George Marshall, in testimony to various tribunals after Pearl Harbor was clear, however:

He testified to a congressional committee that withholding vital information from commanders was routine practice.

Roosevelt had warnings of the coming attack. It was fortunate for Roosevelt that his political enemies did not know

…that [intelligence officers] had been reading the most confidential Japanese ciphers even before the attack, and that the Japanese war plans were no secret to American intelligence.

Despite the documented warnings received by administration intelligence (eventually turned over to various committees), the administration took the stand that no warning had come in. Further it seems clear that no warnings were sent to Pearl Harbor on the eve of the attack.

Victor goes into some background of the U.S. involvement in the war well before December 7. He outlines the aid to the allies in Europe. He goes into detail regarding attempts to get Germany to shoot first. When this failed, the U.S. changed its focus to Japan. These actions have been well-documented elsewhere – termination of trade treaties, embargoes of material and the like. The big blow was the oil embargo.

His military advisors were strongly against the embargo, rightly anticipating that this would lead to war with Japan. Yet Roosevelt went ahead with the embargo in the summer of 1941 – abruptly reversing his prior position. At the same time, he took other measures within days of the embargo decision: freezing Japan’s U.S. assets, breaking off diplomatic talks with Japan, and arming the Philippines.

Something happened at this time to get Roosevelt to change so abruptly and go against his military advisors. Victor cites historian Waldo Heinrichs with a “unique idea.”

Roosevelt changed his attitude about pressuring Japan in order to save the Soviet Union. Germany had just invaded Russia, and Japan was contemplating when and how to support its German ally. Roosevelt was aware of these Japanese deliberations and preparations – Japan would make war plans for both the Soviet Union and the United States, but would only fight one of them. Victor believes it is quite credible that Roosevelt abruptly changed his approach and became more provocative with Japan for the purpose of reducing the risk that Japan attacks the Soviets.

Even in the last days of November and early December, Japan is still seen as making overtures for peace. These were rejected by Washington, in fact Japan notes Washington’s provocative tone (from an intercepted message from Tokyo to Berlin):

The conversations…between Tokyo and Washington now stand broken…lately England and the United States have taken a provocative attitude…war may suddenly break out.

In late November, Roosevelt had knowledge that the Japanese fleet was sailing east toward Hawaii, as supported by William Casey of U.S. intelligence. “The British had sent word that a Japanese fleet was steaming east toward Hawaii.” That this information was sent to Washington is confirmed by various British intelligence officers as well.

The U.S. commanders in Hawaii, Kimmel and Short, were not forwarded relevant and important intelligence about the situation. This is confirmed by the intelligence officers both in Washington and in Hawaii. For example,

[I – [Bratton]] never received a definite prohibition on [sending warnings] but every time that I tried to send a message of this sort, and the Navy found out about it, the Chief of Naval operations would call up the Chief of Staff on the telephone and object most vociferously and emphatically. He in turn would call [Miles] and object strenuously, and by the time it got to me…it was disapproval expressed in no uncertain terms…And I in each case would be instructed not to do it again.

Finally, Victor outlines the messages from Tokyo to its Ambassadors in Washington known as #901 and #902. These were sent on December 6. Message #901 is known as the pilot message, outlining the upcoming message #902 (in fourteen parts) and steps to be taken by the diplomats when received. Importantly, message #902 was to be sent in English to ensure there were no delays by Washington to translate the message.

Based on this, a member of the army’s Signal Intelligence Service later wrote, “Shortly after midday on Saturday, December 6, 1941… [we] knew that war was as certain as death” and “it was known in our agency that Japan would surely attack us in the early afternoon the following day…Not an iota of doubt.” Early afternoon in Washington was early morning in Hawaii.

Administration officials claimed message #901 was not delivered to key officers until the next day. Bratton, however, testified that the messages were delivered that evening to most people on their list.

To Victor, there is no doubt that the administration took steps to provoke Japan and knew when and where Japan would attack. As noted, he makes no judgment on this beyond noting that this is what political leaders do.

Events are poorly explained by making assumptions that crucial acts by competent, conscientious leaders were capricious, careless, or negligent. And U.S. leaders who figured in the Pearl Harbor disaster were highly competent and conscientious.

After Roosevelt stationed the fleet at Pearl Harbor, Commander McCollum wrote a memo for him, recommending its use as a lure. Roosevelt implemented the recommendation. Admiral Richardson concluded the administration use of the fleet endangered it gravely, and he argued the point over and over with his superiors. When he took measures to protect his fleet, Roosevelt relieved him. Stark then kept Kimmel uninformed of Japan’s plans to attack it at Pearl Harbor. And Marshall kept Short uninformed.

To most Americans, manipulating one’s nation into war is something done by foreign tyrants – not our own leaders. Since 1942 U.S. history has been distorted by the idea that presidents simply do not do what Roosevelt’s enemies said he did.

These few paragraphs found in the afterword of the book best sum up George Victor’s views regarding the Pearl Harbor myth.

Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.

The Best of Bionic Mosquito

L’incroyable carte de Piri Reis

PORTULANS MYSTERIEUX

 

L’incroyable carte de Piri Reis

Patrice Zehr
Ex: http://metamag.fr

Certaines cartes géographiques sont des énigmes.  Comment en effet des cartes peuvent-elles représenter des terres encore « incognita » à leur époque, des terres non découvertes et réputées inconnues. C’est le mystère que nous allons aborder autour notamment du plus célèbre des portulans de l’impossible : la carte de Pirus Rei.

La carte de Piri Reis a un avantage considérable par rapport à d’autres énigmes liées à divers documents anciens énigmatiques, on peut la voir. Elle est exposée dans le célèbre musée de Topkapi à Istanbul. Elle y a été retrouvée par hasard, car elle était abandonné et perdue puis découverte en 1929 lors de la restauration du palais de Topkapi. Elle est attribuée à l'amiral et cartographe ottoman Piri Reis qui l'aurait tracée en 1513. 

Dessinée sur une peau de gazelle, elle détaille les côtes occidentales de l'Afrique et les côtes orientales de l'Amérique du Sud. L'une des caractéristiques de cette carte est la figuration détaillée d'une côte connectée à la zone australe de l'Amérique du Sud, qui ressemble point par point à la côte de l'Antarctique, continent qui n'a été découvert officiellement qu'en 1818. C’est le cœur de l’énigme.

La carte de Piri Reis n'est cependant que le fragment d'une carte plus grande représentant le monde connu à l'époque où elle a été réalisée, et dont le reste est aujourd'hui, hélas, perdu. L'amiral turc dit, dans des notes explicatives, s'être inspiré d'une vingtaine d'autres cartes, allant de cartes antiques grecques à celles alors très récentes établies par un pilote de Christophe Colomb, capturé en Méditerranée par l'oncle de Piri Reis qui était un redoutable pirate barbaresque, ou encore à celles établies par des navigateurs portugais. Il s’agit en tout cas d’une carte incroyablement complète pour l'époque.

Piri Ibn Haji Mehmed dit Piri Reis était un grand amiral ("reis" en turc) de la flotte ottomane au XVIe siècle, né à Karaman (province). Neveu du célèbre pirate Kemal Reis dit Camali, il est surtout connu pour son œuvre de cartographe. Lettré, il se passionnait pour les cartes et les collectionnait. Sa carrière maritime a été moins convaincante et beaucoup plus tragique. Piri Reis est fait amiral de la flotte d'Égypte basée à Suez qui opère dans la Mer Rouge, dans l'océan Indien et dans le golfe Persique. Il dirige en 1552, la campagne ottomane contre Ormuz depuis Suez afin de conquérir la forteresse portugaise, à l'entrée du golfe Persique. L'expédition initiale se solde par un échec. Piri Reis, après avoir pris le comptoir portugais de Mascate ne parvient pas à forcer l'entrée du fort d'Ormuz. Contraint de se replier à Bassora, au fond du golfe Persique, il choisit de rentrer en Égypte avec quelques navires seulement et est condamné à mort pour son échec.

L'opération est un échec total pour les Ottomans. Ils ne réussissent pas à prendre leur objectif et leur flotte est détruite lors des opérations visant à la ramener à son port d'attache. L'amiral ottoman est malgré ses explications décapité au Caire sur ordre du sultan en raison de sa défaite. 

Sa vraie postérité, il la doit donc à sa passion et à ses qualités de cartographe. Il est aussi et surtout un collectionneur. Et l’une de ses acquisitions est l’objet de grandes querelles scientifiques.

Certains auteurs considèrent la carte comme un « OOPArt », estimant qu'elle a été réalisée 300 ans avant la découverte de l'Antarctique et qu'elle montre la côte telle qu'elle se présente sous la glace (ce qui ferait remonter les informations à 10 000 ans). OOPArt est un sigle utilisé en langue anglaise pour Out of Place Artifact, c'est-à-dire « objet fabriqué hors de place » ou « objet hors contexte » en français. Ce terme est attribué au zoologiste américain Ivan T. Sanderson pour désigner un artéfact archéologique ou historique dont la présence sur le site de découverte constitue a priori une énigme. Beaucoup d'entre eux sont considérés comme des canulars. Pour certains objets, la contestation concerne leur interprétation et non leur appartenance à la culture ou à l'époque concernée. Des historiens qui considèrent la carte de Piri Reis comme ancienne expliquent les contours dits « de l'Antarctique » par l'imagination du dessinateur ou une déformation due au regroupement de plusieurs cartes plutôt que par des connaissances exceptionnelles pour l'époque. Pour d’autres, il s’agit de la preuve de connaissances perdues que la science officielle veut écarter par facilité. 

C’est le cas de  Charles Hapgood, professeur américain d'histoire des sciences, dans son livre Cartes des Anciens Rois des Mers. Pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, Hapgood travailla dans les services stratégiques (OSS), dans les services de la CIA ainsi qu'au sein de la Croix-Rouge. Il fut également agent de liaison entre la Maison Blanche et le Bureau du Secrétaire de la Guerre. Après la Seconde Guerre mondiale, Hapgood enseigna l'histoire au Collège de Springfield dans le Massachusetts. Il étudia avec ses élèves des théories sur le continent perdu Mu ainsi que sur l'Atlantide, ce qui lui valu le discrédit de la science officielle malgré ses compétences indiscutables. En 1955, Hapgood écrit son premier livre, The Earth's Shifting Crust. La préface fut écrite par Albert Einstein, peu de temps avant sa mort en 1955. 

Dans ce livre, ainsi que dans deux autres livres, Les cartes des anciens rois de la mer (1966) et Le chemin du Pôle (1970), Hapgood proposa la théorie radicale que l'axe de la Terre a changé de nombreuses fois au cours de l'histoire géologique. Cette théorie n'est pas acceptée par les géologues orthodoxes. Le professeur Hapgood, dans son ouvrage Les cartes des anciens rois de la mer concluait, avec le soutien d’Albert Einstein, « Il semble que des informations géographiques d’une grande précision se soient transmises de peuple en peuple. Ces cartes, selon toute vraisemblance, ont été dressées par un peuple inconnu, puis léguées à d’autres civilisations, peut-être les Crétois de l’époque de Minos et les Phéniciens. (…) La plupart de ces cartes concernaient la Méditerranée et la mer Noire. Certaines représentaient le continent américain, ainsi que les océans Arctique et Antarctique. Aussi incroyable que cela puisse paraître, nous avons la preuve qu’un peuple ancien a exploré l’Antarctique quand ce continent était encore libre de glaces. Il est manifeste que ce peuple disposait d’une technologie nettement supérieure à toutes celles des peuples de l’Antiquité, du Moyen-âge et jusqu’à la seconde moitié du 18e siècle ». 

Son livre remet en cause le darwinisme et réhabilite les fois religieuses et le créationnisme. Il rencontre un très grand succès aux Etats-Unis et est traduit en plusieurs langues dont le français 

Que dit Piri Reis lui ?

