Herfried Münkler: Der Große Krieg

Herfried Münkler: Der Große Krieg. Die Welt 1914–1918

^[1]Rezension aus Sezession 58 / Februar 2014 

von Martin Grundweg

Ex: http://www.sezession.de

Dieses Buch ^[2] eines »Etablierten« über den Ersten Weltkrieg hält positive Überraschungen bereit: Für Herfried Münkler war das Deutsche Kaiserreich kein Hort des Bösen, vielmehr war die Selbststilisierung Frankreichs, Englands und der USA zu Verteidigern der Demokratie gegen die Barbarei reine Propaganda.

Die deutschen »Ideen von 1914« enthalten ein politisch konstruktives Freiheitsverständnis; »Tannenberg« und »Langemarck« sind zwar deutsche »Mythen«, halten aber im Kern einer »Entmythologisierung« stand, weil weder an der militärischen Leistung bei Tannenberg noch an der militärisch zwar sinnlosen, aber dennoch übermütig-heldenhaften Opferbereitschaft der Freiwilligen bei Langemarck zu zweifeln sei; das deutsche »Augusterlebnis« für »widerlegt« zu halten, nur weil nicht sämtliche Deutschen im August 1914 gleichermaßen begeistert über den Kriegsausbruch waren, ist grotesk; das Scheitern der deutschen und der US-amerikanischen Friedensinitiativen war nicht die Schuld des um Verständigung bemühten Reichskanzlers Bethmann Hollweg, sondern seiner unversöhnlichen französischen und englischen Kollegen; die geopolitische »Mittellage« Deutschlands ist ein tatsächlich bestehendes Problem; die These Niall Fergusons vom »falschen Krieg«, den England auf eigene Kosten und zum alleinigen Nutzen der USA geführt habe, ist durchaus plausibel.

Gut und Böse sind bei Münkler relativ gleich auf die beteiligten Staaten verteilt; in Deutschland waren die Militärs und Annexionisten die Bösen, während die Politiker und (liberalen) Befürworter eines »Verständigungsfriedens« die Guten waren.

Das Buch hat aber doch zwei erhebliche Schwächen. Die erste ist die fast durchgängig auf Deutschland beschränkte nationale Perspektive, die Münklers eigenem Anspruch widerspricht, eine Gesamtdarstellung des Ersten Weltkriegs zu bieten. Da ist es dann zu wenig, hin und wieder auf Ereignisse in Paris, London, Wien und St. Petersburg zu verweisen, die denen in Berlin mehr oder weniger ähnlich waren. Vor allem aber wird durch die breite Schilderung der deutschen Politik und Kriegführung permanent der Eindruck eines aktiven und angreifenden Deutschlands und einer passiven und verteidigenden Entente erzeugt. Zwar nennt Münkler Rußland als die für den Kriegsausbruch entscheidende Macht, hält aber insgesamt doch an einer zentralen Verantwortung Deutschlands für die Kriegsursachen sowie die Eskalation der Julikrise fest.

Die zweite Schwäche des -Buches hängt damit zusammen, daß Münkler kein Historiker, sondern Politologe ist, und daß man dies auch merkt. Münkler bleibt ganz und gar abhängig von dem, was die Forschungsliteratur der letzten Jahrzehnte zu bieten hat, und kann diese dann mit mehr oder weniger originellen Ideen ergänzen, aber nicht immer einleuchtend in den historischen Zusammenhang einordnen.

So folgt er im großen und ganzen der Behauptung, die massive antideutsche Kriegspropaganda habe im »brutalen Vorgehen« der Deutschen in Belgien eine rationale Ursache gehabt und verzichtet dabei weitgehend darauf, das Verhalten der deutschen Besatzungsmacht in Belgien mit dem Verhalten der Kriegsgegner in ähnlichen Situationen zu vergleichen. Immerhin aber verweist Münkler auf die Möglichkeit eines solchen Vergleichs, wenn er erwähnt, daß auch Ausländer wie Sven Hedin die Deutschen mit dem Hinweis auf das viel brutalere Vorgehen Rußlands in Ostpreußen in Schutz nahmen. Aus unerfindlichen Gründen hält Münkler diese Argumentation aber für »schwach« und wenig überzeugend.

Der Unterschied zu Arbeiten von Historikern fällt besonders ins Auge, wenn man die Darstellung der Kriegsursachen bei Münkler mit derjenigen Christopher Clarks (Die Schlafwandler ^[3]) vergleicht: Münkler betont zwar, daß Deutschlands »Blankoscheck« für Österreich-Ungarn in der Julikrise 1914 alles andere als verantwortungslos gewesen sei. Man müsse auch die ganz ähnlichen Zusagen Rußlands an Serbien und Frankreichs an Rußland berücksichtigen. Auch könne von einer »Störenfriedrolle« des Deutschen Reiches nur bedingt gesprochen werden. Er bleibt aber doch der alten Sichtweise verhaftet, nach der Deutschlands bloßes Vorhandensein eine Art Sicherheitsrisiko für die Entente-Mächte gewesen sei, angesichts dessen die deutsche Politik ein besonneneres Auftreten an den Tag hätte legen müssen. Clark zeigt dagegen, daß die Einkreisung Deutschlands kaum mit einer angeblichen deutschen »Gefahr« zusammenhing, sondern mit davon unabhängigen Verschiebungen des europäischen Staatensystems.

Trotz dieser Schwächen ist Münklers Buch zu begrüßen. Als stellenweise origineller Überblick über den Ersten Weltkrieg aus deutscher Perspektive und als zusammenfassende Kommentierung des gegenwärtigen Forschungsstandes ist es sinnvoll benutzbar. Es ist zudem trotz gewisser Einschränkungen eine weitere Referenzgröße für die wissenschaftliche Erledigung deutscher Hauptschuldvorwürfe. Das ist schon viel wert in Anbetracht der in diesem Jahr bevorstehenden geschichtspolitischen Auseinandersetzungen um die Deutung des Ersten Weltkriegs. Münkler wird dabei vermutlich eher auf der richtigen Seite stehen.

Herfried Münkler: Der Große Krieg. Die Welt 1914–1918 ^[4], Berlin: Rowohlt 2013. 928 S., 29.95 €

The Assassination That Began the Century of War

The Assassination That Began the Century of War

By Bionic Mosquito

Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com

And it isn’t the one that you are thinking of….

1939 – The War That Had Many Fathers, by Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof.

As mentioned in my first post on this book, the author has been dismissed in Germany regarding his historical views on the beginnings of the Second World War. From what I read in the preface, I found no reason to dismiss his views – and in any case, one can hold wrong views on certain subjects while providing valuable insights in others. It is for these hidden gems that I am reading the book. So, I continue.

I found one of those hidden gems in the first few pages – or is it a wacky assertion from a wrong-headed revisionist? If his point is valid, it provides a valuable insight – at least to me – into the manipulations by the elite at the turn of the last century and leading to the century of war.

The British – German Rivalry

The author begins by pointing to two mistakes by the German politicians prior to 1914 that led to the Great War:

They fail to extend the German – Russian Mutual Protection Pact, and they give to the economic upswing in Germany a maritime component.

The author sees in the first the opening for Russia to be drawn to France, and in the second a challenge to Britain on the seas. There is nothing terribly controversial here – many historians, mainstream and revisionist, have pointed to one or both of these factors.

From Britain’s view, Germany – post unification – was becoming the power on the continent with which it should have concern – replacing France. In various measures, Germany was growing into an economic powerhouse – the production of coal, iron, steel, etc. In 1887 in London, the “Merchandise Marks Act” was introduced, with the hope to attach stigma to products thereafter labeled “Made in Germany.”

Britain viewed it as good policy to keep a balance of power on the continent, thus freeing its hand elsewhere. Germany threatened not only that balance, but now could even threaten Britain itself. Britain’s views changed from seeing France as the primary continental threat to seeing this in in Germany:

On 1 January 1907 a top official of the British Foreign Ministry, Sir Eyre Crowe, drafts “an analysis of British Relations with France and Germany for his King.” … Now and in the future, Crowe concludes, Germany counts as England’s only opponent. (Page 22)

The British will therefore work to isolate Germany in the field of foreign policy, and the author suggests that German blunders provide the opportunity for this.

As mentioned, England previously saw France as its biggest competitor in the colonies; it now reached agreements with France on such matters. A 1904 treaty would coordinate colonial interests. In 1911, the British military promises France the support of six army divisions in the event of war with Germany. And without a proper treaty with Russia, this would one day place Germany in a strong vice.

Germaniam esse delendam to Protect Trade and Transport

Schultze-Rhonhof identifies comments coming out of England and against Germany almost immediately upon the formation of the German Reich in 1871. For example, he quotes Prime Minister Disraeli in a speech before the Lower House:

“The balance of power has been completely destroyed, and the country which suffers the most from this and feels the effect of this change most strongly, is England.” (Page 33)

Deputy Robert Peel adds that Germany has been united under a military “despotism.” (Page 33)

The author laments: “So Germany – just because unified – has already become a danger, and indeed for all of Europe.” (Page 34)

The press gets in on the act:

The London Saturday Review, an upper class journal, writes on 24 August 1895:

“We English have always waged war against our competitors in trade and transport. Our main competitor today is no longer France, but Germany…. In a war against Germany we would be in a position to win a lot and to lose nothing.” (Page 34)

On 1 February 1896 the same journal writes:

“If tomorrow every German were eliminated, there would be no British business nor any English enterprise which would not profit (lit “grow”). If every Englishman were to vanish tomorrow, the Germans would reap gains…. One of the two must quit the field. Get ready for the fight with Germany, for Germaniam esse delendam.” (Page 34)

Germany must be destroyed….

And again on 11 September 1897:

“Everywhere where the English flag has followed the Bible, and trade [has followed] the flag…the German trader fights the English…. States have waged wars for years over a town or rights to a throne; and should we not wage war when an annual trade of five billion is at stake?” (Page 34)

From the Belgian Ambassador in London to his ministry in Brussels on 24 May 1907, quoting Mr. Harmsworth (Lord Northcliffe), publisher of several daily papers in London:

“Yes we hate the Germans and that from the heart…. I will not allow my newspapers to print even the slightest thing that could hurt France. But I would not want them to carry anything at all that could be pleasant to the Germans.” (Page 38)

Is it a surprise to see the press doing the state’s bidding and leading the drumbeats to war?

Finally, Balfour is quoted, in response to the immorality of going to war for the purpose of protecting trade. It is suggested to Balfour: if Britain wants to keep up, work harder!

“That would mean we would have to lower our standard of living. Maybe a war would be easier for us.” (Page 38)

War is most certainly a racket! It is refreshing to know that there was a time when the politicians were more honest about this.

Why Not a British – US Rivalry?

Schultze-Rhonhof also examines the growth of production, trade, and naval resources of several other government powers. He concludes by asking: why does Britain fear Germany, when an even stronger opponent on the other side of the Atlantic, with far greater potential, was beginning to show its fangs?

Thus, the British fears of a threat could just as well have been ignited by North America’s fleet. The USA in regard to its industry and trade is also on track to overhaul England. And since 1898 it is acquiring colonies: Cuba, the Philippines, and Hawaii. (Page 31)

Yes, what gives? Schultze-Rhonhof provides his answer, and in it he identifies the assassination that helped to ensure the upcoming wars would be world wars – meaning the intervention of the United States.

Another reason lies in America’s apparent turning toward England. (Page 32)

By “apparent turning,” Schultze-Rhonhof here is describing what is called The Great Rapprochement:

The Great Rapprochement, according to historians including Bradford Perkins, describes the convergence of diplomatic, political, military and economic objectives between the United States and Great Britain in 1895-1915, the two decades before World War I.

This push for “convergence” was given widespread coverage on both sides of the Atlantic, influencing decision makers in both Britain and the United States.

At the turn of the last century, there was a powerful and well-known book, The Americanization of the World: The Trend of the Twentieth Century, by British celebrity journalist and editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, William T. Stead. In it, he predicted America’s inevitable – and providential – domination of the world.

From a conference paper outlining the book:

Stead, a tireless champion of Anglo-Saxon expansion, offered his prediction not in fear but in hope. Together, the United States and Britain would rule the world.

A century ago, Stead’s name was known to the public on both side of the Atlantic and to every prominent official in Europe and America.

As early as about 1870, in the immediate context of German unification, Stead advocated union between the British empire and the United States and came to defend what he called a “true Imperialism” aimed at the peace, security, unity, and humanitarian uplift of the world. In 1884 he campaigned for a larger Royal Navy. He wrote an article for the Pall Mall Gazette entitled “The Truth about the Navy,” attempting to provoke enough alarm over Britain’s vulnerability and Germany’s growing navy and colonial adventures to get Parliament to appropriate the necessary funds for a modern navy. Reading Sir John Seeley’s Expansion of England (1883) about this time inspired him with the idea of imperial federation. The scheme further expanded in his mind to bring the United States into an Anglo-Saxon union, reversing the blunder of George III. This proposal was similar to the campaign for Anglo-Saxon unification (or re-unification) waged by Stead’s friend Cecil Rhodes who famously said that he wanted to “paint the map red” with Britain’s empire. Other sympathizers included the industrialist Andrew Carnegie.

Given the determinism of history, Britain and Europe could either cooperate with the inevitable or wage a losing battle and end up Americanized against their will and without their consent. Germany and the Papacy seemed the most resistant to the Americanization of Europe. But the Kaiser’s bluster was as pointless as Canute’s command to the tide.

Stead saw war by the righteous as a means to bring about global peace.

The Assassination

Back to Schultze-Rhonhof:

Until McKinley’s presidency, the relations of the USA with the German Reich were always friendly and balanced. The English-American relationship, on the other hand, up to then is still burdened by the former British Colonial rule and England’s colonial wars in America.

With the assassination of McKinley in 1901 and the change to the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt a new kind of thinking arises in the USA. (Page 32)

Now this is where I struggled. Schultze-Rhonhof suggests that the change in US policy occurred after McKinley, not before. Yet all of the history I read suggests that McKinley is more like his successors than his predecessors – imperialism and all that. To further make this opaque, the Great Rapprochement is commonly dated as beginning in 1895.

Yet, Schultze-Rhonhof suggests this assassination was a turning point for US-German relations and US-British relations. Counter to McKinley:

Roosevelt and his successor Wilson are clearly anglophiles. They seek partnership with Great Britain. (Page 32)

So what gives? At this point, I had to go fishing.

McKinley vs. Roosevelt: What’s the Difference?

My first clue came here: Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy, by Murray Rothbard

William McKinley reflected the dominance of the Republican Party by the Rockefeller/Standard Oil interests. Standard Oil was originally headquartered at Rockefeller’s home in Cleveland, and the oil magnate had long had a commanding influence in Ohio Republican politics. In the early 1890s, Marcus Hanna, industrialist and high school chum of John D. Rockefeller, banded together with Rockefeller and other financiers to save McKinley from bankruptcy, and Hanna became McKinley’s top political adviser and chairman of the Republican National Committee. As a consolation prize to the Morgan interests for McKinley’s capture of the Republican nomination, Morgan man Garret A. Hobart, director of various Morgan companies, including the Liberty National Bank of New York City, became Vice-President.

The death of Hobart in 1899 left a “Morgan vacancy” in the Vice-Presidential spot, as McKinley walked into the nomination. McKinley and Hanna were both hostile to Roosevelt, considering him “erratic” and a “Madman,” but after several Morgan men turned down the nomination, and after the intensive lobbying of Morgan partner George W. Perkins, Teddy Roosevelt at last received the Vice-Presidential nomination. It is not surprising that virtually Teddy’s first act after the election of 1900 was to throw a lavish dinner in honor of J.P. Morgan.

 

So McKinley was a Rockefeller man, and Roosevelt (McKinley’s vice-president) represented the House of Morgan. This, at least, is one bit of information that differentiates McKinley from Roosevelt. Of course, it would be somewhat irrelevant had not McKinley met his fate on September 6, 1901 (surviving, and believed to be improving, for eight more days). He was assassinated by a lone gunman; a nut, an “anarchist.”

Here again, I turn to Rothbard: “Investigate the Vice President First”

Next president to die in office was William McKinley of Ohio, long-time Rockefeller tool. Another lone nut was responsible, the “anarchist” Leon Czolgosz, who, like Guiteau, was quickly tried and executed by the Establishment. Even though Czolgosz was considered a flake and was not a member of any organized anarchist group, the assassination was used by the Establishment to smear anarchism and to outlaw anarchist ideas and agitation. Various obscure anti-sedition and anti-conspiracy laws trotted out from time to time by the Establishment were passed during this post-McKinley assassination hysteria. Beneficiary? The vaulting to power of Teddy Roosevelt, longtime tool of the competing Morgan (as opposed to Rockefeller) wing of the Republican Party. Teddy immediately started using the anti-trust weapon to try to destroy Rockefeller’s Standard Oil and Harriman’s Northern Securities, both bitter enemies of the Morgan world empire. Exhume McKinley, and also start a deep investigation of the possible role of Teddy and the Morgans. Was Czolgosz only a lone nut?

Perhaps something bigger was afoot…. But I still did not find the connection to this changing attitude toward Britain.

Surprise, surprise. Rothbard provides the answer here as well, from A History of Money and Banking in the United States:

As the nations moved toward World War II, the Morgans, who had long been closely connected with Britain and France, rose in importance in American foreign policy, while the Rockefellers, who had little connection with Britain and France and had patent agreements with I.G. Farben in Germany, fell in relative strength. Secretary of State Cordell Hull, a close longtime friend of FDR’s roving ambassador and Morgan man Norman H. Davis, took the lead in exerting pressure against Germany for its bilateral rather than multilateral trade agreements and for its exchange controls, all put in place to defend a chronically overvalued mark. (Page 344)

Rothbard is speaking here of World War II, but the relationships fit the scenario suggested by Schultze-Rhonhof.

The assassination of McKinley – a Rockefeller man favorable toward Germany – ensured the replacement by Teddy Roosevelt, a Morgan man. Morgan, favorably disposed toward Britain, had his man in place – a move that would ensure the US moves closer to Britain.

This one action helped to ensure a transition of the tool of global power projection, from Britain to the United States – as I have previously describedhere (in the context of the Second World War). Of course, the roots of World War Two are many and deep – including the Great War, and perhaps including McKinley’s assassination.

This transition from Britain to the US is explored further in “The Peaceful Transition of Power from the UK to the US,” by Feng Yongping. In this, there is also further exploration of the evolving relationships amongst and between the United States, Great Britain, and Germany:

With regard to Great Britain, binding itself in friendship with the United States and avoiding the towering costs of conflict also stands out as extremely significant in preserving the nation’s colonial power, which was seemingly on the verge of decline. Germans were predicting during the 1880s or 1890s that the United States would be drawn into war, with Bismark confidently predicting that Great Britain would confront the American navy in the Atlantic Ocean, generating a British – German alliance with a union of naval and land powers of strategic political benefit. In contrast, Great Britain chose reconciliation with the United States.

In 1905, US President Roosevelt told a British diplomat not to let the nightmare of war between English-speaking democracies keep him up at night. Roosevelt said that in preparing for potential outbreaks of war, a fight against Great Britain was not an issue, since it was an impossibility.

The US also provided similar assistance for the British in the Boer War. After conflict broke out there, Theodore Roosevelt promptly expressed his position of support, saying the war completely aligned the interests of the two English-speaking democracies and in turn, the interests of the civilized world, and that English should become the language of southern Zambezia. During the war, the United States presented Great Britain with great amounts of military supplies and extended credit for about 20% of Great Britain’s war expenses.

Selborne, British Lord of the Admiralty, commented that all subjects of the British Empire knew that war with America would be a colossal failure of British diplomacy. Home Secretary A.H. Lee said that he could not even fathom the possibility of the US and Great Britain actually fighting a war. The US President Theodore Roosevelt spoke nearly the same words in 1905, when he stated his belief that the danger of another British – US dispute had not only passed, but was gone forever. Compared with other large nations, he believed the feeling of friendship to be more genuine with England than with any other.

As previously mentioned, Schultze-Rhonhof’s work was dismissed in Germany. Yet, so far, I am finding that he points to events that have import – events not even found in other revisionist works. This connection – McKinley’s assassination as one of the roots of the Great War – is one that I have not read elsewhere.

It is a connection that is supported by Rothbard’s work. Schultze-Rhonhof seems to keep good company. If he is dismissed for reasons similar to those offered to dismiss Rothbard, I certainly will continue with an open mind.

(I thank Charles Burris for being generous with his comments toward one aspect of this post. Any errors in interpretation or historical fact are completely my own.)

Reprinted with permission from the Bionic Mosquito.

The Best of Jonathan Goodwin

The Best of Bionic Mosquito

 

Copyright © 2014 Bionic Mosquito

Previous article by Bionic Mosquito: The Industrial Revolution of the Middle Ages

The Americanization of the World

 

The Americanization of the World

By Bionic Mosquito

Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com

The Americanization of the World, by William Thomas Stead.

With this post, I will begin a review of the above titled book, written in 1902.  In order to provide context as to my purpose for and approach in this review, I will begin by re-introducing and expanding upon my working hypothesis under which I have been considering various events over the last century and more.

1) There is a group of elite that operate above politicians and national governments, working through think-tanks and other global foundations and institutions.

2) The elite are not all of one mind, although in many ways their interests are aligned and the tools through which they leverage control are equally beneficial to all.

3) Until the turn of the 20^th century, much of this control was exercised through the British government and other British-based institutions.

4) Beginning as early as the late 19^th century (and perhaps the mid-nineteenth century), two things were becoming clear to this group:

a.The ability of Great Britain to be an effective tool for global reach would soon reach its limits.

b.The potential reach through the United States was untapped and, relatively speaking, unlimited.

5) The commonality in philosophical heritage and language of the people in Great Britain and the United States made the US population susceptible to similar tools of control – tools already established and proven effective.

6) Actions were taken beginning in the late 19^th century to effect the transition of this tool for global control from Great Britain to the United States.

7) These actions, through two World Wars, culminated in the United States moving to the position as the primary tool for control by the elite.

8) Winston Churchill – worshiped despite being the leading political figure during the entire span of the demise of the British Empire – played the key role in supporting this transition: both the decline of Great Britain and the ascendency of the United States as leader of this broader, English-speaking, elite controlled empire.

9) As opposed to looking elsewhere for world government, the United States has been the tool to implement world government – taking a leadership position in establishing the UN, IMF, World Bank, NATO, etc.

10) The good news?  Decentralization will win out: witness the break-up of the artificial conglomerations of the USSR, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia.  Witness similar events unfolding in Iraq, the inability to consolidate in Afghanistan.  Witness tiny Belgium, divided in two – yet somehow the entirety of Europe is going to meld into one?  Much more capable thinkers than I am write of the coming of the end of the nation-state (see especially the sections on Barzun and van Creveld).

Some of the visible actions taken to move the US into this leadership position include:

1) The creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913

2) The engagement of the US into the Great War, despite overwhelming public opinion against getting involved in this European conflict

3) The engagement of the US into the Second World War, again despite overwhelming public opinion against getting involved in this conflict.

4) Various purposeful actions taken by the British government to a) overcome the historical animosities between the two countries, and b) move the US toward the position of global primacy.

If you find this too tin-foil-hat for you, there is little reason to continue reading this post (if you haven’t stopped already).

While reading 1939 – The War That Had Many Fathers, I came across another event that seems to have helped move the US into a position to take the hand-off from Great Britain: the assassination of President McKinley in 1901.  As I explain here, this event helped to move the US from a negative or neutral posture toward Great Britain (and even somewhat favorable to Germany) toward a much more positive relationship with Great Britain through the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt.

This transition was but one step in what is known as the Great Rapprochement, the turning of US policy toward Great Britain in the period 1895 – 1915.

Also while reading the above-mentioned book I came across the name William Thomas Stead, and his book “The Americanization of the World.”  Given the title and description of the book, and that this book was initially published in 1902 (precisely at the beginning of this changing relationship), it seemed to me a worthwhile read given the hypothesis I identify above.

With that lengthy preamble out of the way, I offer an even lengthier introduction of Mr. Stead….

Who was Stead?  “William Thomas Stead (5 July 1849 – 15 April 1912) was an English newspaper editor….”

If his date of death seems familiar, it is because Stead died aboard the Titanic. Before this, he was a tremendously influential newspaper editor and author:

In 1880, Stead went to London to be assistant editor of the Liberal Pall Mall Gazette (a forerunner of the London Evening Standard), where he set about revolutionizing a traditionally conservative newspaper “written by gentlemen for gentlemen”.

Stead early on learned the power that the press could project over government action:

Stead’s first sensational campaign was based on a Nonconformist pamphlet, The Bitter Cry of Outcast London. His lurid stories of squalid life in the slums had a wholly beneficial effect on the capital. A Royal Commission recommended that the government should clear the slums and encourage low-cost housing in their place. It was Stead’s first success.

Despite being able to successfully move government to action, not every endeavor ended well; still, his reach and magnitude knew few limits:

In 1884, Stead pressured the government to send his friend General Gordon into Sudan to protect British interests in Khartoum. The eccentric Gordon disobeyed orders, and the siege of Khartoum, Gordon’s death, and the failure of the hugely expensive Gordon Relief Expedition was one of the great imperial disasters of the period.

 

Gordon was sent to evacuate British citizens from a troubled region and to otherwise abandon Sudan.  Once Gordon arrived, he apparently pursued a different course: he decided it was best to crush the Muslim uprising for fear that it would eventually spread to Egypt as well.  Gordon, with 6,000 men, began a defense of Khartoum.

On March 18, 1884, the Mahdist army laid siege to the city. The rebels stopped river traffic and cut the telegraph line to Cairo. Khartoum was cut off from resupply, which led to food shortages, but could still communicate with the outside world by using messengers. Under pressure from the public, in August 1884, the British government decided to reverse its policy and send a relief force to Khartoum.

“Under pressure from the public” a relief expedition force was sent, but failed to arrive in time to save Gordon and his men:

On January 26, 1885, Khartoum fell to the Mahdist army of 50,000 men. At that time of year the Nile was shallow enough to cross by wading and the Mahdists were able to breach the city’s defenses by attacking the poorly-defended approaches from the river. The entire garrison was slaughtered, including General Gordon. His head was cut off and delivered to the Mahdi. Two days later the relief expedition entered the city to find that they were too late.

Lord Kitchener later reconquered Sudan.

Forgive my diversion into this tale of late nineteenth century British imperialism; however it serves to demonstrate the power and influence that Stead possessed.  As cited above, “In 1884, Stead pressured the government to send his friend General Gordon into Sudan….”  It seems reasonable that he also was the one to apply pressure to send aid to “his friend” Gordon.

More on Stead and his influence:

1885 saw him force the British government to supply an additional £5.5million to bolster weakening naval defenses, after which he published a series of articles.  Stead was no hawk however; instead he believed Britain’s strong navy was necessary to maintain world peace.

Stead saw peace through war.  He saw the British Navy as a global force for good.  Consider how the tools used by the elite have not had to change a bit over the 125 years since Stead’s time, as the same tools used by Stead to help usurp wealth from the British middle class remain completely effective in the propaganda campaigns designed to usurp wealth from the middle class of the US today.

…he is also credited as originating the modern journalistic technique of creating a news event rather than just reporting it, as his most famous “investigation”, the Eliza Armstrong case, was to demonstrate.

Stead had other passions, showing an ability to understand future global consolidation well before any generally visible steps:

Stead was a pacifist and a campaigner for peace, who favored a “United States of Europe” and a “High Court of Justice among the nations”….

Stead held court in high places:

[Stead] was an early imperialist dreamer, whose influence on Cecil Rhodes in South Africa remained of primary importance; and many politicians and statesmen, who on most subjects were completely at variance with his ideas, nevertheless owed something to them. Rhodes made him his confidant….

Rhodes, of course, cornered the South African diamond market with the help of rather influential friends – call them the elite of the elite.  Rhodes was also quite influential regarding British Imperial policy:

Historian Richard A. McFarlane has called Rhodes “as integral a participant in southern African and British imperial history as George Washington or Abraham Lincoln are in their respective eras in United States history…

And Rhodes was influenced by Stead.

Stead found his influence ever-growing:

The number of his publications gradually became very large, as he wrote with facility and sensational fervor on all sorts of subjects, from The Truth about Russia (1888) to If Christ Came to Chicago! (Laird & Lee, 1894), and from Mrs Booth (1900) to The Americanisation of the World (1902).

And finally, to show the well-rounded character of the man:

Stead claimed to be in receipt of messages from the spirit world, and, in 1892, to be able to produce automatic writing.  His spirit contact was alleged to be the departed Julia Ames, an American temperance reformer and journalist whom he met in 1890 shortly before her death.  In 1909 he established Julia’s Bureau where inquirers could obtain information about the spirit world from a group of resident mediums.

As mentioned, Stead died on the Titanic.  His reputation survived:

Following his death, Stead was widely hailed as the greatest newspaperman of his age…. Like many journalists, he was a curious mixture of conviction, opportunism and sheer humbug. According to his biographer W. Sydney Robinson, “He twisted facts, invented stories, lied, betrayed confidences, but always with a genuine desire to reform the world – and himself.”

Why all of this background on Stead?  Well, it seems he was a rather influential fellow within the British elite at precisely the time when the United States began its turn toward Great Britain: an empire which (to say nothing of the spat in 1776) less than a century before burned the White House and much of the capitol, and only a few decades before, while officially neutral, aided the South in their war for independence – guilty enough to ultimately pay restitution of $15.5 million for building war ships for the Confederacy.

Great Britain was officially neutral throughout the American Civil War, 1861–65. Elite opinion tended to favor the Confederacy, while public opinion tended to favor the United States.

I will suggest it is elite opinion that counts when it comes to matters of politics, for example:

Diplomatic observers were suspicious of British motives. The Russian Minister in Washington Eduard de Stoeckl noted, “The Cabinet of London is watching attentively the internal dissensions of the Union and awaits the result with an impatience which it has difficulty in disguising.” De Stoeckl advised his government that Britain would recognize the Confederate States at its earliest opportunity. Cassius Clay, the United States Minister in Russia, stated, “I saw at a glance where the feeling of England was. They hoped for our ruin! They are jealous of our power. They care neither for the South nor the North. They hate both.”

Yet as early as 1895 – only 30 years after the end of the war – the US and Britain began their courtship.  And in the background was William Thomas Stead.

Finally, on to his book and the first chapter:

As it was through the Christian Church that the monotheism of the Jew conquered the world, so it may be through the Americans that the English ideals expressed in the English language may make a tour of the planet. (Page 3)

Setting aside the exaggeration of the claim, given the religion of statolatry (to borrow a phrase from Charles Burris), the comparison seems quite appropriate.

Stead saw the inevitability of the United States taking the preeminent position among the English-speaking nations.  He looked at population growth over the preceding 100 years (including empire), but also at differentiating the white population from the non-white (a recurring theme in his writing); he felt strongly that it was the white population that was of importance.

We are comparing the English-speaking communities.  The right of leadership does not depend upon how many millions, more or less, of colored people we have compelled to pay us taxes. (Page 5)

Stead, not shy, makes plain one purpose of colonizing people of color – compelling tax payments.  Stead also discounts the millions of British subjects in, for example, India, Africa, and the West Indies when it comes to considering the trends of population and future supremacy.

Population should be weighed as well as counted.  In a census return a Hottentot counts for as much as a Cecil Rhodes; a mean white on a southern swamp is the census equivalent for a Mr. J.P. Morgan or Mr. Edison.

A nation which has no illiterates can hardly be counted off against the Russians, only three per cent of whom can read or write. (Page 9)

He also sees no hope for reversal of this trend in favor of the US and to the detriment of Great Britain – not only in population but also industrial production and therefore capability of global reach.

Having presented this case, he suggests Britain embraces this inevitable change, restoring old bonds:

The philosophy of common sense teaches us that, seeing we can never again be the first, standing alone, we should lose no time in uniting our fortunes with those who have passed us in the race. Has the time not come when we should make a resolute effort to realize the unity of the English-speaking race?  …while if we remain outside, nursing our Imperial insularity on monarchical lines, we are doomed to play second fiddle for the rest of our existence.  Why not finally recognize the truth and act upon it?  What sacrifices are there which can be regarded as too great to achieve the realization of the ideal of the unity of the English-speaking race? (Page 6)

Stead sees continuous contention between the United States and Great Britain for control of global trade, with Britain eventually and ultimately the loser.  Stead is writing during the very early phases of the Great Rapprochement.  As regarding great sacrifices, considering the tremendous work done by Great Britain behind the scenes to create the propaganda in the US necessary to drag the American people into two world wars (as I view these wars as key to formalizing the transition of power), it seems reasonable to conclude that Stead’s suggestion that no sacrifices should be considered too great was taken quite seriously.

Stead goes on to outline the power and control available through a united US and British front: population, land mass, control of the seas and most navigable rivers.  And gold: “With the exception of Siberia they have seized all the best goldmines of the world.” (Page 7) Not a barbarous relic, apparently.

Between the two, they have seized the dominions of Spain, despoiled the Portuguese, the French and the Dutch, and left nothing but scraps to Italy and the Germans. (Page 7)  The only statistic in which these non-English-speaking nations hold the lead is in the amount of national debt! (Page 11)

Stead is looking for a savior, someone to lead in bringing these two – the US and Britain – into one, with the US taking the leading position:

The question arises whether this gigantic aggregate can be pooled.  We live in the day of combinations.  Is there no Morgan who will undertake to bring about the greatest combination of all – a combination of the whole English Speaking race?