Dans ces notes, il explique avoir utilisé une vingtaine de cartes pour parvenir à ce résultat ; certaines cartes ayant appartenu à Alexandre le Grand ! Certaines même auraient été plus anciennes encore. L’aspect mystérieux de cette carte est en premier lieu sa grande précision, à une époque où les calculs de longitude étaient inconnus. L’île de Marajó, notamment, y est dessinée avec une exactitude anachronique. De plus, comme c’était d’usage à l’époque, la carte est ornée de dessins de bateaux dans les océans ou d’espèces locales sur les continents. Justement, l’Amérique du Sud, à peine découverte, est représentée avec un lama, inconnu à cette époque. Finalement, le plus grand mystère de cette carte réside dans la représentation d’îles, près de l’équateur, qui n’existent pas (ou plus : par exemple, l’une de ces îles a été identifiée comme étant un plateau aujourd’hui englouti) ainsi que de l’Antarctique, libérée de glaces ! Certains détails représentés (comme des îles antarctiques) ne seront corroborés qu’au XXe siècle !

La controverse scientifique

Différentes études scientifiques remettent radicalement en question les interprétations faisant intervenir des phénomènes fantastiques. Ainsi, suivant une proposition d'Aristote développée par Ptolémée dont s'inspiraient les cartographes de la Renaissance, les cartes à partir du XVe siècle représentent une Terra australis qui, selon l'opinion géographique commune de l'époque, devait logiquement exister pour équilibrer la masse continentale de l'hémisphère nord. Ce serait ce continent imaginaire qui figurerait en bas de la carte de Piri Reis et la ressemblance avec l'Antarctique serait pure coïncidence. D’autres scientifiques comme Steven Dutch pensent que l'assemblage de cartes réalisé par Piri Reis aurait comporté une distorsion au niveau de Curitiba au Brésil, et que le dessin ne représenterait pas l'Antarctique mais la côte sud du Brésil, de l'Uruguay et de l'Argentine. Diego Cuoghi affirme que la carte n'était que la compilation de celles de Christophe Colomb et que la représentation de l'Antarctique n'était qu'un fantasme de la part de C. Hapgood.Gregory C. McIntosh, dans son livre The tale of two admirals - Columbus and the Piri Reis Map of 1513 a examiné en détail les énigmes posées par la carte de Piri Reis et estime aussi qu'elle correspond à un assemblage de plusieurs cartes de Christophe Colomb 

Le support de la carte a été daté par le carbone 14 et il remonte bien au XVIe siècle. L'encre a également été testée chimiquement et date aussi du XVIe siècle. Tous ces tests ont été effectués par W. Mc Crone un spécialiste qui a déjà travaillé sur le suaire de Turin .

La carte de Piri Reis est donc authentique et montre en tout cas que les Turcs, bien qu'étant loin de l'océan Atlantique et de l'Amérique, se tenaient au courant des dernières découvertes de l'époque. C’est déjà une révélation.

Sauf à croire bien sûr qu’elle  est d’une manière ou d’une autre, une synthèse de cartes anciennes venues de civilisations maritimes englouties et de savoirs perdus. Des civilisations antiques et supérieures du temps pré-diluviens d’énigmatiques rois de la mer.

Un ouvrage sur le Maréchal Mannerheim

 

Méconnu en France, le Maréchal Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim incarna, dans la première moitié du XXe siècle, l'héroïque résistance nationaliste et anti-communiste du peuple finlandais face aux prétentions impérialistes des soviétiques.

Mannerheim fit preuve d'un pragmatisme original grâce auquel la Finlande est sortie victorieuse de sa guerre de libération nationale. Certes, il s'entendit avec les puissances de l'Axe, mais cela ne l'empêcha pas de continuer à jouer un rôle politique important jusqu'à sa mort survenue en 1951.

Jean-Claude Rolinat, à qui nous devons un livre consacré à Salazar cliquez ici et un autre à Mandela cliquez là (publiés aux Bouquins de Synthèse nationale), nous fait revivre dans ce n°5 des Cahiers d'Histoire du nationalisme ce grand patriote qui mérite d'être mieux connu.

Vous pourrez aussi lire des documents historiques consacrés à Mannerheim :

- Un article du professeur François Duprat publié en 1973 dans Défense de l'Occident.

- Un entretien avec Alfred Fabre-Luce publié dans Les Ecrits de Paris en 1952.

- Une contribution de Philippe Vilgier, auteur d'une biographie de Jean Fontenoy (Editions Via Romana 2012) qui fut volontaire pendant la guerre d'Hiver en 1939 en Finlande dans les rangs des troupes nationalistes.

200 pages, 20 €

Commandez-le en ligne cliquez ici

ABONNEZ-VOUS EN LIGNE AUX

CAHIERS D'HISTOIRE DU NATIONALISME

cliquez là

Par correspondance en envoyant un chèque de 23 € (20 € + 3 € de port) à l'ordre de Synthèse nationale à Synthèse nationale 116, rue de Charenton 75012 Paris

Bulletin de commande

Abonnement : France, 6 numéros 110 € - Etranger 130 €

Les kamikazes japonais

Les kamikazes japonais

Ex: http://metapoinfos.hautetfort.com

« Je me suis levé à 6 heures ce matin pour respirer l’air pur de la montagne. Et tout ce que je ferai aujourd’hui le sera pour la dernière fois. » Tsuka Akio, avant de s’envoler pour une mission kamikaze au large d’Okinawa, le 28 avril 1945.

Les éditions Flammarion viennent de publier Kamikazes, une étude historique signée par Constance Sereni et Pierre Souyri. Les deux auteurs sont universitaires et spécialistes de la culture japonaise. On doit notamment à Pierre Souyri Une Histoire du Japon médiéval (Tempus, 2013).

 

Kamikazes, ou la chronique d’une mort ordonnée

Automne 1944. Le sort du Japon en guerre semble désormais scellé face à la déferlante militaire américaine. Le pays résiste encore mais il faudrait maintenant un vrai miracle pour vaincre l’Amérique. Dépourvu d’armes miracle, l’état-major nippon met alors sur pied des unités spéciales d’attaque.
Des  pilotes choisis et entraînés pour aller se jeter contre des cibles militaires américaines.  Des pilotes baptisés kamikazes (vent divin) transformés en bombes humaines. Dans la propagande japonaise, ces hommes, volontaires pour mourir pour la gloire du Japon, sont présentés «comme la réincarnation des samouraïs qui perdaient la vie par fidélité, tels des pétales de cerisier qui se dispersent au vent.»

Mais la réalité était-elle conforme à la légende, véhiculée par les écrits et le cinéma? Une question qui sert de fil rouge à ce document historique publié chez Flammarion et rédigé par Constance Sereni et Pierre-François Souyri, deux enseignants spécialistes de la culture japonaise. Deux auteurs qui retracent l’historique de cette arme désespérée, bien loin de l’image d’Epinal du pilote obéissant, fier de donner sa vie. Comme ils le rappellent, la mission des kamikazes est unique dans l’histoire militaire, car dépourvue de cet élément présent dans les missions les plus dangereuses : l’espoir, même ténu, de revenir vivant.
«Ce n’était pas une mission avec une chance sur dix d’en revenir. C’était une mission zéro sur dix.»

Bien documenté, l’essai n’est pas un livre de guerre. Il constitue plutôt un ouvrage qui voyage entre histoire et sociologie. Il retrace en bref toute la campagne du Pacifique, certes, mais pour expliquer la folle motivation des créateurs de cette arme. On s’attarde davantage sur le gros chapitre lié à l’endoctrinement de ces pilotes qui ne furent pas tous, loin de là, des soldats fanatisés.

Des pilotes qui furent entraînés, endoctrinés en sept jours. Ni plus, ni moins. Peu formés, ils vont souvent manquer leurs cibles par erreur de pilotage ou par confusion des objectifs. Les navires de transport alliés seront souvent confondus avec des navires militaires. Déjà fortement diminuée par le «grand tir aux pigeons des Mariannes», une bataille disputée en août 1944 et dans laquelle le Japon a perdu le tiers de ses porte-avions, l’aviation japonaise va ponctionner plusieurs milliers de pilotes supplémentaires pour les utiliser comme kamikazes, lors de missions sans retour. Prévue comme une solution temporaire, cette arme du pauvre sera utilisée jusqu’en août 1945. Soit 10 mois de sacrifices.

Avec quel bilan ? Côté japonais, on estime les pertes à plus de 3.800 pilotes tués, pour 60 navires américains coulés et 6.830 soldats alliés tués. Des chiffres toujours imprécis aujourd’hui.
Mais force est de constater que cette tactique, absente de la philosophie occidentale, a provoqué une sacrée psychose à bord des navires américains.
Quand la DCA échouait à abattre le kamikaze, il ne restait plus que le miracle pour sauver sa peau. Si les marins américains considéraient les Japonais comme des tueurs et des imbéciles, les analystes de l’US Navy avaient un avis bien différent. «L’avion suicide était de loin l’arme la plus efficace inventée par les Japonais contre les vaisseaux de surface. Alors qu’ils n’ont été utilisés que sur une période de 10 mois, les avions suicide ont été responsables de 48,1% de tous les dégâts infligés à des navires de guerre américains, et de 21,3% des bâtiments coulés pendant la guerre» soulignent-ils.

Créée pour retarder la fin de la guerre, cette «détermination suicidaire des Japonais» a, au contraire, précipité la fin du conflit avec l’usage du feu nucléaire, les 6 et 9 août 1945. À noter, enfin, le cahier photographique qui permet de mettre un visage sur ces kamikazes, parfois très jeunes. Comme ce pilote, âgé d’à peine 17 ans et envoyé à la mort, sans regret. Comme bien d’autres, et dont on peut lire les dernières lettres en guise d’épilogue à ce document qui ouvre un large pan sur la culture japonaise.  Dans laquelle domine notamment la culture de la mort et la notion de sacrifice.  «Comment imaginer, explique le duo d’auteurs, que, lancés dans leur machine folle, certains d’entre eux devaient hurler en appelant leur mère, ou tout simplement fermer les yeux lors du dernier instant avant le choc. Ce furent des victimes du système autant que des héros, qui sont morts, le corps broyé dans leurs machines.»

Kamikaze. Un terme toujours d’actualité mais galvaudé par les médias. Comme l’explique une petite parenthèse qui remet fort justement les pendules à l’heure. Dans les attentats au Moyen-Orient ou ailleurs, les journalistes baptisent, à tort, les terroristes de kamikazes car ils se suicident dans leur action. Un usage erroné du terme qui énerve les Japonais, qui parlent plutôt de jibaku (ceux qui se font exploser). Les kamikazes, à l’inverse des terroristes, n’ont quant à eux jamais attaqué de cibles civiles, sans défenses. Ils ont, par ailleurs, obéi à un ordre en temps de guerre. Une précision bien nécessaire pour saluer la mémoire de ces pilotes envoyés à la mort dans leurs cercueils volants. «Il est difficile d’imaginer pire gâchis d’une jeunesse sacrifiée.»

Philippe Degouy (L'Echo, 19 février 2015)

 

IWO JIMA: Chanson pour la défense

IWO JIMA: Chanson pour la défense

par Rémy Valat

Ex: http://metamag.fr

 

Il y a 70 ans, l’armée impériale japonaise a été engagée dans une bataille sans espoir face à l’armée américaine. Le contrôle de l’île et de ses deux bases aériennes étaient un objectif stratégique majeur pour les alliés : Iwo Jima a été pour cela régulièrement et intensivement bombardée à partir du mois d’août 1944. L’île servait aussi de relais de transmission, informant l’état-major des mouvements des bombardiers à grand rayon d’action décollant des Mariannes pour détruire les villes du Japon. 

 

C’est pour protéger leurs femmes et leurs enfants, résidant dans les grandes villes de l’archipel, que ces hommes vont s’efforcer de retarder l’inéluctable : « Dans un endroit comme Tôkyô, je pense qu’il y aura plus de victimes qu’on ne l’imagine. En particulier, comme l’ennemi utilisera sans doute aussi des bombes incendiaires qui créeront donc forcément des incendies, la panique et les dommages seront sans doute très importants. Il faut t’y résigner et bien te préparer.... » (lettre du général Kuribayashi à sa femme, 2 novembre 1944, in Lettres d’Iwo Jima, Les Arènes, 2011,p.209).