The same motive which has led to the building up of the Trust in the industrial world may bring about this great combination in the world of politics.  (Page 12)

Presumably he is writing here of the work done by Morgan in consolidating the US steel industry.  Of course, Morgan also had connections with the same elite family that assisted Rhodes with diamonds in South Africa:

In 1895, at the depths of the Panic of 1893, the Federal Treasury was nearly out of gold.  President Grover Cleveland accepted Morgan’s offer to join with the Rothschilds and supply the U.S. Treasury with 3.5 million ounces of gold to restore the treasury surplus in exchange for a 30-year bond issue.

It should also be kept in mind: McKinley was a Rockefeller man; Rockefeller had ties to Germany.  Teddy Roosevelt, beneficiary of McKinley’s assassination, was a Morgan man; Morgan was a strong friend of Britain.  It seems the “Morgan” that Stead was looking for in the political combination was the same “Morgan” that he was referring to in the industrial combination.

Stead sees the impossibility of the American people accepting a combination where those in America would accept being subservient again to the crown:

It is, of course, manifestly impossible, even if it were desirable, for the Americans to come back within the pale of the British Empire. (Page 15)

Instead, he suggests Britain should accept reunion “on whatever terms may be arrived at.” (Page 15)

While not an overt political reunion, it certainly seems that a reunion was accepted by the British – and ultimately the U.S.  If one visible actor can be placed at the center of this “success,” I will suggest it is Winston Churchill.  For much of the first half of the 20^th century, Churchill played a leading role in British politics; even when not in an official position, he was communicating directly with Roosevelt behind the scenes in order to facilitate America’s entry into the Second World War – the final event in ensuring the transition.

During this time, Britain (or more precisely, the British population) certainly paid the price of reunion – “whatever terms necessary,” as Stead suggested in 1902: the terms for the British population can be seen in the blood of two world wars, inflation, a depression, a loss of manufacture and industry.  This price was paid over the next 50 years.  In the end, the United States clearly stood on top of the English-speaking world.

One politician, more than any other, stood in a position of leadership and influence while Britain was economically and physically bled: Winston Churchill.  Presiding (in various roles) over such a massive loss of Empire would normally result in the derision of the leader.  Yet Churchill is exalted.  Perhaps it has little to do with his role in the death of the British Empire, but because of his role in the birth of the larger, Anglo Empire.  For this reason, the gatekeepers of mainstream history frame Churchill in a praiseworthy manner.

And one writer, a man who traveled within and influenced the highest circles of the elite, wrote the book before the events even occurred: William Thomas Stead.

I will continue with further posts regarding this book as I find comments of import.  In the meantime, the examination of this one life and this first chapter has provided insights supportive of my working hypothesis regarding the transition of elite power and control from Great Britain to the United States.

The Best of Bionic Mosquito

Copyright © 2014 Bionic Mosquito

Previous article by Bionic Mosquito: State Sponsored Terrorism

8 février 1950: fondation de la STASI

8 février 1950: fondation de la STASI

 

Le 8 février 1950, le Ministère des affaires intérieures de la toute nouvelle république démocratique allemande, la RDA, génère un nouveau ministère, celui de la “Sûreté de l’Etat”, la “Staatsicherheit”, en abrégé le “MfS”. Dès le départ, cet organe, qui scelle la puissance du parti majoritaire au pouvoir, la SED, est d’office soustrait à tout contrôle de la “Volkskammer”, de la “Chambre populaire”, sorte de parlement-croupion donnant l’illusion d’une démocratie conventionnelle. Le MfS est posé d’emblée comme une “autorité à responsabilité propre”. Jusqu’en 1954, tous ses services sont dirigés par des instructeurs issus d’un service secret soviétique, le MGB. Le premier homme politique à devenir ministre de tutelle du MfS fut Wilhelm Zaisser, alors instructeur-en-chef de la “Volkspolizei”. La direction de la SED attribuera la révolte populaire du 17 juin 1953 à une défaillance du MfS. Par conséquent, Zaisser fut démis de toutes ses fonctions en juillet 1953. Son ministère fut dissout et subordonné au ministre de l’intérieur au titre de “secrétariat d’Etat” (SfS). Il a fallu attendre novembre 1955 pour que le MfS redevienne un ministère indépendant, placé sous la direction d’Erich Mielke à partir de novembre 1957. Il devient alors un “super-ministère”, comptant 170.000 fonctionnaires à plein titre et 90.000 collaborateurs officieux. Il sera dissout seulement le 18 novembre 1989, au moment de la fameuse “Wende”, le “retournement”, par la première Volkskammer issue d’élections libres.

 

 

(source: “Junge Freiheit”, n°7/2000).

 

Jan ACKERMEIER:

Les séparatistes rhénans de 1923

Il y a 90 ans, Franz-Joseph Heinz, séparatiste du Palatinat, était abattu par un commando nationaliste

Le 11 novembre 1923, le chef séparatiste du Palatinat, Franz-Joseph Heinz, proclame à Spire (Speyer) l’avènement d’un “gouvernement du Palatinat autonome dans le cadre de la République rhénane”. Son objectif était de créer un Etat indépendant du Reich, avec l’appui des Français. A l’époque, le Palatinat, comme une grande partie de la rive gauche du Rhin, était occupé depuis décembre 1918 par des troupes françaises, suite à l’armistice qui venait de mettre fin à la première guerre mondiale.

Pour s’emparer du Palatinat et pour consolider le pouvoir des séparatistes dans la région, Heinz avait essayé, début novembre 1923, de mettre sur pied une troupe armée, le “Corps du Palatnat” (Pfälzisches Corps”), qu’il avait aussitôt subdivisé en trois groupes. Le premier de ces groupes avait été concentré dans le triangle Ludwigshafen-Spire-Neustadt. Le second, dans le Sud du Palatinat. Le troisième, dans le Palatinat occidental, autour de deux centres urbains, Kaiserslautern et Pirmasens. En déployant cette maigre force, il avait reçu l’appui des Français, qui voyaient dans la consolidation des mouvements séparatistes en Rhénanie, en Sarre et dans le Palatinat un instrument commode pour affaiblir encore davantage le Reich vaincu après la première guerre mondiale.

Le “Corps du Palatinat” était une troupe principalement recrutée dans la région même qui devait progressivement prendre son autonomie par rapport aux unités armées du “Rheinlandschutz” (“Troupe de protection de Rhénanie”) que deux séparatistes rhénans avaient constitué, Joseph Friedrich Matthes (1886-1943) et Hans Adam Dorten (1880-1963), pour les envoyer en mission dans le Palatinat. Dorten et Matthes avaient perpétré un putsch le 22 octobre 1923 et avaient proclamé une “République rhénane” à Coblence. Après un putsch similaire, le Palatinat devait devenir partie intégrante de cette nouvelle république. Heinz avait été inscrit sur une liste de personnes susceptibles de faire partie d’un cabinet de la “République de Rhénanie”. Toutefois, il ne voulait collaborer avec Dorten que si le Palatinat devenait une partie autonome et libre d’une république rhénane organisée selon des principes fédéraux.

Pour faire face au danger séparatiste, Edgar Julius Jung, avec le concours d’un directeur de banque de Kaiserslautern, Emmerling, fonde une organisation secrète, le “Rheinisch-Pfälzischer Kampfbund” (“La Ligue de combat de Rhénanie et du Palatinat”). Cette ligue secrète se donne pour objectif de chasser l’occupant français par la violence. Dès 1923, elle entame la lutte armée contre le séparatisme du Palatinat, soutenu par la France. Après qu’il eût été expulsé du Palatinat, Jung déménage avec sa famille à Mannheim puis, pendant l’été de 1923, il s’installe à Feldafing et, enfin, il ouvre un cabinet d’avocat à Munich. C’est dans la capitale bavaroise qu’il rencontre Walter Antz de la ville de Zweibrücken (Deux-Ponts), également expulsé du Palatinat. Antz fait alors partie du Commissariat d’Etat pour la lutte violente contre le séparatisme rhénan. Il charge Jung de préparer un attentat contre Heinz, le président du “Palatinat autonome”. Dans la soirée du 9 janvier 1924, un commando d’une vingtaine d’hommes, qui vient de traverser le Rhin gelé sous la direction de Jung, donne l’assaut à la vaste salle à manger de l’hôtel “Wittelsbacher Hof” à Spire, où se trouvent les principaux séparatistes. Heinz est abattu, de même que ses collaborateurs Nikolaus Fusshöller et Matthias Sand. Un convive innocent prend également une balle mortelle. Deux membres du commando trouvent la mort dans l’échange de coups de feu consécutif à leur action. Jung lui-même est blessé légèrement au cou par le tir d’une patrouille. Il retourne à Munich.

Plus tard, il devient l’un des principaux théoriciens nationaux-conservateurs et anti-democratiques de l’ère de la République de Weimar, grâce à son livre paru en 1926 et intitulé “Die Herrschaft der Minderwertigen” (“La domination des hommes de moindre valeur”). Il mourra en juin 1934, quand le régime national-socialiste procèdera à une épuration violente (connue à l’étranger sous le nom de “Nuit des longs couteaux”).

Jan ACKERMEIER.

(article paru dans “zur Zeit”, n°1-2/2014, Vienn, http://www.zurzeit.at ).

1914: la catastrophe qui a amené le déclin de l’Europe

Andreas Mölzer:

1914: la catastrophe qui a amené le déclin de l’Europe

Une guerre européenne fratricide et ses conséquences: quelques réflexions

Au début de l’année 1914, nos grands-parents et nos arrière-grands-parents étaient aussi sûrs et confiants que nous, du moins quand il s’agissait d’évoquer de grands thèmes comme la paix, le bien-être et la liberté politique et, cela, dans toutes les classes de la société, dans les salons des foyers bourgeois, dans les fermes et dans les maisons ouvrières. Nos aïeux n’étaient certainement pas plus bêtes que nous, ils étaient tout aussi cultivés et certainement pas pires que nous sur le plan moral. Bien au contraire, serais-je tenté de dire. Et pourtant, quelques mois plus tard, ils partaient tous à la guerre, une guerre où les Européens allaient s’entretuer par millions.

Au début de l’année 1914 existait encore un concert des puissances européennes. Et l’Europe était à coup sûr le continent-guide de la planète. Certes, les Européens étaient divisés en deux systèmes d’alliances rigides et surarmés mais cet état de choses existait depuis de longues années déjà avant le déclenchement de la guerre, si bien qu’on pouvait parler d’une sorte de guerre froide entre les puissances de l’Entente et les puissances centrales. Ensuite, il y avait aussi la parenté étroite et le cousinage entre toutes les dynasties régnantes en Europe. La haute noblesse était dépuis longtemps “grande-européenne”, par mariages, et sa culture de classe était “supra-étatique”. La bourgeoisie était très cultivée et polyglotte. La social-démocratie était d’orientation internationaliste. L’économie, la science et la vie culturelle, pour un regard extérieur, étaient largement “paneuropéennes”, plus mêlées en réalité qu’on ne l’imaginait au sein des cultures respectives. Pourtant, quelques mois plus tard, les portes de l’enfer se sont ouvertes et la guerre intereuropéenne fratricide est rapidement devenue la première guerre organisée selon des critères industriels, un incendie universel débouchant sur des massacres de masse et sur l’effondrement de la vieille Europe.

Et si nos grands-parents et arrière-grands-parents n’étaient ni plus stupides ni plus mauvais que nous ne le sommes aujourd’hui, si la conscience qu’ils avaient d’eux-mêmes en cette époque “fin-de-siècle” rappelle certains aspects de la décadence de notre époque, qui nous garantit, à nous contemporains, que les portes de l’enfer ne vont pas un jour se rouvrir? L’homme est un loup pour l’homme. Cette vérité s’est vérifiée à l’époque. Est-elle toujours valide?

La vieille Europe: une unité dans la diversité

La vieille Europe, qui a connu son inferno final dans l’incendie qui a ravagé le continent entre 1914 et 1918, avait été pendant mille ans, depuis les Carolingiens, une unité dans la diversité. La “translatio Imperii ad Francos”, au Franc Charles, puis, plus tard, “ad Germanos”, aux rois d’Allemagne, a transposé l’idée impériale, sacrée et seule légitime, des rives de la Méditerranée au centre de l’Europe. Cette unité européenne dans la diversité, n’a que rarement été une unité dans la paix. Il y a toujours eu, dans l’histoire européenne, des querelles dynastiques puis des guerres de religion et des guerres de cabinet aux 17ème et 18ème siècles. Le moyen âge a été marqué par le conflit entre les Papes et les Empereurs. Ensuite les guerres franco-allemandes successives, interprétées comme la conflagration entre deux ennemis héréditaires, ont été suivies par les guerres entre Bourbons et Habsbourgs. L’ère moderne a vu les grandes puissances européennes rivaliser entre elles pour la domination du continent: ce furent successivement l’Espagne de Philippe II puis la France du Roi-Soleil et celle du Corse. Enfin, l’Allemagne wilhelminienne est entrée à son tour dans la course. Toutes ces guerres et ces entreprises belligènes ont débouché sur des hostilités sanglantes de longue durée. Mais malgré cela, une unité dans la diversité demeurait, celle de l’Europe dite chrétienne, de l’Occident (au sens pré-américain du terme), du concert des puissances européennes. Déchirée par des querelles sur le plan intérieur, l’Europe était néanmoins perçue comme une unité par tous les regards extérieurs. Les Musulmans de l’époque des Croisades considéraient tous les Européens comme des barbares francs. Plus tard, les Chinois du soulèvement des Boxers percevaient tous les Européens –quelle qu’ait été leur nationalité— comme des colonisateurs occidentaux.

 

De l’idée impériale à la bureaucratie eurocratique

Cette unité dans la diversité nous fait deviner que les efforts d’intégration européenne d’après 1945, la “Montanunion” (la CECA), la constitution des “CEE”, de la CE et, enfin, de l’UE ne sont pas vraiment des nouveautés. Ce qui se passe c’est que l’idée impériale et sacrée a fait place à une forme bureaucratisée et sécularisée qui tente trop maladroitement de lier entre eux les Etats européens. Cette forme tente de se développer et de se projeter dans le futur: elle donnera à terme un super-Etat eurocratique centralisé ou une confédération de peuples et d’Etats libres et autonomes. L’avenir nous dira quelle option aura triomphé. Les tentatives de jadis, celles des grands peuples européens, d’unir le continent de manière hégémonique ont toutes échoué, car les autres peuples d’Europe ne sont pas prêts à tolérer de telles formes hégémoniques. La politique d’intégration européenne, préconisée de nos jours, semble avoir tiré les leçons du passé: elle sait désormais qu’il faudra mettre en place un système complexe, capable d’équilibrer les puissances et leurs intérêts, afin de parfaire une unification européenne sans conflits militaires et sans susciter l’émergence d’une unique force hégémonique. C’est sans doute en cela que réside la principale leçon de l’intégration européenne après 1945.

En 1914, quand les Européens sont partis à la guerre, avec tambours, trompettes et uniformes rutilants, agités par un enthousiasme patriotique inégalé, la vieille unité européenne sous-jacente a volé en éclats dans cette multiplicité de conflictualités inédites. Elle vole en éclats dans les tueries de masse perpétrées dans les tranchées de Lorraine, dans les combats de montagne le long du cours de l’Isonzo, dans les massacres de Galicie, des Balkans, des Pays Baltes. On avait conçu la guerre à venir selon les règles des guerres de cabinet: on avait pensé à des campagnes de courte durée, à des expéditions punitives (par exemple contre une Serbie entêtée), etc. L’état-major général prussien avait fait preuve d’hybris en imaginant qu’il pouvait déclencher contre la France une guerre-éclair en appliquant le Plan Schlieffen. Tout cela s’est achevé dans des massacres à l’échelle industrielle. Les mitrailleuses, l’artillerie lourde à longue portée, les chars d’assaut et les avions de combat, enfin, les gaz toxiques ont fait des théâtres d’opération européens des champs de cadavres.

Une génération d’estropiés et de déments allait peupler le continent dans les années d’après-guerre. L’heure avait sonné où l’on ne pensait plus qu’à la vengeance, comme en témoignent les textes des traités signés dans les banlieues parisiennes. Les vaincus ne pensaient plus qu’à la revanche qui oblitérait tout le champ politique du continent. Cet état d’esprit a favorisé l’émergence d’idéologies qui méprisaient l’homme et a préparé le terrain à la deuxième guerre mondiale, qui sera le deuxième acte d’une guerre qui, finalement, aura duré trente ans.

L’Allemagne et l’Autriche avant 1914

Avant 1914, l’Allemagne était quasiment la puissance hégémonique en Europe. Le Reich wilhelminien avait derrière lui un “boom” économique et militaire vertigineux. Ses succès industriels et scientifiques étaient considérables; les forces qui structuraient sa société avaient été encore consolidées par les lois sociales imposées par Bismarck et par la montée en force de la social-démocratie de Bebel. Le II° Reich wilhelminien, né en 1871, était bel et bien devenu la principale puissance européenne. Il était allié à la vieille monarchie des Habsbourg, au passé glorieux mais désormais épuisée et déchirée. Elle était le vieil Etat impérial, l’héritière du Saint-Empire de la vieille Europe. Le II° Reich la trainaît littéralement dans son sillage. L’Autriche-Hongrie épuisée devait forcément devenir la cible principale des nationalismes exacerbés du Sud-Est de l’Europe, nés à la fin du 19ème siècle. La nouvelle Allemagne, si dynamique, et l’Autriche-Hongrie, résignée à son déclin, formaient un attelage inégal. L’Autriche-Hongrie ne tenait qu’en souvenir de la vieille idée d’unité allemande, que parce que le vieil Empereur François-Joseph se rappelait qu’il était un prince allemand et que les Hohenzollern devaient le respecter, lui et le prestige de l’ancienne impérialité romaine-germanique qu’il incarnait à Vienne.

Les plans forgés au cours des hostilités dans l’Allemagne wilhelminienne, notamment ceux de Friedrich Naumann qui envisageait l’émergence d’une “Mitteleuropa” entièrement restructurée, partaient forcément de l’acceptation implicite de l’hégémonie allemande sur l’ensemble du continent. Ces plans, postérieurs à 1914, prévoyaient d’inclure l’Autriche des Habsbourgs uniquement si celle-ci apportait ses prolongements territoriaux slaves et magyars. Par conséquent, affirmer que Berlin est entré en guerre de sa propre volonté, pour réaliser cette hégémonie grande-européenne, est une erreur magistrale. Il serait tout aussi faux d’affirmer que l’Entente a accepté la guerre en pleine connaissance de cause pour réaliser des plans imaginés dans des cénacles occultes —de type maçonnique— visant la destruction et le démantèlement des empires centre-européens, voire, dans la foulée, de l’Empire des Tsars et de l’Empire ottoman. De tels plans ont certes existé et, finalement, ont été réalisés après la guerre, dans toute leur ampleur. Mais ces plans n’ont pas constitué les buts de guerre déclarés des détenteurs du pouvoir dans les pays de l’Entente, et certainement pas dans la Russie impériale.

Le Professeur Christopher Clark et la culpabilité dans le déclenchement de la guerre de 1914

Nous arrivons à la question de la culpabilité dans le déclenchement du conflit. Il n’a pas fallu attendre le travail fouillé de l’historien britannique Christopher Clark pour savoir qu’affirmer de manière impavide la culpabilité exclusive de l’Allemagne et de l’Autriche-Hongrie est en nette contradiciton avec les faits historiques. Comme Clark le démontre avec brio dans son gros ouvrage intitulé “The Sleepwalkers”, les élites de tous les Etats européens ont cheminé allègrement, avec une stupéfiante légèreté, vers l’état de belligérance: les Allemands de l’ère wilhelminienne en rêvant de leur “Weltpolitik”, l’Autriche des Habsbourg dans ses efforts de sauver la monarchie, les Français en cultivant leur idée fixe de revanche suite à leur défaite de 1870-71, les Anglais pour asseoir plus solidement encore leur hégémonie en tant qu’Empire planétaire, les Russes pour rassembler autour d’eux tous leurs frères slaves d’Europe orientale et les Serbes pour réaliser leur rêve yougoslave. Enfin, les Italiens pour établir leur frontière sur le Brenner. Etc.

A tout cela s’ajoute une nostalgie perverse, qui traversait les strates bourgeoises et universitaires, une nostalgie qui rêvait de guerres purificatrices, au nom de l’adage grec “polemos pater panton”. On peut désormais affirmer avec certitude que cette exacerbation perverse du nationalisme, devenu à la fin du 19ème siècle une sorte de religion de remplacement en Europe, a généré les délires patriotiques d’août 1914. Pour l’écrivain Karl Kraus, ce furent “les derniers jours de l’humanité”: il nous a décrit, avec exagération peut-être mais de manière toutefois poignante, quelle a été cette atmosphère surchauffée de chauvinisme délirant.

Aujourd’hui, cent ans plus tard, on croit qu’il est de bon ton d’oublier et de refouler les faits nationaux concrets, sous prétexte qu’il ne faut plus reproduire ce nationalisme exacerbé. Pourtant une connaissance intelligente des identités nationales propres à chaque peuple d’Europe et du monde et un respect des cultures nationales ne sont nullement des postures hostiles à une bonne entente entre les peuples et à l’idée d’un pluralisme ethnique bien compris. Les zélotes du Zeitgeist contemporain et de la “political correctness” s’ingénient à refouler les réflexes nationaux naturels. On ne s’étonnera dès lors pas que ces zélotes, dans les polémiques politiques quotidiennes qu’ils déclenchent, stigmatisent systématiquement le renouveau que représentent les mouvements challengeurs actuels qui tablent sur la conscience nationale des peuples, qui réactivent leur patriotisme ou qui jouent sur le regard critique que nos populations portent sur les errements de l’UE. Pour nos zélotes du “politiquement correct”, ces réflexes naturels sont, ni plus ni moins, un retour aux vieux nationalismes de 1914. Leur point de vue se résume à ceci: en 1914, le nationalisme a conduit l’Europe à sa perte. En 2014, il menace à nouveau le continent, à cause des méchants populistes de droite qui préparent aux Européens un destin tragique analogue. C’est à coup sûr un simplisme sidérant, une analogie purement polémique qui ne tient nullement compte de la complexité des faits historiques et politiques.

Questions: il y a cent ans, étaient-ce vraiment les nations qui ont poussé à la guerre ou étaient-ce plutôt les intérêts économiques, les mécanismes de l’impérialisme ou du mode de pensée dynastique qui ont mis l’effroyable machine en branle, qui a produit, quelque mois plus tard, les grandes batailles dévoreuses d’hommes? N’a-t-on pas utilisé l’euphorie nationaliste des peuples européens pour faire passer par le truchement de la guerre des intérêts d’une toute autre nature? Ces questions demeurent ouvertes. Les efforts allemands en direction d’une “Weltpolitik” ont été définitivement enterrés, sous les cendres des villes bombardées, en 1945 quand a pris fin le deuxième acte de la grande guerre civile européenne. La Russie tsariste a cédé le terrain au despotisme communiste/soviétique, qui a duré sept décennies. L’Empire britannique s’est tranquillement dissous quand cette guerre de trente ans a pris fin. Et le résultat de cette soif de revanche des Français, un siècle plus tard, c’est que la France est aujourd’hui liée à son partenaire allemand, plus fort qu’elle économiquement, pour le meilleur et pour le pire. Dans ce contexte, le modèle vieil-européen, que représentaient les états pluriethniques des Habsbourg, réémerge doucement pour servir de base à une nouvelle communauté des peuples d’Europe centrale, après avoir été détruit en 1918, ravagé pendant la seconde guerre mondiale et écartelé entre les deux super-gros pendant la guerre froide. Les peuples qui vivent dans l’espace situé entre le Danube, les Alpes et les Carpathes vont revenir, en quelque sorte, à la case départ. Quant aux intérêts dynastiques des Habsbourgs, des Romanovs et des Hohenzollern, ils ne suscitent même plus l’intérêt ou la verve de la presse à sensation.

Nous constatons donc que les buts de guerre, réels ou imaginaires, de 1914 se sont avérés obsolètes, au moins depuis 1945, et, dès lors, qu’il n’y a pas eu de vainqueurs dans la grande guerre civile européenne du 20ème siècle. Par voie de conséquence, la question de la culpabilité dans le déclenchement de la guerre en 1914 s’avère tout aussi obsolète. Et si on ne peut plus accuser les vaincus de 1918 d’avoir été les seuls et uniques fauteurs de la guerre de 1914, on ne peut plus non plus les accuser d’être les seuls responsables du déclenchement en 1939 de l’acte second de cette guerre de trente ans. En effet, on ne peut plus penser la seconde guerre mondiale sans la première.

Ceci dit, il n’est pas question de nier toute culpabilité dans les crimes qui ont été commis lors de ces deux guerres. Bien sûr, la double émergence du communisme soviétique et du national-socialisme, voire d’autres régimes fascistes ou anti-démocratiques, s’explique comme un ensemble de résultats de la première guerre mondiale. La première guerre mondiale n’excuse toutefois pas les crimes commis par ses systèmes totalitaires. Les millions de morts de la lutte des classes en Union Soviétique, au nom du stalinisme dans les années 20 et 30, s’expliquent peut-être aussi par les effets pervers de la première guerre mondiale mais ne sont pas excusables pour autant. Quant aux millions de morts dus à l’idéologie racialiste du national-socialisme et à la volonté d’éradiquer la population juive d’Europe centrale, ne sont pas davantage excusables.

Déterminer la culpabilité dans le déclenchement de la première guerre mondiale revient à déterminer également la culpabilité dans les événements tragiques de l’entre-deux-guerres et dans le déclenchement de la seconde guerre mondiale. Tous les peuples européens partagent cette culpabilité, certes de manière différente et de manière plus ou moins intense. On peut l’affirmer de bon droit cent ans après août 1914. Question hypothétique: “que se serait-il passé si...?”. Ce genre de question peut paraître oiseux et les historiens s’en défient. Osons-en quelques-unes: que se serait-il passé si la première guerre mondiale ne s’était pas déclenchée? L’héritier du trône François-Ferdinand aurait-il pu transofrmer l’Autriche-Hongrie en un empire “trialiste”, germano-magyaro-slave, pour pacifier ainsi durablement l’Europe centrale? La quasi-hégémonie qu’exerçait l’Allemagne wilhelminienne sur l’Europe aurait-elle pu à terme s’insérer dans le concert des puissances du continent? La Russie tsariste se serait-elle donné les moyens de résoudre les problèmes sociaux de l’Empire? Les puissances coloniales qu’étaient la France et l’Angleterre, ainsi que l’Italie, tard-venue dans la course aux colonies, auraient-elles finalement accepté, bon gré mal gré, la prépondérance allemande en Europe?

Les questions se bousculent mais les réponses qu’on pourrait leur apporter sont inutiles. Tout comme l’est une autre question: aurions-nous pu faire l’économie du communisme soviétique, du stalinisme et du national-socialisme? Les faits sont là: les peuples européens sont partis en guerre à l’été 1914. Ils se sont entretués par millions au cours de la première guerre industrielle de l’histoire mondiale, avec des armes et des machines de destruction inégalées jusqu’alors. Les vainqueurs n’étaient pas prêts en 1918, à accorder aux vaincus des conditions de paix raisonnables. Raison pour laquelle les hommes, partout en Europe, ont cherché leur salut dans des régimes totalitaires, qui correspondaient bien au durcissement et à l’ensauvagement des moeurs dus à la guerre et transposaient ces déviances dans la sphère politique. Cela a débouché sur la deuxième guerre mondiale, où l’affrontement entre les peuples a été plus rude encore: génocides à motivation idéologique racialiste, massacre des populations civiles par bombardements massifs des villes, épurations ethniques après le conflit avec millions de réfugiés, utilisation de la bombe atomique contre le Japon...

Trois décennies après le déclenchement de la première guerre mondiale, les observateurs de la situation en Europe ne trouvaient plus devant eux qu’un immense champ de ruines. La culpabilité en était attribuée aux vaincus. Cette affirmation, gratuite, est aujourd’hui relativisée par les sciences historiques qui offrent désormais un regard objectif sur les causes et le déroulement de cette guerre civile européenne longue de trente terribles années, une guerre civile qui fut aussi une guerre mondiale en deux actes.

Qui ne connaît pas l’histoire est condamné à la répéter et à la revivre disait le philosophe et historien américain d’origine espagnole George Santayana. Cette phrase de Santayana nous oblige, nous donne le devoir d’analyser et de retravailler l’histoire de tous les événements des deux guerres mondiales et de l’entre-deux-guerres. Car toute politique intelligente en Europe, surtout celle qui veut parfaire l’intégration européenne, doit suivre le mot d’ordre: “Plus jamais ça!”.

Andreas Mölzer.

(article paru dans “zur Zeit”, Vienne, n°3/2014, http://www.zurzeit.at ).

1914: Allemagne, culpabilité partagée

1914: Allemagne, culpabilité partagée

 

Entretien avec le Prof. Christopher Clark sur ses thèses quant au déclenchement de la première guerre mondiale. Toutes les puissances sont coupables et pas seulement le Reich de Guillaume II!

Le Professeur Dr. Christopher Clark enseigne l’histoire contemporaine à l’Université de Cambridge et a sorti récemment un livre de près de 700 pages qui suscite une formidable controverse, “The Sleepwalkers – How Europe Went to War in 1914” (2012, éd. de poche chez Penguin, 2013).

Q.: Professeur Clark, le “Spiegel” a rendu votre oeuvre “suspecte”, “parce que vos possitions rappellent celles des historiens allemands classés dans le camp ‘national-conservateur’”. Seriez-vous par hasard germanophile?

CC: L’Allemagne est certes un pays pour lequel j’éprouve de la sympathie. Je parle l’allemand, mes séjours en Allemagne me sont agréables, je visite volontiers le pays. Mais je ne suis certainement pas germanophile au sens où cette germanophilie serait une position de doctrinaire...

Q.: Dans quelle mesure mettez-vous alors en doute la culpabilité exclusive de l’Allemagne dans le déclenchement de la première guerre mondiale?

CC: Plus personne ne parle vraiment de “culpabilité exclusive” aujourd’hui, même plus les adeptes les plus sourcilleux de l’école de Fritz Fischer, qui avait voulu bétonner l’idée d’une culpabilité exclusive.

Q.: L’historien allemand Fritz Fischer avait déclenché un débat dans les années 60 à propos de la culpabilité dans le déclenchement de la guerre de 14, débat qui avait vite porté le nom de “controverse Fischer”. Pour citer une nouvelle fois le “Spiegel”: “Dans cette controverse, Fischer posait la thèse de la culpabilité exclusive de l’Allemagne”...

CC: C’est un fait: la thèse de Fischer a fini par devenir une sorte d’orthodoxie, non pas sous les oripeaux du radicalisme, mais en version “light”. Chez mes collègues anglophones, on a traduit la thèse de Fischer de la manière suivante: les Russes, les Français et les Anglais ont certes commis des bêtises mais seuls les Allemands voulaient la guerre et l’ont provoquée.

Q.: En Allemagne c’est plutôt la version “radicale” qui a triomphé: une rédactrice de la chaîne ZDF vous a reproché “de prendre trop l’Allemagne sous votre aile protectrice”...

CC: Pas du tout! Je dis de façon claire et nette que l’Allemagne est co-responsable. Mais c’est bizarre: il n’y a qu’en Allemagne que l’on vous reprochera d’être trop “amical” à l’égard du pays. Ce n’est qu’en Allemagne qu’une bienveillance objective en arrive à être “suspecte”.

Q.: Dans quelle mesure?

CC: Je me souviens d’un débat à Berlin sur le thème de la Prusse. Quand il s’est terminé, une dame assez âgée, toute gentille, cultivée, m’a adressé la parole: “Monsieur Clark, vous semblez nous aimer, nous, les Allemands”. “Ben, oui”, ai-je répondu, “pourquoi donc ne vous aimerais-je pas?”. Et elle me rétorqua: “Parce que nous sommes si terribles!”. Je pense qu’un dialogue pareil serait tout bonnement impensable dans un autre pays.

Q.: Votre livre est un formidable best-seller en Allemagne. Est-ce parce qu’il est en porte-à-faux par rapport à tous les autres, qui adoptent les thèses dominantes, qu’il est perçu comme “provocateur”...

CC: C’est possible. En Angleterre aussi, il a suscité des critiques acerbes. On disait: “Nous savons qui est le coupable dans le déclenchement de la première guerre mondiale! Que vient nous raconter ce Clark?”. Moi-même, j’ai encore appris à l’école que les grandes puissances s’étaient solidarisées entre elles pour faire face à l’Allemagne qui avait provoqué la guerre.

Q.: Et ce n’est pas vrai...?

CC: Les choses sont beaucoup plus compliquées. La Russie s’est alliée à la France justement parce qu’elle pensait que Londres pouvait s’allier à Berlin. Et Londres n’a pas cherché à se rapprocher de Saint-Pétersbourg pour intimider l’Allemagne, mais pour protéger l’Inde et la Perse contre les ambitions prêtées à la Russie.

Q.: La conclusion de votre livre: le Reich de Guillaume II n’est pas l’Etat-voyou que l’on a décrit depuis les événements...