 

La position, après évacuation de la population civile, a été défendue par 22 000 hommes (principalement de la 109e division), dirigés par le général Kuribayashi Tadamichi, officier profondément humain et critique à l’endroit de l’état-major. Les troupes nippones se sont enterrées, comme à Tarawa ou à Okinawa, pour compenser la supériorité numérique et technique des troupes américaines. En vain. Le bilan humain de la bataille est désastreux : 20 703 tués et 1152 disparus du côté japonais et plus de 26 000 hommes (dont 19 000 blessés) dans le camp américain.

 

Les lettres d’Iwo Jima (le livre de Kakehashi Kumiko et le film de Clint Eastwood) ont rendu un vibrant hommage aux soldats japonais morts au combat sur cette île de 22 km2. Ces lettres apportent un éclairage significatif sur les soldats japonais engagés dans cette bataille, et même si la propagande militariste de l’époque instrumentalisait les sentiments des soldats, on ne peut qu’être touché par ces documents et cette chanson patriotique de l’époque...(vidéo ci-dessous)  Il est aisé de deviner les motivations de ces hommes à combattre ou à se donner la mort. Les soldats japonais étaient loin d’être des fanatiques.

 

Dresden and Poznan: Two Different Ways to Wage War

Yuriy RUBTSOV

Ex: http://www.strategic-culture.org

The Red Army and British-American forces had one enemy - the German Wehrmacht but quite often they waged different wars. The liberation of Polish city of Poznan by Red Army and the bombing of Dresden by allies – one event following another in a week - took place 70 years ago, February 1945. These examples provide a good illustration to support the point of view stated above. 

During the Vistula-Oder Offensive the 1^st Belarussian Front under the command of Marshal Georgi Zhukov Marshall, the «Hero of the Soviet Union», managed to secure two bridgeheads west of the Vistula River between 27 July and 4 August 1944 opening the way to Berlin. The concentrations of German forces were left blocked but not defeated at Schneidemüh and Poznan. With the main forces continuing advance in the western direction, it took time and effort to rout the German grouping at Poznan. General Vasily Chuikov, the commander of the 8th Army (to become later Marshall of the Soviet Union) was responsible for the operation planned to smash the enemy forces there. In his memoirs he said the Germans-built fortifications were classic Vauban-style fortresses (Sébastien Le Prestre de Vauban was a Marshal of France and the foremost military engineer of his age, famed for his skill in both designing fortifications and breaking through them). The design envisioned the construction of underground forts in the center and citadels at the junctures to accommodate a large garrison…

In Poznan the city and fortifications were strongly defended and integrated into a single defence plan to coordinate fire. The Fort Winiary citadel stood on a hill to the north of the city centre. Around the perimeter of the city were 18 massively-built forts spaced at intervals of about 2 kilometres in a ring with a radius of about 5 kilometres. General Chuikov described the forts as «...underground structures each with several storeys, the whole projecting above the surrounding terrain. Only a mound was visible above ground -- the layer of earth covering the rest. Each fort was ringed by a ditch ten metres wide and eight metres deep, with walls revetted with brickwork. Across the ditch was a bridge, leading to one of the upper storeys. Among the forts, to the rear, there were one-storey brick bunkers. These were clad in concrete almost a full metre thick, and were used as stores. The upper works of the forts were sufficiently strong to provide reliable protection against heavy artillery fire... the enemy would be able to direct fire of all kinds against us both on the approaches to the forts and within them, on the rampart. The embrasures were such that flanking fire from rifles and machine-guns could be directed from them». Together with Volkssturm (a German national militia of the last months of World War II) Poznan was defended by a 60 thousand-strong garrison. 

The offensive started early in the morning on January 26. The first strike was delivered from the south. It was unexpected by the enemy. Two southern forts were seized on the Warta River’s western bank. As a result, the troops and tanks penetrated the ring of forts to attack the enemy from behind. The attack from the north produced little results. The Soviet troops did not attack from the west. Chuikov remembers that there was a way out left on purpose to let the enemy withdraw from the city-fortress. But Germans did not leave. A long and hard battle was ahead. On January 28, another attack was launched. Chuikov addressed the German troops surrounded in Poznan to put forward an ultimatum. It read «Officers and soldiers of the Poznan garrison. You are surrounded. There is no way you can leave the city. I, General Chuikov, offer you to immediately lay down your arms and surrender. I guarantee life and return home after the war is over. Otherwise you’ll be wiped out. The death of civilians in Poznan will be your responsibility. Do not hesitate. Raise white flags and come to our side. General Chuikov». 

But the garrison had no intention to surrender. Soviet aviation and artillery delivered strikes at fortifications trying to avoid damage to the buildings inside the city and avoid casualties among civilians. The Fort Winiary citadel was ruined. The soldiers hid underground. 

 

 

By February 5 the assault teams fully had liberated the residential areas. After February 12 the Fort became the main target. As the Soviet troops approached, the resistance grew. The 5-8 metre high brick walls protected the enemy preventing tanks from advance. Heavy artillery pieces were moved near to fire at the Fort from the distance of 300 metres. But even 203mm projectiles did not inflict much damage to the thick walls. 

At the time the 1^st Belarus Front forces moved to the west reaching the Oder. The general assault started on February 18 to last without stop for four days. Having built an assault bridge, Red Army tanks and assault guns of the 259th and 34th crossed into the main grounds of the citadel early at 3 o’clock on 22 February commencing the final struggle for the old fortress. The groups of 20-200 men started to surrender. Only 12 thousand troops remained out of 60 thousand strong garrison. The bloody fighting ended on February 23, 1945, the day of the 17 anniversary of the Red Army. 224 artillery pieces fired 20 salvos to salute the victory. 

Here is the example of war waged by allies. On February 13-15, they delivered air strikes against Dresden with the inflicted damage comparable with Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks. 

Americans called the operation «Thunderstrike». Who was it targeted against? 

The city had no significant defence industry facilities and was flooded with refugees. 

A Royal Air Force (RAF) memo issued to airmen on the night of the attack said: «Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester is also the largest unbombed builtup area the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westward and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium, not only to give shelter to workers, refugees, and troops alike, but to house the administrative services displaced from other areas». Why raze to the ground a city that had no substantial importance for the war effort? The very same memo was rather cynical about it. It read «The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front... and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do». That’s what RAF really did by bombing from safe altitude the city flooded with demoralized people. 

 

 

As the end of war was approaching the British-American aviation started to more frequently deliver politically motivated strikes destroying cities of no significance for German war effort to be soon liberated by Red Army, for instance Prague, Sofia etc. Dresden is the brightest example of how this vicious tactics was employed. The devastated area in Dresden exceeded 4 times the devastated area of Nagasaki. 1,500-degree heat hit the larger part of the city. People running to reach city’s outskirts fell into melting asphalt. Smoke was 45 metres high. At least 25 thousand died. Some experts say the death toll was as high as 135 thousand. Günter Wilhelm Grass, a German writer and recipient of the 1999 Nobel Prize in Literature, called the bombing a war crime. This point of view is supported by many. 

Dr. Gregory Stanton, president of Genocide Watch, expressed himself more bluntly saying the Allied firebombing of Dresden and the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes and also acts of genocide.

Sven Hedin : explorateur des immensités centre-asiatiques

Helge Morgengrauen :

Sven Hedin : explorateur des immensités centre-asiatiques

A l’occasion du 150^ème anniversaire de sa naissance

Sven Hedin est né le dimanche 19 février 1865 au sein d’une  famille bien en vue de la bourgeoisie de Stockholm, descendant de lignées paysannes du centre de la Suède mais qui comptait aussi, parmi ses ancêtres, un rabbin de Francfort-sur-l’Oder. Le père de Sven Hedin était un architecte très actif, qui a connu le succès tout au long de sa carrière. La famille « vivait simplement, sans prétention, en ses foyers régnaient calme et tranquillité, confort et bonheur », écrira plus tard son célèbre fils.

Ce fils exceptionnel a reçu les prénoms de Sven Anders et, très tôt, il savait déjà qu’il deviendrait un explorateur. Tout au début de son rêve, il admirait les explorateurs polaires, surtout son compatriote Nordenskiöld qui fut le premier à maîtriser le passage du Nord-Est, soit la voie maritime dans l’Océan Glacial Arctique qui longe les côtes septentrionales de l’Europe et de l’Asie. C’est Nordenskiöld que le jeune Sven Hedin voulait imiter.

Plus tard, dans les années 1880, le jeune homme, à l’approche de ses vingt ans, part pour la première fois en Asie. Il est d’abord, pendant quelques mois, précepteur dans une famille suédoise. Il avait déjà appris le russe, la langue persane et celle des Tatars. Quand sa tâche de précepteur prit fin, il utilisa l’argent gagné pour faire un long voyage à travers la Perse, la Mésopotamie et le Caucase. Cet enfant, né un dimanche, avait parcouru plus de 3000 km dans des déserts, des montagnes enneigées, avait traversé lacs, mers et fleuves, avait utilisé soixante chevaux sur les chemins les plus dangereux sans subir le moindre dommage, sans avoir été dépouillé par des bandits, sans être tombé malade. Sven Hedin, en effet, avait une constitution de fer : le succès de son voyage le prouvait ; plus tard, cette santé n’allait jamais le trahir. Revenu en Suède, il relate ses voyages dans un livre, qui parait en 1887 et compte 461 pages : encore aujourd’hui, la lecture de cet ouvrage demeure captivante. Sven Hedin avait une santé de fer, bien d’autres dons, mais aussi et surtout celui d’écrire.

Quelques années plus tard, il participe, au titre de vice-consul, à une mission diplomatique suédoise, que le Roi Oscar II envoie au Shah de Perse. Cette mission ne dure qu’un an mais, au cours de cette année en Perse, Hedin escalade le Demawend, la plus haute montagne de Perse (5610 m). Dès son retour, il rédige une thèse sur ce massif montagneux iranien et obtient ainsi le titre de docteur en 1892 à l’Université de Halle an der Saale en Allemagne. Ensuite, un livre tout public, intitulé « Durch Khorassan und Turkestan » (« A travers le Khorassan et le Turkestan »), rend compte de ce voyage.

Sven Hedin avait trouvé sa voie. Dans les années qui suivirent cette première mission en Perse, il organise quatre expéditions en Asie centrale qui, chacune, dureront parfois plusieurs années et lui procureront une gloire internationale. La première de ces expéditions, de 1893 à 1897, parcourt l’Asie centrale : Hedin explore la chaîne du Pamir, dans la région frontalière actuelle qui sépare l’Afghanistan, la Chine, le Kirghizistan et le Tadjikistan. Il ne parvient toutefois pas à escalader jusqu’au sommet une montagne de cette chaîne qui dépasse les 7000 m. Il traverse aussi le désert du Taklamakan, où il est presque mort de soif : il relatera ultérieurement cette expédition dans un livre très poignant, « Abenteuer in Tibet » (« Aventure au Tibet »). De fait, Hedin s’était avancé très profondément dans le territoire tibétain, encore inconnu des Européens.

 

 

Deux ans après cette première expédition, en 1899, Sven Hedin s’embarque pour un nouveau long voyage qui durera jusqu’en 1902. Dans le cadre de cette nouvelle expédition, il voyage 2000 km sur fleuve le long de la chaîne du Tarim et découvre le secret naturel de la « mer mouvante », le Lop Nor. Il essaie en vain d’atteindre la capitale Lhassa. De 1905 à 1909, une troisième expédition le mènera dans plusieurs régions encore inconnues de l’Asie centrale. Il traverse le désert du Kevir et parcourt, en tout et pour tout, huit fois les pistes transhimalayennes dans une région montagneuse qui recevra plus tard son nom. Il explore également les régions aux sources des fleuves Bhramapoutre et Indus.

Lorsque Sven Hedin entreprend en 1926 sa dernière expédition, la plus longue de sa carrière, il a presque 61 ans : l’enthousiasme, le désir de découvrir et d’œuvrer au bénéfice des sciences géographiques, ne l’a toujours pas quitté. Cette dernière expédition va durer neuf ans ! Dans le cadre de ce très long voyage, il doit vérifier, pour le compte de la Lufthansa allemande, quelles pourraient être les voies aériennes pour accéder à l’Extrême Orient.