CC: Non. L’Allemagne a contribué à créer la situation générale qui a débouché sur la première guerre mondiale et en est donc co-resposable, mais sans plus. Il n’y a pas eu de conspiration allemande pour aboutir à la guerre. L’Allemagne voulait être une grande puissance et c’est pourquoi elle s’est comportée comme une grande puissance. La politique allemande d’avant 1914 correspond entièrement au cadre mental de l’époque.

Q.: Donc, pour vous, l’Allemagne ne cherchait pas à devenir une puissance mondiale...?

CC: Il est plus exact de dire que l’Allemagne proclamait qu’elle voulait mener une “Weltpolitik”. Le résultat de cette aspiration a été l’acquisition de quelques colonies dans le Pacifique et en Afrique. Dans l’ensemble, le butin était finalement bien chiche. Aucune comparaison possible avec les grandes puissances bien établies de l’époque. Il y a une question que j’aime poser à mes étudiants: quelle était la différence entre la flotte britannique de l’époque et la flotte allemande? La flotte britannique était toujours en action. La flotte allemande ne l’était pratiquement pas. La même conclusion s’impose quand on compare les armées britannique et allemande de l’époque.

Q.: Pourtant, lors de la crise de juillet 1914, Berlin a couvert Vienne et a encouragé les Austro-Hongrois à faire la guerre parce qu’en fait, les Allemands la voulaient aussi: c’est ainsi que les théoriciens de la culpabilité exclusive ou principale de l’Allemagne justifient leurs positions...

CC: Il est exact que l’Autriche comme l’Allemagne voulaient une guerre locale contre la Serbie. Cependant la France et la Russie avaient imaginé qu’une poussée des puissances centrales en direction de la Serbie contituerait un casus belli et avaient ainsi fait de la Serbie une sorte d’avant-poste de leur dispositif. La Serbie était posée comme une entité à laquelle il ne fallait pas toucher faute de quoi on déclencherait la guerre. Cela prouve que Français et Russes étaient prêts à courir le risque. Je ne veux pas dire par là que la guerre a été le résultat d’une “conspiration franco-russe”. Berlin partait à l’époque du principe que les Russes n’interviendraient pas. La direction allemande était dès lors prête à risquer une guerre continentale. Le Chancelier Bethmann pensait que, si les Russes, contre toute attente, attaqueraient quand même, ce serait la preuve qu’ils avaient voulu la guerre. Bethmann pensait alors que si les choses pouvaient se passer comme cela, l’Allemagne ne devait pas chercher à éviter la guerre.

Q.: Vous absolvez également le deuxième “grand félon”, c’est-à-dire l’Autriche-Hongrie...

CC: Je n’absous nullement l’Autriche-Hongrie, mais elle n’est pas davantage que l’Allemagne le “grand félon”, seul responsable de la catastrophe. En fait, Vienne se trouvait dans une situation très précaire. Selon la logique qu’adopte toute grande puissance, en tous temps, elle devait réagir, d’une manière ou d’une autre, à l’assassinat de son prince héritier à Sarajevo par des nationalistes serbes.

Q.: Pourquoi?

CC: A votre avis, comment réagiraient les Etats-Unis si un commando, entraîné à Téhéran, par exemple, assassinait le président des Etats-Unis et son épouse en pleine rue? Je ne crois pas que les Américains resteraient sans réagir.

Q.: Vous dites que l’assassinat de l’héritier du trône a été pour l’Autriche-Hongrie une sorte de “11 septembre 2001”...

CC: Oui. Cet attentat a bouleversé de fond en comble l’alchimie politique de l’époque. C’est une légende de dire que les Autrichiens n’ont pas été touchés par la mort du prince héritier et qu’ils n’ont considéré cette mort que comme un prétexte pour pouvoir faire la guerre contre la Serbie. Non, les Autrichiens ont été profondément bouleversés. La mort de l’archiduc a été un véritable choc pour l’Empire austro-hongrois.

Q.: Qui alors est le véritable coupable dans le déclenchement de la première guerre mondiale?

CC: Je pense que la notion de “culpabilité” n’explique absolument rien. De plus, l’idée d’une “culpabilité” implique simultanément celle d’une “non-culpabilité”: voilà pourquoi cette notion nous conduit à avoir une représentation faussée de la crise de juillet 1914. La guerre a jailli d’une certaine culture politique européenne. L’Europe, à l’époque, était un continent explosif.

Q.: Vos propos ressemblent à ceux de Lloyd George, premier ministre britannique, qui avait dit “que nous nous étions tous laissés aller vers la guerre”... Votre thèse des “somnambules” est-elle quelque peu différente?

CC: Quand on dit “se laisser aller à la guerre”, cela signifie que les responsables n’ont pas de culpabilité. Ce n’est pas exact. Il faut dire plutôt que tous, comme des somnambules, ont laissé faire les choses, les yeux ouverts, sans vouloir rien empêcher: ils ont tous accepté le déclenchement d’une guerre de formidable ampleur, en entrevoyant parfaitement ce qui se passait. Personne n’a voulu commencer la guerre mais tous étaient prêts à l’accepter en toute bonne conscience, pour autant qu’un autre la rendait possible par son comportement. Et quand je dis “rendre possible”, je ne dis pas “la forcer”: il n’était même pas nécessaire d’exercer une telle pression...

(entretien paru dans “zur Zeit”, Vienne, n°3/2014, http://www.zurzeit.at ).

USA Wages War More Often than Just Annually

USA Wages War More Often than Just Annually

By Yuri Skidanov
Pravda.ru

The United States, an example of public and social order for the countries of the “golden billion,” has a unique history. In the 237 years of its existence, it has been either at war, or preparing for a new attack, looking for victims. During the period from 1798 to 2012 Washington used military force abroad 240 times, more frequently than annually.

The results of this military – aggressive development are impressive. Five percent of the world’s population who are lucky enough to be U.S. citizens consume, according to various estimates, from 25 to 30 percent of the planet’s resources. How did the country manage to achieve such prosperity for its 320 million people?

It all started a long time ago, in 1620, when “Mayflower” ship with 142 settlers on board left the British port of Plymouth, crossed the Atlantic Ocean, and on November 11 dropped the first batch of “pilgrims” on the North American coast. Their descendants in the United States today have become a semblance of royal aristocracy in Europe.

However, not the best members of society, mildly put, were sent from Britain to North America. Many of them had a clear tendency for significant and small violations of the law and light attitude towards the norms of public morality. Perhaps such a disposition of the first settlers identified some of the historical features of the U.S. Code.

In 1776, 13 American colonies united into the United States, and rebelled against their legitimate ruler, King of Great Britain. The war for independence lasted thirteen years and ended in a victory of the colonists. The legitimacy of the U.S. formation can be equated to the legitimacy of the Great October Socialist Revolution that resulted in the Bolsheviks coming to power. The war for independence was the first and last war with an external enemy on the United States territory, and it can hardly be called aggressive or predatory.

Before completing the formation of the government and public institutions, the U.S. began unleashing wars and conflicts, one after another. Here are the most important ones. 1798-1800 – the war with France, the former ally of the United States in the fight for independence. As a result, some North American colonies of France went under the control of the United States, which was the prelude to their accession later.

The next full-scale war, the first Tripoli or Barbary war, the one that the United States fought in the Mediterranean with Algeria, Tunisia and Tripolitania (modern Libya) ten thousand miles away from its borders, predetermined the wars of the 20-21^stcentury in the same region. This war can safely be called the first war of the policy of “big stick” under which Washington, disregarding the rules of the international law, advanced or protected its economic interests. The reason for the war was the demand of Arab States that a tribute be paid to Tripoli for the use of the trade routes in the Mediterranean.

The first Barbary War did not end well for the United States. They had to buy out 300 U.S. soldiers from captivity, while the Americans captured only 100 Arab soldiers, and the desired result – getting rid of tribute – could not be achieved. Only the second Barbary War in 1815 brought success. As a result, the American merchant vessels, unlike the French and English ones, were given priority in the freedom of movement in the Mediterranean.

Throughout the nineteenth century, the United States fought with the British, Mexican, Japanese, Nicaragua, Hawaii, and the Philippines, not to mention dozens of local military operations. As a result, the territories of modern states of California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and Utah were conquered. Protectorate was established over Hawaii, the U.S. military government was introduced in Cuba, and a colonial regime established in the Philippines.

In the twentieth century, the aggressive U.S. operations have become even more widespread. Virtually the entire Central America and much of Latin America were under the U.S. control. The United States and Russia were at war, albeit without much result, landing their troops in Archangelsk and Vladivostok. Now not just the Mediterranean or Central America, like it was in the nineteenth century, but the entire world is covered by the U.S. military machine.

U.S. soldiers fought in China (1925), Korea (1950), again in China (1958), and Lebanon (1958). The biggest defeat in the history of the United States was suffered in Vietnam, where 60,000 people were killed and over 300,000 wounded. After the war, about 100,000 of its veterans committed suicide. In parallel, Americans conducted armed operations in Latin America – Panama, Brazil (overthrow of the legally elected President Joao Goulart in 1964) , Cuba, Bolivia, the Dominican Republic, and Chile. Africa was not forgotten either, and in 1960, the U.S. organized a coup during which dictator Mobutu came to power, and the legally elected Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba was killed.

Recent achievements of the U.S. foreign policy are fresh in memory – from the bombing of sovereign Yugoslavia to the completely illegal invasion of Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and the defeat of Libya. Syria so far has managed to avoid the role of the next object of the export of American-style democracy, but this situation may change any time.

Of course, it is impossible to list all the facts of war and armed aggression by the United States in the information material. However, this is more than enough to make a conclusion – the leaders of the United States of all time had an unbeatable claim of being the major war criminals of the modern and contemporary history.

If we were to apply the norms developed by the Nuremberg Tribunal to the U.S. foreign policy, as well as the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in The Hague whose effect on the U.S. citizens Washington refuses to recognize, they would fit right in. Of course, the U.S. is at war with nearly the entire world not because of the psychological characteristics of its politicians and presidents.

The U.S. gets obvious economic benefits and great distributed very unevenly within the country, leaving virtually nothing for “cannon meat” – young individuals from lower social classes that form the basis of the Armed Forces of the United States. The formula for economic prosperity and model democracy is simple: attack and rob.

Reprinted from Pravda.ru.

In morte di Hiroo Onoda: apologia dell'eroismo

In morte di Hiroo Onoda: apologia dell'eroismo

di Daniele Scalea

Fonte: huffingtonpost

Si è spento mercoledì scorso Hiroo Onoda, il militare giapponese disperso nelle Filippine che, ignorando l'esito della Seconda Guerra Mondiale, continuò a combattere nella giungla, prima con tre commilitoni e - dopo la loro resa o morte - da solo, fino al 1974. Inizialmente rifiutò d'arrendersi pure di fronte ai messaggi con cui lo si informava della fine del conflitto, ritenendoli una trappola. Depose le armi solo quando il suo diretto superiore di trent'anni prima si recò da lui per ordinarglielo, dispensandolo dal giuramento di combattere fino alla morte. Raccontò la sua storia in un libro, pubblicato nel 1975 da Mondadori col titolo Non mi arrendo.

La storia di Onoda apparirà senz'altro "esotica" (roba da giapponesi!) e "arcaica" (ormai le guerre non ci sono più! In Europa Occidentale, s'intende, perché nel resto del mondo ci sono eccome) a gran parte dei lettori italiani del XXI secolo. Chi di noi riesce a immaginarsi, poco più di ventenne nella giungla, restarci trent'anni solo per onorare un giuramento e battersi per la causa che si ritiene giusta? Eppure la storia di Hiroo Onoda qualcosa da insegnarci ce l'ha; e proprio perché la sentiamo così lontana, temporalmente e culturalmente, da noi.

In quest'epoca così moderna e avanzata, il lettore al passo coi tempi potrà ben pensare che, in fondo, Onoda era solo un "fanatico", un "folle", un "indottrinato". Nei tempi bui che furono, il senso comune l'avrebbe definito un "eroe". Questa figura dell'Eroe, così pomposamente celebrata nei millenni passati, ha perso oggi tanto del suo smalto - presso la civiltà occidentale, e in particolare europea. Bertolt Brecht sancì che è sventurata quella terra che necessiti di eroi. Il nostro Umberto Eco ha deciso che l'eroe vero è quello che lo diventa per sbaglio, desiderando solo essere un "onesto vigliacco" come tutti noi altri. Salendo più su troviamo il nuovo vate d'Italia: Fabio Volo ha scritto che non è eroe chi lotta per la gloria, ma l'uomo comune che lotta per la sopravvivenza.

Prima di discutere queste tre idee, precisiamo che l'Eroe si definisce (o almeno così fa la Treccani) come colui che si eleva al di sopra degli altri: in origine più per la nobilità di stirpe, in seguito per la nobiltà nell'agire. L'Eroe non è necessariamente un guerriero: semplicemente la guerra, mettendo chi le combatte di fronte a situazioni e rischi assenti nella vita comune, facilita il manifestarsi dell'eroismo. Ma non è banalizzazione dire che l'Eroe può esserlo nel lavoro, nella scienza, nella politica, nell'arte e così via. È invece banalizzazione individuare l'eroismo nel fare ciò che tutti fanno, perché viene meno il senso stesso del termine: l'elevarsi, il fare più del normale, il più del dovuto. Dove tutti sono eroi, nessuno è eroe.

Alla luce di quanto appena detto, si coglierà l'illogicità della formulazione di Volo (per la cronaca: tratta da Esco a fare due passi), pure se inserita nel suo epos dei broccoletti (in sintesi elogio di mediocrità e de-gerarchizzazione di valore; ma se proponi un modello anti-eroico, allora parla di anti-eroi e non di eroi). Tutti sopravvivono, indotti in ciò dall'istinto di autoconservazione, e non vi è nulla di particolarmente commendevole nel far ciò che si è costretti a fare. Al contrario, l'Eroe per distinguersi dalla massa può andare contro l'istinto di autoconservazione (sacrificare, o porre a rischio, la propria vita per conseguire un obiettivo o per salvare altre vite), o fare più di ciò che è da parte sua dovuto. Non potremmo definire un eroe, ad esempio, un Giacomo Leopardi che sacrifica la sua salute e la sua felicità per diventare un sommo poeta, e così deliziare contemporanei e posteri?

L'idea della scelta libera e volontaria pare elemento costitutivo dell'eroismo, e ciò richiama in causa anche Eco. È in fondo diventato un cliché anche hollywoodiano, quello per cui l'eroe protagonista del film non diviene tale perché convinto della causa per cui battersi, ma solo perché travolto dagli eventi. L'escamotage classico vuole che i "cattivi" massacrino la sua famiglia, inducendolo per vendetta a combatterli. Questo leit motiv lo ritroviamo in tanti film di successo: pensiamo a Braveheart, The Patriot, o Giovanna D'Arco di Luc Besson, dove tra l'altro il primo e l'ultimo cambiano la vera storia pur d'inserirvi il tema suddetto. Gli appassionati di cinema potranno trovare molti più esempi, anche in generi diversi dall'epico e dallo storico. A quanto pare, l'individuo occidentale medio riesce ad accettare molto più la vendetta personale che lo schierarsi coscientemente per una causa collettiva che si ritiene giusta.

Eppure, lo ribadiamo, è la libera scelta a dare davvero valore all'atto eroico. Sembrano in ciò molto più savi dei nostri maître à penser odierni i teologi riformatori del Cinquecento quando, con logica rigorosa, notavano che non vi può essere merito individuale senza libero arbitrio. Così come una salvezza decisa da Dio è merito esclusivamente di Dio, un atto eroico costretto (non semplicemente indotto: costretto) dalle circostanze è "merito" delle circostanze stesse.

Rimane in ballo la questione se sia davvero una sventura aver bisogno di eroi. Tanti pensatori hanno più o meno esplicitamente ricondotto il progresso a un meccanismo di sfida-risposta, in cui spesso giocano un ruolo essenziale individui straordinari per la loro capacità creativa. Tra i più espliciti assertori di tali tesi nel secolo scorso, citiamo alla rinfusaA.J. Toynbee, H.J. Mackinder, Carlo Cipolla, Lev Gumilëv. Sono le persone straordinarie (nel senso letterale di fuori dall'ordinario, e dunque non comuni) che, con i loro atti creativi (in cui spesso la creazione maggiore è l'atto in sé come esempio ispiratore per gli altri), rinnovano costantemente la vitalità di un popolo. Rovesciando l'aforisma di Brecht:sventurata quella nazione che non ha bisogno di eroi, perché significa che ha scelto coscientemente d'avviarsi sulla strada della decadenza.

Restiamo sull'eroismo, torniamo a Hiroo Onoda. C'è una lezione che potremmo apprendere dall'eroica follia di questo giapponese che per trent'anni continua da solo una guerra già conclusa, o dai mille altri eroi - di guerra e pace, armati di spada, penna o lingua che fossero? Io credo di sì.

Potremmo imparare da loro lo spirito di sacrificio e l'indomita fede di chi crede in ciò per cui lotta - sia essa una patria o un'idea, un partito o una persona, una guerra o una pace.

Dovremmo imparare da loro che eroismo non è sopportare supinamente, tutt'al più inveendo (ma su Facebook o Twitter, che la poltrona è più comoda della piazza) contro le storture del mondo; ma eroismo è insorgere, levarsi contro l'ingiustizia. Se il mondo è storto non è eroico guardarlo cadere, ma cercare di raddrizzarlo.

Dovremmo riflettere che se oggi le cose vanno male, mancano i diritti e abbondano le ingiustizie, la morale è corrotta, l'ingiusto trionfa e il giusto patisce; se l'oggi insomma ci pare sbagliato, dovremmo impegnarci a correggerlo.

Perché i diritti non li regala nessuno, la giustizia non si difende da sola, il progresso non viene da sé. Servono i creativi, servono gli eroi.

Con buona pace dei Brecht, degli Eco e dei Volo.

Tante altre notizie su www.ariannaeditrice.it

Hans-Jürgen Krahl, prophète de la révolte étudiante

Werner Olles:

Hans-Jürgen Krahl, prophète de la révolte étudiante

Dans la nuit du 14 au 15 février 1970, une voiture dérape sur le verglas qui recouvre la route fédérale 252 dans la localité de Wrexen, dans le Nord de la Hesse, dans le Cercle de Waldeck; la voiture s’était engagée dans une courbe puis est entrée en collision frontale avec un camion arrivant dans le sens inverse. L’étudiant Hans-Jürgen Krahl, 27 ans, qui se trouvait à la “place du mort”, est tué sur le coup; le conducteur, Franz-Josef Bevermeier, 25 ans, meurt peu de temps après son arrivée à l’hôpital. Les trois autres occupants, dont Claudia Moneta, la fille du haut responsable d’IG-Metall, Jakob Moneta, sont grièvement blessés.

La mort de Hans-Jürgen Krahl n’a permis “aucune mystification a posteriori”, comme l’ont déclaré Detlev Claussen, Bernd Leineweber et Oskar Negt lors des obsèques du “camarade H.-J. Krahl”. En effet, ils ont écrit: “[Cette mort] atteste d’un fait brutal et misérable, celui d’un accident de la circulation, un événement contingent de la vie quotidienne, que l’on ne peut que difficilement forcer à entrer en rapport avec les faits sociaux”.

Certes, deux anciens présidents du SDS (l’association des étudiants de gauche et d’extrême-gauche), Karl Dietrich et Frank Wolff, s’étaient immédiatement rendus, la nuit même, sur les lieux de l’accident et s’étaient aussi rendus au chevet des blessés, mais une assemblée des membres, convoquée à la hâte, décide de se conformer “aux habitudes et aux valeurs bourgeoises” et de ne pas prononcer un éloge funèbre de type militant. Dans les colonnes du “Frankfurter Rundschau”, Wolfgang Schütte n’a toutefois pas pu s’empêcher de comparer Krahl à Robespierre et de glorifier “la terrible conséquence de ses visions théoriques, qu’il a pensées jusqu’au bout, sans compromis aucun”, ainsi que “ses énormes facultés d’agitateur”, et de dire de lui “qu’à côté de Rudi Dutschke, il fut une des figures dominantes du SDS”.

Krahl n’a jamais pu égaler la popularité de Dutschke

Les hommages rendus à Krahl témoignent donc de cette absence de tact et de goût qui caractérise le “gourouïsme” du camp de la gauche libertaire, un “gourouïsme” que Krahl avait toujours combattu. Toutefois, ils reflétent une once de vérité et attestent encore du respect que suscitait l’itinéraire de Krahl chez ses camarades d’alors qui, pourtant, par la suite, n’auront ni son courage ni sa probité et n’ont jamais pu suivre ses traces, ni sur le plan intellectuel ni sur le plan politique. Après son enterrement au cimetière de Rickling, un centaine de militants du SDS, venus de toute l’Allemagne fédérale et de Berlin-Ouest, se réunissent dans les locaux de la “Techniche Universität” de Hanovre et décident, de manière certes informelle, de dissoudre leur association étudiante. Et, de fait, juste un mois plus tard, cette dissolution sera prononcée officiellement à Francfort-sur-le-Main.

Hans-Jürgen Krahl, né en 1943 à Sarstedt près de Hanovre, termine ses études secondaires et passe son “Abitur” en 1963. Il part étudier d’abord à Göttingen, la philosophie, l’histoire, la philologie germanique et les mathématiques. Deux ans plus tard, il quitte Göttingen pour Francfort, ce qui constitue une décision éminemment politique. Il passe d’abord par le “Ludendorff-Bund” puis par le “Parti Allemand Guelfe” et, finalement, par une Burschenschaft (Corporation) traditionnelle qui pratiquait la “Mensur” (les duels à l’épée). Dans le cadre de cette Burschenschaft, il écoute un jour la conférence d’un “Vieux Monsieur” (un ancien membre) qui, tout en dégustant avidement un gigot d’agneau, lui parle de l’infatigable esprit combattant de la classe ouvrière. Enfin, Krahl adhère, non pas à un parti de gauche, mais à la “Junge Union” (la jeunesse des partis démocrates-chrétiens): plus tard, il décrira cette étape de son existence comme un pas en direction d’une “bourgeoisie éclairée”.

Sa décision de s’installer à Francfort était surtout une décision d’aller écouter les leçons d’Adorno, qui deviendra le promoteur de sa thèse de doctorat. Il est fort probable que Krahl aurait entamé une brillante carrière académique car il était un étudiant très doué d’Adorno mais son adhésion en 1964 au SDS puis sa disparition précoce ont empêché cet avancement.

Il s’était rapidement imposé au milieu de la gauche radicale de Francfort parce qu’il philosophait en s’appuyant sur Kant et Hegel, parce qu’il tenait des discours si parfaits qu’on pouvait les imprimer aussitôt prononcés et parce qu’il avait colporté une légende biographique où il avait fait croire à ses camarades médusés qu’il descendait d’une ancienne famille noble de Prusse et qu’il était un descendant de Novalis, le Baron de Hardenberg. Dans le cadre du SDS de Francfort qui, au départ, était une sorte de “Männerbund”, d’association exclusivement masculine, Krahl a trouvé un public, augmenté de nouvelles recrues, qui estimaient, comme lui, que la “théorie critique” ne devait pas seulement se concevoir comme un projet purement académique mais devait chercher à se donner une utilité pratique et politique.

Dans la phase anti-autoritaire du mouvement étudiant entre 1967 et 1969, Hans-Jürgen Krahl est vite devenu une des têtes pensantes les plus en vue du SDS, qui n’a cependant pas eu les effets de masse que provoquait Rudi Dutschke, en énonçant ses thèses vigoureuses et pointues qu’il assénait comme autant de coups de cravache à ses auditeurs. Krahl était alors un intellectuel qui paraissait un peu ridicule et emprunté: en 1967, lors d’un “Teach-in” spontané pour protester contre la mort de Benno Ohnesorg, abattu par la police, il avait radoté un discours “hégélisant” quasi incompréhensible, truffé de concepts sociologiques des plus compliqués, tant et si bien que les étudiants avaient quitté l’auditorium. Après ce début malheureux, Krahl allait toutefois devenir le “théoricien de la praxis émancipatrice” (selon Detlev Claussen) qui poursuivait un but élevé, celui de transformer la “nouvelle gauche” en un mouvement d’émancipation sociale, qui se serait clairement distingué, d’une part, du réformisme social-démocrate et, d’autre part, du socialisme étatique et autoritaire de facture marxiste-soviétique et de l’idée léniniste d’un “parti de cadres”.

Cinq semaines après la mort de Krahl, le SDS se dissout

En ébauchant ce projet d’une “nouvelle gauche” alternative, Krahl devait immanquablement s’opposer à ses professeurs de l’université. Tandis que Max Horkheimer posait dès 1967 la thèse “qu’être un radical aujourd’hui, c’est en fait être un conservateur” et “que le système pénitentiaire de l’Est était bien pire que la falsification, finalement assez grossière, que constituait l’ordre démocratique de l’Occident”. Adorno, quant à lui, avait été profondément choqué lorsqu’un groupe de radicaux, parmi lesquels Krahl, avait occupé symboliquement le fameux “Institut für Sozialforschung” (berceau de la fameuse “Ecole de Francfort”). Adorno, à son grand dam, avait dû appeler la police! Carlo Schmid, qui donnait un cours intitulé “Thérorie et pratique de la politique extérieure”, avait été chahuté par un “Go-in” du SDS dont les militants l’avaient apostrophé en le traitant de “Ministre de l’état d’urgence” (“Notstandminister”) et en voulant le contraindre à discuter de la législation allemande sur l’état d’urgence et de la guerre du Vietnam. Carlo Schmid, contrairement à la plupart de ses collègues, pensait que la RFA ne devait pas hésiter à prendre des mesures d’urgence si elle voulait conserver une réelle autorité sur ces citoyens. Schmid, lors du chahut, n’a pas capitulé, il a résisté physiquement et a poursuivi son cours parce que, a-t-il dit par la suite, il ne voulait pas être co-responsable du “déclin de l’autorité étatique”: “L’autorité ne recule pas...”.

Plus tard, Adorno a défendu Krahl dans une lettre à Günter Grass: dès que Krahl en eut terminé avec ses attaques contre Adorno, il lui avait fait savoir, que cette animosité n’était en rien personnelle mais uniquement politique. Krahl a pris prétexte de la mort soudaine d’Adorno en août 1969, au moment où les actions du mouvement étudiant atteignaient leur point culminant, pour articuler les contradictions qu’il percevait dans la “théorie critique” d’Adorno et pour formuler et concrétiser ses propres positions, celles, disait-il, d’une “troisième génération de la théorie critique” (Detlev Claussen). Krahl lançait aussi un avertissement au mouvement étudiant, qui se disloquait en diverses factions, de ne pas troquer la praxis du refus individuel, propre à la phase anti-autoritaire, et l’hédonisme des nouvelles sous-cultures pour une morale organisationnelle rigide et pour le principe léniniste de discipline.

Krahl lui-même était à la recherche d’une nouvelle forme d’organisation, où serait apparue l’identité d’intérêt entre les intellectuels et la classe ouvrière. Cette quête intellectuelle a donc pris fin en février 1970 par la mort accidentelle de Krahl. Celui-ci n’a pas survécu très longtemps “au court été de l’anarchie”, pour reprendre le titre d’un roman de Hans Magnus Enzensberger.

L’heure des “desperados” et des “psycho-rigides”

Avec Krahl meurt aussi l’esprit de 1968. Le 21 mars 1970, très exactement cinq semaines après la mort de Krahl, 400 membres du SDS se réunirent à la Maison des Etudiants de l’Université de Francfort pour tenir une réunion informelle et pour décréter la dissolution par acclamation du Bureau fédéral et, par voie de conséquence, de l’association elle-même. Udo Knapp, membre du Bureau, déclare alors que le SDS “n’a plus rien à apporter pour fixer le rapport entre les actions de masse et l’organisation du combat politique”. C’était évidemment la pure vérité. Après avoir longuement discuté de la question de l’héritage du SDS, l’assemblée s’est finalement déclarée incompétente pour statuer à ce sujet, car elle n’était pas une conférence de délégués en bonne et due forme: cette indécision marque la triste fin du SDS, devenu un boulet pour ses propres membres.

C’est alors qu’a sonné l’heure des “desperados” regroupés autour d’Andreas Baader et Ulrike Meinhof, qui inaugurent l’ère sanglante du terrorisme de la RAF. C’est aussi l’avènement en RFA des divers regroupements partisans dits “marxistes-léninistes”, totalement staliniens dans leurs modes de fonctionnement et de raisonnement, autour de personnalités telles Schmierer, Horlemann, Semler, Aust et Katarski, qui sortaient de l’ombre en rasant les murs comme des “lémuriens” et dont les joutes idéologiques stériles, sans bases conceptuelles solides, cherchaient à ancrer des positions politiques dépassées: Krahl n’avait eu de cesse d’avertir les mileux de la gauche radicale que tout cela constituait des voies de garage. En effet, les gauches radicales allemandes ont abandonné les débats reposant sur des arguments solides, n’ont plus posé intelligemment le problème de la violence; elles se sont perdues dans des poses et des esthétismes, où l’on vantait sa puissance imaginaire, ou dans la délation vulgaire et atrabilaire ou, dans les meilleurs cas, dans la recension critique d’ouvrages idéologiques. Tout cela a bien vite échoué au dépotoir des gauches allemandes, dont l’histoire est si riche en déceptions. Mais cet échec ne doit pas nous satisfaire. Au contraire.

Une définition claire de l’aliénation

En nous souvenant du révolutionaire Hans-Jürgen Krahl, un homme qui se mouvait avec la même aisance dans les méandres de la logique du capitalisme et parmi les images et les idées des romantiques allemands, il nous faut aussi nous rappeler d’une de ses positions, formulée de manière programmatique, lorsqu’il se présenta lui-même lors du procès “Senghor” devant le tribunal du Land de Hesse à Francfort: “Il ne s’agit pas seulement de faire le simple deuil de l’individu bourgeois, mais de faire l’expérience, par le truchement de l’intellect, de ce qu’est l’exploitation dans cette société, laquelle consiste à détruire totalement et radicalement le développement du besoin au niveau de la conscience humaine. Car force est de constater que les masses sont enchaînées, même si leurs besoins matériels sont satisfaits; en fait, la satisfaction de leurs besoins élémentaires reste lettre morte, car elles ont peur que le capital et l’Etat ne leur ôtent les garanties de cette sécurité [matérielle]”.

Depuis la fin des années 20, lorsque Martin Heidegger sortait son ouvrage-clef “Sein und Zeit” (“L’Etre et le temps”) et Georg Lukacs éditait “Geschichte und Klassenbewusstsein” (“Histoire et conscience de classe”), personne d’autre que Krahl n’avait donné une définition plus intelligente et plus décisive de l’oppression dans les sociétés de masse, qu’elles soient déterminées par le capitalisme privé ou par le capitalisme d’Etat, à l’Ouest comme à l’Est à l’ère du duopole de Yalta.

Werner Olles.

(article paru dans “Junge Freiheit”, Berlin, 11 février 2000, n°7/2000; http://www.jungefreiheit.de ).

The Far Right in the Balkans

The Far Right in the Balkans:
Roots & Perspectives

By Dimitris Michalopoulos

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

Preamble 

“Rest assured . . . that after . . . years of suffering we have sufficient moral strength left to find an honourable exit from life.”[1]

It is in these very words that the soul of Corneliu Codreanu and his followers was expressed. Needless to say that Capitanul has been the noblest figure among the Far Right leaders in Europe during the interwar period. And paradoxical as it may appear, he was conscious of this. Julius Evola had met him in Bucharest and gave a fair description of his physical appearance and his mind. He was a young, large and slim man, in sporting behaviour, with an open face which immediately gives an impression of nobility, force and honesty.[2] And it was with honesty that Codreanu explained to Evola the differences between the Legionary Movement, Italian Fascism and German National Socialism by analogy with the human body: Italian Fascism was reviving the “Roman form of politics,” representing in the human organism the physiological form; German National Socialism focused on the “race instinct” of the “vital forces,” whilst Romanian Legionary represented “the element of the heart,” both spiritual and religious.[3]

He was right. Codreanu’s Legionaries used to live as ascetic warrior-monks, working freely for the People and even fasting three days a week.[4] They were not “criminals” as an American lady, author of an extremely well-written book on “Dracula surviving,” described them.[5] In point of fact, they did not use to gather in woods’ clearings at midnight, to stand there “two rings deep” around bonfires, “facing them and chanting.” Their faces were not “stiff and unsmiling”; and their eyes did not “glitter.”[6] In short, they were by no means Dracula’s protagonists. And if they grew truly enragés, it was after their Captain suffered a martyr’s death at the hands of the royal authorities.