Dans la foulée, Hedin dirige ce que l’on appelait à l’époque, l’ « Université itinérante » (« Die wandernde Universität ») et recherche également, pour un Américain, une lamasserie pour qu’on puisse la reproduire pour une exposition universelle devant se dérouler à Chicago. De plus, pour le compte du gouvernement chinois, il examine les possibilités de tracer des voies de communication terrestres dans le Sin-Kiang.

Tous ses voyages ont été relatés dans de nombreux ouvrages. Sven Hedin a également été l’auteur de livres populaires, que les non scientifiques aujourd’hui, liront encore avec beaucoup de plaisir. Parmi ces ouvrages à destination du grand public, nous en trouvons plusieurs rédigés pour les jeunesses suédoise et allemande, parmi lesquels « Abenteuer in Tibet », « Von Pol zu Pol » (« D’un Pôle à l’autre ») et « Meine erste Reise » (« Mon premier voyage »).

Tout au long de sa vie, Hedin a été honoré, a reçu plusieurs titres de docteur (dont ceux que lui ont octroyés les universités d’Oxford et de Cambridge). Il a rencontré personnellement de nombreuses têtes couronnées et des chefs d’Etat, ce qu’il raconte par ailleurs dans « Grosse Männer, denen ich begegnete » (« Les grands hommes que j’ai rencontrés »).

Hedin était germanophile et ne s’en est jamais caché. Cette sympathie pour le Reich, il la conservera même après l’effondrement dans l’horreur que l’Allemagne a connu en 1945. On lui reprochera cette attitude, aussi en Suède et, évidemment, dans les pays victorieux. La rééducation, en Allemagne, fera que ce germanophile impénitent sera également ostracisé, en dépit de ses origines partiellement juives et de son esprit universel. Cet ostracisme durera longtemps, perdure même jusqu’à nos jours. Pourtant Hedin, qui avait la plume si facile, s’est justifié avec brio, en écrivant « Ohne Auftrag in Berlin » (« A Berlin sans ordre de mission »). Ses démonstrations n’ont servi à rien. Sven Hedin meurt, isolé, à Stockholm le 26 novembre 1952.

Helge Morgengrauen.

(article paru dans « zur Zeit », Vienne, n°8/2015 ; http://www.zurzeit.at ).

« Chouette, revoilà les années Trente ! »

« Chouette, revoilà les années Trente ! »

par Georges FELTIN-TRACOL

 

Le 29 octobre 2012, alors que s’amplifiait la participation à la « Manif pour Tous » contre la loi Taubira sur l’homoconjugalité, le porte-parole du P.S., David Assouline, estimait que « la droite est en pleine dérive et prend de plus en plus pour modèle celle des années trente ». Sans le savoir, ce sénateur de Paris inaugurait une mode éditoriale concrétisée au dernier trimestre 2014 par la parution de deux ouvrages au titre révélateur.

 

Les auteurs des Années 30 sont de retour (1) et des Années 30 reviennent et la gauche est dans le brouillard (2) appartiennent à une gauche plus ou moins sociétalistes et gendéristes. Ils sont surtout obnubilés par une réitération de l’histoire, à savoir le bégaiement en 2014 – 2015 d’événements survenus quatre-vingt ans plus tôt. Ainsi comparent-ils les intenses négociations diplomatiques entre le président russe Vladimir Poutine, le président ukrainien, Petro Porochenko, notre « Flamby » hexagonal et le chancelier allemand Merkel à la conférence de Munich de septembre 1938. Quelques mois plus tôt, d’autres personnalités simplistes confondaient l’annexion de la Crimée par la Russie à celle des Sudètes par le Reich allemand, voire au coup de Prague de mars 1939…

 

Les rédacteurs de ces deux ouvrages ne se contentent pas d’établir des parallèles entre la situation européenne d’hier et d’aujourd’hui. Ils craignent revivre ce que leurs aïeux ont vécu. Ils considèrent par exemple que Dieudonné et Soral seraient de nouveaux Céline, qu’Éric Zemmour, par ses polémiques, remplace Charles Maurras, que le Front national de Marine Le Pen reprend la trajectoire opportuniste des anciennes Croix-de-Feu devenues après leur dissolution en 1936 un Parti social français qui auraient peut-être remporté les législatives de 1940, que Laurent Bouvet, Jean-Claude Michéa, voire Christophe Guilluy, entrent dans les « champs magnétiques » non pas du fascisme, mais d’un populisme conservateur rance, que les chantres de la démondialisation, Arnaud Montebourg et Emmanuel Todd, répètent les diatribes néo-socialistes d’un Marcel Déat…

 

Journalistes institutionnels et signataires de ces essais ignorent sûrement que l’intérêt pour les années 1930 remonte en France à 1998 avec le n° 50 de la revue annuelle Nouvelle École. « Les années trente, écrivait Alain de Benoist, ont été des années de feu. Elles ont vu l’entrée dans la modernité se systématiser par tout (3). » Assimiler notre temps présent à cette décennie remuante relève d’une vaine spéculation et de la recherche, volontaire ou non, d’un supposé croque-mitaine bouffeur de gentils Bisounours… transgenre (?).

 

En dépit d’une crise économique féroce, il serait dérisoire de comparer les deux périodes. Rien que dans le domaine de la pensée politique, qui serait l’équivalent actuel des non-conformistes français, de la Révolution conservatrice austro-allemande ou des premiers cénacles eurasistes exilés à Prague et à Paris ? Quelle revue jouerait un rôle comparable à celui d’Esprit (qui existe encore), de L’Insurgé, de Combat ? Qui poursuit les travaux inachevés de L’Ordre nouveau ? Qui seraient les nouveaux Georges Valois et Bertrand de Jouvenel ? Certes, il y eut la « Jeune Droite », puis, quarante ans après, la « Nouvelle Droite ». Faut-il pour autant en conclure à l’émergence prochaine d’une « néo-jeune droite » à un moment où le clivage gauche – droite perd de sa pertinence ?

 

Bien sûr, des périodiques représentent l’anti-conformisme actuel : Réfléchir et Agir, Synthèse nationale, Éléments, Rébellion, Terre et Peuple, Militant, Présent, Minute, Rivarol, Faits et Documents, L’Action Française… Ils ne sont plus isolés. Grâce à Internet, existent enfin d’autres émetteurs de pensée alternative au « politiquement correct » en vigueur dans les médiats du Système. Il y a des radios vraiment libres telles Radio Courtoisie ou l’émission « Méridien Zéro », une télévision indépendante (T.V. Libertés), une kyrielle de sites rebelles (Euro-Synergies, Métapo Infos, Vox N.-R., Polémia, Jeune Nation, Solidarisme, etc.). Certes, les impressionnantes manifestations de l’automne – hiver 2012 – 2013 contre Taubira ainsi que d’autres démonstrations de force populaires comme l’extraordinaire « Jour de Colère » du 26 janvier 2014 ont pu être apparentées aux défilés ligueurs des années Trente. Mais toutes ces similitudes apparentes ne prouvent pas une résurgence de la décennie 1930 en ce premier quart du XXIe siècle.

 

Par ces temps incertains, il importe de savoir concilier la ténacité combative du début des années 1960, l’envie – très hussard – de déplaire propre aux années 1950, l’impérieux sentiment de résister et de bâtir une vraie Europe des années 1940, et l’esprit magnifique de révolte des années 30 : la différence des enjeux exige une approche nouvelle et un apport salvateur de solutions novatrices. Toutefois,  quelques exégètes rabougris pensent revivre avec effroi la dernière décennie de l’avant-guerre, eh bien, qu’ils en soient hantés ! Souhaitons pour notre part que les belles années Trente puissent nous inspirer pour les défis tant de l’heure que de demain !

 

Georges Feltin-Tracol

 

Notes

 

1 : Renaud Dély, Claude Askolovitch, Pascal Blanchard et Yves Gastaut, Les années 30 sont de retour. Petite leçon d’histoire pour comprendre les crises du présent, Flammarion, coll. « Documents Sciences humaines », Paris, 2014.

 

2 : Philippe Corcuff, Les années 30 reviennent et la gauche est dans le brouillard, Éditions Textuel, coll. « Petite encyclopédie critique », Paris, 2014.

 

3 : Alain de Benoist, « Présentation. Les années Trente », dans Nouvelle École, n° 50, 1998, p. 1.

 

---

 

Article printed from Europe Maxima: http://www.europemaxima.com

 

URL to article: http://www.europemaxima.com/?p=4235

The Hunger Blockade’s Centenary

Making the World Safe for Atrocity

by NICK ALEXANDROV

Ex: http://www.counterpunch.org

Commentators marked World War I’s centenary last year with cloudy references to its “dreadful lessons” and “emotional legacies.” And the victor countries’ leaders stressed the “profound sacrifice” (Barack Obama) the conflict’s “generation…made for us” (David Cameron). But if these recollections are any guide, one of the war’s dark chapters has been largely forgotten.

George Bernard Shaw discussed this episode nearly a century ago, in July 1919. “We are at present at a climax of national exultation over the most magnificent military triumph in our long record of victory,” he observed. “But the splendour of the end,” he added, “had better not blind us to the grimness of the means, which were the work of our hands.” Shaw meant that England had “starved the children of Germany, and of many other lands as well.”

The starvation campaign’s centenary is next month. It was on March 1, 1915, that “Britain and France announced that they intended to expand the objectives of the naval blockade of the Central Powers to include the interdiction of food,” Alexander Downes writes in Targeting Civilians in War. This declaration followed Germany’s, on February 4, signaling the start of submarine warfare, but merely exploited the Kaiser’s pronouncement as “an excellent pretext to interdict German food imports in a way that avoided offending neutral opinion,” Downes explains.

Depicting the blockade as a response to German aggression deflected attention from British criminality. Ralph Raico writes that, “according to everyone’s interpretation of international law except Britain’s,” the expanded blockade “was illegal,” and Downes argues that “the reigning norms and laws of naval warfare—codified in the Declaration of London, negotiated by the leading naval powers in 1908-9”—forbade it. But the law proved as great an obstacle to British officials as moral concerns. Winston Churchill clarified in 1914, while First Lord of the Admiralty, that the goal with Germany was “to starve the whole population—men, women, and children, young and old, wounded and sound—into submission.” Top defense official Maurice Hankey agreed, writing in 1915 that there was no “hope to starve Germany out this year,” though “next year” looked better.

Hankey’s forecast was accurate. The war was devastating, writes Matthew Stibbe, since “Germany depended on foreign imports for around one-third of its food needs” before 1914. “Without access to imported fertilizers,” Downes notes, “the yields of German harvests declined over the course of the conflict,” falling from “4.4 million tons of wheat in 1913” to “2.5 million tons in 1918.” Furthermore, “German consumption of meat products plummeted from 1,050 grams per week in 1913 to 135 in 1918.” Exacerbating the problem, according to Hans-Jürgen Teuteberg, was that the German “state did virtually nothing to reduce the dependence on food imports.”

German suffering sharpened during the 1916-17 winter, Stibbe explains, when “ordinary civilian rations had fallen below 1,000 calories a day”—“barely sufficient for a child of two or three years old,” Britain’s official historian of the blockade elaborated. C. Paul Vincent relates the story of one Dr. Neumann, who in 1916 “performed an experiment in which he limited himself to the legally allowed food ration for an average person. After six months on this regimen, the professor had lost a third of his weight and his capacity for work had been destroyed.”

But hunger and illness brought the most ruin to women and children. Downes writes that “by 1918 the female death rate in Germany had increased 50 percent over the rate in 1913, and was also 50 percent higher than the corresponding rate in England.” “The death rate of children between the ages of one and five” jumped 50% during the war, with a 55% rise for children aged five to fifteen, according to Vincent. “The infanticide in Bethlehem was child’s play compared with the starvation of German children as a result of the three years of economic blockade,” a Berlin priest and anti-war activist remarked, surveying the wasteland. One wonders how he would have ranked President Clinton’s Iraq sanctions, estimated to have killed 500,000 children by 1995—“worth it,” in Madeleine Albright’s view.

For German survivors, withered by hunger, life reduced to a series of grim alternatives. Lina Richter told of a 16-year-old who “attempted to destroy her life by suffocation with gas, owing to despair over the home conditions,” and was then hospitalized. Evelyn, Princess Blücher conversed with a woman for whom living “on the minimum of food still possible under the circumstances was so dreadful, that she thought it would be the most sensible thing to go with her child and try to get shot in one of the numerous street-fights;” a second woman considered “turning on the gas on herself and her two small children, and putting an end to the horrors of living.”

The blockade continued after the armistice, lifting only in July 1919, by which point the excess civilian death toll was somewhere between 475,800, in historian Jay Winter’s estimate, and the official German figure of 763,000. And the U.S. had backed the starvation campaign upon entering the war. “Not given to half-measures, Wilson ensured that every loophole left open by the Allies for the potential reprovisioning of Germany was closed,” Vincent argues. Critiquing Wilson-style diplomacy, George Kennan cited its “legalistic-moralistic approach” as a chief weakness. His assertion, weighed next to Washington’s support for illegal and murderous British policy, describes the exact opposite of Wilson’s method—worth bearing in mind, given Kennan’s reputation as a “first-class strategic thinker” (John J. Mearsheimer).

Wilson’s standing as an incurable dreamer also rests on dubious assumptions. It seems obvious that his actions, publicly justified by the looming “German menace,” were the greatest wartime threat to U.S. citizens. He oversaw “one of the worst suppressions of civil liberties in the history of the United States” (Richard Striner) while taking the country into “a holy war to redeem the Old World” (Lloyd Ambrosius). “Because there had been no direct attack on the United States,” Geoffrey R. Stone adds, “the Wilson administration needed to create an ‘outraged public’ to arouse Americans to enlist,” and to this end “established the Committee on Public Information (CPI) under the direction of George Creel, a progressive journalist and public relations expert. Creel’s goal was to generate enthusiasm for the war”—to convince young men to enter a slaughterhouse, in other words.

Wade Davis details the front’s butchery with bleak poeticism, describing victims “caught on the barbed wire, drowned in mud, choked by the oily slime of gas, reduced to a spray of red mist,” their “quartered limbs hanging from shattered branches of burnt trees, bodies swollen and blackened with flies, skulls gnawed by rats, corpses stuck in the sides of trenches….” Both there and in Germany, Wilson’s liberal idealist path dead-ended at a graveyard—one of the war’s “dreadful lessons” recent commentary ignores.

Nick Alexandrov lives in Washington, DC.  He can be reached at: [e-mail]

Boadicée, une reine guerrière celte contre l'empire romain

L’IMPERATORE CHE VOLLE FARSI UOMO

L’IMPERATORE CHE VOLLE FARSI UOMO

E non scriviamo "il Dio", perché quello è un altro

Daniele Frisio

Ex: http://www.iltalebano.com

Primo Gennaio 1946: Hirohito, il dio-imperatore del Giappone, dichiara via radio di essere un comune mortale. In pochi minuti si sciolgono come neve al sole due millenni di storia giapponese: la divinità imperiale è decaduta per sempre. Sono anni di cambiamenti epocali per il paese del Sol levante, piegato dalla sconfitta nel secondo conflitto mondiale, travolto dalle atomiche di Hiroshima e Nagasaki, umiliato da un vincitore che costringe i suoi rappresentati a firmare la resa a bordo della corazzata Missouri ancorata nella baia di Tokyo. La pretesa di affermarsi come popolo eletto dagli dei, l’unico in grado di costruire una grande Asia indipendente a base imperiale e confederata, giace in frantumi. L’orgoglio e l’arroganza di questo popolo che, dopo essere uscito dalla sua secolare realtà feudale, era riuscito a colmare in pochi decenni il gap industriale e tecnologico con l’Occidente – crescendo a tal punto da illudersi di poter sfidare e battere il gigante Statunitense – tramontano all’ombra delle polveri radioattive che soffiano là dove un tempo sorgevano delle prospere città.

I vincitori hanno le idee chiare per il futuro: il Giappone è il territorio di sperimentazione prescelto per la costruzione di una nazione ideale. I piani esistono e si sviluppano fin dal 1942[1]. L’obbiettivo va oltre una semplice smilitarizzazione del paese: il risultato finale a cui si mira è una vera e propria castrazione dello spirito giapponese, lo sradicamento della sua cultura tradizionale per fare posto al modello sociale di stampo occidentale. Ma c’è un ostacolo su questa strada già tracciata: Hirohito. Gli Americani sapevano infatti di non poterlo impiccare alla stregua del generale Tojo e degli altri esponenti della leadership che avevano portato il Giappone alla guerra. L’esecuzione dell’imperatore avrebbe portato a conseguenze imprevedibili in un paese occupato, dove le ferite atomiche avevano lasciato nella popolazione sentimenti di rancore stemperati unicamente dal cibo e dagli aiuti forniti dai vincitori. Il rischio che il paese crollasse nell’anarchia, diventando magari una preda del comunismo, era più concreto che mai. Ciononostante qualcosa andava fatto, perché l’imperatore incarnava la convinzione giapponese di essere una razza di stirpe divina, egli era un dio per il quale i giovani piloti dell’aviazione nipponica non avevano esitato un istante a trasformarsi in kamikaze[2].

Il passo che seguì allo smantellamento dell’esercito e della gloriosa marina da guerra, fu quindi la cosiddetta Dichiarazione di umanità di quel fatidico primo giorno di Gennaio. Hirohito stesso fu molto turbato dal fatto di dover negare la sua discendenza divina, così come era stato previsto nel documento in inglese che gli fu sottoposto; decise allora di apportare una significativa modifica, facendo apparire il passaggio come fosse una rinuncia volontaria al suo status di dio vivente in nome del supremo interesse del Giappone. Accanto alla Dichiarazione fu emanata la Direttiva sullo scintoismo che prevedeva l’abolizione dello scintoismo di Stato e la sua definitiva separazione giuridica dalle istituzioni: per i giapponesi riverire la nazione e l’imperatore non sarebbe più stato un dovere. In seguito furono in molti i giapponesi che criticarono Hirohito per il suo gesto, considerato un vero e proprio atto di tradimento verso tutti coloro che in lui avevano creduto e per cui avevano donato la propria vita. Fra questi spicca certamente quello Yukio Mishima che non riuscì mai ad accettare il cambiamento imposto alla società giapponese, arrivando al punto da compiere il rito del seppuku[3] nel tentativo, insieme tragico e poetico, di ridare al Giappone il suo vero volto, anche se per un solo istante.

Oggi in Giappone la figura dell’imperatore è associabile a quella dei rimanenti monarchi europei, ovvero una figura istituzionale svuotata di poteri decisionali che vive unicamente della sua simbolicità. Aldilà del giudizio sulla figura di Hirohito, il quale d’altronde non ebbe una vera scelta in merito alla Dichiarazione né tantomeno la possibilità di opporsi al cambiamento del Paese, va sottolineato come fatto determinante il lascito della scelta americana di fare piazza pulita in pochi giorni di tradizioni così antiche e radicate. Quell’imposizione ha dato frutto ad una contraddizione di fondo in seno alla democrazia giapponese: il fatto che i giapponesi siano stati per così dire “obbligati alla libertà” da forze straniere, interroga ancora oggi la politica del paese, la quale si chiede se non sarebbe stato un suo diritto riscrivere la propria Costituzione. In un contesto contemporaneo di ritrovata volontà per una maggiore indipendenza ed un riallacciamento alla propria identità culturale, l’interrogativo potrebbe quindi trasformarsi presto in un atto di accusa e di rivendicazione. Solo il tempo allora saprà dirci se l’esportazione di occidentalità sia una soluzione credibile fino in fondo o solamente un’illusione destinata, alla lunga, a lasciare il passo alle profonde radici spirituali di un popolo come quello giapponese.

Daniele Frisio

 

[1] Vedi Ward (1987b), p.395, e Borton (1967), pp.4-8.

[2] Letteralmente “Vento Divino”, riferimento alla mitica tempesta che affondò provvidenzialmente la flotta d’invasione mongola nel 1274 d.c. che i piloti di caccia giapponesi speravano di rievocare grazie al più puro dei sacrifici.

[3] Il rituale del suicidio tradizionale, che prevede l’apertura del ventre secondo tagli e movimenti codificati, volti a testare la fermezza e la risoluzione di colui che mette fine alla propria vita (quindi non un semplice trafiggersi con la spada, come ci figuriamo spesso in Occidente). Mishima, pseudonimo di Kimitake Hiraoka, occupa assieme ai fedeli camerati del “Tate No Kai” l’ufficio del generale Mashita il 25 Novembre del 1970. Dopo aver fallito nel tentativo di iniziare una sollevazione dell’esercito, Mishima compie seppuku pronunciando le parole: « Dobbiamo morire per restituire al Giappone il suo vero volto! È bene avere così cara la vita da lasciare morire lo spirito? Che esercito è mai questo che non ha valori più nobili della vita? Ora testimonieremo l’esistenza di un valore superiore all’attaccamento alla vita. Questo valore non è la libertà! Non è la democrazia! È il Giappone! È il Giappone, il Paese della storia e delle tradizioni che amiamo. »

Siria, Iraq e Califfato, eredità della prima guerra mondiale

Rievocazioni

Michele Rallo

Ex: http://www.rinascita.eu

Che cosa sta succedendo in Siria e in Iraq? Semplice: sta succedendo che uno dei principali alleati degli Stati Uniti nella regione – l’Emirato del Qatar – stia finanziando ed armando un esercito di terroristi che vuole cancellare Iraq, Siria, Libano e Giordania, ed al loro posto creare un impero clericale – il Califfato – ispirato ad una interpretazione fondamentalista dell’Islamismo nella sua versione sunnita.
Scopo di questo articolo non è, tuttavia, quello di investigare sul presente, magari alla ricerca di imperscrutabili disegni destabilizzatori, bensì quello di analizzare le radici storiche di ciò che sta avvenendo oggi. Ebbene, anche questa orrenda guerra in-civile, nasce dagli errori commessi dai vincitori della Prima guerra mondiale (Italia esclusa) e dalla loro pretesa – assurda, boriosa, arrogante – di tracciare i confini delle nuove nazioni mediorientali senza alcun rispetto per le popolazioni che vi sarebbero state incluse. Esattamente come la medesima pretesa aveva presieduto ai nuovi confini europei, creando Stati artificiali (la Cecoslovacchia, la Jugoslvaia), gonfiandone artificialmente altri (la Polonia, la Romania), mutilando i paesi vinti e ponendo le premesse per quel sanguinoso regolamento di conti che sarebbe stato poi la Seconda guerra mondiale.

Orbene, tutto nasceva, all’indomani della Grande Guerra, dalla spartizione delle spoglie dei vinti; e in particolare – per l’argomento di cui trattiamo oggi – dalla spartizione delle province arabe dell’Impero Ottomano. “Spartizione”, in verità, è un termine inadatto, perché nei fatti si trattava dell’acquisizione di quasi tutto da parte di una sola alleata, l’Inghilterra; della tacitazione con un piatto di lenticchie della seconda alleata, la Francia; e della maramaldesca esclusione della terza, l’Italia. Ma sorvoliamo anche su questo aspetto (che potrà essere oggetto di un ulteriore approfondimento) e concentriamo la nostra attenzione su quanto veniva stabilito, prescindendo da giudizi morali o da valutazioni politiche.
Si tenga ben presente – innanzi tutto – che fino a prima della Grande Guerra, l’Impero Ottomano si estendeva su tre continenti: dai Balcani all’Anatolia, al Medio Oriente, all’Egitto (ancorché assoggettato all’occupazione “provvisoria” dell’Inghilterra sin dal 1882).