The Legionaries’ message was clear. Unlike the Italian Fascists that rose to power thanks to the latent still involuntary support of the Roman Catholic Church, because the Pope wished the dispute between the secularized Kingdom of Italy and the Holy See to be ended;[7] and unlike the National Socialists of Germany that gradually adopted a latent but still hostile attitude vis-à-vis the Church, because the clergy, as a rule, side with the enemies of the Christ,[8] Romanian legionaries started from the very beginning. And in this case “very beginning” means: religiosity. Hitler himself was clear: “True religiosity is to be found whenever deep knowledge [of the things] goes with acknowledgement of human inadequacy.”[9] And Mussolini had declared as well: “Fascism is a religious concept, in the framework of which, man is seen in his immanent relationship with . . . an objective Volition that transcends the individual and enables him to be the conscious member of a spiritual community.”[10] Still, only in Romania the Far Right movement dared to proclaim that religiosity was the very basis of its ideology. As early as 1919, Codreanu termed his doctrine “National-Christian Socialism”;[11] and if truth be told, he was not only an intelligent man but a man of character as well. Let us recall the famous phrase uttered by Grigore Filipescu in the Romanian Parliament, in December 1934: În România sunt mulţi oameni inteligenţi, mai puţin oameni capabili şi foarte puţini oameni de character.[12]It was this very national lack that Codreanu tried to remedy: “My programme is a creative one,” he stated to Virginio Gayda, director of the Italian newspaper Giornale d’Italia, in January, 1938. I think of the most important and most difficult creation [namely] the New Man. [And I mean this] not only from the physical and intellectual viewpoint; for we already have such a Man in Romania. [I talk] from the moral viewpoint. I want at all costs to create a type of Hero.”[13]

He was aiming at achieving his own “Triumph of the Volition” through the principles of Faith and Work.[14] Work nay, Toil was for Codreanu and his Legionaries a sacred duty.[15] Yet he failed tragically but not miserably. As aforementioned, he was the noblest figure of the 1919-1939 European Far Right. Therefore, his death had a tremendous impact on Romanian and international politics.[16] Still, he was a Balkan figure; and this is important, because in the Balkans, namely Greece, the European Far Right was actually born. 

I. The Dogma 

The dogma of the Right was written down by Ioannis Metaxas, Prime Minister of Greece during the years 1936-1941 and organizer of the Reservists Movement. This movement was the first ideologically clear-cut Far Right movement in Europe, and emerged in Greece during WW 1, i.e. before Mussolini founded his Fasci di Combattimento. Metaxas was explicit:

Democracy [as conceived in the U.S.A. and Western Europe] is the offspring of Capitalism. It is the instrument through which Capitalism rules the masses. It is the instrument through which Capitalism displays its own will as the one of the populace. . . . This variety of democracy [i.e. the U.S. and Western Europe one] relies on universal suffrage by individual and secret ballot; i.e. it needs well-built political parties – hence the need of capital [= money]. It needs [moreover] newspapers, hence the need of capital [anew]. It . . . needs electoral organizations and electoral combats; that means money. [And] it needs a lot of other things that presuppose money as well. In short, only big capitalists or their puppets are able to fight in [the framework of] such a democracy. Men or [even] groups of people in short of money, even if they defend the noblest ideals, are doomed to failure. For if one has the control of the newspapers, is in a position to shape the public opinion according to his own views [and will]; and even if he defends principles abhorred by the people, he can conceal them [by means of the Press that he controls] in such a way, that the people swallow them at last. But even if the people do not swallow them, he can declare, through the newspapers he controls, that the people did swallow them. And then everybody believes that the others have swallowed the ‘principles’/lies [of the big capitalist] and surrenders as well.” The corollary: “Democracy is the unique kid of Capitalism [as Jesus Christ is the unique Son of God]: it is thanks to Democracy that Capitalism displays its  own will as it were the People’s one.”[17]

Paradoxical as it may appear, Metaxas agreed with Lenin. For the Soviet leader had written, as early as 1917, that “Democracy is the best [political] form of Capitalism.”[18] Here is the essence of the social analysis of politics – and it is surprising to notice that Metaxas, in full agreement with Lenin, was in sharp contrast with almost every other Far Right leader in Europe. Mussolini, for instance, was against Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy; yet his analysis was ‘entrenched’ in a strictly national framework[19] — most likely dictated by political necessities. Antonio Salazar, further, used to avoid such analyses, because he put into practice a peculiar economic system aiming above all and beyond everything to the balance of the State budget.[20] Franco did alike – as far as it is known; for he aimed to redress Spain after the Civil War ended and from 1960 on to develop Spanish industry.[21] And Hitler criticized mainly the system of “State Monopolist Capitalism,” gradually implemented in Germany from 1870, because it stripped the Germans of their wealth.[22] No wonder that to Lenin this very State Capitalism was all but a kind of Socialism.[23]

II. The Birth of the Far Right

In contrast, Metaxas had no such concerns. His ideas were clear-cut from the early 1910s on and stamped on the Reservists Movement. These Reservists were people who had taken part in the 1912-1913 Balkan Wars, somewhat like the French anciens combattants. This Greek variety of the Far Right had, therefore, the following characteristics:

1. It was a truly social movement, because its rank-and-file was composed exclusively from the so-called “Working People”: small-land-owning peasants, craftsmen, petty merchants and workers; in other words the people that were regarded as conservative/reactionary by Marx and Engels.[24] Wealthy people[25] and what is termed “Lumpenproletariat”[26] were suspected and a priori excluded.
2. The Diaspora Greeks were excluded as well. As a matter of fact, only people born in the heartland of Greece, namely the Peloponnesus, Mainland Greece, the Cyclades group of islands and the Ionian Islands were considered to be fully and truly Greeks.[27]
3. Any territorial expansion of Greece was rejected a priori;[28] therefore, any involvement in the 1914-1918 Great War and, further, in international antagonism (“Europe’s business” as it was called) was rebuffed.[29]
4. King Constantine of the Hellenes was ‘universally’ recognized as the virtual leader of the movement;[30] for he was credited with the victory of the Greek Army in the 1912-1913 Balkan Wars, and used to observe socially and nationally speaking, a really “Folkish Behaviour.”

Under these circumstances it was quite natural that the Entente Cordiale saw in “Royalist Greece” a bitter foe. King Constantine and his followers were by no means willing to enter the war at the side of Great Britain and France. Eleutherios Venizelos, nonetheless, Prime Minister of Greece in 1915, an ardent follower of the Entente Cordiale, invitedFrench and British troops to occupy Salonika after the Gallipoli debacle – Greece being still a neutral country notwithstanding.

Following the occupation of Salonika, operations took place in Macedonia against the Bulgarians, allies of the Germans. The Commander-in-Chief of the Entente troops in Salonika, therefore, the French general Maurice Sarrail, feared aggression of the “Royalist Troops” in his rear. Such a thought was not “nonsensical”; for the people in Southern Greece grew more and more friendly to the Second Reich.[31] As a result, a serious blockade was set up by the [British] Royal Navy around the littoral of Greece; and this blockade that caused famine in Southern Greece with a lot of fatalities, was enhanced due to advice given by Ronald Burrows, professor at the King’s College, London.[32] In November, 1916 (Old Style), moreover, French troops, reinforced by some British, Italian and even Russian ones, tried to conquer Athens, but they failed. Angered, Sophia, Queen Consort of the Hellenes, wrote to her brother, the Kaiser: La page s’est tournée, c’étant une grande victoire contre quatre grandes Puissances desquelles les troupes fuirent devant les Grecs . . .[33]

Still, in the spring of the following year, 1917, the French came back; and now the King deserted his followers. The Reservists, under Metaxas’ leadership, were ready to defend the King against the liberal Powers of the West. Yet the Sovereign, motivated by the interest of his House, preferred to give up and establish himself in Switzerland. Such an attitude notwithstanding, the Reservists and lato sensu the People kept adoring him. Late in May and early in June, 1917 (Old Style), the French literally conquered Athens,[34] imposed E. Venizelos as Prime Minister, and endowed him with dictatorial powers. Venizelos thought that territorial gains in Asia Minor would help him to consolidate his regime. But the Reservists did not agree; and when elections were held at last on November 1, 1920 (Old Style), they had set up such a tremendous “leaderless network”[35] that Liberals (i.e. the Venizelists) suffered a crushing defeat. It was now the turn of Venizelos to flee abroad; as a result, Constantine was back on his throne in December of the same year. He could abandon the Asia Minor peripeteia, actually a Venizelist one; but he did not; yet the analysis of his ‘bellicose’ policy would be beyond the scope of this paper.

The people nonetheless, led by the 1912-1913 Reservists, fought in Anatolia against the Turkish Nationalist troops of Mustapha Kemal, and after they were defeated by the Turks, did not abandon their King. But the Liberals stirred up a military coup, following which the King was removed anew: he was to die in Palermo, Sicily, early in 1923, aged only 55. His outstanding followers were shot at Goudi, near Athens, in November, 1922.[36] Only Metaxas proved to be able to survive; for he was smart enough to reject any involvement of himself in the Asia Minor Campaign.

The Royalist administration, nevertheless, gave the evidence of very essence of its social basis. On July 20, 1922, the compulsory Social Security of all workers and private employees was enacted. It was the first time in Greece that such a step was taken.[37] As a matter of fact, King Constantine, Metaxas and the Reservists wished Greece to be a country without very rich and very poor people. That is why, when Metaxas became Prime Minister, under King George II, son and heir of King Constantine, put in effect a policy of ‘social homogenization’. Workers, in whom Metaxas saw “potential petty bourgeois,” were protected against “capitalists” through hard and fast rules. His way of thinking was clear: Only authoritarian/totalitarian governments are able to protect the Folk against the capitalists who try to “enslave” it, by making it “swallow the bait of democracy.” As a matter of fact, Capitalism wants slaves; but slaves having the illusion that they are “free men.”[38]

Metaxas was successful in his effort to homogenize the Greek society. That is why when Italy declared war on Greece late in October, 1940, the Greek People were unanimous in defending their “fascist regime.” It was a virtual yet bloody tragicomedy: the defenders of the Greek variety of Fascism fighting against another Fascist country.[39] But this is another story to be told . . .

III. The Russian Roots

It is said that the Far Right, commonly termed as “Fascism,” was born in Russia after the 1905 upheaval. It is true – but only in letter, not “in spirit.” In point of fact, two Far Right organizations were active in the Tsars’ Empire up to 1914: the “League of the Russian People” and the “League of Michael the Archangel.” [40] It is likely that Codreanu ‘christened’ his own movement after his Russian forerunners. Yet the Russian embryonic Fascism was not adopted either by nobility or the Tsar himself. That is why the Bolshevists had no serious problems as to their extermination.[41] If truth be told, the main factors that favoured the 1917 major political change in Russia were — ironically enough — the nominal or virtual enemies of Marxism, namely Tsardom, the Church and the peasantry.

Tsar Nicholas II was apathetic and believed that the Church was to assist him in his effort to “unite” the Russian People. He was wrong. For the Patriarchate of Moscow was in practice abolished by Peter I the Great early in the eighteenth century; and the clergy was full of rancour against the Russian Monarchy. No matter that the Bolshevists persecuted and eventually murdered hundreds of priests. The Church was revived; and the first Patriarch of Moscow and All Russias to be elected after the fall of Tsardom, namely Tikhon, was explicit in his famous 1925 Testament: “. . . In the years of civil collapse, the Soviet Government was placed at the head of the Russian State by God, without the will of Whom nothing can be done on earth.” And further:

Upon taking power, the representatives of the Soviet regime in January 1918 issued a decree recognizing the full religious freedom of citizens. Thus the principle of freedom of conscience was recognized by the [Soviet] Constitution to any religious congregation and to our Orthodox Church as well. . . . That is why we in time recognized the new order of things in our letters to our flock and . . . [priests] and we sincerely and publicly acknowledged the Worker-Peasant government of Russia. . . . It is time for the faithful to recognize the Christian point of view that says ‘everything works out for the divine’ and adopt all that happened as God’s will. While admitting no compromise with our conscience and yielding nothing with regard to our religion, we must be sincere towards the government and the work of the USSR for the good of everyone and arrange our religious life in accordance with established order.[42]

No wonder, therefore, that the Church sided with the Soviet regime against National-Socialist Germany from 1941 on; and of course no wonder that the Orthodox Church became speedily one of the main pillars of the Soviet administration.

Peasants used to see in the Patriarch a ‘substitute’ for the Tsar. What is more peasants did not want the Soviet regime to be overthrown. The explanation of such a paradoxical attitude was furnished initially by Enver Pasha, the Young Turks’ leader, who after a tour in Russia walked into the British Military Mission at Berlin in January, 1920, and declared the following: “Whenever the Denikin danger approaches, the result is the determined, unanimous and united effort on the part of the peasants to defend their own [land]. . . . In the whole of Soviet Russia there is an iron military discipline. The only people starving are the former aristocracy and bourgeoisie, whilst the peasants, soldiers and officials of the Soviet government have more than sufficient food.”[43]

He was right. The Soviet regime tried to compromise with the peasantry, “foe par excellence” of Marxism,[44] and appointed Mikhaïl Kalinin as Head of the State.[45] Born in 1875, Kalinin was the typical figure of the Russian peasant.[46] His informal appearance, lack of culture, the very fact that he used to spend holidays in his countryside dwelling, the ease of being approached by “everybody” made the Soviet regime all but popular among the peasants.[47] In 1925, furthermore, the crop was “quite good.” Soviet officialdom grasped the chance and: a) reduced by 1/3 the taxes on land property;[48] b) reintroduced the golden ruble.[49] Peasants, reassured by the Patriarch, “another Tsar,” believed that “their time had come”: Communism “was over.”[50] The climax was reached when Nikolai Bukharin, at the “highest degree of power,” i.e. during the years 1926-1927, and with the support of Alexei Rykov, launched the famous slogan (for the benefit of peasants): Enrichissez-vous![51]

Needless to say that the in the late 1920s it was the time of “we had a good laugh, but enough.” On December 2, 1927, the Fifteenth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union began its works in Moscow; a decision was passed there calling for the fullest development of collectivization in agriculture.[52] A “determined offensive against the Kulaks” was launched which ended in millions and millions of fatalities among the Soviet peasantry.[53] In 1929 Bukharin was expelled from the Politburo and put to death in 1938 – and Rykov, too.[54]

Conclusions and Perspectives

Unlike the Greek variety of the Far Right, which saw in the Crown its natural leader and was subsequently termed “monarchical fascism,” the Romanian Iron Guard found in the person of the King Carol II its bitterest foe. The story is too known to be repeated here. The point, however, is that, quite paradoxically, Hitler and Ion Antonescu are the ones to be blamed for the slaughter of the Iron Guard. To be sure, the Guard had grown somewhat anarchical following the murder of Capitanul;[55] yet it was unlikely to be otherwise. Since even the Church had proved to be the ally of the establishment,[56] the only way out from the terrible impasse was the slogan: Trăiască moartea![57] The Iron Guard proved to be loyal to this slogan. Still it was Hitler who gave the green light to Antonescu uttering the words: Ich brauche keine Fanatiker. Ich brauche eine gesunde rumänische Armee.[58] The Stalingrad debacle may be regarded as Nemesis’ answer to whom needed only “a sound Army.”

* * *

The salient characteristic of the Greek Far Right was social; and Romanian’s was mysticism.[59] That is why the establishment saw in Codreanu a person without ‘true’ political experience, who was not able to conduct the State business.[60] Such critics are exaggerated, nay, nonsensical. The point, however, is that, if the roots of Europe’s Far Right are to be found in Russia, its most spiritual and, socially speaking, most efficient varieties are to be found in the Balkans, namely Romania and Greece. In the other Balkan countries, serious Rightist movements did not exist; for the populace saw in the Fascists the collaborators of invaders.

Albania is a well-known case; for the Communists had the peasantry’s support, because they were considered to be the only ‘serious’ Resistance fighters against the Italians. (That is why the Balli Kombëtar (= National Front) and the Legaliteti, viz. the monarchists, did not prove able to rouse public opinion.) Fascists, on the other hand, were regarded as unscrupulous people in the pay of the Italians.[61] In the former Yugoslavia, furthermore, the Far Rightist movements had a so salient nationalist character that it is not feasible to study them without taking into consideration the national/nationalist sentiments of the relevant peoples. Such a case was Bulgaria, too. The Far Right was closely associated with the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO);[62] and IMRO murdered cruelly Aleksandar Stamboliyski not for his liberal policies but because it feared the abandonment of Macedonians’ national aspirations.[63]

* * *

What are the perspectives of the Far Right in the Balkans? The answer to such a question is twofold; for the Far Right has two problems to cope with, namely Nationalism and Capitalism. Nationalism, first of all, is a leftist invention, and the evidence is Romania herself. Les quarante-huitards ont fait la Roumanie, I have been told several times by an eminent Romanian historian. He is right; but it should be never forgotten that the 1848 revolution in the Romanian lands was enthusiastically — and justly — hailed by Karl Marx, because it was a radical one.[64] And further, the Communist regimes in Europe proved to be far more nationalist than the so-called bourgeois ones. On the other hand, it is sure now that WW 2 was lost for Germany and her allies, because Fascism proved to be “too national.”[65] As a result, only if the Balkan Far Right rejects its “nationalist exclusiveness,” that is more or less nonsensical today, will it be able to become an important political factor.

Still, the Balkan Far Right has one more question to handle: its alleged association with Capitalism. Such an association proved to be all but a fraud;[66] yet the Far Right’s unparalleled ability to defend the interests of “peasants, craftsmen, workmen and petty merchants” has to be displayed orbi et urbi. But this depends on the skillfulness of the Far Right’s leaders – both present and future ones. For, all things considered, in our world Man bears the responsibility for his life.

Notes

 

[1] K. R. Bolton, “A Martyr’s Life” in Codreanu. Thoughts and Perspectives. Edited by Troy Southgate (London: Black Front Press, 2011), p. 7

[2] Ibid., p. 8.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., p. 9.

[5] Elizabeth Kostova, The Historian (London: Little, Brown, 2005), p. 395. (A charming description of Târgovişte to be found on pages 384-385.)

[6] Ibid., p. 394.

[7] That is why the Sovereign Victor Emanuel III did not sign the Decree imposing the state of war in Italy late in October 1922, and agreed that Mussolini be the Prime Minister On this very important subject, several articles have been published in the journal L’Uomo libero (Milan). See mainly: Sergio Gozzoli, “La rivolta della volontà,” No 66 (September, 2008), p. 45- 46; and also Fabio Calabrese, “Il grande equivoco,” No 70 (November, 2010), p. 69.

[8] Adolf Hitler, Riflessioni sulla religione, le chiese, il Vaticano; in Alfred Rosenberg, Introduzioni al Mito del XX Secolo, accompagnate da pagine della polemica cattolica contro il Mito (1930-1938), Genoa: Effepi, 2006, pp. 63-64.

[9] Ibid., p. 59.

[10] Benito Mussolini, “Fascismo,” Enciclopedia Italiana di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, vol. XIV (Edizioni Istituto G. Treccani, 1932), p.847.

[11] K. R. Bolton, “A Martyr’s Life,” p. 17.

[12] Cited by Gheorghe Barbul, Memorial Antonescu. Al Treilea Om al Axei (Bucharest: Editura Pro Hitoria, 2001), p. 13.

[13] Archives of the Foreign Ministry of Greece (hereafter: AYE), 1938/A/7/2. The French translation of Codreanu’s statement is attached to the dispatch no. 201 (Bucharest, January 26, 1938) of Kōnstantinos Kollas, Greek minister at Bucharest, to the Foreign Ministry of Greece.

[14] K. R. Bolton, “A Martyr’s Life,” p. 8.

[15] Ibid.

[16] AYE, 1938, A/ 7/2, Raoul Vivika-Rōsettēs, Greek minister at Beograd, to the Foreign Ministry of Greece, No. 31883/A, Beograd, December 24, 1938; cf. Gh. Barbul, Memorial Antonescu…, pp. 42-43.

[17] I. Metaxas. To prosōpiko tou hēmerologio (= The Diaries of I.Metaxas), vol. 4. Edited by Phaidōn Vranas (Athens: Ikaros, 1960), p. 446.

[18] V. Lénine, « L’État et la révolution », Œuvres choisies en trois volumes, vol. 2 (Moscow: Éditions du progrès, 1975), p. 293.

[19] Benito Mussolini, “Fascismo,” p. 849ff.

[20] AYE, Kyvernēsē Kairou (the Cairo Government), 1942-1943, A/GE/k, Kimōn K. Kollas, Greek minister at Lisbon, to the Foreign Ministry of Greece (at Cairo), No. 951/A, Lisbon, September 4, 1942; the same to the same, No. 245/B, March 12, 1943; the same to the same (at London), No. 1164/A, Lisbon, November 4, 1943; the same to the same (at London), No. 212/A, Lisbon, March 3, 1943. His economic policy was explained in the speech he deliveredat at Braga, on May 28, 1966. (The French translation: AYE, 1966, 12.10.)

[21] AYE, 1967, 48.1, G. E. Bensēs, Greek Ambassador in Madrid, to the Foreign Ministry of Greece, No. 2075/II, Madrid, November 6, 1967.

[22] Αdolph Hitler, Mein Kampf. Translated into Greek by Andreas Pankalos and Dēmētrēs Kōstelenos (Athens: Daremas, n.d.), σ. 266.

[23] V. Lénine, « L’État et la révolution », pp. 321, 334.

[24] Cf. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto. Translated into Greek by Giōrgos Kottēs (Athens: Themelio, 1982), p. 56.

[25] Cf. Roger Pereyfitte, Les ambassades (Paris: Flammarion, 1971), p. 23 : Vous devez savoir, d’ores et déjà,.qu’à Athènes la société est divisée en deux camps : royalistes et vénizélistes – on appelle encore ainsi les républicains… Moyen de les reconnaître : les royalistes sont mal vêtus, car ils sont pauvres ; les vénizélistes sont élégants, car ils sont riches.

[26] Cf. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto. Translated into Greek by Giōrgos Kottēs (Athens: Themelio, 1982), p. 56.

[27] Cf. G. Ventērēs, Hē Hellas tou 1910-1920 ( = The 1910-1920 Greece), Athens: Pyrsos, 1931, vol. II, p. 272.

[28] Viktōr Dousmanēs, Apomnēmoneumata (= Memoirs), Athens: Dēmētrakos, n. d., p. 43.

[29] K. G. Zavitzianos, Hai anamnēseis tou… 1914-1922 (= His Memoirs… 1914-1922), vol. I (Athens, 1946), p. 148.

[30] Cf. V. Dousmanēs, Apomnēmoneumata, p. 43.

[31] Aus den Geheimarchiven der Entente, vol. 5 (Dresden: Carl Reisner, 1932), doc. 188: the Russian minister at Athens to the Foreign Minister of Russia, Athens, August 15/ 28, p. 126.

[32] Parliamentary Archives (London [hereafter: PA]), F/ 55/ 1/ 1.

[33] Dēmētrēs Michalopoulos, “Hē kata ton Prōto Pankosmio Polemo allēlographia tou hellēnikou vasilikou zeugous me ton autokratora tēs Germanias” (= The correspondence of the Royal Couple of Greece with the Emperor of Germany during WW 1), Anakoinōseis hēmeridos (16 Martiou 2006) gia tēn epeteio tou thanatou tou Eleutheriou Venizelou (= Proceedings of the Congress held on March 16,2006, on the anniversary of Eleutherios Venizelos’ death), doc. 27, p. 109.

[34] Général Regnault, Laconquêted’Athènes (Juin-Juillet 1917), Paris:L. Fournier, 1919, pp. 51-52.

[35] Their leaders having been arrested by the French and interned in Corsica.

[36] See the volume Hē Dikē tōn Oktō kai hē ektelesē tōn Hexi (= The Trial of the Eight and the Execution of the Six Ones), Athens: Historical Institute for Studies on Eleutherios Venizelos, 2010².

[37] Ephēmeris tēs Kyvernēseōs tou Vasileiou tēs Hellados (= Official Gazette of the Kingdom of Greece), I, No. 119 (July 20, 1922), pp. 554-555.

[38] I. Metaxas. To prosōpiko tou hēmerologio, vol. 4, pp. 446-447.

[39] Cf. Arthur Koestler, The Yogi and the Commissar. Translated into Greek by Alexandros Kotzias (Athens: Galaxias, 1969), p. 158.

[40] History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union [Bolsheviks]. Edited by a Commission of the C. C. of the C.P.S.U. (B.), Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1939, p. 78.)

[41] Simon Sebag Montefiore, Young Stalin (London: Phoenix, 2007), p. 205.

[42] Dimitris Michalopoulos, “The Testament of Patriarch Tikhon,” Ab Aeterno (New Zealand), issue No. 7 (April-June 2011), p. 38.

[43] PA, LG/F/206/4/10.

[44] Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto. Translated into Greek by Giōrgos Kottēs (Athens: Themelio, 1982), p. 48.

[45] Literally: President of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR. (AYE, 1925, A/5/VII, Iōannēs Kokotakēs, chargé d’affaires of the Greek Legation at Moscow, to the Foreign Ministry of Greece, No 2961, Moscow, November 20, 1925.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Ibid.

[48] AYE, 1925, A/5/VII, I. Kokotakēs to the Foreign Ministry of Greece, No. 2779, Moscow, October 30, 1925.

[49] AYE, 1925, A/5/VII, I. Kokotakēs to the Foreign Ministry of Greece, No. 2706, Moscow, October 20, 1925.

[50] Ibid.

[51] AYE, 1928, 65.3, L’URSS en 1927.(Written in January, 1928, by an agent of the Greek Legation at Moscow.)

[52] History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union…, p. 288.

[53] A chilling description in A. Koestler, The Yogi and the Commissar, p. 161.

[54] Ibid., p. 294ff.

[55] Drept anachic. (Gh. Barbul, Memorial Antonescu, p.68.)

[56] Due to the Government headed by the Patriarch Miron. (AYE, 1938, 7/A/2, K. Kollas to the Foreign Ministry of Greece, No. 373, Bucharest, February 14, 1938.)

[57] Gh. Barbul, Memorial Antonescu, p.68.

[58] Ibid., p. 97.

[59] AYE, 1938, 7/A/2, K. Kollas to the Foreign Ministry of Greece, No. 373, Bucharest, February 14, 1938.

[60] Ibid.

[61] AYE, 1940, 54.1, D. Argyropoulos, Consul General of Greece at Tirana, to the Foreign Minister of Greece, No. 194, Tiranë, January 27, 1940; the same to the same, No. 366, Tiranë, February 19, 1940; D. A. Tsankrēs, vice consul of Greece at Vlorë, to the Consul General of Greece at Tiranë, No. 276, Vlorë, March 9, 1940.

[62] See Albert Londres, Les comitadjis ou le terrorisme dans les Balkans, Paris : Albin Michel, 1932.

[63] See mainly Georges Castellan, L’Albanie (Paris : Presses Universitaires de France, 1980), p. 49ff.

[64] Dan Berindei, La Revolution roumaine de 1848-1849, Bucharest : Editura enciclopedică, 1998.

[65] K. R. Bolton, Thinkers of the Right challenging Materialism (Luton: Luton Publications, 2003²), p. 81.

[66] Cf. Arthur Koestler, The Yogi and the Commissar, p. 212.

Source: Ab Aeterno, no. 12, April-June, 2012

---

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/01/the-far-right-in-the-balkans-roots-and-perspectives/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ioannis-metaxas.jpg

Crusade Without the Cross: The Paradox of the Greek Left

Crusade Without the Cross:
The Paradox of the Greek Left

By Dimitris Michalopoulos

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

To Francis Parker Yockey
In memoriam

Following the end of the Greek Civil War in 1949, many of the defeated Communists fled to countries behind the Iron Curtain. Most of them were to die before they could see their homeland again. Those who survived in the exile, came back to Greece as late as 1975. For not all of them wanted  to compromise with the right-wing 1949-1974 regime of Greece. Still, do you know what was the first reaction of the defeated fighters upon reaching the countries of the Soviet bloc, late in the 1940s? When they were asked to take a bath for sanitary reasons, they declined; for they did not want the oil spread on their body by the Orthodox priests during the christening ceremony to be removed!

Such was the statement of a Greek Communist intellectual in Paris, in 1995. I was bewildered. I was then considered to be a “specialist” on the relations between Greece and the countries of the Eastern bloc and I thought I knew “everything” on the “colonies” that the Greek Communists had founded mainly in the “People’s Democracies” and in the Soviet Union. I knew that the Greek Orthodox clergy had supported either overtly or in veiled terms the Communist “rebellion” in Greece. Still from the Greek Church’s backing up the Communists to the latter’s desire not to “lose the oil of the christening” there was a big gulf. That is why upon my coming back to Greece, I started looking into the matter. The result of my research? My Paris interlocutor was right.

It is not possible to recount the history of the Marxist ideas in Greece, without taking into account the Greek Orthodox Church. And so for two reasons: a) The Modern Greek nationhood relies wholly upon the Church. As a matter of fact, Greek is considered to be every Orthodox Christian who “recognizes the spiritual jurisdiction of the [Greek] Patriarchate of Constantinople”;[1] and b) thanks precisely to the Greek Church, Materialism was disseminated in the Balkans and, further, was raised to “official”, i.e. State ideology in the Romanian countries long before the 1789 Revolution in France.[2]

This story of materialistic ideas that were spread in the Balkans by the Greek Orthodox Church is a long (and very interesting) one. The roots are to be found in Byzantium itself. For from the eleventh century on, a revival of Platonism and neo-Platonism took place in Constantinople; and this revival led up to a kind of crypto-paganism. The 1453 capture of the Byzantine capital by the Ottomans put an end to this neo-platonic current; and Gennadius I Scholarius, the first Constantinopolitan Patriarch to be in office following the fall of the Byzantine Empire, directed the philosophical research of his flock towards the “beacon of Aristotle’s thought.” Still, this direction was to have very important consequences.

Ecclesiastical Preamble

The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Constantinople/Istanbul was criticized prior to the 1821-1829 Greek War of Independence very mildly by the Left, viz. the Greek Enlightenment scholars and their disciples. And for good reason; for the Greek Enlightenment, thanks to the protection of the Orthodox Church, anticipated the French one by several decades. In other words, materialist doctrines were being taught throughout Greece by Greek Orthodox . . . clergymen. And as a result the Enlightenment principles became the State Ideology in Balkan countries long before they prevailed in France.

In such a contradictory evolution, two characters assumed the key role, namely Cyril Lucar (1572-1638) and Theophilus Corydaleus (1570-1646). Both were disciples of Cesare Cremonini (1550-1631) at the University of Padua; and both wholeheartedly adopted Cremonini’s materialistic interpretation of Aristotle’s thought.[3] For if St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) had managed to espouse the creeds of the Roman Catholic Church with Stagirite’s teaching, it was Pietro Pomponazzi (1462-1525), professor at the Padua University from 1509 to 1512, who paved the path to the Enlightenment.

P. Pomponazzi published in 1516 his book De immortalitate animae (= On the Immortality of the Soul). He had moved at that time from the University of Padua to the one in Bologna; the impact of his book’s coming out, nonetheless, was terrible throughout Italy and even Europe. It triggered a real revolution in Christian thought; and this revolution was to culminate in 1517, i.e., merely a year later, with Luther’s Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum, i.e., the famous Ninety-Five Theses.

As a matter of fact, Pomponazzi overtly disagreed in his book on the Immortality of the Soul with St Thomas Aquinas’ teaching. The latter, based on the Aristotelian intellectual production, professed that the human soul could survive separation from the body; yet Pomponazzi declared that the soul’s survival was incompatible with entelechy, i.e., the Actualizing Form, a fundamental concept in Stagirite’s thinking and teaching. The corollary was the solemnization of the belief that the human soul was tied irreversibly to the human body; and so all doors were opened to materialism.

It was C. Cremonini who crossed triumphantly the door opened by Pomponazzi. He was appointed professor at Padua University in 1591, and since the Papal jurisdiction did not encompass Padua (for it was protected by the Venetian Republic), he felt free to propagate his Aristotelian-based materialism. His enthusiastic admirers and followers saw in him Aristoteles redivivus (= Aristotle reborn), the princeps philosophorum (= Prince of the Philosophers), the genius Aristotelis (= Aristotle’s genius) and so on.[4]

The result? When Cyril Lucar, Cremonini’s student and follower, became Patriarch of Constantinople, he appointed Th. Corydaleus, also a follower of Cremonini, director of the Patriarchal Academy,[5] a prestigious institution of higher learning. Most likely it was in 1625;[6] and so Materialism came under the aegis and the virtual protection of the Greek Patriarchate, the leading one of the Orthodox Christendom. So, the Patriarchal Academy developed into the avant-garde of the European Left.[7]

That is why the “progressive mind” of the Patriarch Cyril I Lucar is nowadays enthusiastically acclaimed in Greece and in the Western countries as well. No matter that he was converted to Calvinism and even wrote a Confession of Faith clearly endorsing Protestant theses:[8] Confessio fidei reverendissimi domini Cyrilli, Patriarchae Constantinopolitani nomine et consensus Patriarcharum Alexandrini et Hierosolymitani, . . . , scripta Constantinopoli mense Martio anni 1629.[9] He was of course anathematized by an Ecclesiastical Council held in Constantinople in 1638.[10] Still, his memory remains unharmed.[11] For the Left-wing intelligentsia see in him the “Father of the Greek Enlightenment.”[12]

It is true that he founded an important printing house in 1627,[13] the first Greek one in the Levant. What is more, he was put to death by the Ottoman authorities, due mainly to accusations of the Jesuits who saw in him a bitter foe of the Roman Church. Still, the truth is that he was a Calvinist[14] and most likely a materialist.

His companion and zealous ally, Th. Corydaleus, was undoubtedly a materialist; and he did not dissimulate his ideas, though he was a Greek Orthodox clergyman. Unlike Cyril Lucar he did not suffer death at the hands of the Ottomans. Quite the contrary! He was ordained Metropolitan Bishop of Naupactus and Arta.[15] Further, he founded a school in Athens, his native city, where he continued teaching materialism shrouded in Aristotelian thought till the end of his life. He created chaos in his Metropolitan See; he became a monk in 1622 and renounced his vows in 1625; yet he was never stigmatized by the Greek Orthodox Church.[16] And the Ottoman authorities, properly “indoctrinated” by the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate, ever never bothered him.

He wrote several books that enjoyed great popularity in both Greece and the Graecized Balkan countries as well up to the late eighteenth century. Needless to say that this popularity was mostly due to the high regard the Greek clergy had for them.[17] The result? The Maurokordatos family, a rich and very influential Greco-Jewish Constantinopolitan one, managed to have Sevastos Kyminitēs, their protégé and an ardent Corydaleus’ supporter,[18] appointed as head of the Bucharest Princely Academy. This Academy, along with the Patriarchal one in Constantinople, was a renowned educational institution, one of the very few in the Balkans at that time. No sooner than appointed, S. Kyminitēs began propagating materialism rooted in Aristotle’s thought. And even though he was totally disliked by his students, he enjoyed the protection of the Maurokordatos family, was a favorite with the Patriarchal Court at Constantinople and the Ottoman authorities as well. He maintained, therefore, his post until 1702, the year of his death. The corollary was that thanks to him materialism became the state Ideology in the Romanian Lands, Walachia and Moldavia,[19] then vassal countries of the Ottoman Empire.

The Left in Independent Greece

The Modern and Contemporary Greek people is a multiracial mixture. Since acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate at Constantinople was, in practice, the exclusive criterion of being regarded as Greek, it goes without saying that Modern Greeks are descendants of all the Balkan’s Christian nations – and mainly of Albanians, Slavs, and Romanians.[20] Civil strife flourished in such an ambiance; and democratic/socialist ideas thrived as well.

The first wholly democratic current, with obvious tendencies to turn actually into a socialist movement, was that of Theodōros Grivas, in Acarnania, viz. the south-western part of Mainland Greece. Thanks to his achievements during the Greek War of Independence, Grivas was a general of the Greek Army under Otho, the first King of Greece (1832-1862). Nonetheless, he had in view a radical change of Greece’s Statehood structures. In the framework of the revolution that put an end to Otho’s reign, in October 1862, he formed a “People’s Army” 4,500 strong, and declared he was “ready for a march to Athens” with the intention of proclaiming the Republic, endow Greece with a federal structure, and “rehabilitate the landless peasantry.” In short, he was in open conflict with the Provisory Government that assumed power after King Otho’s fall, and aspired only at establishing the so-called “Royal Republic” regime. Undoubtedly, Grivas had sympathizers in the main agglomerations of the country; that is why his “Popular Army”, wherein mostly landless peasants were recruited, struck terror among the wealthy social strata. Had he survived and put into effect his “march to Athens,” the course of the Modern History of Greece would be different. But in 1862 he was 65 years old and suffered from asthma; and he passed away on October 24, 1862 (Old Style).[21]

Rumors are going about him even today in Mainland Greece. He is said to have been poisoned by the British; and that he wanted to capture Athens in order to paint red the royal palace. Be that as it may, not only had the 1862 Grivas movement a clear-cut socialist character but many partisans of him proved to be ready to rise up in arms against the establishment.[22] It was on his ‘precedent’ that the communist uprising would be molded in the twentieth century.

* * *

The Greek Communist Party was founded on November 17, 1918 as the Socialist Labour Party of Greece.[23] It was renamed Communist Party of Greece (Kommounistiko Komma Hellados/K.K.E.) not earlier than late November, 1924.[24] From its very beginning, the K.K.E. had three key problems to cope with: a) the Macedonian Issue; b) the Trotskyite current within it; and c) the elaboration of a “revolutionary process” fit for Greece.

As for the first question, it must be kept in mind that the autochthonous population of Macedonia were Slavs; and those Slavs had often a Bulgarian national conscience. Whatever the fact of the matter, Macedonians were seeking independence; and the Greek Communists toed that very line in 1922.[25]

Such a decision, quite in accordance with the traditional/initial Marxist internationalism, was utterly disapproved by the public opinion of Greece and was abandoned at last. Pantelēs Pouliopoulos, nonetheless, the first Secretary-General of the newborn K.K.E. was put on trial and got eighteen months in prison.[26] Following his release in 1926, he was re-elected Secretary-General; yet he was at odds with the Party apparatus – already a Stalinist one. As a result he deserted the K.K.E. and founded his own Communist group,[27] baptized “Spartacus” after the journal they were publishing from 1928 on.[28]

The Greek “Spartacists” were overtly Trotskyites; and their deep disagreement with the Stalinist K.K.E. arose early in 1934. For it was then that Pouliopoulos published his book “A Democratic or a Socialist Revolution in Greece?”[29] and turned down the “revolutionary process” advocated by the K.K.E. The latter, obviously based on the Russian experience, “deserted” the workers and was seeking an alliance with the democratic bourgeois parties and, above all, the peasantry. Pouliopoulos and his Trotskyites, on the other hand, insisted on the necessity to propagate Marxism among the 100,000 “industrial proletarians,” dwelling mostly in Piraeus, the seaport of Athens.[30]

As for Piraeus, Pouliopoulos was correct: the workers there were mostly Right-wing or overtly fascists.[31] He tried, nevertheless, to indoctrinate them with Marxism’s Trotskyite variety but in vain. Meanwhile the K.K.E. concluded alliance with the Liberal Party (founded by Eleutherios Venizelos prior to World War I); yet this rapprochement accelerated the march of Greek politics towards the authoritarian government established jointly by King George II and his Prime Minister, Iōannēs Metaxas, on August 4, 1936.

Pouliopoulos, further, had a tragic end. Arrested by the Police of the authoritarian government in 1937, he declined the “offer” to leave his “homeland.” He was, therefore, imprisoned and, following the 1941 occupation of Greece by the Axis Powers, he was interned in an Italian concentration camp. At last, he was shot in 1943 by way of reprisal for a guerrilla attack against an Italian military train.[32] And an important “detail”: one of his “companions” was Andreas Papandreou,[33] who accepted the police’s offer to leave Greece, fled to the United States, became a university professor and, thanks to his American citizenship, Prime Minister of Greece in 1981.[34]

Civil Strife (1942-1949)

The authoritarian government established in August, 1936, stopped the Communist Party’s course to power. Still, the K.K.E. had one more card to play, namely the refugees who had immigrated into Greece from Turkey in the early 1920s. That was due to an agreement concluded by the two countries at Lausanne, Switzerland, in 1923, following the crushing defeat the Greeks suffered at the hands of the Turkish Nationalist Army. In the framework of this agreement, a compulsory exchange of populations was bilaterally agreed; as a result, ca. 1,500,000 people fled from Turkey into Greece.

If truth be told, this exchange had little, if any, relevance with the two involved countries. The crux was Macedonia and the framework, nay, the very basis of the machinations was the famous dogma of Sir Halford Mackinder. According to the latter’s doctrine if the “Slavs.” in practice the Russians, achieved to put under their control the seashore of Macedonia, they would “stand” as “world masters.”[35]

It is certain that Sir Halford Mackinder, one of the founders of the Jewish-run London School of Economics, announced his theory in 1904. Still, this announcement was all but a crystallization of ideas existing long before Sir Halford. For early in the nineteenth century the British Foreign Office already saw in the Ottoman Empire (that ruled Macedonia at that time) a “bulwark against Russian expansion.”[36] The collapse of this “bulwark”, nonetheless, was easily foreseen after the 1878 Berlin Congress. The corollary was that Greeks, under undisputable British influence, should be substituted for the autochthonous Macedonians. Such Greeks would come only from Asia Minor. That is why the 1923 Greco-Turkish “compulsory” exchange of populations was notified in advance by Eleutherios Venizelos as early as 1914.[37] The bulk of Macedonian Moslems (ca. 500,000 people overall) had emigrated into Turkey as soon as the Balkan wars were over. The Greeks, in essence the Christian Orthodox dwellers of Anatolia, were exhorted by the “heads” of their communities to leave their homeland (most likely upon advice of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Istanbul); and so in spite of the entreaties of their Turkish compatriots to stay.[38]

Therefore, the point is that the 1,500,000 people who immigrated into Greece and used to live there in unpredictable misery, were hopeful that they would soon be back in their homeland; but in 1926 their hope proved to be vain. That is why they took up the Communist ideology. The repercussions on Greek politics would be very serious.

In fact, from the early 1920s on the electoral strength of the K.K.E. was steadily rising. From 2% of the electorate in 1929, it attained 5% in 1932, 6% in 1933 and 9.5% in 1935.[39] It was one of the strongest Communist parties in Eastern Europe; and it is an irony that Greece was the sole country to escape from the Iron Curtain.

* * *

In 1941 Greece was occupied by the Axis Powers, namely Germany and Italy. Still, in that very year, on September 27, 1941, the National Liberation Front (Ethniko Apeleutherōtiko Metōpo/E.A.M.) was founded, wherein the K.K.E. was the leading force.[40] On June 7, 1942, moreover, the “armed struggle” against the occupation troops began by the E.A.M.’s “military arm,” namely “People’s National Liberation Army” (Ethnikos Laïkos Apeleutherōtikos Stratos/E.L.A.S).[41] The latter was under a leadership of Arēs Velouchiōtēs, a fortune-hunter who soon proved to be a military genius. From 1943 on, the whole of Greece was ruled by E.A.M. and strictly controlled by E.L.A.S. The Right-wing guerilla forces were speedily and savagely exterminated. The only exception was Epirus, where there flourished a nationalist armed movement, the “National Troops of Greek Partisans” (Ethnikai Homades Hellēnōn Antartōn/E.O.E.A.), guided by Napoleōn Zervas, a commissioned officer of the (regular) Greek Army.

Needless to say that E.A.M./E.L.A.S. were particularly powerful in the very regions where the Th. Grivas’ socialist movement had taken place in the nineteenth century. Still, it is essential to insist on the fact that the Communist-run guerilla troops were substantially assisted by the Greek Orthodox clergy. Even two Metropolitan Bishops overtly adhered to E.A.M.,[42] whilst the rank-and-file of E.L.A.S. included priests in cassocks.[43] The behavior, on the other hand, of the E.L.A.S. troops towards the Orthodox clergy and, generally speaking, the Church was more than kind.[44] For the Communist-run E.A.M. used to see in the Church a pillar of its power.

Thanks to the “Revolution” proclaimed by Arēs Velouchiōtēs already in 1942, ten to seventeen Italian and German divisions were nailed down in Greece early in 1943.[45] So, towering were the ambitions of the Communists: they considered the “struggle” against the occupation troops as the “First Stage” of the “Socialist Revolution in Greece.” Yet they reckoned without their host; and in that very case the “host” was Stalin. In May, 1943, he actually dissolved the Comintern, because “he had never seriously endorsed the [Trotskyite] idea of the World Revolution.”[46] The “dissolution” was, moreover, a friendly gesture to Great Britain and the U.S.A.; for Stalin was already preoccupied with the reconstruction “of his devastated country.”[47]

Late in September, 1944, the Greek Government “in exile” at Cairo was informed that the dogma of Sir Halford Mackinder was again in force. For the British wanted a cordon sanitaire to be formed by the countries on the north-eastern Mediterranean seashore, in order to stop the “Russian expansion.”[48] Such a country was, of course, Greece; and Stalin speedily agreed not to send Soviet troops in the Greek parts of Macedonia and Thrace.[49] In the evening of October 9, 1944, Churchill had a meeting with Stalin in the Kremlin: the agreement was “formally” concluded; and the British Prime Minister stated the following on October 27, in the House of Commons:

Upon the tangled questions of the Balkans, where there are Black Sea interests and Mediterranean interests to be considered, we were able to reach complete agreement and I do not feel that there is any immediate danger of our combined war effort be weakened by divergences of policy or doctrine, in Greece, Roumania, Bulgaria or Yugoslavia and, beyond the Balkans, Hungary. We have reached a very good working agreement about all these countries singly and in combination, in the object of . . . providing . . . for a peaceful settlement after the war is over.[50]

That meant that Greece was to be held under exclusive British control and that Yugoslavia was not going to be encompassed in the “Russian sphere of influence.” As a result, the Russophile E.A.M./E.L.A.S. were abandoned – and the tragedy of the Greek Left began.

* * *

During the operations against the occupation troops, the E.L.A.S. units were abundantly supplied by the British. And when, in October, 1944, the Germans evacuated Athens, the Communists considered the time to be ripe for the power to be seized by themselves. Early in December, 1944, therefore, a huge demonstration took place in the very center of the Greek capital; yet, contrary to what was going on so far, the Police opened fire. It was the beginning of the Civil War or, according to the Communists, the “Second Stage” of the “Revolution.” Churchill was eloquent in Parliament:

So far as has been ascertained the facts are as follows: the Greek Organization called E.A.M. had announced their intention to hold a demonstration on December 3rd. The Greek Government at first authorised this, but withdrew their permission when E.A.M. called for a general strike to begin on December 2nd. The strike in fact came into force early on December 3rd. Later in the morning the E.A.M. demonstration formed up and moved to the principle square of Athens, in spite of Government ban. On the evidence so far available I am not prepared to say who started the firing which then took place. The Police suffered one fatal casualty and had three men wounded. The latest authentic reports give the demonstration’s casualties as 11 killed and 60 wounded.[51]

Moscow remained silent, nay, indifferent.[52] What is more (and strangely enough) the battle in Athens were fought not by the well-trained units of E.L.A.S.[53] but by the latter’s Athens reserves – in fact bands of ill-equipped teenagers who were literally massacred by the British troops then occupying Athens.[54] Even today the accusations of “betrayal” against the 1944 Communist’s leadership are common. Still, the facts are not yet established. Two things are clear, nevertheless: a) the head of the Athens police force at that time, Angelos Ewert, was a British agent;[55] b) the Communist leadership that fled to the U.S.S.R. after the final defeat suffered by K.K.E. armed forces at the hands of the National Army in 1949 were never trusted by Stalin and, as a rule, met a “bad end.”[56]

In January, 1945, an agreement was reached between the British and the Communist troops. The latter laid down their arms, and were given the promise that they could develop freely political activity henceforth. Yet Churchill was determined to have “no peace without victory.”[57] A reign of terror followed;[58] A. Velouchiōtēs was murdered in 1945; and exasperated the Greek Communists triggered off the so-called “Third Stage” of their “Revolution” in 1946. In practice this was one more phase of the Civil War. It was to last until the summer of 1949. The Communist Army was defeated by the well-equipped National one and thanks to Tito’s attitude as well; for the latter, after his rupture with Stalin, overtly toed the line of the Western Powers.

All that time the Russians remained silent; and their “expansion” towards the Mediterranean Sea never took place. Simultaneously, autochthonous Macedonians, of Slavic stock, regarded as “Communists” by the Greek authorities, left their homes and fled either to Yugoslavia or in other countries of the “Iron Curtain.”[59]

Greece was once more a “Western Country.”

As an Epilogue

In April, 1967, two or three days after the military coup, at 2.00’ in the night, there was a ring at the front door. I woke up at once, though I sleep very soundly; I rushed out of my room and I went to look at what was going on.

All my family was up and about: three policemen had entered our home and were searching my father’s bookcase. Needless to say that they were silly people. What were they expecting to find out? The “dangerous” books, viz. the Marxist ones, were already carried by my Mother to the house of her own parents; and no policeman had the idea to search over there. The search, however, was about an hour long; afterwards, the policemen said good bye, and left our home.

That night I slept on my parents’ bed, between my dad and my mother, although I was 15. If truth be told, I was then and there like a baby; and my father kept patting my head, in order to calm me. The day after all our phone communications (either at home or in my father’s lawyer office) were cut off. You can imagine what it means for a barrister not to be able to make a phone call. Fortunately, we were without telephone only a year. For in 1968 we had again the ‘right’ to call up. 

It was this way that my High-School classmate and daughter of a leading Communist lawyer, answered to my entreaty. I had asked her to give an account of her experience – in her capacity as member of an influential family of the Greek Left; and she described to me the “most terrifying night” in her life. Her father was the Secretary-General of the E.A.M. in Thessaly; he was sentenced to death by a Court-Martial in the 1940s and he survived thanks to personal and family connections. Yet he was tired by his bitter experience of the “lost Communist Revolution”; and a couple of years following my classmate’s “most terrifying night”, he passed away due to a heart attack.

The military coup in question was the one brought off in Greece on April 21st, 1967. It had little (if anything) to do with Fascism. It is well-established today that its main reason lay in Mackinder’s dogma. The 1967 Six-Day Arab-Israeli War, triggered off in the first decade of June, was in view long before it started. And it was clear that, following either an Arab victory (not likely) or defeat (most possible) the Soviet “presence” in the Eastern Mediterranean would be considerably increased.[60] Meantime, Greece was in a long political crisis; and the political ascendancy of Andreas Papandreou would undoubtedly pave the way for a “mass infiltration” of “Communists”, i.e., Russophile Left-wing people into the Greek State apparatus.[61] That is why the Israelis and the “military establishment” of the United States stirred up the coup and, of course, approved of it, whilst the U.S.A. Department of State disavowed it.[62]

This is the framework wherein the tragedy of the Greek Left took place. The Greek Left knew very little about Marx and Marxism. As a rule, the E.A.M./E.L.A.S. people used to see in Communism a remedy for the traumas that Greek National Life was leaving on their psyche. The refugees from Asia Minor wanted to go back to their “homes” and were frustrated by the foiling of their expectations. The peasants wished to have a less hard life. Educated people, like the father of my classmate, were seeking for the modernization and, if possible, Europeanization of the incredibly archaic social structures of Modern and Contemporary Greek nationhood. Almost the whole of them were conservative householders and good members of Greek Orthodox Church’s congregation. They were engaged in a “Crusade” in order to cure the painful paradoxes of Modern Greece. Yet they did not realize that their “Cross” was lost in the pitiless implementation of Mackinder’s Geopolitics.

Notes

[1] Correspondance du comte Capodistria, président de la Grèce, I (Geneva : Cherbouliez, 1839), p. 265.

[2] See Dimitris Michalopoulos, “The Enlightenment, the Porte and the Greek Church: A Paradox of Balkan History”, in Seyfi Kenan (ed.), The Ottomans and Europe. Travel, Encounter and Interaction (Istanbul: ISAM, 2010), pp. 449-468

[3] Ariadna Camariano-Cioran, Les académies princières de Bucarest et Jassy et leurs professeurs (Salonika : Institute for Balkan Studies, 1974), p. 181.

[4] Cléobule Tsourkas, Les débuts de l’enseignement philosophique et de la libre pensée dans les Balkans. La vie et l’œuvre de Théophile Corydalée (Salonika : Institute for Balkan Studies, 1967²), p. 192.

[5] Ibid., p. 22.

[6] Steven Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity. Translated into Greek by N. K. Paparrodou (Athens: Bergadēs, 1979), p. 489.

[7] Ibid.; C. Tsourkas, Les débuts de l’enseignement philosophique…, p. 195; cf. Ariadna Camariano-Cioran, Les académies princières…, p. 181.

[8] Vasileios Stauridēs, Historia tou Oikoumenikou Patriarcheiou, 1453-sēmeron (= History of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, 1453-today), Salonika: Kyriakidēs Bros, 1987, p. 40.

[9] “Kyrillos I Loukaris” (= Cyril I Lucar), Encyclopedia Papyros-Larousse-Britannica (in Greek), vol. 37^th (Athens: Papyros, 1989), p. 50.

[10] V. Stauridēs, Historia tou Oikoumenikou Patriarcheiou…, p. 49.

[11]“Kyrillos I Loukaris”, Encyclopedia Papyros-Larousse-Britannica, vol. 37^th, p. 50.

[12] Ibid.

[13] V. Stauridēs, Historia tou Oikoumenikou Patriarcheiou…, p. 40.

[14] S. Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity, p. 475ff.

[15] Cl. Tsourkas, Les débuts de l’enseignement philosophique…, pp. 78-80.

[16] Ibid., p.76.

[17] Ibid., p. 103.

[18] N. Iorga, Byzance après Byzance (Bucharest : Association International d’Études du sud-est européen. Comité national roumain, 1971), pp. 212-213; Cl. Tsourkas, Les débuts de l’enseignement philosophique…, p. 173.

[19] Ariadna Camariano-Cioran, Les académies princières…, pp. 363-373, 667.

[20] Dimitris Michalopoulos, Fallmerayer et les Grecs, Istanbul : Isis, 2011.

[21] Archives des Affaires étrangères (Paris [hereafter : AAE]), Mémoires et documents. Grèce, vol. 7 (1830-1862), f. 212r.; D. Michalopoulos, Vie politique en Grèce pendant les années 1862-1869 (Athens : University of Athens/Saripoleion, 1981), pp. 52-55.

[22] AAE, Correspondance politique, Grèce, vol. 85 (novembre-décembre 1862), ff. 46v., 85r., 102v.

[23] Panos Lagdas, Arēs Velouchiōtēs . Ho prōtos tou agōna (=Arēs Velouchiōtēs. The First one in the [Armed Communist] Struggle), vol. I (Athens: Kypselē, 1964), p. 121.

[24] Dēmētrēs Livieratos, Pantelēs Pouliopoulos. Henas dianooumenos epanastatēs (=Pantelēs Pouliopoulos, an Intellectual Revolutionary), Athens: Glaros, 1992, p. 23.

[25] D. Livieratos, Pantelēs Pouliopoulos…, p. 25ff.

[26] Ibid., pp. 27-28.

[27] Ibid., p. 30.

[28] Ibid., p. 35.

[29] Pantelēs Pouliopoulos, Dēmokratikē ē Sosialistikē epanastasē stēn Hellada, Athens, 1966².

[30] Ibid., pp. 181,191.

[31] Dimitris Michalopoulos, « La Roumanie et la Grèce dans la Seconde Guerre mondiale », Revue Roumaine d’Histoire (Bucharest), tome XLIII (2004), pp. 227- 229.

[32] D. Livieratos, Pantelēs Pouliopoulos…, pp. 87-90.

[33] Andreas Papandreou, Democracy at Gunpoint. The Greek Front (Penguin Books, 1973), pp. 68, 70.

[34] Oral testimony by Aikaterinē Anastasiadou, sister of P. Pouliopoulos’ wife (1996).

[35] Orestēs E. Vidalēs, To synchrono geōpolitiko perivallon kai hē ethnikē mas politikē (= The Contemporary Geopolitical Environment and [Greek] national policy), Athens: Hellinikē Euroekdotikē, 1988, p.23ff.

[36] Theophilus C. Prousis, Lord Strangford at the Sublime Porte (1821): The Eastern Crisis (Istanbul: Isis, 2010), p. 38.

[37] Eleutherios Venizelos Papers (Athens), I/35/1, E. Venizelos to the Greek minister at Bucharest (Athens, late in 1914). Published in : Dimitris Michalopoulos, Attitudes parallèles. Éleuthérios Vénisélos et Take Ionescu dans la Grande Guerre (Athens : Historical Institute for Studies on Eleutherios Venizelos and his Era, 2008), pp. 35-36.

[38] Markos Vafeiadēs, Apomnēmoneumata (= Memoirs), vol. I (Athens : Diphros, 1984), p. 44.

[39] Sp. Linardatos, Pōs eftasame stēn 4ē Augoustou (= How did we reach on August 4^th), Athens: Themelio, 1965), pp. 61, 152.

[40] Dionysēs Charitopoulos, Arēs, ho archēgos tōn ataktōn (= Ares, Leader of the Irregulars), vol. I (Athens: Exantas, 1997), p. 71.

[41] P. Lagdas, Arēs Velouchiōtēs…, vol. II (Athens : Kypselē, 1964), pp. 15-21.

[42] D. Charitopoulos, Arēs…, vol. I, 453-454; vol. II (Athens: Exantas, 2004), pp. 249, 260.

[43] Ibid., vol. I, pp. 398-400; vol. II, pp. 53-54, 249.

[44] Ibid., vol. I, p. 400; P. Lagdas, Arēs Velouchiōtēs…, vol. II, pp. 239-240.

[45] Archives of the Foreign Ministry of Greece (hereafter: AYE), Archeion presvy Athanasiou Politē (= Ambassador Athanasius Politēs’ Papers), 9, A. Politēs, Greek ambassador to the Soviet Union, to the Greek Government at Cairo, telegram No. 44, Kuibyshev, February 14, 1943; and telegram No. 123, Kuibyshev, April 8, 1943.

[46] AYE, Archeion presvy Athanasiou Politē, 9, A. Politēs to the Greek Government at Cairo, telegram No. 229, Kuibyshev, May 26, 1943.

[47] AYE, Archeion presvy Athanasiou Politē, 9, A. Politēs to the Greek Government at Cairo, telegram No. 240, Kuibyshev, June 4, 1943.

[48] AYE, Archeion presvy Athanasiou Politē, 10, the Press Office of the Greek Government at Cairo, to A. Politēs, telegram No. 617, Cairo, October I^st, 1944.

[49] AYE, Archeion presvy Athanasiou Politē, 10, the Press Office of the Greek Government at Cairo, to A. Politēs, telegram No. 422, Cairo, October 2, 1944.

[50] AYE, Archeion presvy Athanasiou Politē, 10, “The Prime Minister’s statement on the Moscow talks… Issued by the Press Department of the British Embassy”, Moscow, Saturday, October 28, 1944.

[51] AYE, Archeion presvy Athanasiou Politē, 10, “Prime Minister’s answer in Parliament…to question about incidents in Athens on December 3rd.”

[52] AYE, Archeion presvy Athanasiou Politē, 10, A. Politēs to the Foreign Ministry of Greece, dispatch 1204/E, Moscow, December 4. 1944.

[53] AYE, Archeion presvy Athanasiou Politē, 10, Dēmētrios Pappas, Greek Ambassador in Cairo, to A. Politēs, dispatch No. 6113, Cairo, December 22, 1944.

[54] Ibid.

[55] Sp. V. Markezinēs, Synchronē Politikē Historia tēs Hellados, 1936-1975 (= Political History of Contemporary Greece, 1936-1975), vol. III (Athens: Papyros: 1944), p. 56 (note 40).

[56] N. I. Mertzos, Svarnout. To prodomeno antartiko (= Svarnout. The Betrayed Guerilla), Salonika, 1984⁶, pp. 10-11.

[57] Sp. V. Markezinēs, Synchronē Politikē Historia tēs Hellados…, vol. II (Athens: Papyros, 1994), pp. 38-39.

[58] AYE, Archeion presvy Athanasiou Politē, 11. (A file full of Tass bulletins concerning the situation in Greece.) Oral testimonies recollected by the author of these lines as well.

[59] AYE, Archeion presvy Athanasiou Politē, 11, A.Politēs to the Foreign Ministry of Greece, dispatch No. 1032/C, Moscow, September 17, 1945. (According to the Tass Agency, reliable in that case.)

[60] AYE, 1967, 2.4, “The Middle East Crisis.” Memorandum signed by D. N. Karagiannēs, ref.number GMA35-1368, Athens, August 5, 1967.

[61] AYE, 1967, 5.1, Colonel Iōannēs Sorokos, military attaché of the Greek Embassy in Washington, to the Greek Ambassador to the U.S.A., No. 1312/0009, Washington, D. C., May 10, 1967.

[62] Ibid.; Alexandros Matsas, Greek Ambassador in Washington, D.C., to the Foreign Ministry of Greece, dispatch No. 1674, Washington, D.C., May 19, 1967.

Source: Ab Aeterno no. 13, October-December, 2012.

 

 

---

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/01/crusade-without-the-cross-the-paradox-of-the-greek-left/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/porphyry.jpg

El Magnicidio de Carrero Blanco

El Magnicidio de Carrero Blanco

por Pedro Navarro

Ex: http://www.arbil.org

Cuanto más se profundiza más se tiene la clara sensación de que una mano superior guió aquel conjunto de acciones, anteriores y posteriores al magnicidio, que determinaron el desastroso rumbo que tomó España a partir de él.

Hace un tiempo tuve el gusto de publicar un trabajo sobre el tema en estas mismas páginas (Arbil nº 114: El Asesinato de Carrero Blanco). Por eso, cuando he leído “El Magnicidio de Carrero Blanco”, recientemente publicado por José María Manrique y Matías Ros en la Editorial Akron, he visto confirmada mi tesis de que “el pecado original del actual sistema español fue aquel asesinato”. Este libro, en tamaño de bolsillo (160 páginas), pero no por ello exento de rigor, y, por un módico precio (8 €), facilita al lector medio el acceso a casi todas las informaciones “abiertas” publicadas, así como reveladoras aportaciones originales y un fundamentado análisis de todas ellas. La presentación del libro, con sus 35 ilustraciones y más de 100 notas a pié de página, así como el tipo de letra, le hacen de fácil y cómoda lectura y comprensión. Procurando no caer en la tentación de hacer un resumen del mismo, con lo que les privaría del superior placer de leerlo, voy a tratar de demostrarles mi tesis en base, fundamentalmente, a su contenido.

El pecado original de la actual “democracia española”

Para empezar, a ninguna persona medianamente informada le puede quedar la duda de que con el Almirante Carrero Blanco vivo, la “ejemplar transición democrática” española, como muchas veces se la denomina, hubiera sido francamente distinta de la que fue y, sin duda, mejor. Carrero no había cumplido 70 años cuando fu asesinado en diciembre de 1973 y cabía esperar que su salud le habría permitido continuar en el gobierno hasta la proclamación de la nueva Constitución (lo fue en 1978). Nadie que conozca cuan vergonzosamente se entregó el Sáhara Español a Marruecos por supeditación a los intereses norteamericanos, apenas dos años después del magnicidio, creerá que ello hubiera posible con Carrero Blanco de Presidente del Gobierno; no en vano el Almirante era Subsecretario de la Presidencia de Gobierno cuando la Guerra de Ifni-Sáhara de 1957-58, y supo en primera persona los entresijos de la política marroquí y norteamericana (esta última forzó la creación de las provincias africanas ante el veto, unilateral a España, de empleo del armamento de origen yanqui), por lo que estaba vacunado contra ellas. Lo mismo puede decirse de la aberrante Constitución que nació cinco años del magnicidio, tanto por la ausencia de referencias a Dios (que ha llevado a la casi total degradación moral actual) como por la imposición del suicida e inviable “Estado de las Autonomías”, que está a punto de acabar, económica y físicamente, con España.

Por supuesto, los más de 2.000 muertos del terrorismo (la mayor parte durante los dos lustros que siguieron a su vil asesinato) no se habrían producido, pues habría impulsado medidas de todo tipo para impedirlo (en lugar de amnistías “indiscriminadas” y mano blanda). Por último, sin duda, un episodio tan vergonzoso como el del 23-F de 1981, en el sentido de maniobra de la Corona ante la descomposición del régimen, seguida de la negación de la misma y del abandono posterior de quienes la apoyaron [i] no se habría producido, fundamentalmente porque la descomposición nacional con Carrero de Presidente hubiera sido incomparablemente menor.

Por otra parte, sus profundos catolicismo (en el sentido de justicia social y amor al prójimo) y patriotismo le hubieran llevado, además de a luchar por una Constitución digna de España, a posturas de independencia en política internacional, en relación con el conflicto árabe-israelí (como la adoptada ante la Guerra del Ramadán-Yon Kippur, octubre de 1973, ante las negociaciones de los convenios con los Estados Unidos [ii], en la entrada en el Mercado Común (en 1970 España firmó una acuerdo preferencial en muchos aspectos superior al de 1986 [iii]), y en el programa nuclear y aeroespacial español [iv].