Nel maggio 1919, approfittando di una momentanea (e polemica) assenza dell’Italia dalla Conferenza della pace di Parigi, Inghilterra e Francia si accordavano per spartirsi le colonie tedesche e le regioni arabo-ottomane. Qualche briciola ai giapponesi nel lontano Pacifico e nulla all’Italia, che si voleva così punire per aver osato opporsi all’assegnazione di Fiume al Regno Serbo-Croato-Sloveno. Alla Francia – come già detto – un piatto di lenticchie: la Grande Siria – comprensiva del Libano – che si saldava al Kurdistan (poi cancellato) e ad una “zona d’interessi” nell’Anatolia sud-orientale (poi abbandonata precipitosamente di fronte all’avanzata di Atatürk). Tutto il resto all’Inghilterra, forse per diritto divino.
Naturalmente, non si poteva esplicitare la natura sfacciatamente colonialista di questa manovra, e ciò per due ordini di motivi: il rispetto del diritto di autodeterminazione dei popoli (che era stato la scusa per giustificare l’ingerenza degli USA in una guerra europea) ed i ripetuti impegni – assunti solennemente dall’Inghilterra – di concedere l’indipendenza agli arabi, se questi si fossero sollevati contro i turchi. Veniva perciò ideato un marchingegno che potesse in qualche modo mascherare i reali intenti di questa operazione: si riconosceva che le popolazioni arabe erano in grado di governarsi da sole, ma le si affidava alla neonata Società delle Nazioni, che avrebbe dovuto amministrarle provvisoriamente e poi accompagnarle verso la completa indipendenza. La S.d.N. poi, attraverso un “mandato”, le affidava – sempre “provvisoriamente” – «al consiglio e all’assistenza amministrativa di una Potenza mandataria».

Questo, nelle grandi linee. Per i dettagli, si rimandava tutto ad una successiva “Conferenza interalleata”, la quale avrebbe dovuto occuparsi anche del destino della Turchia, che l’Inghilterra avrebbe voluto praticamente cancellare dalla carta geografica. La Conferenza si teneva nell’aprile dell’anno seguente in Italia, a San Remo; le sue conclusioni saranno pochi mesi dopo recepite dal trattato di Sèvres, che però non andrà mai in vigore.

Frattanto – tra il maggio del ’19 e l’aprile del ’20 – si era verificato un fatto di non poca importanza: nella regione kurda di Mosul era stato scoperto il petrolio, tanto petrolio. E, allora, i “buoni” della situazione (cioè gli inglesi e i cugini americani) non potevano certo consentire che quel tesoro finisse – tramite il mandato sul Kurdistan – in mani francesi. Tutto lo scenario mediorientale stabilito a Parigi, perciò, veniva cancellato, e la carta geografica del Medio Oriente era ridisegnata ex novo. Il Kurdistan spariva: le sue regioni non petrolifere venivano divise fra la Turchia, la Persia (oggi Iran) e la Siria. Le sue regioni petrolifere, invece, erano accorpate al territorio arabo-sunnita di Baghdad ed a quello sciita di Bassora. Insieme, le tre regioni – che non avevano nulla in comune – erano racchiuse in uno Stato artificiale cui veniva dato il nome (persiano) di Iraq. Naturalmente – inutile dirlo – il relativo mandato era assegnato all’Inghilterra.

La Francia – depredata anche delle lenticchie – non faceva una piega. Incassava pure quest’altra scorrettezza (non certamente la prima!) da parte dei fedeli alleati britannici, continuando disciplinatamente a svolgere il ruolo – come più tardi dirà Mussolini – di “cameriera dell’Inghilterra”. Ad onor del vero, riceverà poi una specie di liquidazione per il suo cessato servizio in Kurdistan: il 25% delle azioni di due compagnie petrolifere, la Turkish Petroleum C° e la Anglo-Persian Oil C°; una inezia, a fronte del fiume di denaro che scaturirà dai pozzi petroliferi iraqeni.

Naturalmente, non era questo l’unico pasticcio ascrivibile alla fantasiosa diplomazia degli “Alleati”. Ricordo un complicatissimo balletto di prìncipi ashemiti, prima designati Re di una determinata nazione, poi dirottati su un altro trono, costretti a deambulare sino alla attribuzione delle definitive corone in Siria, Giordania, Iraq. E ricordo, naturalmente, l’assurda vicenda della Palestina: promessa contemporaneamente agli arabi (accordo McMahon-Hüsseyn del 1916) ed agli ebrei (dichiarazione Balfour del 1917).

Ma, anche qui, tralasciamo tante vicende che pure sarebbe interessante approfondire, e concentriamoci sull’argomento che in questo momento ci preme maggiormente: sulle conseguenze dirette, cioè, che la decisione di cancellare il Kurdistan e di creare l’Iraq aveva – ed avrà poi fino ai nostri giorni – sugli equilibri del Medio Oriente e, in particolare, della regione compresa fra l’Anatolia orientale e quella che una volta si chiamava Mesopotamia.

Incominciamo dal Kurdistan, paese a maggioranza musulmana, ma non arabo ed etnicamente affine più all’Iran e alla Turchia che non al resto dell’Iraq. Orbene, dopo aver brevemente sognato ad occhi aperti di poter raggiungere l’indipendenza e l’unità nazionale, i kurdi vedevano repentinamente la loro patria annullata con un colpo di penna ed i loro territori divisi fra la Turchia (a nord), l’Iraq (a sud), la Persia (ad est) e la Siria (ad ovest). Da quel momento iniziava la disperata resistenza nazionale kurda contro le nazioni occupanti, resistenza che ha talora dato vita ad episodi di vera (e crudele) guerra civile, incidendo pesantemente sulla vita politica e sulla stabilità dei quattro paesi interessati. Ricordo – fra gli altri episodi – la breve stagione della Repubblica Popolare Kurda in territorio iraniano (1945), il bombardamento con gas nervino dei guerriglieri peshmerga di Halabja in territorio iraqeno (1988), e soprattutto la lunga stagione di lotte politiche ma anche di sanguinario terrorismo attuata in Turchia dal PKK di Ochalan.

E veniamo all’Iraq, paese – come abbiamo visto – del tutto artificiale, messo insieme soltanto per favorire l’accaparramento delle sue immense risorse petrolifere da parte di inglesi e americani. Tralasciamo tutta una serie di episodi significativi (come la rivolta filotedesca e filoitaliana del 1941) e veniamo alla sua storia più recente. Nel 1968 un colpo-di-Stato militare portava al potere il Baath, un partito nettamente laico ispirato ai princìpi di un nazionalismo panarabo (ma non panislamico) e di un socialismo nazionale (ma non marxista). Ostile agli Stati Uniti e ad Israele, il Baath governava già la Siria (dal 1963) ed aveva numerosi punti di contatto con il movimento degli Ufficiali Liberi nasseriani, al potere in Egitto dal 1952. La leadership del baathismo iraqeno – procediamo sempre in estrema sintesi – era in breve assunta da Saddam Hussein, prima Vicepresidente e poi – dal 1979 – Presidente della Repubblica.

Il laicismo del Baath, oltre ad essere in linea con le proprie radici politiche, era anche l’unico sistema in grado di tenere unito un paese formato da tre diverse realtà etnico-religiose, con una maggioranza musulmana spaccata in due (60% sciiti e 40% sunniti) e con una consistente (allora) minoranza cristiana. Altra peculiarità del baathismo era un rigido nazionalismo economico, che si estrinsecava nella nazionalizzazione dell’industria petrolifera (1972) e nell’utilizzo dei suoi proventi per una profonda modernizzazione del paese e per accrescere il benessere degli abitanti.

Abbattuto il regime baathista ad opera di una pretestuosa invasione americana (2003), il paese è – naturalmente – andato in frantumi: l’antagonismo politico fra le tre componenti è salito alle stelle; per tacere della quarta componente, la cristiana – un tempo rispettata da tutti – che era fatta oggetto della pesante ostilità di un fondamentalismo islamico in forte crescita. Pochi anni dopo, gli Stati Uniti e i loro alleati nella regione avviavano una guerra di aggressione – condotta attraverso un esercito mercenario armato e finanziato ad hoc – contro il regime baathista siriano del presidente Assad, con la scusa (fondata ma assolutamente risibile in Medio Oriente) che il regime di Damasco fosse una dittatura.
È da questo esercito mercenario – in larga parte formato da gruppi fondamentalisti – che è nato l’esercito del Califfo e la sua sorprendente creatura politica: l’ISIS, ovvero Stato Islamico dell’Iraq e della Siria.

Obiettivo dell’ISIS e dei suoi sponsor (il Qatar soltanto?) è quello di frantumare l’Iraq, togliendogli la maggior parte dei territori petroliferi e lasciando il resto del paese alla maggioranza sciita ed all’alleanza con il correligionario Iran. Contemporaneamente, il Kurdistan iraqeno dovrebbe poter dichiararsi indipendente, ma privato delle sua zona più ricca di petrolio – Mosul – che dovrebbe rimanere al Califfato (ed alla commercializzazione qatarina) per garantire la sopravvivenza economica della creatura jihadista.

Il progetto presenta numerosi gravi inconvenienti (si pensi all’effetto destabilizzante per la Turchia che avrebbe uno Stato kurdo ai suoi confini), ma è quello che – si dice – abbiano elaborato gli strateghi di Israele: tornare alla situazione del 1919 e cancellare Iraq, Siria e Libano, frantumandoli in una miriade di staterelli coincidenti con le varie realtà etnico-religiose del Medio Oriente. E pazienza se, fra queste realtà, ce ne dovesse essere una che vuol mettere a ferro e fuoco il mondo intero.


Ex: http://rinascita.eu/index.php?action=news&id=23700

The Necessity of Anti-Colonialism

The Necessity of Anti-Colonialism

By Eugène Montsalvat 

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com

Anti-colonialism must be a component of any ideology that attempts to defend rooted identities. It is necessary to oppose the uprooting of peoples in the pursuit of power and wealth. In both its historical imperial form and in its modern financial guise, colonialism has warped both the colonist and colonizer, mixing, diluting, and even annihilating entire cultures and peoples. We know about the negative impact of colonialism on the colonized. However, its consequences for the people of colonial nations are rarely discussed, in order to reinforce a narrative that demonizes European history. 

Unfortunately, many patriotic, average whites feel some sort of pride in their imperial history. They do not realize that they are its victims as well. Hidden from the historical record are the poor and working class whites who served as cannon fodder for the agenda of plutocrats intent on extending their empire of wealth. They were forced to compete against foreign labor, occasionally even against slave labor. Consider how the suffering of thousands of Irish, Scottish, and English people forced to serve as indentured servants–that is, frankly, white slaves–by the British Empire in America has been conveniently erased from public knowledge. How many people know of the struggle of white Australian laborers who stood up to the English colonial power that wanted to undercut their wages with Indian and Chinese immigrants? These facts are hidden from our consciousness by our leaders, the end result being a suicidal support for an exploitative system or a guilt complex that feeds modern neocolonialism in the guise of “human rights” and “progress.”

If there is any nostalgia for the empires of the past among patriotic whites, it should be wiped away when they realize what those empires have transmogrified into. When vast empires no longer maximized profit, their controllers saw the borders between them dissolved to ensure a truly global financial oligarchy. Today the agenda behind colonialism is laid bare: it was never about bravery and exploration but about the economic exploitation of all the peoples of the world. It is not Faustian courage, but mercantile greed that drives the will to consume the entire earth.

While colonialism is not a distinctly European phenomenon, for our purposes we’ll look at how European colonialism evolved into the global neo-colonialism that plagues us today. Before what is called the “Age of Exploration” that saw the rise of European colonial empires overseas, there was a significant shift in the values of Europe. Before the Renaissance, Western Europe was dominated by feudal values, which were essentially religious in nature. Here we see superpolitical ideas dominate the political discourse. To quote Julius Evola on the feudal regime:

In this type of regime the principle of plurality and of relative political autonomy of the individual parts is emphasized, as is the proper context of the universal element, that unum quod non est pars [one that is not part of, i.e. God] that alone can really organize and unify these parts, not by contrasting but by presiding over each of them through the transcendent, superpolitical, and regulating functions that the universal embodies.

In this quote we see that the foundation of the polity is religious, its parts unified by divine power. As the feudal system declined, what was seen as the holy vocation of statecraft became replaced by simple, humanistic diplomacy. In place of spiritual unity, the emergence of the nation state and its absolutism provided the bonding forces of politics. From this great upheaval we see the rise of the mercantile classes, especially in Italy, as the feudal Holy Roman Empire receded from the peninsula. This lead to the Renaissance. While some may think of the Renaissance as the revival of Classical virtues lost under the domination of Christian despotism, it was superficial, exalting a decadent humanism and individualism not found in healthy pagan societies. Sparta it was not.