Bueno, todo ello si sus enemigos, que eran y son los de España, la tradicional y única, no hubieran antes acabado con su carácter de Presidente de Gobierno, cosa esta última que fácilmente se podría haber producido, al menos al cabo de algunos años. Está claro que su profundo “junacarlismo” le hubiera hecho obedecer al Rey, normalmente sin oposición, caso de que le hubiera pedido su dimisión con cualquier excusa más o menos creíble; pero también lo está, para mí, que Juan Carlos no se habría atrevido a pedírsela en los primeros años, al menos hasta contar con una situación apropiada; en este sentido es revelador que el ya Rey, en la práctica (Jefe de Estado en funciones), no se atrevió a pedírsela a Arias Navarro cuando éste “con Franco moribundo, le presentó la dimisión dándole una palmadita en las rodillas e instándole a que formara una dictadura militar” [v]

Los etarras: impunidad y apoyos

Sentado el anterior “axioma”, de que Carrero Blanco era incompatible con el programa que alguien se hubiera trazado para conseguir una España como la que hoy desgraciadamente tenemos los españoles, estamos en el buen camino para entender los pormenores del atentado. Como se desprende del libro que comento, los etarras gozaron de una suerte inaudita durante el largo año que deambularon por Madrid preparando el secuestro que luego fue asesinato. Se ha dicho, hasta la saciedad, por los que hoy denominaríamos “voceros de la versión oficial”, que la Policía y los Servicios Secretos fallaron estrepitosamente, a la vez que Carrero era poco menos que un irresponsable suicida que despreciaba su seguridad. Pero lo cierto es que ambas instituciones de aquella “dictadura militar” tenían una eficacia enorme y difícilmente, en aquella sociedad normalmente sana y estructurada, se les escapaba nada. Por otra parte, Carrero, desde que fue nombrado Presidente de Gobierno, medio año antes del atentado, tenía previsto trasladar su residencia a las proximidades de El Pardo, y, desde luego, el detalle de su seguridad era cosa que le debían dar hecho; por ejemplo, la víspera del atentado  Carrero recibió seguridades absolutas a sus pregunta claras a Arias (Ministro de Interior) y a Federico Quintero Morente (Jefe Superior de Policía de Madrid). Recientemente el periódico La Gaceta (Madrid, 17 de enero de 2011) publicó el hallazgo de un nuevo documento, un explícito informe de la Guardia Civil de octubre de 1972 (anterior a los ya conocidos) sobre posibles atentados comunistas contra personalidades del Régimen capaces de ser garantes de la continuidad del mismo. Por su interés, lo trascribo a continuación:

--------------

Origen: ANDORRA – 1

Fecha: 17-10-972

Asunto: PROYECTOS COMUNISTAS DE REALIZAR ATENTADOS CONTRA PERSONALIDADES ESPAÑOLAS

Noticias recogidas en los medios comunistas españoles de Francia señalan que existen proyectos de realizar atentados para eliminar a personalidades destacadas del Régimen actual, con el fin de evitar que a la muerte o sustitución de Francos, lo que consideran ocurrirá a corto plazo, pueden forzar la continuidad del Régimen, y con ella privarles de poder volver a España, sobre lo que se habían hecho ilusiones y concebido esperanzas. Estas medidas parece que se han acordado como consecuencia de la actitud que vienen adoptando determinadas personalidades, que tanto en su comportamiento con en sus apariciones en público vienen haciendo hincapié en que después de la muerte de Franco todo continuará exactamente igual, lo que viene causando entre ellos gran disgusto puesto que tuerce todo los planes del Partido Comunista. Entre las personalidades que ellos consideran promotoras de la idea y capaces de conseguir la continuidad del Régimen, además del Príncipe, a quien se lo han dado todo hecho, señalan al Vicepresidente del Gobierno, verdadero motor del Régimen franquista tantos años, que tiene todos los resortes de poder en sus manos y a quien ven como futuro Jefe de Gobierno y como tal su influencia sobre el Príncipe será decisiva(,) a los falangistas Girón, que ya ha empezado a salir de su madriguera, y a Rodríguez de Valcárcel, como figuras destacadas, sin olvidar al Director de la Guardia Civil, franquista destacado y que por su lealtad a Carrero Blanco, se le trajo expresamente desde Argelia para ponerlo al frente de la Guardia Civil, como brazo ejecutor suyo, desde donde, siguiendo su directrices, desprecia y persigue con saña a los patriotas vascos.

--------------

Es “curioso” como este documento, que habla explícitamente de las relaciones del PC con “atentados” y con los “patriotas vascos”, haya estado desaparecido hasta ahora. Así mismo es de resaltar el certero análisis de la situación política, que cuadra con el “bloqueo” que se hizo posteriormente a Rodríguez de Valcárcel y, especialmente, a Iniesta Cano (Director de la GC).

Volviendo a los etarras, el libro demuestra, hasta donde estas cosas se pueden demostrar desde fuera del sistema, que numerosos etarras se movieron libremente por Madrid durante más de un año, realizando incluso una “Asamblea Nacional”, además de atracos a armerías, a centinelas de Capitanía General, y un largo etcétera en el que se incluían prácticas de tiro diversas por los alrededores, cosas todas ellas que les dejaron a merced de la policía en muchas ocasiones, de las que salieron “milagrosamente” o con inexplicables ayudas.

Por supuesto, también contaron con la ayuda inestimable de numerosos miembros del Partido Comunista, por no decir del mismo PC, incluido su máximo responsable “en el interior” (Sánchez Montero), tanto en información, viajes, alojamientos y “zulos” secretos, y otro largo etcétera; todo ello quedó sumarialmente demostrado con ocasión de las investigaciones del atentado de la Cafetería Rolando.

Otro tópico es el de la ineficacia de los numerosísimos y descoordinados servicios secretos, cargando las tintas en “los fallos” del Servicio de Carrero, el SECED, cuando el mismo no tenía responsabilidades más que en temas de involución, quedando la lucha antiterrorista en manos de la Policía y Guardia Civil, además del, en la práctica, único verdadero servicio secreto nacional digno de tal denominación, el del Alto Estado Mayor. El Servicio “del Alto” era el heredero del SIPM de la Guerra de Liberación, formado por hombres tan eficaces, y luego tan famosos, como el General Díaz Alegría (embajador privado de Juan Carlos en numerosas ocasiones), el entonces Coronel Gutiérrez Mellado (luego omnipotente Vicepresidente del Gobierno durante varios años), y el Capitán José Luis Cortina (de la promoción del rey y amigo personal suyo, fue el famoso controlador de la trama del 23-F, en cuyo juicio hizo las más reveladoras declaraciones sobre el atentado a Carrero, gracias a las cuales salió absuelto).

Las conexiones internacionales

Las investigaciones policiales seguidas, fundamentalmente, como consecuencia del sumario por el atentado etarra en la Cafetería Rolando (calle Correo, Madrid 13 de septiembre de 1974, 12 muertos y 80 heridos) quedó demostrado que el Partido Comunista de España, a través de miembros del mismo como Sánchez Montero, Genoveva Forest, Alfonso Sastre, Lidia Falcón y Antonio Durán, entre otros muchos, venía colaborando desde hacía años con ETA). La excusa de que su presidente, Santiago Carrillo (el responsable del genocidio de Paracuellos del Jarama), se había desmarcado de la URSS abrazando el eurocomunismo y repudiando la violencia, no deja de ser eso, una maniobra política; la Unión Soviética no perdió nunca el control sobre los partidos comunistas de otras naciones, como lo demuestra el “Informe Mitrojin” [vi]

En el libro de Ros y Manrique se apunta como promotor inicial del atentado las actividades de una “ Junta Democrática”, que fue establecida por el PCE en París a comienzos de los años 70, con la adhesión gradual de personajes “independientes”; de su entorno saldría la información que puso a ETA sobre la pista de Carrero. A este respecto, a mí me han llegado fundados rumores de que un ex ministro de Franco, en un viaje privado a París, conoció a un alto cargo de los servicios secretos franceses, quien acabó diciéndole que ellos grabaron, en un hotel de París, una conversación de exiliados españoles; en la misma, Julio Álvarez del Vayo, que luego sería fundador del FRAP (Frente Revolucionario Antifascista Patriota; de tendencia marxista-leninista), y en cuya página web se reconoce que era masón, dijo algo así como que “ para acabar con el régimen hay que matar a Carrero ”, y, ante las dificultades que todos los asistentes (fundamentalmente comunistas y socialistas) ponían, añadió “ pues entonces pongan mil millones de pesetas encima de la mesa para que se haga”.

Además, hay indicios suficientes como para pensar que el atentado inicial, uno de los más perfectos, técnicamente, de la historia moderna, según Stanley G. Payne, fue diseñado por el famoso terrorista comunista Ilich Ramírez, alias Carlos.

Una vez puesto en marcha el dispositivo etarra para el secuestro (luego asesinato) del Presidente del Gobierno, todo parece indicar que la CIA tuvo conocimiento de ello por dos fuentes quizás independientes. La primera habría sido un infiltrado en su dirección, pues no en vano el separatismo vasco de la posguerra española mantuvo importantísimos contactos con los servicios secretos ingleses, primero, y norteamericanos después, llegando estos últimos a crear la “Brigada Rosthchild” de “comandos” vascos durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial; la segunda vía habría sido la mera contravigilancia exterior de la Embajada de EE.UU. en Madrid, la cual habría detectado las labores de vigilancia y seguimiento que los etarras hacían a Carrero Blanco, el cual vivía e iba a misa diaria en un entorno inmediato a la embajada norteamericana (pocas decenas de metros). Este conocimiento permitió el seguimiento y “monitorización” de los etarras casi en tiempo real; en este sentido, los autores aportan la novedad de un testimonio reservado, según el cual se encontraron tres micrófonos, muy bien ocultos, en el piso que normalmente servía de vivienda a los terroristas. Pude ocurrir que, como escribió el famoso y misteriosamente desaparecido González Mata, alias Cisne (importante miembro de la CIA, a la vez que agente secreto español), los norteamericanos avisaran a los servicios secretos militares españoles, los únicos importantes y con competencias y enlaces internacionales.

En este contexto, la tarde antes del asesinato el Almirante estuvo reunido con Henry Kissinger, Secretado de Estado norteamericano. Casualmente, Kissinger también se encontraba en Roma poco antes de que las Brigadas Rojas secuestraran, y posteriormente mataran el 9 de mayo de 1978 a un Aldo Moro, presidente de la Democracia Cristiana pero entonces proclive a un Gobierno con los comunistas; y parece ser que también estuvo reunido con Abdel Nasser en el Cairo poco antes, relativamente, de su asesinato.

 

La CIA bien pudo “dejar hacer” a ETA y manejar voluntades españolas para facilitar el atentado de Madrid.

La luz y el peso de la Historia

Estoy convencido de que la Masonería es muy buena en Inglaterra para Inglaterra, lo malo es que en España sigue siendo muy buena para Inglaterra”, dijo el Generalísimo Franco a Foster Dulles, Secretario de Estado de Estados Unidos (entre 1953 y 1959). Traigo esa cita aquí para ilustrar el peso que esa(s) organización secreta en el magnicidio. En este sentido, los autores citan las siguiente frases de Ricardo de la Cierva: Una organización terrorista iba a ejecutarlo; alguien con mucho poder lo supo y dejó hacer; alguien con mucha información lo supo y lo ocultó deliberadamente;  alguien, quizá el mismo que lo supo y lo ocultó, iluminó a los terroristas; otros se encargaron  de protegerlos evitando que pudieran ser descubiertos (…) ironía trágica: los dos grandes enemigos (de España) que Carrero  señalaba en su “testamento”, el comunismo y la masonería (que hoy llamaríamos mundialismo) serían … el inspirador probable y el inspirador posible de su asesinato La sombra de la masonería no estuvo lejos de los cuatro magnicidios anteriores (Prim en 1871, Cánovas en 1897, Canalejas en 1912 y Dato en 1921) ; la duquesa de Carrero pensó, desde el primer momento, que su esposo había muerto por su hostilidad a la masonería [vii]

Dicho lo anterior, uno de los principales aciertos del libro que comento está en haber tenido en cuenta el axioma de que la historia es luz de nuestros días y, consecuentemente, haber investigado en esa dirección.

Fruto de ello es el estremecedor anexo titulado “El Asunto Gabaldón”, episodio de la inmediatísima posguerra (1939) en el que la masonería deja su huella en una serie de atentados, asesinatos y ajusticiamientos, recogidos en los correspondientes Consejos de Guerra y memorias particulares, en los que aparecen nombres de los servicios secretos nacionales que cobrarán un especial protagonismo a finales de los años setenta del pasado siglo.

España 1973: Muchos traidores y muchos enemigos

“ Sí... sí... él es. Él es el traidor...pero debemos obrar con cautela ”. La frase, referida a Arias Navarro, la pronunció Franco, primero dubitativo y luego desconcertado y algo pasivo, después que Utrera Molina, ex ministro de la vivienda y en 1974 Secretario General del Movimiento, le trajera documentos que demostraban que Arias quería disolver el Movimiento y grabaciones magnetofónicas en las que se oía al entonces Presidente del Gobierno decir: “ ¡Franco es un viejo! Y aquí no hay más cojones que los míos ” [viii] . Arias, como Gutiérrez Mellado, fue miembro del SIMP durante la guerra. Junto a esos sonoros nombres, desfilan por el libro otros en comprometidas situaciones: el general Manuel Díaz Alegría, los coroneles José Antonio Sáenz de Santa María y Gabino Fernández Campo, y un largo etcétera de mandos policiales, de la Guardia Civil, de los servicios secretos y de la política. Todos ellos tendrán en el régimen que se instauró a la muerte de Franco altos honores y responsabilidades, como si una mano superior les hubiera guiado y, posteriormente, premiado.

En el mismo sentido, los supuestos autores materiales del atentado serían amnistiados, dentro del apartado “crímenes de intencionalidad política”, incluso sin haber sido juzgados (requisito imprescindible para la amnistía), lo que desmonta el pretendido afán de “reconciliación y perdón” de una ley, la 46/1977 “de Amnistía”, que curiosamente carece de “exposición de motivos” [ix] . Además, previamente se habían aprobado el Indulto General de 1975 (Decreto 3357) y el Real Decreto Ley 10/1976 Sobre Amnistía, a los que hay que sumar otras disposiciones similares y conexas desde 1945.

Todo ello deja la clara sensación de que una mano superior guió aquel conjunto de acciones, anteriores y posteriores al magnicidio, que determinaron el desastroso rumbo que tomó España a partir de él. Y digo sensación, por no decir certeza, ya que, con ocasión del último aniversario, han florecido múltiples declaraciones al respecto que así lo sostienen, entre las que destaca la de Ángel López Montero al diario El Mundo (21-II-2011); en ellas, abogado defensor del Teniente Coronel Tejero afirmó que él escuchó al Comandante Cortina, el jefe de la Agrupación Operativa de Misiones Especiales (AOME) del CESID, decir por teléfono, desde un improvisado locutorio del lugar donde se celebraba el consejo de guerra contra los implicados en el 23F, a un desconocido interlocutor: «Que no me jodan, que saco hasta lo de Carrero Blanco».

 

“Testimonio de parte”

Lógicamente, les recomiendo la compra del libro, uno de los que merecen leerse y conservarse en toda biblioteca. FICHA TÉCNICA Título:   El magnicidio de Carrero Blanco   Editorial: Akron , León, 2010. http://www.editorialakron.es/cms/index.php Autores:   José María Manrique y Matías Ros     Páginas:   161, con 35 ilustraciones     Precio:   8 euros

·- ·-· -······-·
Pedro Navarro

 

 

i Véase, fundamentalmente, la obra de Jesús Palacios El 23-F, el Rey y su Secreto;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4ZDM_YRutY; http://libros.libertaddigital.com/el-23f-el-rey-y-su-secreto-1276238408.html.

 

ii Ángel Viñas, en Los pactos secretos de Franco con Estados Unidos,recogió la siguiente frase de Carrero con relación a ellos: “Los americanos han resuelto sus problemas, pero nosotros no”.

 

iiiEl camino de España hacia el mercado común;

http://www.diariovasco.com/pg060103/prensa/noticias/Opinion/200601/03/DVA-OPI-347.html

 

iv España, Potencia Nuclear; http://www.democracianacional.org/dn/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2655

 

v Jesús Palacios, Ob. Cit. página 138. El malestar de Juan Carlos “venía desde aquel momento en que, siendo príncipe, Arias se había dirigido a él llamándole niñato”. Palacios reseña también un testimonio manuscrito del General Armada (preceptor del príncipe y clave del 23F), según el cual “Arias se enfadó mucho cuando se enteró (que Juan Carlos había enviado a Díez Alegría a París a entrevistarse con Don Juan, su padre, para que no se opusiera a que se coronara a su hijo) y le presentó al príncipe la dimisión dándole unas palmaditas fuertes en la rodilla”.

 

vi El Mayor del KGB Vasili Mitrojin recopiló material secreto durante 30 años, el cual publicó parcialmente tras su huída del Telón de Acero; http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo_Mitrojin

 

vii De la Cierva, Ricardo. ¿Dónde está el sumario de Carrero Blanco?, Pag. 14; ARC Editores. Madrid. 1996.

 

viii Antonio Ramos Espejo y otros: Crónica de un sueño, 1973-83Memoria de la Transición democrática en Málaga; página 43. C&T Editores, Málaga 2005. http://books.google.es/books?id=eBaBqRoBGCoC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=utrera+molina,+%22Franco+es+un+viejo%22&source=bl&ots=p3OiZ0uZ9A&sig=JfQNDDbrTDEy9CH-ikpWmkg4xvE&hl=es&ei=2_caTf-oL4Sk8QPX84T-BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=utrera%20molina%2C%20%22Franco%20es%20un%20viejo%22&f=false

 

ixLey 46/1977, de 15 de octubre, de amnistía. http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Penal/l46-1977.html

 

America Goes to War

America Goes to War

By Ralph Raico

Mises.org

[Great Wars and Great Leaders: A Libertarian Rebuttal (2010)]

With the onset of war in Europe, hostilities began in the North Atlantic which eventually provided the context — or rather, pretext — for America’s participation. Immediately, questions of the rights of neutrals and belligerents leapt to the fore.

In 1909, an international conference had produced the Declaration of London, a statement of international law as it applied to war at sea. Since it was not ratified by all the signatories, the declaration never came into effect. However, once war started the United States inquired whether the belligerents were willing to abide by its stipulations. The Central Powers agreed, providing the entente did the same. The British agreed, with certain modifications, which effectively negated the declaration.[1] British “modifications” included adding a large number of previously “free” items to the “conditional” contraband list and changing the status of key raw materials — most important of all, food — to “absolute” contraband, allegedly because they could be used by the German army.

The traditional understanding of international law on this point was expounded a decade and a half earlier by the British prime minister, Lord Salisbury:

Foodstuffs, with a hostile destination, can be considered contraband of war only if they are supplies for the enemy’s forces. It is not sufficient that they are capable of being so used; it must be shown that this was in fact their destination at the time of the seizure.[2]

That had also been the historical position of the US government. But in 1914 the British claimed the right to capture food as well as other previously “conditional contraband” destined not only for hostile but even for neutral ports, on the pretense that they would ultimately reach Germany and thus the German army. In reality, the aim was, as Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty candidly admitted, to “starve the whole population — men, women, and children, old and young, wounded and sound — into submission.”[3]

Britain now assumed “practically complete control over all neutral trade,” in “flat violation of international laws.”[4] A strong protest was prepared by State Department lawyers but never sent. Instead, Colonel House and Spring-Rice, the British ambassador, conferred and came up with an alternative. Denying that the new note was even a “formal protest,” the United States politely requested that London reconsider its policy. The British expressed their appreciation for the American viewpoint, and quietly resolved to continue with their violations.[5]

In November 1914, the British Admiralty announced, supposedly in response to the discovery of a German ship unloading mines off the English coast, that henceforth the whole of the North Sea was a “military area,” or war zone, which would be mined, and into which neutral ships proceeded “at their own risk.” The British action was in blatant contravention of international law — including the Declaration of Paris, of 1856, which Britain had signed — among other reasons, because it conspicuously failed to meet the criteria for a legal blockade.[6]

The British moves meant that American commerce with Germany was effectively ended, as the United States became the arsenal of the entente. Bound now by financial as well as sentimental ties to England, much of American big business worked in one way or another for the Allied cause. The house of J.P. Morgan, which volunteered itself as coordinator of supplies for Britain, consulted regularly with the Wilson administration in its financial operations for the entente. The Wall Street Journal and other organs of the business elite were noisily pro-British at every turn, until we were finally brought into the European fray.[7]

The United States refused to join the Scandinavian neutrals in objecting to the closing of the North Sea, nor did it send a protest of its own.[8] However, when, in February, 1915, Germany declared the waters around the British Isles a war zone, in which enemy merchant ships were liable to be destroyed, Berlin was put on notice: if any American vessels or American lives should be lost through U-boat action, Germany would be held to a “strict accountability.”[9]

In March, a British steamship, Falaba, carrying munitions and passengers, was torpedoed, resulting in the death of one American, among others. The ensuing note to Berlin entrenched Wilson’s preposterous doctrine — that the United States had the right and duty to protect Americans sailing on ships flying a belligerent flag. Later, John Bassett Moore, for over 30 years professor of international law at Columbia, long-time member of the Hague Tribunal, and, after the war, a judge at the International Court of Justice, stated of this and of an equally absurd Wilsonian principle:

what most decisively contributed to the involvement of the United States in the war was the assertion of a right to protect belligerent ships on which Americans saw fit to travel and the treatment of armed belligerent merchantmen as peaceful vessels. Both assumptions were contrary to reason and to settled law, and no other professed neutral advanced them.[10]

Wilson had placed America on a direct collision course with Germany.

On May 7, 1915, came the most famous incident in the North Atlantic war. The British liner Lusitaniawas sunk, with the loss of 1,195 lives, including 124 Americans, by far the largest number of American victims of German submarines before our entry into the war.[11] There was outrage in the eastern seaboard press and throughout the American social elite and political class. Wilson was livid. A note was fired off to Berlin, reiterating the principle of “strict accountability,” and concluding, ominously, that Germany

will not expect the Government of the United States to omit any word or any act necessary to the performance of its sacred duty of maintaining the rights of the United States and its citizens and of safeguarding their free exercise and enjoyment.[12]

At this time, the British released the Bryce Report on Belgian atrocities. A work of raw entente propaganda, though profiting from the name of the distinguished English writer, the report underscored the true nature of the unspeakable Hun.[13] Anglophiles everywhere were enraged. The Republican Party establishment raised the ante on Wilson, demanding firmer action. The great majority of Americans, who devoutly wished to avoid war, had no spokesmen within the leadership of either of the major parties. America was beginning to reap the benefits of our divinely appointed “bipartisan foreign policy.”

In their reply to the State Department note, the Germans observed that submarine warfare was a reprisal for the illegal hunger blockade; that the Lusitania was carrying munitions of war; that it was registered as an auxiliary cruiser of the British Navy; that British merchant ships had been directed to ram or fire upon surfacing U-boats; and that the Lusitania had been armed.[14]

Wilson’s secretary of state, William Jennings Bryan, tried to reason with the president: “Germany has a right to prevent contraband going to the Allies, and a ship carrying contraband should not rely upon passengers to protect her from attack — it would be like putting women and children in front of an army.” He reminded Wilson that a proposed American compromise, whereby Britain would allow food into Germany and the Germans would abandon submarine attacks on merchant ships, had been welcomed by Germany but rejected by England. Finally, Bryan blurted out: “Why be shocked by the drowning of a few people, if there is to be no objection to starving a nation?”[15] In June, convinced that the administration was headed for war, Bryan resigned.[16]

The British blockade was taking a heavy toll, and in February 1916, Germany announced that enemy merchant ships, except passenger liners, would be treated as auxiliary cruisers, liable to be attacked without warning. The State Department countered with a declaration that, in the absence of “conclusive evidence of aggressive purpose” in each individual case, armed belligerent merchant ships enjoyed all the immunities of peaceful vessels.[17] Wilson rejected congressional calls at least to issue a warning to Americans traveling on armed merchant ships that they did so at their own risk. During the Mexican civil war, he had cautioned Americans against traveling in Mexico.[18]But now Wilson stubbornly refused.

Attention shifted to the sea war once more when a French passenger ship, the Sussex, bearing no flag or markings, was sunk by a U-boat, and several Americans injured. A harsh American protest elicited the so-called Sussex pledge from a German government anxious to avoid a break: Germany would cease attacking without warning enemy merchant ships found in the war zone. This was made explicitly conditioned, however, on the presumption that “the Government of the United States will now demand and insist that the British Government shall forthwith observe the rules of international law.” In turn, Washington curtly informed the Germans that their own responsibility was “absolute,” in no way contingent on the conduct of any other power.[19] As Borchard and Lage commented:

This persistent refusal of President Wilson to see that there was a relation between the British irregularities and the German submarine warfare is probably the crux of the American involvement. The position taken is obviously unsustainable, for it is a neutral’s duty to hold the scales even and to favor neither side.[20]

But in reality, the American leaders were anything but neutral.

Anglophile does not begin to describe our ambassador to London, Walter Hines Page, who, in his abject eagerness to please his hosts, displayed all the qualities of a good English spaniel. Afterwards, Edward Grey wrote of Page, “From the first he considered that the United States could be brought into the war early on the side of the Allies if the issue were rightly presented to it and a great appeal made by the President.”

“Page’s advice and suggestion were of the greatest value in warning us when to be careful or encouraging us when we could safely be firm.” Grey recalled in particular one incident, when Washington contested the right of the Royal Navy to stop American shipments to neutral ports. Page came to him with the message. “‘I am instructed,’ he said, ‘to read this despatch to you.’ He read and I listened. He then added: ‘I have now read the despatch, but I do not agree with it; let us consider how it should be answered.’” Grey, of course, regarded Page’s conduct as “the highest type of patriotism.”[21]

Page’s attitude was not out of place among his superiors in Washington. In his memoirs, Bryan’s successor as Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, described how, after the Lusitania episode, Britain “continued her policy of tightening the blockade and closing every possible channel by which articles could find their way to Germany,” committing ever more flagrant violations of our neutral rights. In response to State Department notes questioning these policies, the British never gave the slightest satisfaction. They knew they didn’t have to. For, as Lansing confessed:

in dealing with the British Government there was always in my mind the conviction that we would ultimately become an ally of Great Britain and that it would not do, therefore, to let our controversies reach a point where diplomatic correspondence gave place to action.

Once joining the British, “we would presumably wish to adopt some of the policies and practices, which the British adopted,” for then we, too, would be aiming to “destroy the morale of the German people by an economic isolation, which would cause them to lack the very necessaries of life.” With astounding candor, Lansing disclosed that the years-long exchange of notes with Britain had been a sham:

everything was submerged in verbiage. It was done with deliberate purpose. It insured the continuance of the controversies and left the questions unsettled, which was necessary in order to leave this country free to act and even act illegally when it entered the war.[22]

Colonel House, too, was distinctly unneutral. Breaking with all previous American practice, as well as with international law, House maintained that it was the character of the foreign government that must decide which belligerent a “neutral” United States should favor. When in September 1914, the Austrian ambassador complained to House about the British attempt to starve the peoples of Central Europe — “Germany faces famine if the war continues” — House smugly reported the interview to Wilson: “He forgot to add that England is not exercising her power in an objectionable way, for it is controlled by a democracy.”[23]

In their president, Page, Lansing, and House found a man whose heart beat as theirs. Wilson confided to his private secretary his deep belief: “England is fighting our fight and you may well understand that I shall not, in the present state of the world’s affairs, place obstacles in her way.… I will not take any action to embarrass England when she is fighting for her life and the life of the world.”[24]

Meanwhile, Colonel House had discovered a means to put the impending American entry into war to good use — by furthering the cause of democracy and “turning the world into the right paths.” The author of Philip Dru: Administrator revealed his vision to the president who “knew that God had chosen him to do great things.”[25] The ordeal by fire would be a hard one, but “no matter what sacrifices we make, the end will justify them.” After this final battle against the forces of reaction, the United States would join with other democracies to uphold the peace of the world and freedom on both land and sea, forever. To Wilson, House spoke words of seduction: “This is the part I think you are destined to play in this world tragedy, and it is the noblest part that has ever come to a son of man. This country will follow you along such a path, no matter what the cost may be.”[26]

As the British leaders had planned and hoped, the Germans were starving. On January 31, 1917, Germany announced that the next day it would begin unrestricted submarine warfare. Wilson was stunned, but it is difficult to see why. This is what the Germans had been implicitly threatening for years, if nothing was done to end the illegal British blockade.

The United States severed diplomatic relations with Berlin. The president decided that American merchant ships were to be armed and defended by American sailors, thus placing munitions and other contraband sailing to Britain under the protection of the US Navy. When 11 senators, headed by Robert La Follette, filibustered the authorization bill, a livid Wilson denounced them: “A little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their own, have rendered the great Government of the United States helpless and contemptible.” Wilson hesitated to act, however, well aware that the defiant senators represented far more than just themselves.

There were troubling reports — from the standpoint of the war party in Washington — like that from William Durant, head of General Motors. Durant telephoned Colonel House, entreating him to stop the rush to war; he had just returned from the West and met only one man between New York and California who wanted war.[27] But opinion began to shift and gave Wilson the opening he needed. A telegram, sent by Alfred Zimmermann of the German Foreign Office to the Mexican government, had been intercepted by British intelligence and forwarded to Washington. Zimmermann proposed a military alliance with Mexico in case war broke out between the United States and Germany. Mexico was promised the American Southwest, including Texas. The telegram was released to the press.

For the first time backed by popular feeling, Wilson authorized the arming of American merchant ships. In mid-March, a number of freighters entering the declared submarine zone were sunk, and the president called Congress into special session for April 2.

Given his war speech, Woodrow Wilson may be seen as the anti-Washington. George Washington, in his Farewell Address, advised that “the great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible” (emphasis in original). Wilson was also the anti-John Quincy Adams. Adams, author of the Monroe Doctrine, declared that the United States of America “does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” Discarding this whole tradition, Wilson put forward the vision of an America that was entangled in countless political connections with foreign powers and on perpetual patrol for monsters to destroy. Our purpose in going to war was

to fight thus for the ultimate peace of the world and for the liberation of its peoples, the German people included: for the rights of nations great and small and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life and of obedience. The world must be made safe for democracy … [we fight] for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world at last free.[28]

Wilson was answered in the Senate by Robert La Follette, and in the House by the Democratic leader Claude Kitchin, to no avail.[29] In Congress, near-hysteria reigned, as both chambers approved the declaration of war by wide margins. The political class and its associates in the press, the universities, and the pulpits ardently seconded the plunge into world war and the abandonment of the America that was. As for the population at large, it acquiesced, as one historian has remarked, out of general boredom with peace, the habit of obedience to its rulers, and a highly unrealistic notion of the consequences of America’s taking up arms.[30]

Three times in his war message, Wilson referred to the need to fight without passion or vindictiveness — rather a professor’s idea of what waging war entailed. The reality for America would be quite different.

Notes

[1] Charles Callan Tansill, America Goes to War (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1963 [1938]),pp. 135–62.

[2] Ibid., p. 148.

[3] Cited in H.C. Peterson, Propaganda for War: The Campaign against American Neutrality, 1914–1917(Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1939),p. 83. As Lord Devlin put it, the Admiralty’s orders “were clear enough. All food consigned to Germany through neutral ports was to be captured, and all food consigned to Rotterdam was to be presumed consigned to Germany.… The British were determined on the starvation policy, whether or not it was lawful.” Patrick Devlin, Too Proud to Fight: Woodrow Wilson’s Neutrality (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975), pp. 193, 195.

[4] Edwin Borchard and William Pooter Lage, Neutrality for the United States (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1937), p. 61.

[5] Borchard and Lage, Neutrality, pp. 62–72. The US ambassador in London, Walter Hines Page, was already showing his colors. In October, he sent a telegram to the State Department, denouncing any American protests against British interference with neutral rights. “This is not a war in the sense we have hitherto used the word. It is a world-clash of systems of government, a struggle to the extermination of English civilization or of Prussian military autocracy. Precedents have gone to the scrap heap.”

[6] See Ralph Raico, “The Politics of Hunger: A Review,” in Review of Austrian Economics, vol. 3 (1989), p. 254, and the sources cited. The article is included in the present volume.

[7] Tansill, America Goes to War, pp. 132–33: “The Wall Street Journal was never troubled by a policy of ‘editorial neutrality,’ and as the war progressed it lost no opportunity to condemn the Central Powers in the most unmeasured terms.”

[8] Ibid., pp. 177–78.

[9] Robert M. La Follete, the progressive senator from Wisconsin, scathingly exposed Wilson’s double standard in a speech on the Senate floor two days after Wilson’s call for war. It is reprinted in the vital collection, Murray Polner and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., eds., We Who Dared to Say No to War: American Antiwar Writing from 1812 to Now (New York: Basic Books, 2008), pp. 123–32.

[10] H.C. Peterson, Propaganda for War: The Campaign against American Neutrality, 1914–1917 (Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1939),p. 112. Cf. Borchard and Lage, Neutrality, p. 136 (emphasis in original): “there was no precedent or legal warrant for a neutral to protect a belligerent ship from attack by its enemy because it happened to have on board American citizens. The exclusive jurisdiction of the country of the vessel’s flag, to which all on board are subject, is an unchallengeable rule of law.”

[11] On the possible involvement of Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, in the genesis of this disaster, see “Rethinking Churchill,” in the present volume.

[12] Thomas G. Paterson, ed., Major Problems in American Foreign Policy. Documents and Essays, vol. 2, Since 1914, 2nd ed. (Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1978), pp. 30–32.

[13] On the fraudulence of the Bryce Report, see Read, Atrocity Propaganda, pp. 201–08; Peterson,Propaganda for War, pp. 51–70; and Knightley, The First Casualty, pp. 83–84, 107.

[14] Tansill, America Goes to War, p. 323. The German captain of the U-boat that sank the Lusitaniaafterwards pointed out that British captains of merchant ships had already been decorated or given bounties for ramming or attempting to ram surfaced submarines; see also Peterson, Propaganda for War, p. 114.

[15] William Jennings Bryan and Mary Baird Bryan, The Memoirs of William Jennings Bryan (Philadelphia: John C. Winston, 1925), pp. 397–99; Tansill, America Goes to War, pp. 258–59.

[16] To my mind, Bryan’s antiwar position and principled resignation more than make up for his views on evolution, despite H. L. Mencken’s attempted demolition of Bryan in a well-known essay.

[17] Edwin Borchard and William Pooter Lage, Neutrality for the United States (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1937),pp. 122–24. John Bassett Moore was scathing in his denunciation of Wilson’s new doctrine, that an armed merchant ship enjoyed all the rights of an unarmed one. Citing precedents going back to Supreme Court Justice John Marshall, Moore stated that: “By the position actually taken, the United States was committed, while professing to be a neutral, to maintain a belligerent position.” Alex Mathews Arnett, Claude Kitchin and the Wilson War Policies (New York: Russell and Russell, 1971 [1937]), pp. 157–58.

[18] In fact, during the Mexican conflict, Wilson had prohibited outright the shipment of arms to Mexico. As late as August, 1913, he declared: “I shall follow the best practice of nations in this matter of neutrality by forbidding the exportation of arms or munitions of war of any kind from the United States to any part of the Republic of Mexico.” Tansill, America Goes to War, p. 64.

[19] Ibid., pp. 511–15.

[20] Borchard and Lage, Neutrality, p. 168.

[21] Edward Grey, Viscount Grey of Fallodon, Twenty-Five Years. 1892–1916 (New York: Frederick A. Stokes, 1925), pp. 101–02, 108–11.

[22] Robert Lansing, War Memoirs (Indianapolis: Bobbs–Merrill, 1935), pp. 127–28.

[23] Charles Seymour, ed., The Intimate Papers of Colonel House (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1926), vol. 1, p. 323.

[24] Joseph P. Tumulty, Woodrow Wilson as I Know Him (New York: Doubleday, Page, 1921), p. 231. Proofs such as these that our leaders had shamelessly lied in their protestations of neutrality were published in the 1920s and ’30s. This explains the passion of the anti-war movement before the Second World War much better than the imaginary “Nazi sympathies” or “anti-Semitism” nowadays invoked by ignorant interventionist writers. As Susan A. Brewer writes in Why America Fights: Patriotism and War Propaganda from the Philippines to Iraq (New York: Oxford University Press 2009), p. 280, “The Committee on Public Information presented the war as a noble crusade fought for democracy against demonized Germans. Such a portrayal was overturned by unfulfilled war aims overseas, the abuse of civil liberties at home, and revelations of false atrocity propaganda. In the years that followed Americans expressed distrust of government propaganda and military intervention in what they considered to be other people’s wars.” This helps account for the appearance from time to time of debunking works of popular revisionism by authors infuriated by the facts they discovered, such as C. Hartley Grattan, Why We Fought (Indianapolis: Bobbs–Merrill, 1969 [1929]); Walter Millis, Road to War: America 1914–1917 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1935); and later Charles L. Mee, Jr., The End of Order: Versailles 1919 (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1980); and Walter Karp’s invaluable, The Politics of War: The Story of Two Wars which Altered Forever the Political Life of the American Republic (1890–1920) (New York: Harper and Row, 1979).

[25] Walter A. McDougall, Promised Land, Crusader State: The American Encounter with the World since 1776(Boston/New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1997),p. 127.

[26] Seymour, The Intimate Papers of Colonel House, vol. 1, p. 470; vol. 2, p. 92.

[27] Seymour, The Intimate Papers of Colonel House, vol. 2, p. 448.

[28] The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, January 24-April 6, 1917, Arthur S. Link, ed. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1983), vol. 41, pp. 525–27.

[29] See Robert M. La Follette, “Speech on the Declaration of War against Germany,” in Arthur A. Ekirch, Jr., ed., Voices in Dissent: An Anthology of Individualist Thought in the United States (New York: Citadel Press, 1964), pp. 211–22; and Arnett, Claude Kitchin, pp. 227–35.

[30] Otis L. Graham, Jr., The Great Campaigns: Reform and War in America, 1900–1928 (Malabar, Fla.: Robert E. Krieger, 1987), p. 89.

The Best of Ralph Raico

Ralph Raico, Professor Emeritus in European history at Buffalo State College is a senior fellow of the Mises Institute. He is a specialist on the history of liberty, the liberal tradition in Europe, and the relationship between war and the rise of the state. He is the author of The Place of Religion in the Liberal Philosophy of Constant, Tocqueville, and Lord Acton. You can study the history of civilization under his guidance here: MP3-CD and Audio Tape. Send him mail.

Previous article by Ralph Raico: Universal Church, Tiny States, Private Property

Quito y la geopolítica inglesa: 1698-1830

Quito y la geopolítica inglesa: 1698-1830

Una breve aproximación histórica.

 

Por Francisco Núñez Proaño

 

Ex: http://www.arbil.org/

“Los ingleses considerados como pueblo, son tan imprudentes, tan estrechos y tan poco prácticos en cosas políticas como cualquier otra nación. Pero poseen una tradición de confianza, pese a su gusto por los debates y las controversias públicas. La diferencia esta que el inglés es ‘objeto’ de un Gobierno con antiquísimos y triunfantes hábitos” – Oswald Spengler


Quito en el mundo de los siglos XVI Y XVII

Algo más de un lustro después de haber sido fundada San Francisco de Quito trascendió por primera vez al ámbito de las líneas geopolíticas europeas debido al descubrimiento del río más largo y caudaloso de la Tierra[1], llamado inicialmente por “los argonautas de la selva” sus descubridores españoles: “Río San Francisco de Quito” y  finalmente “Río de las Amazonas”.

La expedición que había partido de Guayaquil y Quito en 1541 y llegó a célebre término en la desembocadura del “río-mar” en el Océano Atlántico en 1542.  El conquistador y descubridor Francisco de Orellana firma en Valladolid las capitulaciones conformes con el Príncipe Regente de Castilla, Felipe de Austria, en ausencia de su padre Carlos I de Castilla y V del Sacro Imperio Romano Germánico, quien se encontraba fuera de España tratando sus asuntos europeos, entonces se le conceden los títulos de Adelantado y Capitán General de la Nueva Andalucía a Orellana que sin embargo no pudo ver sus expectativas cumplidas al morir tres años después en las playas Atlánticas del Amazonas que descubriera un 12 de Febrero de 1542[2].

Tuvo que transcurrir casi un siglo para que en 1637-38, el explorador Pedro de Texeira al servicio Felipe III de Portugal y IV de Castilla respectivamente, remontara el curso del Amazonas desde el Atlántico hacia Quito, reconfirmando así la posibilidad y la existencia de comunicación directa entre el Océano Atlántico y el Virreinato del Perú. Conformando así una realidad bi-oceánica de facto para los Reinos americanos con todas las implicaciones geopolíticas de este hecho de por medio. En 1639 la expedición se volvió a realizar desde Quito hacia el Gran Pará por decisión de las autoridades virreinales, pero en esta ocasión Texeira fue acompañado por los jesuitas Cristóbal de Acuña y Andrés de Artieda[3], personas de confianza de la Audiencia de Quito, delegados del Virrey del Perú. Por órdenes superiores Acuña realizaría una importante y mundialmente conocida crónica de esta exploración.

Entre 1542 y 1639 la Monarquía Hispánica tuvo prohibido a sus súbditos penetrar o escribir sobre el gran Río Amazonas.[4] “Oficialmente estaba proscrito describir al Amazonas geográficamente, peor darlo a conocer al mundo, pues, había el temor de que potencias enemigas, que asediaban el subcontinente sudamericano, “invadieran” el río-mar apropiado por España, cuando éste era todavía una maraña inexpugnable y su extensa cuenca fluvial era virgen para el mundo occidental, con la excepción de la incursión de Orellana… Tales potencias eran además Holanda, Inglaterra, Francia y Portugal, las cuales habían recibido ‘concesiones’ de la corona para ‘colonizar’ Guyanas y la desembocadura del río.”[5]

En 1640, Cristóbal de Acuña presentó su relación al Rey Felipe IV de España. Se llama a esta la “crónica breve” donde se incluía un mapa del curso del Amazonas hasta las faldas de los Andes con Quito como cabecera política de la región. Su informe y mapa, fueron prohibidos de publicarse por ser “estratégicamente importantes”[6], como se diría ahora “reserva geopolítica”… “en la jerga de seguridad del Consejo de Indias, los papeles de Acuña eran ‘clasificados’ para las preocupadas autoridades de la corona. Y por ello: ‘hásele mandado no saque a la luz nada, porque los enemigos no emprendan continuar esta navegación y perficcionarla’.”[7]

Debido a estos hechos “Acuña tuvo entonces que volver a escribir una segunda relación, eliminando de aquella los detalles geográficos y estratégicos inconvenientes a la Corona… la orientación de la segunda crónica será amplia y diversificada en secciones y apostillas elegantes. Esta es la crónica oficial, la que ha venido leyendo y conoce el mundo occidental desde los años señalados (1641, 1645). Su ficha es: Nuevo Descubrimiento del Gran río del Amazonas, el año de 1639, por la Provincia de Quito, en el Reyno del Perú. Madrid.”[8] [9]

Esta crónica tendrá tremendas consecuencias geopolíticas para el Imperio Hispánico.

1698: Inglaterra pone sus ojos en Quito.

Geopolíticamente hablando el primer documento público, o uno de los primeros documentos públicos ingleses que hace referencia a Quito[10] es la edición inglesa de 1698 de la crónica de Acuña: Voyages and discoveries in South America. The first up the river of Amazons to Quito in Peru, and back again to Brazil, perform’d at the Command of the King of Spain by Christopher d’ Acugna… Done into English from the Originals… London, printed for S. Buckley, 1698.[11] Aquí se señala acuciosamente:

“Las siguientes relaciones son de los descubrimientos de las partes más ricas del mundo, aún no pobladas por los europeos, y otras que aunque poco conocidas, dignas… por todas las bendiciones de paz, ningunas otras parecen tan encantadoras o rentables que (para) la navegación y el comercio, especialmente para la nación inglesa (el resaltado es mío), cuyo genio es mucho más inclinado a las mejoras en el mar y las plantaciones en el extranjero, las cuales traen gran riqueza al reino, particularmente esas en América, donde los españoles por su mala conducta han dado oportunidades a algunos de sus vecinos para poner una parte de la riqueza y el comercio de esta vasta tierra extensión de tierra. El frecuente saqueo de sus ciudades (poblaciones) y aprovechamiento (sic) de sus barcos por los ingleses, franceses, y los holandeses, puso a Felipe III en la búsqueda de nuevas vías de transporte de los tesoros de Perú, Chile, y (Nueva) Granada hacia España para lo cual [la costa en el Golfo de México es bien conocida tanto como las de Europa] ordenó desde la Corte en Madrid a los gobernadores de Brasil y Perú enviar (una misión) para intentar la navegación del gran río de las Amazonas, allí donde se encontraron (practicable o prácticamente en francés en el original) el oro, plata, y otras mercancías del Perú (la Real Audiencia de Quito incluida) y de países adyacentes que podrían ser enviados hacia el sur (down –sic) por el Pará, donde poner y abordar a los galeones  que se encuentran menos expuestos allí, que en Cartagena, Porto Belo, o Vera Cruz, las averiguaciones (sobre) la boca de ese río son desconocidas y peligrosas a los extraños – extranjeros.”[12] [13]

Esta primordial declaración de los intereses sobre estas regiones “tan encantadoras” y “rentables para la navegación y el comercio, especialmente para la nación inglesa”, demuestra el inicio de un plan estratégico de desestabilización del Imperio Hispánico con el objetivo de sustraer del espacio español americano a las Provincias o Reinos de las Indias Occidentales para beneficio y usufructo de la esfera geoeconómica y comercial inglesa, es decir, para constituir a estas regiones en Estados tributarios de lo que más tarde se denominaría el Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña.

Notable es que en esta misma edición inglesa de la obra del Padre Acuña, se incluya un mapa del norte de la América del Sur: Perú, Quito, Reino de Granada (Kingdom of Granada), Los Quijos, Venezuela, Nueva Andalucía, Guyana, Carabuyanas y Brasil;  con una precisión destacable para la época y  donde el río Amazonas nace en Quito

La delineación geográfica del trazado del mapa se basa indudablemente y como se señala allí mismo en la relación de Acuña. Convirtiendo a Quito un objetivo estratégico inglés,  la llave para las riquezas del Perú que podrían ser transportadas por el Amazonas hacia el Atlántico por el Pará como se menciona en la introducción precitada del libro.

Clara y acertada fue la previsión de las autoridades españolas en prohibir la difusión de los detalles relacionados a la cuenca del río Amazonas, donde los intereses de sus adversarios globales le acarrarían el desmembramiento de sus provincias ultramarinas.

1711: “Una propuesta para humillar a España”.

A comienzos del Siglo XVIII  el atraso de España respecto de Francia e Inglaterra era considerable. En el intento de recuperar la supremacía española, la dinastía real de la Casa de Borbón inició una serie de transformaciones conocidas como reformas borbónicas. En América tales medidas fueron motivo de descontento y estimularon ideas de sedición sobre todo en los sectores afectados por las mismas. Carlos III fue el máximo exponente de esa voluntad de reformas, pretendiendo con estas hacer más eficiente la administración del Estado; liberar el comercio, impulsar la educación y las ciencias, aumentar los tributos, y sobre todo concentrar el poder político en la Corona violentando de esta manera muchos fueros tradicionales de las Españas europeas y americanas[14], generando así una severa crisis económica en el Reino de Quito.

El tramado de la historia nos devela que existieron intereses mucho más poderosos detrás de la crisis a lo largo del continente y en particular en Quito. En un folleto extraño por su poca difusión y perturbador por su alevosía titulado “Una propuesta para humillar a España”, escrito en 1711 en Inglaterra “por una persona de distinción” se menciona un funesto plan para acabar con la Monarquía Católica Hispánica, atacando su principales puntos y centros de poder y comercio, que entonces gravitaban en torno al núcleo continental del Virreinato del Perú, los actuales Ecuador, Perú y Bolivia. Se dice allí de Quito:

“…dada la considerable falta (?) que tienen de estas mercaderías (textiles ingleses), que tanto necesitan el consumo de ellas, aumentaría, porque nuestros productos y tales son irrazonablemente caros (debido a la restricción del libre comercio en ese entonces), por las razones ya mencionadas, y así los pobres y aún los comerciantes, hacen uso de las telas de Quito para sus vestidos y solo los mejores usan géneros y telas inglesas. Pero si de una vez, nosotros podemos fijar nuestro comercio, por el camino que yo propongo (directamente por Buenos Aires y a través del continente hacia el interior, sin tener que pasar por Cádiz), con seguridad, arruinaríamos, en pocos años, la manufactura de Quito (el resaltado es mío).”[15] [16]

Tal como sucedería finalmente hacia finales del siglo XVIII y comienzos del siglo XIX hasta la mal llamada independencia. Irónicamente puedo decir que con sorpresa. Este se conformó entonces como un plan  estratégico británico en 1711 para conquistar las Provincias de España en América.
La apertura del comercio trajo devastadoras consecuencias para Quito y la sierra centro-norte del actual Ecuador. Los paños ingleses introducidos a precios más bajos que los quiteños, significaron la pérdida del mercado del norte del Virreinato del Perú. La necesidad de remitir fondos para la defensa de Cartagena de Indias ocasionó la escasez del circulante. La crisis económica estuvo acompañada de una grave convulsión social ocasionada tanto por las rebeliones indígenas[17], como por la creciente incertidumbre de los barrios, quienes en forma tradicional protestaban contra esta situación al grito de “¡VIVA EL REY! – ¡ABAJO EL MAL GOBIERNO!”, demostrando así que ante todo y más allá del pronunciamiento el Rey era el Rey. Un Rey distante pero benévolo.

El largo siglo XVIII – Plan Maitland-Pitt

Desde la elaboración del plan para humillar a España que como se puede comprobar fehacientemente con los hechos históricos sucedidos desde entonces fue cumplido al pie de la letra hasta la formal secesión de Quito y de las demás Españas americanas respecto de la España europea, transcurrieron 111 años (1711-1822), un largo siglo XVIII decadente por causa de la acción externa de Inglaterra y de la extenuada biología política imperial hispana.

El general escocés Thomas Maitland diseñó en el año 1800 un “Plan para capturar Buenos Aires y Chile y luego emancipar Perú y Quito”, donde se expone como Inglaterra se propone la conquista de la América del Sur. Para 1804 este plan fue adoptado por el Primer Ministro británico William Pitt (el joven). Maitland en despacho a Pitt delimita la acción a ser concretada con estas palabras:

“Estimado Señor: Hace un tiempo tuve el honor de someter a su consideración el borrador de un plan para atacar los asentamientos españoles en el Río de la Plata. Mi objetivo era procurar a Inglaterra un beneficio grande, aunque en cierto modo limitado, abriendo un nuevo y extenso mercado para nuestras manufacturas… que tuviera como objetivo la emancipación de esas inmensas y valiosas posesiones y la apertura de una fuente de permanente e incalculable beneficio para nosotros, resultado de inducir a los habitantes de los nuevos países a abrir sus puertos y recibir nuestras manufacturas, de Gran Bretaña y de la India… Una expedición a Caracas desde las Antillas, y una fuerza enviada a Buenos Aires, podrían realmente proveer la emancipación de los colonos españoles en las posesiones orientales, pero el efecto de tal emancipación, aunque considerable, no podría jamás ser tenido por seguro en las más ricas posesiones de España en la costa del Pacífico, y es menester observar que la razón por la cual los españoles han asignado importancia a sus posesiones orientales es que ellas sirven como defensa para proteger sus más valiosas posesiones occidentales… Por lo tanto, yo concibo que, con vistas a un impacto sobre el conjunto de las posesiones españolas en Sud América, nada de sustancial puede lograrse sin atacar por ambos lados, aproximadamente al mismo tiempo (Nota del autor del artículo: Bolívar y San Martín), con un plan y una coordinación tales que nos permitan reducirlos, por la fuerza si fuera necesario, en todas sus inmensas posesiones sobre el Océano Pacífico.”[18]

¿Y Quito? Pues como señala el nombre del plan, los objetivos son el Perú y Quito:

“… un ataque sobre ambos lados sin conexión o relación entre sí, aun cuando ambos sean exitosos, no nos conduciría a nuestro gran objetivo que es abrir el comercio de toda Sudamérica (en concordancia con el plan de 1711)… La perspectiva de un beneficio inmediato e inmensa riqueza naturalmente inclinará a los participantes en esta operación a dirigir sus miradas, de inmediato, a las ricas provincias de Perú y Quito… Chile se convertiría en un punto desde el cual podríamos dirigir nuestros esfuerzos contra las provincias más ricas… El fin de nuestra empresa sería indudablemente la emancipación de Perú y México [Quito], lo cual solo se podrá mediante la posesión de Chile.”[19]
Así concluye el decisivo documento. La recóndita política exterior inglesa en esta ocasión había de coronar sus aspiraciones con los objetivos cumplidos pocos años más tarde. Simón Bolívar y José de San Martín fueron por lo tanto meros ejecutores de los planes británicos.

La invasión anglo – caribeña.

El capacitado historiador guayaquileño Jaime Rodríguez denominaría acertadamente al proceso de separación e independencia forzada por parte de las tropas bolivarianas como “la conquista del Reino de Quito”. El iluminado y anglófilo Bolívar[20] no tenía la intención de permitir a Quito, ni a Guayaquil, ni a Cuenca decidir sobre sus destinos:

“Los americanos no estaban subyugados por los ‘brutales españoles’: durante la mayor parte del Antiguo Régimen, la Monarquía española no mantuvo un ejército regular en América, y cuando se formó uno tras la Guerra de los Siete Años (1756-1763), la mayoría de los oficiales y soldados eran americanos. La Monarquía española nunca tuvo los recursos para dominar el Nuevo Mundo por la fuerza, especialmente después  de seis años de guerra encarnizada en la Península y de la ocupación francesa de 1808-1814. La lealtad de los pueblos de la región (América) hacia la Monarquía española fue producto de una cultura política compartida y de los lazos sociales y económicos. En el caso específico del Ecuador, es importante situar la ‘revolución de Quito’ en un contexto más amplio y examinar lo que sucedió entre el fracaso de la Junta de Quito a finales de 1812 y la declaración de independencia de Guayaquil, a finales de 1820. En esa época había muy pocos españoles en América. Si el pueblo del Reino de Quito hubiera querido la independencia, podría haberse rebelado mucho antes de 1820. En lugar de ellos, ejércitos venidos de Colombia forzaron a Quito a aceptar su separación de  la Monarquía española y a asumir un estatus secundario dentro de la nueva nación colombiana… irónicamente, la emancipación tuvo como resultado la conquista del Reino de Quito por parte de las fuerzas colombianas”.[21]

Inglaterra como instigadora de la subversión, no solo que permitió el reclutamiento de mercenarios, sino que alentó el mismo; llegaron en cantidades considerables los ingleses para engrosar las filas de los separatistas, completando 720 en 1817, a los que se sumaron nada menos que 5088 incorporados en 1819. Todos estos actuarían taxativamente para la consecución de los fines de sus amos.
Bolívar mandó a Antonio José de Sucre a Guayaquil con 700 soldados para la liberación de la sierra quiteña. Sucre se puso al mando no sólo de los efectivos colombianos, sino también de un contingente de tropas guayaquileñas e inglesas, estas últimas ordenadas en al Batallón Albión bajo el comando de los generales John Illingworth[22]  y Daniel Florencio O’Leary[23] [24]. Una vez que Sucre se instaló en Guayaquil, intentó penetrar la sierra por Alausí, pero fracasó en dos ocasiones. En vista de esa experiencia, cambió de estrategia, incursionando por Cuenca, donde el poder realista había sido restaurado. Con la ayuda de un contingente enviado por San Martín, Sucre derrotó a las tropas realistas acantonadas en Cuenca en febrero de 1822. Las tropas realistas se retiraron a Quito donde estaba su comandante Melchor Aymerich. Luego Sucre avanzó hacía Quito con 3.000 efectivos enfrentándose exitosamente con el ejército realista de Melchor Aymerich en las faldas del Pichincha el 24 de mayo de 1822. Los 3000 mil efectivos que ganaron la Batalla del Pichincha eran mayormente soldados reclutados en Colombia, Venezuela e Inglaterra como correspondía al ejercito multinacional que había armado Bolívar, sin embargo no se encontraban quiteños en el mismo.
Julio Albi explica el siguiente dato fundamental acerca de la batalla de Pichincha:

“El Ejército realista, en la que sería su última batalla en el reino de Quito, estaba formado sobre  todo por americanos. Los jinetes procedían todos del reclutamiento local (criollos y quiteños por tanto). En cuanto a los infantes, el batallón de Tiradores de Cádiz era ‘casi todo de europeos… y los otros Cuerpos españoles o realistas, compuestos de americanos’ ”[25]

Ingleses versus quiteños: Papel destacado en esta batalla fue el protagonizado por el Batallón Albión[26]. Carlos García Arrieche lo refiere así:

“La oportuna y decisiva participación del Albión en Pichincha, en aquel memorable 24 de mayo de 1822, ha quedado perpetuada y reconocida en el fragmento del parte oficial del combate emitido por el general Sucre, donde expresa: ‘Las municiones se estaban agotando… Tres compañías del Aragón, el mejor batallón realista estaban ya a punto de flanquear a los patriotas, cuando llegaron, con el resto del parque, las tres compañías del Albión, con su coronel Mackintosh a la cabeza; y entrando con la bizarría que siempre ha distinguido a este cuerpo, puso en completa derrota a los de Aragón.”[27]
Presagio de un futuro de dominación y coloniaje económico, cultural y cada tanto –cuando lo ameritara- político. La luz que vino del norte arrasó con todo a su paso.

Después de la celebración del triunfo, Sucre presionó al ayuntamiento quiteño para que incorporara al territorio de la Real Audiencia de Quito a la República de Colombia. Aunque algunos miembros de la aristocracia quiteña se resistieron, el ayuntamiento finalmente cumplió con el pedido de Sucre. En junio de 1822, Bolívar entró a Quito después de haber derrotado a efectivos realistas en Pasto.
“Aceptando las exigencias británicas dentro de los rumbos trazados por Bolívar” el 18 de abril de 1825 se firmó entre los plenipotenciarios de Gran Bretaña y la Gran Colombia el Tratado de Amistad, Comercio y Navegación, “que no difiere sustancialmente” de los tratados celebrados ese mismo año por las Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata y Chile, y más tarde por Perú y México con la gran potencia talasocrática. Para cuando el Ecuador se constituyó como un Estado “soberano” separado de la Gran Colombia en 1830, ya tenía normadas sus relaciones exteriores, comerciales y políticas, en condiciones de exclusividad con Inglaterra, aún antes de dotarse de su norma fundamental, de su primera Constitución.[28]

The Aftermath: Colofón del vasallaje. 

Finalmente, la geopolítica inglesa había extendido exitosamente las líneas de sus redes hasta Quito como pretendía desde 1698. El hemisferio americano había sido transferido de Provincias o Reinos de España a Estados tributarios ingleses. Leviatán se había impuesto sobre Behemot y la isla (extra-europea) del creciente interior se enseñoreaba en el creciente exterior de la tierra, en la periferia del mundo desarrollado como se diría hoy.

El general Juan José Flores –venezolano de nacimiento-, primer presidente del Estado del Ecuador (tributario de Inglaterra)  desde mayo de 1830 –sin la denominación de República por entonces-, lo reconocería por decreto con estos términos:

“Juan José Flores, Presidente del Estado del Ecuador, etc. Habiendo tenido noticias oficiales de la muerte de S.M.B. el Rey Jorge IV y deseando dar un testimonio público del gran sentimiento que ha cabido al Gobierno de ese Estado y a todos sus habitantes, por la pérdida de un monarca que ha sido el más firme apoyo de nuestros derechos en la gloriosa contienda de la libertad e independencia de Colombia y que supo estrechar con ella muy leales y francas relaciones de amistad, comercio y navegación.

Decreta:

Art. 1°- Todos los individuos del Ejército y Marina (¿Cuál marina? ¿Los mercenarios y súbditos ingleses como el almirante Illingworth acaso?) llevarán por ocho días consecutivos desde la publicación de este Decreto, el luto prevenido por el Reglamento sobre divisas y uniformes de 20 de julio de 1828. (!)

Art. 2°- Por igual tiempo pondrán todos los empleados públicos un lazo negro en el brazo izquierdo y en particular en el sombrero. (!)

Art. 3°- El Ministro Secretario del Despacho, queda encargado de la ejecución.
Quito, a 28 de Octubre de 1830.

J.J. Flores.”[29]

Con estos rigurosos honores a un monarca británico iniciábamos pomposamente nuestra vida “independiente”.

------------------------
[1] Los más recientes estudios geográficos dan cuenta del Amazonas desde su origen fluvial es el más largo del mundo con 6800 km, seguido por el Nilo con 6756 km.
[2] Salvador Lara, Jorge, Quito y el Emperador Carlos V, Quito, 1958.
[3] Andrés de Artieda, Lector de Teología del colegio de Quito. Desconozco si el Padre Artieda era criollo o no.
[4] Burgos Guevara, Hugo, La crónica prohibida. Cristóbal de Acuña en el Amazonas, Ed. Fonsal, Quito 2005,   pág. 17
[5] Ibídem
[6] Ibídem, pág. 89
[7] Ibídem
[8] Ibdídem, pág. 19 “Adicionalmente debemos mencionar que el Memorial de Acuña, elevado al Real Consejo de Indias el 20 de marzo de 1641, tuvo una primera edición con el título mencionado antes. No quedan ejemplares de esta obra, por lo que ha circulado más la Relación reproducida en la conocida crónica del padre Manuel Rodríguez, El Marañón y el Amazonas, publicada en 1684. Todas las ediciones siguientes, en inglés, francés, portugués, alemán y español, se han basado en la edición de 1684.”
[9] Ibídem, págs. 91-92. Autoridad como Jaime Regan dice de este libro: “De ella quedan muy pocos ejemplares en el mundo, llegándose a cotizar uno de ellos en el mercado de anticuario en USA $10.000 (USD)”. “No se debe confundir esta segunda crónica con la primera, no solo por las implicaciones de deformación histórica, sino porque la primera ha permanecido enclaustrada en Roma, y su identidad ha sido confundida ante la conciencia mundial. La crónica primigenia, escrita por Acuña, reza así: RELACION DEL DESCUBRIMIENTO DEL RÍO DE LAS AMAZONAS OY [sic] RIO DE SAN FRANCO DEL QUITOY DECLARACIÓN DEL MAPA EN DONDE ESTÁ PINTADO. Fue encontrada por Hugo Burgos G. en Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu (Letras Annuas de la Vice provincia de Quito y el Nuevo Reino en los Reynos del Peru 1605-1669, R.et Q. 15I,-9, Folio 274-280). El documento es manuscrito, paleografía jesuítica de comienzos del siglo XVII.”
[10]  Como lo hemos referido: entiéndase que al referirnos a Quito abarcamos a todo el actual territorio de la República del Ecuador, de la entonces Real Audiencia de Quito (que incluía territorios del actual sur de Colombia y norte del Perú) y del conocido Reino de Quito-del denominado Departamento del Sur de la Gran Colombia-. La Audiencia y finalmente Capitanía General de Quito –Sede virreinal de facto con Mourgeon-.
[11] Voyages and discoveries in South America. The first up the river of Amazons to Quito in Peru, and back again to Brazil, perform’d at the Command of the King of Spain by Christopher d’ Acugna… Done into English from the Originals… London, printed for S. Buckley, 1698. Biblioteca de la Academia Nacional de la Historia de la Repúplica Argentina – Buenos Aires.  Se señala en la introducción al mismo: “Accordingly they departed (Father d’ Acugna and Pedro d’ Texeira) from Quito Jan. 16. 1639 and arrived at Para Dec. 12. following. Thence he went into Spain, and presented to the King his Master an –amuse- relation of the said River; which was published at Madrid in 1641, and entitled Nuevo descubrimiento del gran Río de las Amazonas, in 4…”
[12] Ibídem, Introducción, traducción del autor del presente artículo.
[13] Un precedente histórico del denominado eje multimodal Manta-Manaos.
[14] Espinosa Fernández de Córdoba, Carlos, Historia del Ecuador en contexto regional y global, Ed. Lexus, Barcelona – España, 2010., pág. 432.
[15] “Una persona de distinción”, Una propuesta para humillar a España, traducción, advertencia  preliminar y notas del Capitán de Fragata Bernardo N. Rodríguez, Ed. Del Comando en Jefe de la Armada de la República Argentina, Libros e impresos raros, Buenos Aires, 1970, pág. 20
[16] “Curiosamente” esta ruta de “libre comercio” que preveía el folleto citado fue la misma ruta que utilizó José de San Martín para su campaña “libertadora” desde Buenos Aires al Perú y culminada por las huestes de Lavalle en las batallas de Riobamba y Pichincha, campaña que se vería rematada con sendos tratados comerciales con Inglaterra.
[17] El historiador Carlos Espinosa Fernández de Córdoba señala al respecto: “Hay que recordar que la fiebre de sublevaciones indígenas que persistió a lo largo del siglo anterior (siglo XVIII) no constituyó una verdadera amenaza al sistema imperante”, Ob. Cit., pág. 437
[18] En: Terragno, Rodolfo H., Maitland & San Martín, Universidad Nacional de Quilmes – Argentina, 1998; y Diario íntimo de San Martín. Londres 1824. Una misión secreta, Ed. Sudamericana, Buenos Aires, 2009.
[19] En: Terragno, Rodolfo H., Maitland & San Martín, Universidad Nacional de Quilmes – Argentina, 1998; y Diario íntimo de San Martín. Londres 1824. Una misión secreta, Ed. Sudamericana, Buenos Aires, 2009.
[20] Así opinaba el “Libertador” sobre Quito: “… hombres tan malvados e ingratos. Yo creo que le he dicho a Vd., antes de ahora, que los quiteños son los peores colombianos. El hecho es que siempre lo he pensado, y que se necesita un rigor triple que el que se emplearía en otra parte. Los venezolanos son unos santos en comparación de esos malvados. Los quiteños y los peruanos son la misma cosa: viciosos hasta la infamia y bajos hasta el extremo. Los blancos tienen el carácter de los indios, y los indios son todos truchimanes, todos ladrones, todos embusteros, todos falsos, sin ningún principio de moral que los guíe.” Bolívar a Santander, Pativilca, 7 de enero de 1824, en Vicente Lecuna, Cartas del Libertador, Tomo IV, págs. 12-14.
[21] Rodríguez, Jaime, La revolución política durante la época de la independencia -  El Reino de Quito 1808- 1822,Coporación editora nacional, Biblioteca de Historia Volumen N° 20, Quito, 2006,, págs. 35, 36, 37
[22] Illingworth es ancestro de muchos oligarcas ecuatorianos y de algún separatista guayaquileño. Como Jefe de la Escuadra unida del Perú y Colombia, sostuvo el sitio de El Callao y conjuntamente con el general Salom; “tuvo el privilegio” de recibir la capitulación de esa plaza fuerte –el último baluarte del Imperio en la América del Sur- el 21 de enero de 1826.
[23] Representando al gobierno británico asistió a los solemnes actos del traslado de los restos del “Libertador” a Caracas, en 1842 colaborando para que las ceremonias resultasen “dignas” del célebre hombre. Al sugerir en una comunicación al Foreign Office –para quien trabajaba desde 1840 cuando se reincorporó formalmente al servicio de “Su Majestad Británica”- la conveniencia de enviar un navío  de guerra para escoltar al barco que conduciría a La Guaira desde Santa Marta, las cenizas de Bolívar, O’Leary recalcaba: “Ningún gesto podrá satisfacer más a los pueblos de Venezuela y Colombia que esta muestra de respeto a la memoria de un hombre de Estado que en toda su vida pública mostró siempre un sincero deseo de mantener estrechas relaciones con Inglaterra”.
[24] Cabe destacar que muchos de estos ingleses y sus descendientes pasaron a formar parte de la oligarquía plutocrática ecuatoriana, paradigmáticamente representados por la familia Wright, gracias a las propiedades y dineros robados a sus legítimos dueños  por acción y “gracia” del “Libertador” que supo como recompensar a sus mercenarios.
[25] Albi, Julio, Banderas olvidadas- El Ejército realista en América”, Ed. De Cultura Hispánica, Madrid, 1990, pág. 328
[26] García Arrieche, Carlos, Británicos en la Emancipación Ecuatoriana, aparecido en el Boletín de la Academia Nacional de Historia Vol. 59, núm. 127-128, ene-dic. 1976, Quito, pág. 54
[27] Ibídem.
[28] Este Tratado mantendría su plena vigencia hasta cuando se firmó otro de índole similar esta vez  entre el Ecuador ya como República separada y Gran Bretaña durante el gobierno de Diego Noboa.
[29] Homenaje póstumo del Gobierno ecuatoriano, por la memoria de S.M.B. el Rey Jorge IV, de Gran Bretaña en Historia Diplomática de la República del Ecuador del Dr. Jorge W. Villacrés Moscoso, quien señala al respecto: “Entre los actos más significativos y por cierto curiosos, que merecen resaltarse en las relaciones entre nuestro país e Inglaterra, figura el homenaje póstumo, que rindió el Gobierno Ecuatoriano, presidido  por ese entonces por el General Juan José Flores, con motivo de la muerte de S.M.B. el Rey Jorge IV, y lo hizo mediante el decreto correspondiente datado el 28 de octubre de 1830, es decir a los pocos meses de haberse separado el Ecuador de la Gran Colombia y constituídose en estado independiente.”