Evola recounts the consequences:

In the domain of culture this potential produced the tumultuous outburst of multiple forms of creativity almost entirely deprived of any traditional or even symbolic element, and also, on an external plane, the almost explosive scattering of European populations all over the world during the age of discoveries, explorations, and colonial conquests that occurred during the Renaissance and age of humanism. These were the effects of a scattering of forces resembling the scattering of forces that follows the disintegration of an organism.

European colonialism began when the soul of Europe died. In place of God, stood greed and human self-adulation. The domination of materialist values we see today is a direct consequence of the inversion of values that resulted from the death of feudalism.

Like all systems where money is the highest good, the new colonial regime was dominated by mercantile forces. The financial power behind the Spanish empire was the Fugger banking dynasty, which was later replaced by Genoese merchants after Spain went bankrupt several times during the reign of Phillip II. In a manner similar to America’s foreign adventurism, Spain’s imperial dreams drove the state to ruin and left them at the mercy of avaricious creditors. This would certainly not be the last time that the benefits of colonialism have gone into the pockets of bankers at grievous expense to the people of the nation. The financial troubles of Spain lead one its erstwhile territories to declare independence and pursue its own colonial ambitions.

That would be the Netherlands, which created a mercantile empire through international banking. Much like how modern creditors hold entire nations, such as Greece, in their thrall, the Dutch merchants lent to foreign governments and then demanded concessions when they couldn’t pay. In addition, the Dutch created what is often considered the first multinational corporation to pursue their colonial profiteering, the Dutch East India Company. This corporation was imbued with great power, even the power to declare war. Thus common Dutch men would go off to die for their corporate masters. No, George Bush was not the first man to slaughter his countrymen for corporate greed. However, not to be outdone by the Dutch. The British created their own East India Company. Intense rivalry in the spice trade and over the territories of the crumbling Spanish Empire fueled violence. In 1623 agents of the Dutch East India Company massacred ten British in the employ of the British East India Company in Indonesia during the Amboyna Massacre. Eventually, their economic tensions would grow into full blown warfare, culminating in Three Anglo-Dutch wars in the 1600s. In 1688, the James II of England was overthrown by the Dutch backed William of Orange and his English wife Mary.

This so called Glorious Revolution was a coup for Dutch finance. William of Orange, who became William III upon assuming the English throne, was heavily indebted to Dutch bankers. Under his regime, the Bank of England was established to lend the throne money at interest. Thus England’s colonial empire was now the agent of capital. The Bank of England was modeled after the Dutch Wisselbank, which backed the Province of Holland, the City of Amsterdam, and the Dutch East India Company. Therefore, the public debt of the people became the private profit of the banks. If an expensive colonial war was fought, the bank always won, for either way its loans are repaid with the spoils or forcibly extracted from the indebted through foreclosures and credit restrictions. While we may think of these struggles as glorious feats of courage and daring, ultimately it was the blood sacrifice of honest men that fattened the Golden Calf of usury. One of the families profiting from this global web of sovereign debt was the infamous Rothschild family.

Originating in Frankfurt, in what is now Germany and establishing the branches in the imperial capitals of Paris, Naples, Vienna, and London. Nathan Rothschild became involved in financing the British war against Napoleon, using his international connections to funnel information on the continent to London. We should note that Napoleon’s economic policies sought to achieve autarky and limit usury through low interest rate loans given through the Bank of France. However, Napoleon was defeated and the forces of international finance reigned over Europe. Nathan’s grandson, Natty, saw the British Empire as a vehicle for his commercial interests. He became a friend of British imperialist, Cecil Rhodes. However, he was a fair weather friend, even floating loans to the Boer government, playing both sides in the colonial game.

It is clear that to the Rothschilds, the British Empire was merely the best mechanism for protecting their profits; they had no loyalty to it. Yet, it was not just the Rothschilds who were willing to use the empire as grist for their mills. In Australia, British colonial interests sought to displace white gold miners with cheap labor from China and India. Against the greed of their rulers, the Australian workers rose up, organizing and agitating against immigration from other parts of the Empire. William Lane, a founder of the Australian Labor Party said:

Here we face the hordes of the east as our kinsmen faced them in the dim distant centuries, and here we must beat them back if we would keep intact all that can make our lives worth living. It does not matter that today it is an insidious invasion of peaceful aliens instead of warlike downpour of weaponed men. Monopolistic capitalism has no colour and no country.

In the sheep shearing industry W. G. Spence fought against free trade policies of Joseph Chamberlain, who sought to allow waves of Asian labor to lower the wages of white laborers. The rising of the Australian workers led to the formulation of a White Australia Policy to prevent the Empire from using foreign labor to challenge white workers. As the 19th century drew to a close, the imperialism of kings, flags, and exploration was becoming passé. The capitalists were no longer content with vast empires. They wanted the entire world. The rise of American power would give them that opportunity.

The financial powers saw the old model of a world divided into regional powers as a barrier to their goal of a global economy. In the Fourteen Points Woodrow Wilson advocated free trade and the self determination of the former colonial territories. While self-determination may sound vaguely nationalistic, in reality its goal was to dissolve the old empires and assimilate them in bite sized pieces into the new American led global economy, replacing “Great Power” colonialism with international neocolonialism. The Atlantic Charter devised after the Second World War reiterated these points. In the wake of the Second World War, America’s seemingly anti-colonial foreign policy is exposed as merely a fig leaf for financial imperialism. In Africa, the US sought to break down the old colonial empires and impose American lackeys as their new leadership. I quote from a previous essay of mine:

In 1953 the Africa-America Institute was created to train a pro-American leader class for the post-colonial African nations. The AAI has received funding from the US government’s USAID and as of 2008 it counts Citibank, Coca-Cola, De Beers, Exxon Mobil, and Goldman Sachs among its sponsors. The AAI’s East Africa Refugee Program, which ran from 1962-1971, and the Southern African Training Program supported the training of FNLA terrorists against the Portuguese, ostensibly to prevent the Soviet backed MPLA from gaining power. The resulting civil war killed 500,000 over 27 years. With the Portuguese, whose Catholic social policies limited involvement in the global economy, removed from the picture, global corporations were free to strike deals with the newly installed government of Mozambique. Anglo-American Corporation negotiated a sale of chrome loading equipment the day Mozambique’s Samora Machel proclaimed the beginning of nationalization.

As we see, the hidden hand behind these allegedly anti-colonial movements in Africa was American cash. These newly “independent” nations were merely puppets for Western financial interests.

However, true nationalist alternatives existed. Consider Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, who articulated a nationalist and eventually pan-Africanist vision of self-determination. Gaddafi nationalized Libya’s oil industry, taking it out of the hands of foreign corporations, using the money to provide health-care and education for his people. First promoting Pan-Arabism and then Pan-Africanism, he sought to form a geopolitical bloc against foreign domination, as each nation by itself was too weak to challenge the full might of the United States.

Gaddafi’s vision was inspired by another Arab revolutionary, Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, who promoted a pan-Arab socialism. What he sought to do was assert the sovereignty of the people against both British and French colonialism and American neocolonialism. He saw the chaos they produced, especially through their support of Israel and their puppets in Saudi Arabia, who had been installed by the English for aiding them against the Ottomans in the First World War. Nasser was quite keen in recognizing this Saudi-Israeli alliance of American puppets, which wreaks all havoc in the Middle East to this day, stating, “To liberate all Jerusalem, the Arab peoples must first liberate Riyadh.”

Among Nasser’s supporters was Francis Parker Yockey, the author of Imperium, who wrote anti-Zionist propaganda in Egypt. A man of vision who saw the old powers fading away into an American Jewish dominated global empire, he sought allies who resisted America’s Zionist New World Order. He saw Western Europe devolving into an American colony after the Second World War and called for it to assert itself in his Proclamation of London. With Nasser, he saw the Arabs asserting themselves in a similar manner.

Across the Atlantic, Juan Domingo Perón of Argentina, pursued a geopolitical agenda intended to foil American backed neocolonialism, seeking to unite South America as a bloc for the independent development of its peoples. During his exile, he sought contacts with European nationalists who sought to resist American domination following the Second World War, including Jean Thiriart and Oswald Mosley. Perón saw South American anti-colonialists and European nationalists as natural allies, stating in a letter to Thiriart, “A united Europe would count a population of nearly 500 million, The South American continent already has more than 250 million. Such blocs would be respected and effectively oppose the enslavement to imperialism which is the lot of a weak and divided country.” During his final term in office, Perón, also pursued alignment with Gaddafi’s Libya.

By the 1960s, the complete dissolution of the European empires, combined with the rise of the US backed Zionist power in the Middle East, required European patriots to realign with third world anti-imperialists. The previously mentioned Jean Thiriart stated, “European revolutionary patriots support the formation of special fighters for the future struggle against Israel; technical training of the future action aimed to a struggle against the Americans in Europe; building of an anti-American and anti-Zionist information service for a simultaneous utilization in the Arabian countries and in Europe.”¹ Ultimately, Thiriart’s goal of creating European Brigades to aid in the liberation of Palestine went unrealized. However, Thiriart’s goal to transform Palestine into Israel’s Vietnam may yet still be possible, as the Israeli war machine’s utter brutality towards the Palestinians gains increasingly negative exposure. As their excuses for brazen cruelty begin to lose power, we will once again see heroes rally to their standard to free Jerusalem.

Our current situation offers several outlets to continue to struggle. Firstly, we must realize that the creed of greed, which has infected our own people, is the enemy. Therefore, it is necessary to reform the right in America, it must be intransigently anti-liberal. The decline of our people did not begin in 1960. Simple opposition to the New Left is not going to solve our problems. It is foolish to praise the 19th century, one of industrial exploitation of our own working class, petty nationalism tearing ancient kingdoms asunder, and scientific rationalism de-sacralizing the world. The Enlightenment and its fruits must be rejected outright, for they brought an end to the domination of religious institutions and replaced them with the rule of gold. Ultimately, we must affirm spiritual values over materialistic ones. We must first win the spiritual battle before the political battle can begin. To defeat the global rule of the merchants, we must destroy the merchant in our souls. We must affirm Tradition, in the sense of Julius Evola, before we can become politically radical.

Once we have overcome the parasite in our own spirit, we must meet its external manifestations. That is the US/EU/NATO/Israel axis. This is the heartland of liberal capitalism, the new Carthage, that seeks to turn the peoples of the world into their raw material. It is in the interest of big business to destroy the traditions of a people and replace them with consumerism, to eliminate the borders that prevent the flow of cheap labor. The capitalist seeks little more than to turn the world into their private plantation. This mercantile virus, which first implanted itself through the colonial empires of old will become truly fatal if capitalist neocolonialism is allowed to pursue full globalization. Thus we must recognize our allies. Indeed, our enemies have already pointed them out, calling any nation that seeks to retain its sovereignty against the dictates of American imperialism a rogue state that hate’s freedom and democracy. The old adage “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” holds true.

One leader fighting the global system today is Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. He is facing down US and Saudi backed Wahhabists who seek to topple an Arab nationalist regime that has stood since the days of Thiriart. He is backed by two other organizations that have undergone American demonization, Hezbollah and Iran. Just recently we have witnessed the audacity of Israel’s imperialist regime, killing an Iranian general and Hezbollah fighters on Syrian soil on January 19th. While it may seem that radical Islam and Zionism are at odds, in the case of Syria they are two heads to the same coin, minted in the US I may add. Both the Israelis and the Wahhabists seek to destroy the Arab nationalists like Assad, while taking millions of dollars from the United States. If we wish to combat radical Islam, we must combat liberalism and Zionism as well. We must stand with Arab socialists and nationalists who wish to provide a nation that puts people before profits, we must stand against Israeli and Saudi backed warmongering that drives people from their ancestral homes, and we must stand against the capitalists who seek to use foreign labor to undercut their native working class. Nationalists and socialists of all nations must recognize that they are locked in a common struggle.

One nationalist and socialist figure, similarly hated by the American establishment, was Hugo Chávez. Inspired by both Perón and leftists such as Castro, he sought to unite South America against neo-liberalism, that is the financial colonialism of the United States. Thus he created the Bolivarian Alliance for the People of our America (ALBA), which consists of Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Grenada, Nicaragua, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Venezuela. These organization seeks to aid the nations of South America to improve themselves through social welfare and mutual aid. Moreover, Chávez was also a resolute anti-Zionist, even going so far as to claim that “the descendants of those who crucified Christ . . . have taken ownership of the riches of the world, a minority has taken ownership of the gold of the world, the silver, the minerals, water, the good lands, petrol, well, the riches, and they have concentrated the riches in a small number of hands.” Chávez died of cancer in 2013, but his movement lives on.

Among the leaders who carry the torch of Bolivarian Revolution is Bolivia’s Evo Morales, a socialist who has pursued a redistribution of his nation’s wealth from the hands of multinational corporations to his own people. In 2008, Morales successfully fought off a coup engineered with the support of US Ambassador Philip Goldberg. While many of the American right still harbor their Cold War fears of Latin American nationalism, this only serves to line the pockets of men like Goldberg. Nationalists must stand in solidarity with one another.

And finally, target number one of globalism, Russia. America is clearly waging economic warfare on Russia through its sanctions, through the IMF support for the Kiev junta, through attempts by Western credit agencies to downgrade Russia. Russia’s refusal to bow to Western liberal standards in regards to sexuality, religion, and culture has earned America’s enmity. Putin’s refusal to become the glorified serving boy at the international table has drawn the ire of NATO. Putin has realized that the attempts at rapprochement with the Western led global economy had led to disastrous consequences for the Russian people. Growing from his role of cleaning up the utter ruin left by Yeltsin he has reasserted a Russian identity as the basis of his superpower. In his speech to Valdai Club, Putin defends Russia’s traditions, and the traditions of all peoples, against Western liberalism:

Another serious challenge to Russia’s identity is linked to events taking place in the world. Here there are both foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilization. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious and even sexual. They are implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan.

The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation. And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis.

What else but the loss of the ability to self-reproduce could act as the greatest testimony of the moral crisis facing a human society? Today almost all developed nations are no longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of migration. Without the values embedded in Christianity and other world religions, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider it natural and right to defend these values. One must respect every minority’s right to be different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into question.

At the same time we see attempts to somehow revive a standardised model of a unipolar world and to blur the institutions of international law and national sovereignty. Such a unipolar, standardised world does not require sovereign states; it requires vassals. In a historical sense this amounts to a rejection of one’s own identity, of the God-given diversity of the world.²

In this speech, Putin demonstrates the influence of geopolitical theorist Alexander Dugin, who is stridently opposed to the homogenized, unipolar world that Western globalist capitalism seeks to impose through financial neo-colonialism. In his Fourth Political Theory he asserts the identities of various civilizations as models for their respective geopolitical blocs in an alignment against the decadence of the modern world.

We know our allies, those who wish to preserve a rooted identity for their own people, and we know our enemies, those who wish to destroy all traditions in favor of a global consumer society. For hundreds of years we have seen our sons been shipped off to die for the profit of those who feel no love for their nation, we have seen our culture warped by greed. Deceived by promises of glory and disingenuous patriotism, we have marched off far too many times to count so that the gold lust of traitors could be satisfied. This is what colonialism has wrought, a global sweatshop where people from all the races of the earth can compete for the lowest wages, while our leaders count their 30 pieces of silver. Now, we must be the vanguard of a global conflict, the rebels in the heart of the empire. We must join our brothers in the fight for global liberation. The North American New Right must be resolutely anti-colonial. For the freedom of our people, and all the peoples of the world.

Notes

1. http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/the-struggle-of-jean-thiriart/13850/ ^[2]

2. http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6007 ^[3]

 

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/02/the-necessity-of-anti-colonialism/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/BoerActionDeckBack.jpg

[2] http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/the-struggle-of-jean-thiriart/13850/: http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/the-struggle-of-jean-thiriart/13850/

[3] http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6007: http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6007

Author: Gordon Duff

Reagan, Iran and the Descent into Darkness

Ex: http://journal-neo.org

 

Last week, the government of Pakistan presented proof to US Secretary of State John Kerry that America was financing ISIS operations. Account numbers were given, tracing back to conservative political donors and shady financial groups aligned with PJ Media, the Jamestown Foundation and a number of former military flag officers, several of whom regularly appear on Fox News and Alex Jones, the same names that popped up as planning the Benghazi attack.

 

The organization isn’t a new one, the basis for the Islamic State come from the Reagan presidency, the banking mechanisms used during Iran Contra when 123 Reagan appointees were convicted of crimes from Treason to Obstruction of Justice. ISIS is also a descendant of Gladio, the “stay behind” terror worldwide terror network controlled by Freemasons responsible for attacks across Europe and Latin America for over 3 decades.

Reagan’s real goal was taking down two enemies, the Soviets and Iran. His personal war on Iran, both economic and military nearly sent him to prison were he not able to prove he was mentally unfit for office while serving as president, as evidence in his testimony at the Iran Contra hearings.

Terror Funding Origins

The financial network used to back the terror organizations, Gladio, Al Qaeda and their current incarnations along with dozens of contrived “national fronts began with the moves against world banking.

In the US it began with the deregulation of “thrifts,” locally owned Savings and Loans quickly bankrupted through fraud, a move led by the Bush family and Senator John McCain but set up by the Reagan Treasury Department. 1.5 trillion US dollars were stolen from these financial organizations with only Charles Keating, close friend of Senator John McCain, and 40 low level operatives to go to prison.

McCain escaped prison and suffered only minor rebukes for his part in the Keating scandals.

Reagan’s domestic agenda rocked America, destroying unions, sent millions of skilled jobs overseas, ran up trillions in debt and destroyed America’s middle class. Reagan’s restructuring of the US economy eliminated over 5 million skilled labor and management jobs and millions of American families were set adrift, living in automobiles, sleeping under bridges and in makeshift “communities” much as during the Great Depression.

The closing of mental hospitals send nearly 500,000 patients into communities unprepared to deal with the influx. When you combined this population with the burgeoning “crack cocaine” epidemic begun by the Reagan White House operatives and CIA, America had become a festering hell hole.

The response was to begin a massive campaign of building prisons and a restructuring of the legal system with longer sentences for drug offenses and life imprisonment for petty crimes making America the most imprisoned society in the world. Reagan did this.

With cutbacks in aid to education, the typical American home became multi-generational and home ownership was no longer considered the “norm” for an American family.

Many remember iconic issues, one in particular when school lunch programs needed to be cut to finance a tax cut for the wealthiest 1%. Rules were changed to change dietary requirements and condiments such as catsup and mustard were allowed to replace fresh vegetables and salads.

What wasn’t mentioned is that orange juice was replaced by colored water with corn sweetener and carcinogenic food coloring. Food safety became a thing of the past as a massive influx of undocumented workers from Mexico were allowed to enter the US, part of Reagan’s plan to kill labor unions. They took over food processing jobs first, particularly slaughterhouse and meat packing jobs. E.coli outbreaks began sweeping the nation.

More Progress

Dangerous untested pharmaceuticals were released, killing thousands, industrial pollution of water and air was legalized and workplace safety measures were overturned. Reagan was a champion of “big agriculture,” and GMO became a national cause.

Thousands of other examples of government cruelty and corruption were buried beneath the trials and hearings over drug running and fraud.

Defenders of the Reagan government have blinders on and very short memories. Lauding the destruction of the Soviet Union, it was really America that died under Reagan. Paul Craig Roberts, champion of America’s right, speaks glowingly of Reagan.

He cites “liberals” as criticizing Reagan’s divisive policies and “trickle down” economics. I worked for the Carter administration and stayed on when Reagan took office.

The CIA and Organized Crime

A parallel version of the CIA was set up under Lt. Colonel Oliver North and members of the Bush family, and ratlines were created from the cocaine centers of Colombia, through Noriega’s Panama to the secret landing fields in Costa Rica and ending in America’s cities.

An epidemic of crack cocaine, aimed at America’s African-American population, as reported by Gary Webb and Mike Ruppert, financed Reagan initiatives, done in partnership with Israel, key Saudi figures and American organized crime.

Wanted members of the drug cartels bought up luxury condominiums in Miami and openly used CIA safehouses for meetings. CIA personnel were quietly “made aware” that things had changed, that a new administration had come to power and that drug cartels had become the close allies of the administration in Washington. Anyone that objected was threatened or worse.

Drug running was the “go to” solution for any black money shortfall during Reagan’s rule. Increasingly, financial institutions beginning with the breakaway Mormon communities of the South West, all “Red States” today. A “marriage” was consummated, tying these states, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Nevada and regions of Texas to the drug cartel run regions of Mexico. Over the next 3 decades, county by county, town by town, state by state, drug cartels took control of government operations and financial institutions, eventually controlling several US Senators, state governors, prosecutors, sheriffs and countless judges. Those who failed to play along were killed.

Middle East Policy

Reagan represented an end to efforts to seek justice for the Palestinian people and stability in the Middle East. Reagan’s real focus was on Iraq and their war against Iran, a keystone to his foreign policy.

The Reagan administration’s goal was control of not just narcotics but world oil markets. The aftermath of the 1973 war had shown the power oil pricing had on the world economy. Oil could be used as a tool of war as much as any army and Reagan’s economic advisors pushed for seizure of Iran’s oil field as a lynchpin to that policy. To do that, Iran had to be destroyed. From Wikipedia:

“Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the United States made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, normalizing relations with the government, supplying it with economic aid, counter-insurgency training, operational intelligence on the battlefield, and weapons.

President Ronald Reagan initiated a strategic opening to Iraq, signing National Security Study Directive (NSSD) 4-82 and selecting Donald Rumsfeld as his emissary to Hussein, whom he visited in December 1983 and March 1984. According to U.S. ambassador Peter W. Galbraith, far from winning the conflict, “the Reagan administration was afraid Iraq might actually lose.”

To think America would go to war to eliminate weapons of mass destruction given to Iraq by the United States is no secret. From the 1970s onward, the partnership between Israel, South Africa and Libya, fostered by the Reagan CIA, would develop and test, in Angola and elsewhere, new biological and chemical weapons later to be used by Saddam against Iran.

The Reagan administration, in order to facilitate the destruction of Iran, made it possible to supply Iraq with anything imaginable.

In 1982, Iraq was removed from a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism to ease the transfer of dual-use technology to that country. According to investigative journalist Alan Friedman, Secretary of State Alexander Haig was “upset at the fact that the decision had been made at the White House, even though the State Department was responsible for the list. I was not consulted,” Haig is said to have complained.

The Intel Partnership

What Wikipedia fails to tell of the 1983 Teicher/Rumsfeld meeting with Aziz in Baghdad is that they were sent there by the Israeli government, not America. Teicher presented a letter from Shamir to Saddam which was refused by Tarik Aziz, Iraq’s Foreign Minister.

Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. He accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983. According to his 1995 affidavit and separate interviews with former Reagan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and hi-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other private military companies to do the same:

Wikipedia also fails to mention the “ratline” for not just poison gas but biological agents as well, the German companies represented by Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush’s older brother, Prescott, nominally an “insurance executive,” in reality the largest arms trader in the world, and their role in arming Saddam against Iran.

Donald Rumsfeld meets Saddām on 19–20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984, the day the UN reported that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that “American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name.”

Conclusion

Torturing history is perhaps one of the greatest failings of our era. The abuses of wartime propaganda or the ideological struggles of the Cold War now permeate every aspect of our lives, creating a mythological unreality sustained only through considerable effort. It has gone far beyond repeating past mistakes but has become an organic movement of contrived entropy fueled through systematic denialism.

The Reagan era in the United States is cited for a reason. An actor was elected president, someone who played president and in some ways did so better than anyone in the past, with tremendous success, were reality a “play.”

Political theatricality had always been with us. However, it was once assumed that ideology and men of conscience would engage in meaningful conflicts, guns or ideas, but moving, once believed inexorably, toward human advancement. This is a failed hypothesis.

Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He’s a senior editor and chairman of the board of Veterans Today, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2015/02/09/reagan-iran-and-the-descent-into-darkness/