 

 

Publicado 14th July 2013 por RevistaArbil

Une étude sur les déserteurs des armées alliées pendant la deuxième guerre mondiale

Wolfgang KAUFMANN:

Une étude sur les déserteurs des armées alliées pendant la deuxième guerre mondiale

 

L’historien Charles Glass a examiné le sort des 150.000 déserteurs des armées britanniques et américaines pendant la seconde guerre mondiale

 

En Allemagne, on dresse depuis 1986 des monuments aux déserteurs allemands de la seconde guerre mondiale. En Grande-Bretagne et aux Etats-Unis, personne, jusqu’il y a peu, ne voulait aborder cette thématique historique des déserteurs des armées de la coalition anti-hitlérienne. Charles Glass, ancien correspondant d’ABC pour le Moyen Orient, otage de milices chiites au Liban pendant 67 jours en 1987, vient d’innover en la matière: il a brisé ce tabou de l’histoire contemporaine, en racontant par le menu l’histoire des 50.000 militaires américains et des 100.000 militaires britanniques qui ont déserté leurs unités sur les théâtres d’opération d’Europe et d’Afrique du Nord. Le chiffre de 150.000 hommes est énorme: cela signifie qu’un soldat sur cent a abandonné illégalement son unité.

Chez les Américains, constate Glass, les déserteurs ne peuvent pas être considérés comme des lâches ou des tire-au-flanc; il s’agit souvent de soldats qui se sont avérés des combattants exemplaires et courageux, voir des idéalistes qui ont prouvé leur valeur au front. Ils ont flanché pour les motifs que l’on classe dans la catégorie “SNAFU” (“Situation Normal, All Fucked Up”). Il peut s’agir de beaucoup de choses: ces soldats déserteurs avaient été traités bestialement par leurs supérieurs hiérarchiques incompétents, leur ravitaillement n’arrivait pas à temps, les conditions hygiéniques étaient déplorables; aussi le fait que c’était toujours les mêmes unités qui devaient verser leur sang, alors que personne, dans la hiérarchie militaire, n’estimait nécessaire de les relever et d’envoyer des unités fraîches en première ligne.

Dans une telle situation, on peut comprendre la lassitude des déserteurs surtout que certaines divisions d’infanterie en France et en Italie ont perdu jusqu’à 75% de leurs effectifs. Pour beaucoup de GI’s appartenant à ces unités lourdement éprouvées, il apparaissait normal de déserter ou de refuser d’obéir aux ordres, même face à l’ennemi. Parmi les militaires qui ont réfusé d’obéir, il y avait le Lieutenant Albert C. Homcy, de la 36ème division d’infanterie, qui n’a pas agi pour son bien propre mais pour celui de ses subordonnés. Il a comparu devant le conseil de guerre le 19 octobre 1944 à Docelles, qui l’a condamné à 50 ans de travaux forcés parce qu’il avait refusé d’obéir à un ordre qui lui demandait d’armer et d’envoyer à l’assaut contre les blindés allemands des cuisiniers, des boulangers et des ordonnances sans formation militaire aucune.

Au cours de l’automne 1944, dans l’US Army en Europe, il y avait chaque mois près de 8500 déserteurs ou de cas d’absentéisme de longue durée, également passibles de lourdes sanctions. La situation était similaire chez les Britanniques: depuis l’offensive de Rommel en Afrique du Nord, le nombre de déserteurs dans les unités envoyées dans cette région a augmenté dans des proportions telles que toutes les prisons militaires du Proche Orient étaient pleines à craquer et que le commandant-en-chef Claude Auchinleck envisageait de rétablir la peine de mort pour désertion, ce qui n’a toutefois pas été accepté pour des motifs de politique intérieure (ndt: ou parce que les Chypriotes grecs et turcs ou les Juifs de Palestine avaient été enrôlés de force et en masse dans la 8ème Armée, contre leur volonté?). Les autorités britanniques ont dès lors été forcées d’entourer tous les camps militaires britanniques d’une triple rangée de barbelés pour réduire le nombre de “fuites”.

Le cauchemar du commandement allié et des décideurs politiques de la coalition anti-hitlérienne n’était pas tellement les déserteurs proprement dits, qui plongeaient tout simplement dans la clandestinité et attendaient la fin de la guerre, mais plutôt ceux d’entre eux qui se liguaient en bandes et se donnaient pour activité principale de piller la logistique des alliés et de vendre leur butin au marché noir. La constitution de pareilles bandes a commencé dès le débarquement des troupes anglo-saxonnes en Italie, où les gangs de déserteurs amorcèrent une coopération fructueuse avec la mafia locale. Parmi elles, le “Lane Gang”, dirigé par un simple soldat de 23 ans, Werner Schmeidel, s’est taillé une solide réputation. Ce “gang” a réussi à s’emparer d’une cassette militaire contenant 133.000 dollars en argent liquide. A l’automne 1944, ces attaques perpétrées par les “gangs” a enrayé l’offensive du Général Patton en direction de l’Allemagne: des déserteurs américains et des bandes criminelles françaises avaient attaqué et pillé les véhicules de la logistique amenant vivres et carburants.

La situation la plus dramatique s’observait alors dans le Paris “libéré”, où régnait l’anarchie la plus totale: entre août 1944 et avril 1945, la “Criminal Investigation Branch” de l’armée américaine a ouvert 7912 dossiers concernant des délits importants, dont 3098 cas de pillage de biens militaires américains et 3481 cas de viol ou de meurtre (ou d’assassinat). La plupart de ces dossiers concernaient des soldats américains déserteurs. La situation était analogue en Grande-Bretagne où 40.000 soldats britanniques étaient entrés dans la clandestinité et étaient responsables de 90% des délits commis dans le pays. Pour combattre ce fléau, la justice militaire américaine s’est montrée beaucoup plus sévère que son homologue britannique: de juin 1944 à l’automne 1945, 70 soldats américains ont été exécutés pour avoir commis des délits très graves pendant leur période de désertion. La masse énorme des déserteurs “normaux” était internée dans d’immenses camps comme le “Loire Disciplinary Training Center” où séjournait 4500 condamnés. Ceux-ci y étaient systématiquement humiliés et maltraités. Des cas de décès ont été signalés et attestés car des gardiens ont à leur tour été traduits devant des juridictions militaires. En Angleterre, la chasse aux déserteurs s’est terminée en pantalonnade: ainsi, la police militaire britannique a organisé une gigantesque razzia le 14 décembre 1945, baptisée “Operation Dragnet”. Résultat? Quatre arrestations! Alors qu’à Londres seulement, quelque 20.000 déserteurs devaient se cacher.

Au début de l’année 1945, l’armée américaine se rend compte que la plupart des déserteurs condamnés avaient été de bons soldats qui, vu le stress auquel ils avaient été soumis pendant de trop longues périodes en zones de combat, auraient dû être envoyés en clinique plutôt qu’en détention. Les psychologues entrent alors en scène, ce qui conduit à une révision de la plupart des jugements qui avaient condamné les soldats à des peines entre 15 ans et la perpétuité.

En Grande-Bretagne, il a fallu attendre plus longtemps la réhabilitation des déserteurs malgré la pression de l’opinion publique. Finalement, Churchill a cédé et annoncé une amnistie officielle en février 1953.

Wolfgang KAUFMANN.

(article paru dans “Junge Freiheit”, n°49/2013; http://www.jungefreiheit.de ).

Charles GLASS, The Deserters. A hidden history of World War II, Penguin Press, New York, 2013, 380 pages, ill., 20,40 euro.

1914-1918 l'épuration républicaine

1914-1918 l'épuration républicaine

par Frédéric WINKLER

Ex: http://anti-mythes.blogspot.com

Après le populicide de la révolution, ses horreurs, ses tanneries de peaux humaines et ses déportations, les massacres et les souffrances des ouvriers, le Camp de Conlie, la Commune, le désastre de 1870, arrive la guerre de 1914-1918. Ouvrons la ténébreuse page continuant l’épuration républicaine. En présence de la déformation historique à laquelle nous assistons quotidiennement, il est bon et utile de rappeler que la République en France est le régime le plus inhumain, le plus meurtrier, le plus sanglant de notre histoire. Il a été en même temps le plus ingrat, le plus inique et le plus odieux envers ses combattants et fidèles. Ce régime n'hésita pas à sacrifier inutilement les patriotes, allant même jusqu’à imaginer de brûler leur femmes dans les fours, durant la révolution par furie sanguinaire !!!

Comme la république semble avoir oublié ses alliés dans les milliers de Serbes, venus mourir chez nous. Il n’y a pas si longtemps, c’est à force de bombardements que nous les avons remerciés. La Sainte Russie envoya des forces venues nous rejoindre aussi pour faire face aux prussiens. Le Tsar fut lamentablement abandonné parce que monarque sans doute, par une république agissant contre les trônes. L’Allemagne soutiendra d’ailleurs les révolutionnaires, cassant ainsi le conflit sur le front oriental et ramenant ses forces sur nous… Nous abandonnerons, dans les années qui suivront, nos alliés russes, dans une atroce guerre civile, dont les armées blanches, sauveront l’honneur. La république fit germer la révolution russe par ses idées qui, par l’attrait de fausse liberté d’abord, entraîne les peuples vers les catastrophes les plus sanguinaires. A croire que les peuples n’ont pas de mémoire, cette horreur laissera au monde l’image symbolique de l’innocence du Tsarévitch, comme jadis Louis XVII, et de ses sœurs massacrés, au nom d’une idéologie infernale, créant les pires régimes dictatoriaux, massacrant les peuples, aux ordres cachés de puissances d’argent…

En 1912, nos dirigeants savaient qu'ils allaient engager la France dans une grande guerre. Mais, les élections approchant, ils s'efforçaient de tromper l'opinion publique. Sans entrer dans un quelconque débat idéologique, mais les évènements des Inventaires contre les catholiques, purgeant l’armée d’officiers écartés par religion, l’affaire des Fiches, l’Affaire Dreyfus affaiblissant nos services de renseignement et encore l’armée, permirent à l’Allemagne d’avoir la supériorité sur notre pauvre pays déjà bien affaibli. 1914 c’est la Mobilisation Générale. Dès les premiers jours de la guerre, la France paysanne fut atteinte de plein fouet par cet appel aux armes. Aussitôt la déclaration de guerre, 30 % de la population active masculine est retirée en quelques jours des usines et des champs. Sur les 5 200 000 actifs masculins c’est entre 1 500 000 et 2 millions qui quittent leurs fermes et cela dans les premiers jours du mois d’août, en pleine moisson. On se demande d’ailleurs pourquoi le gouvernement républicain procédait si soudainement à cette « levée en masse » puisque par ailleurs il croyait, comme la plupart des têtes pensantes de l’époque, que le conflit ne durerait que quelques mois. Il faut voir, dans l’improvisation et le désordre qui marquèrent les premiers jours de la Grande Guerre, à la fois l’impéritie et l’incapacité du personnel politique républicain, à l’instar des « grands ancêtres» faisant face 122 ans plus tôt dans la plus complète anarchie aux conflits qu’ils avaient eux-mêmes provoquée.

D’autre part l’influence des idéologies contradictoires secrétées par l’esprit révolutionnaire et démocratique : entre le pseudo-patriotisme jacobin sacrifiant criminellement toute la jeunesse du pays au nom de la « Nation en armes» et un pacifisme humanitaire, vague et utopique, inspirant au gouvernement de la IIIe République l’ordre absurde du recul des armées françaises de 10 km en-deçà de la frontière afin de prouver au monde la volonté pacifique de la France ! N’oublions pas aussi que lors des premiers mois de la guerre, l’équipement du soldat français, était constitué entre-autre d’un simple képi et d’un pantalon rouge garance datant de la fin du XIXème siècle, cela maintenu par la volonté des députés républicains en souvenir des grandes heures de la Révolution… La cavalerie chargeait les lignes ennemis à cheval le sabre au clair, alors qu’en face les Allemands avaient déjà des tenues camouflées, un casque et des mitrailleuses, positionnées en premières lignes, alors que nous y mettions notre infanterie ? Voilà qui en dit long sur le déclin des élites militaires françaises depuis la fin de l’Ancien Régime et les épopées Napoléoniennes, qui d’ailleurs, avaient profités largement des avancées technologiques et de l’armée professionnelle de nos rois.

Les allemands profitèrent, par leurs observateurs, des avancées modernes des conflits mondiaux comme la guerre de Sécession qui terrassa l’Amérique de 1861 à 1865. Nous n’aborderont pas ni les scandales incessants ni l’instabilité de l’Etat républicain, ni l’argent de l’Allemagne soudoyant les journaux français afin d’empêcher tout retour monarchique en France… « Partis pour Berlin la fleur au fusil » et dans le plus complet désordre, les paysans français furent rapidement victimes d’un des plus grands massacre du XXème siècle qui se révèlera particulièrement riche en la matière. En 1918, après quatre ans de furieuses batailles et d’atroces boucheries, 3 millions de paysans sont mobilisés, soit 60% du recensement de 1910 et, quand le 11 novembre 1918, survint l’armistice, il y avait un million et demi de morts, dont 20% de Bretons, désirait-on se débarrasser des fils de chouans ? et d’innombrables blessés et estropiés à vie. Comme l’écrivit Henri Servien dans sa Petite histoire de France : « On peut labourer les friches et reconstruire mais les pertes humaines sont irréparables. Toute une génération ardente et généreuse, une jeunesse d’élite était disparue. Elle ne fut pas remplacée et l’élan du pays fut brisé. »

Car le problème était bien là ! A l’époque des Rois, il n’y avait pas de mobilisation générale. Au Moyen-Âge seul les nobles et les seigneurs avaient le droit de faire la Guerre. Plus tard c’est un système de recrutement dans les campagnes qui permit de grossir les rangs des régiments en fonction des besoins de l’armée. Le paysan avait le choix d’aller se battre ou non. Avec l’arrivé de la république, c’est la conscription qui règne, de 18 à 60 ans, on peut être envoyé à la mort, depuis la fameuse levée en masse des 300 000 hommes en 1793, contre lequel s’était insurgée la Vendée. Du reste, quand on a plus d’homme on mobilise les adolescents comme le fera Napoléon avec ses « Marie-Louise », qui seront décimé à Leipzig ! Anatole France dénonçait lui-même ce système en ces termes : « La honte des républiques et des empires, le crime des crimes sera toujours d’avoir tiré un paysan de la paix doré de ses champs et de sa charrue et de l’avoir enfermé entre les murs d’une caserne pour lui apprendre à tuer un homme »

Ces guerres souvent plus idéologiques qu'utiles coûtèrent sept invasions de plus en plus ruineuses et déchirantes. Seule la période monarchique, qui va de 1815 à 1848, représentait une période de paix et de libération en supprimant le service militaire obligatoire. A part cette transition, la république n’apportait que guerres, luttes civiles et misère… C’est donc au nom de la Liberté et des Droits de l’Homme, que le français de 1914 avait perdu sa liberté d’aller ou de ne pas aller à la guerre ! Les républicains proclamèrent « l’union sacrée » afin d’exiger de la part des opposants politiques de ne plus attaquer la république durant la guerre et d’observer un comportement neutre face au gouvernement. Charles Maurras, leader du mouvement royaliste et nationaliste « l’Action française » acceptera cette union sacrée qu’il qualifiera de « compromis nationaliste ». Ce choix s’avèrera catastrophique car non seulement les royalistes se firent massacrer en première ligne, la république voyant avec satisfaction disparaitre l’élite insurrectionnel royaliste, mais le maintien d’une année de plus dans la guerre révèlera les buts cachés du conflit : la destruction de la monarchie Autrichienne. L’historien Pierre Bécat mit en évidence l’escroquerie de cette union sacrée en rappelant cet épisode : Le ministre Viviani s'écriait : «Tous les réactionnaires se font tuer», et Géraud Richard ami du futur ministre de l'Armement Albert Thomas répondait : « Pendant ce temps nous bourrons de copains toutes les administrations ».

C’est en 1917, que le nouvel empereur, Charles d'Autriche, fit des offres de paix séparée à la France. Le Prince Sixte de Bourbon, qui avait servi d'intermédiaire, a publié, à ce sujet, tout un ouvrage : L'Offre de Paix séparée de l'Autriche, avec deux lettres autographes de l'Empereur et une du Comte Czernin. C'était une occasion inespérée d'arrêter la tuerie, de récupérer nos anciennes provinces, d'en finir avec la domination prussienne et d'en revenir à une ère de paix équilibrée, grâce à l'accord franco-autrichien. Mais l'Autriche était catholique. II fallait donc sauver un Etat protestant. Dans les salons de la Béchellerie, le vieux Rapport disait (v. livre cité) : «...L'Allemagne ne sera pas battue, elle ne peut pas l'être, sa défaite marquerait une régression de l'esprit humain. Songez, le pays de Kant, de Fichte, de Schopenhauer. » Si les poilus avaient su qu'ils faisaient la guerre pour cela !...

Et ce fut dans ces conditions que la République fit massacrer un million d'hommes de plus, pour en arriver à perdre la paix et, par le Traité de Versailles, à jeter les bases d'une nouvelle guerre. Jacques Bainville en fit la prophétie… Tel était l’état d’esprit des dirigeants de la république.

En 1917, il y eut des mutineries. De véritables héros, oui nous disons bien des héros, ont été fusillés, voici dans quelles conditions. On les envoyait à l'attaque, après leur avoir promis une permission. Ils en revenaient après avoir perdu leurs copains et la promesse était oubliée. Il fallait recommencer le lendemain, et puis encore les jours suivants, inlassablement envoyer les maris, les fils, les frères, les cousins et les oncles au carnage. Toujours nos fantassins face aux mitrailleuses allemandes, canons chargés à mitraille et gaz destructeurs qui se régalaient. Charger continuellement, inutilement sous le commandement quelquefois de généraux stupides, comme par une volonté de faire disparaitre le peuple de France dans un déluge de feu. Finalement, les malheureux survivants, voyant que miséricorde se perdait et qu'on se moquait d'eux, se mutinèrent. Clemenceau, dont Daudet disait qu’il était « Un calcul biliaire sculpté dans une tête de mort » et autres complices s'étaient fait la main jadis contre les ouvriers, à Villeneuve-Saint-Georges, à Draveil-Vigneux, on tire sur les ouvriers et la fusillade des viticulteurs à Narbonne en 1907. La république fut le plus antisocial des régimes que la France connut. Quelques poilus de plus ou de moins ne pesaient pas lourd à cette époque. « Je fais la guerre, je fais toujours la guerre », disait Clémenceau le 8 mars 1918 à la tribune de l’Assemblée, pour résumer son jusqu'au-boutisme. Pendant qu’il « faisait la guerre » les poilus eux se faisaient massacrer au front, à moitié enterrés dans l’humidité et la boue, dans la fureur des combats, sous un déluge de feu de sang en affrontant le froid.

Depuis la plus haute antiquité, il n'y a pas de régime au monde qui ait fait massacrer autant d'hommes que les Républiques en France. Aussi bien à l'intérieur qu'à l'extérieur. Lorsque les Spartiates en danger avaient fait appel aux Ilotes, ils ne se comportaient pas plus ignominieusement envers eux que l'on fait les Républiques avec les combattants de la grande guerre. Dans un numéro de cette remarquable publication qu'est «le Touring Club de France», Yvan Christ a décrit «Les Invalides», créées par Louis XIV pour des anciens combattants qui n'étaient, à cette époque-là, que des mercenaires, et que l'on traitait avec mille fois plus d'égards que les Anciens combattants d'aujourd'hui. L’humanité des rois de France était telle, que Louis XV, fut après Fontenoy plébiscité comme grand humaniste européen grâce au fait qu’il fit soigner avec grande attention tous les blessés ennemis, jusqu’à mettre à disposition son propre médecin…

De 1914 à 1919, la république a traité les blessés comme s'ils étaient pis que des galériens. Des boiteux, des blessés de la face, du ventre, des trépanés étaient brutalement renvoyés au front et s'entendaient dire : « Quand vous y serez, vous vous ferez évacuer.» Il fallait des hommes ! Des prisonniers à leur tour passèrent en conseil de guerre, comme étant suspects de s'être rendus. De 1919 à 1940, et même ultérieurement, les blessés de guerre ont été traités comme du bétail. Nombreux sont ceux qui ont été dépouillés au passage de certificats d'origine de blessure ou d'autres pièces qu'ils n'ont pu récupérer. On leur marchande un pourcentage d'invalidité comme un morceau de sucre en temps de disette. De grands blessés, qui traînent leur misère durant plus de cinquante ans, n'ont même pas et n'auront jamais la Légion d'honneur réservée à des chanteurs, banquiers, comiques ou serviteurs du régime...

On se demande ce que penserait Louis XIV qui avait créé les Invalides pour le respect de ses soldats. Et Napoléon pour qui la Légion d'honneur devait récompenser surtout les faits de guerre...

C'est bien en véritables ilotes que la République a transformé ses combattants. Quant à ceux de la guerre de 1914, elle a attendu ce jour fatidique où ils ont tous disparu, pour entamer son hypocrite mascarade d’hommage au centenaire de la Grande Guerre, en cette année 2014.

Mais arrêtons-nous un instant, pensons à la vie que fut celle de tous ceux qui survécurent, handicapés ou non, ne pouvant retrouver les fonctions d’avant le conflit et pensant chaque nuit à leur copains râlant dans les tranchées embouées ou mourant ignorés de tous, abandonnés. Demandez-vous, ce que fut la vie de ces femmes, mères ou épouses, sœurs ou fiancée devant l’attente interminable des portraits et photos. Elles devaient trouver le temps long devant les minutes et les heures interminables défilant avant un retour éventuel ou l’horrible nouvelle. Et toutes celles qui resteront seules à jamais, blessés jusqu’au plus profond d’elles-mêmes devant l’indifférence d’un système qui n’a rien d’humain, puisque bâti sur le sang… Et toutes celles qui attendront des nouvelles qui n’arriveront jamais car nombreux seront disparus tout simplement…

Demain il y aura très certainement de futures guerres à mener car ainsi vont les hommes, et l’histoire de notre pays nous le prouve. Alors il ne tient qu’à nous de ne pas tomber dans le panneau. Ce jour-là, c’est la république qu’il faudra combattre et surtout ne plus commettre l’erreur de la confondre avec la France. Il n’y a pas de régime idéal mais seulement des gouvernements plus humains. Il ne tient qu’à vous de découvrir comment vivaient nos ancêtres afin de comprendre combien la révolution et la république vous a menti. Le règne de l’usure et de l’argent dirige la république aux ordres du nouvel ordre mondial, libérez-vous et brisez vos chaînes. Ouvrez les archives, textes, élections, guildes, contrats, droits corporatifs d’avant 1789 et vous comprendrez que seul un Roi peut être humain…

Notre jour viendra

Frédéric Winkler

http://www.actionroyaliste.com/articles/regard-empirique/1306-1914-2014-un-centenaire-de-trop--

La RDA faisait des affaires avec Pinochet!

La RDA faisait des affaires avec Pinochet!

MUNICH – Après le coup d’Etat militaire de septembre 1973 au Chili contre le gouvernement socialiste d’Allende, la RDA communiste, inféodée alors au bloc soviétique, a manifesté bruyamment sa solidarité avec les victimes de ce putsch et a amorcé une propagande véhémente contre le régime militaire du Général Augusto Pinochet, suivie en cela par toutes les gauches et par les “bobos” de toutes catégories. Le monde soviétique et les médias occidentaux faisaient cause commune, sans jamais démontrer que le régime de Pinochet était un banc d’essai pour l’économie néo-libérale des “Chicago Boys”. La RDA accorde alors l’asile politique à plus de deux mille Chiliens et rompt toutes les relations diplomatiques avec Santiago. Mais cette hostilité, savamment mise en scène selon toutes les règles de l’art de l’agitprop, ne fut qu’un seul côté de la médaille. Un historien contemporain, Georg Dufner, d’origine chilienne mais installé en Allemagne, a examiné attentivement les documents de la STASI (la police politique est-allemande) et a consigné le fruit de ses recherches dans un essai paru dans les très sérieux et très scientifiques “Vierteljahrhefte für Zeitgeschichte”, n°4/2013 (“Cahiers trimestriels d’histoire contemporaine”). Dans ce texte, on peut apprendre que “le gouvernement de la RDA avait décidé de poursuivre son commerce extérieur avec le Chili” car ce pays andin “jouait un rôle tout particulier dans la fourniture de biens d’importation et de matières premières à la RDA”. Pour cette raison, entièrement pragmatique, “l’Etat allemand des ouvriers et paysans” a gardé les meilleures relations économiques avec la junte néo-libérale, en dépit de sa propagande officielle. Dans les années 1974 et 1975, les relations économico-commerciales entre la RDA et le régime de Pinochet ont même connu leur apogée, ce que Berlin-Est cherchait bien entendu à garder secret.

Ces faits, incontournables, montrent que les langage propagandistes et les démonisations sont des discours destinés à berner les gogos. Et que tous les gauchistes, mâles et femelles, qui nous ont bassiné les oreilles dans les années 70 à propos de Pinochet, de ses pompes et de ses oeuvres, étaient bel et bien de profonds imbéciles, des manipulés sans cervelle, dont les héritiers actuels sont encore de plus grosses andouilles, plus lourdauds encore quand ils énoncent leurs “vérités” de gauche ou leurs nouvelles “vérités”, cette fois habillées de sottises néo-libérales.

Source: “Junge Freiheit”, Berlin, n°49/2013; http://www.jungefreiheit.de . Pour le travail de l’historien Georg Dufner, voir http://www.ifz-muenchen.de ).

Maurras, inlassable avocat des langues régionales

Maurras, inlassable avocat des langues régionales

 

Ex: http://anti-mythes.blogspot.com

 

 

De ses tout premiers engagements de jeunesse, Maurras a-t-il conservé l’idée que décentralisation et défense des langues régionales vont de pair ? C’est une hypothèse naturelle, tant la chose allait de soi dans la Déclaration des jeunes félibres fédéralistes de 1892. Mais ce n’est qu’une hypothèse, qu’il faudrait étayer par des études sérieuses qui, à notre connaissance, n’existent pas.

Lorsque Maurras construit son corpus doctrinal sur la République centralisatrice, les problématiques linguistiques n’y figurent pas en première ligne, ne serait-ce que parce tous les territoires ne sont pas concernés, ou pas également concernés. On pourrait dès lors formuler l’hypothèse inverse : le combat de Maurras pour la décentralisation, qui a donné lieu à un nombre considérable d’écrits, et son combat pour la langue et la culture provençales, accessoirement pour le breton ou l’alsacien, ont été menés quasi indépendamment l’un de l’autre, avec des rencontres qui ne sont que fortuites.

 

Pourquoi se poser cette question ? Simplement parce que l’ouvrage de synthèse que Maurras consacre aux langues régionales et à leur enseignement, Jarres de Biot, date de 1951, soit un an avant sa mort, alors que son équivalent L’Idée de la décentralisation a été composé en 1898.

 

Un élément de réponse se trouve peut-être dans l’observation du comportement du pays légal. Tout député, même le plus pénétré d’idéologie jacobine, sera un jour en butte au pouvoir d’un préfet et en tirera la conclusion que, s’il avait été libre de ses mouvements et de ses décisions, les choses seraient allé mieux et plus vite. Il y a donc chez chaque élu un décentralisateur qui sommeille et, lorsqu’il est dans l’opposition, il trouvera aisément matière à faire une proposition en ce sens. Dans L’Idée de la décentralisation, Maurras dresse l’impressionnante liste de ces joutes parlementaires, analysées avec minutie, et nul doute qu’il a continué à les suivre avec attention tout le restant à vivre de la III^e République. Le scénario en a toujours été le même ; le parti au pouvoir enterre le projet, quelle que soit sa couleur, et c’est l’un des siens qui en représentera un autre semblable lorsque le gouvernement sera renversé, ce qui était fréquent à l’époque.

 

Les propositions en faveur des langues régionales, également récurrentes et également toujours retoquées, n’obéissaient pas à la même logique. Elles n’étaient présentées que par des élus des régions concernées, Bretons, Basques, Catalans… qui pouvaient également être décentralisateurs, mais qui souvent ne l’étaient pas. Maurras eut d’ailleurs très tôt affaire à certains dirigeants du Félibrige qui étaient de farouches jacobins. Ceci l’a sans doute amené à faire la part des choses.

 

Jarres de Biot, que nous publions aujourd’hui et qui n’a été tiré à l’époque qu’en édition de luxe à 500 exemplaires, est sans doute, avec Le Mont de Saturne qui est d’un tout autre genre, le plus achevé, le plus documenté, le mieux argumenté des textes écrits par le Maurras d’après guerre.

 

Sa publication fait suite à des polémiques qui se sont déroulées en 1950 pendant la discussion de la première loi républicaine sur l’enseignement des langues régionales, dite « loi Deixonne ». L’un des principaux adversaires de cette mesure fut l’académicien Georges Duhamel qui sonna le tocsin dans plusieurs articles du Figaro. Jarres de Biot est en fait la réponse de Maurras aux articles de Georges Duhamel ; il n’évoque pas la loi Deixonne en tant que telle.

Il n’est pas inutile de resituer ces événements dans leur contexte. Tout a commencé par l’initiative de deux députés communistes bretons, Pierre Hervé et l’aïeul Marcel Cachin. Ceux-ci exhument une proposition de loi déposée avant guerre par un député démocrate-chrétien nommé Trémintin, laquelle concernait l’enseignement de la langue bretonne à l’école primaire. Ils la rajeunissent quelque peu et la déposent, le 16 mai 1947. Mais juste avant, le 5 mai, le gouvernement Ramadier se sépare des ministres communistes ; c’est le début de la guerre froide en France. La bataille pour la langue bretonne commence donc dans un climat d’affrontement violent qui lui confère un enjeu inattendu ; rapidement, le MRP s’y associe, ce qui met les socialistes en minorité. Ceux-ci tiennent certes le gouvernement, mais sur ce point précis ils doivent composer et finissent par nommer un de leurs, Maurice Deixonne, rapporteur du projet de loi, avec mission occulte de le saboter autant que possible.

 

Deixonne est un gros bosseur, qui de son propre aveu ne connaît rien au sujet, et qui de plus a sans doute quelques fréquentations ultra-pacifistes d’avant guerre à se faire pardonner, la plupart de ses amis d’alors ayant fini dans la collaboration. C’est un orphelin qui s’est fait lui-même à coup de brillantes études ; mais dès la fin des années 1920 il interrompt sa carrière universitaire pour s’engager au parti socialiste. Sa puissance de travail impressionne ; d’ailleurs sa la loi sur les langues régionales, qui porte son nom, ne figure même pas dans sa biographie de l’Assemblée, tant il y a fait d’autres choses depuis jugées plus importantes…

 

Il s’attelle à la tâche et finalement, contre toute attente, réussit à finaliser un texte consensuel qui sera adopté par l’Assemblée le 30 décembre 1949.

 

Entre temps il sera parvenu à faire la jonction avec les députés catalans, puis à intégrer le basque et l’occitan, terme préféré après de longues escarmouches à ceux de provençal ou de langue d’oc. Il aura ainsi pratiquement reconstitué le contenu de la circulaire Carcopino de décembre 1941, qui par la force des choses ne concernait ni le flamand, ni l’alsacien, ni le lorrain, et qui a été abolie à la Libération.

Il reste alors, ainsi fonctionnait la quatrième République, à faire adopter le texte par le Conseil des ministres. Cela durera toute l’année 1950, jusqu’à promulgation de la loi le 11 janvier 1951. Cette année 1950 verra la polémique gagner la presse, l’Académie Française et tout le monde enseignant, avec d’un côté une alliance de fait entre communistes et MRP, auxquels on peut joindre l’Action française, et de l’autre les jacobins de tout bord, dénonçant les risques épouvantables qu’une heure facultative de langue bretonne à l’école fera immanquablement courir à l’unité française.

Le texte final de la loi est plus que modeste. Les mots « facultatif », « dans la mesure du possible », reviennent sans cesse. Le ton à l’égard des langues concernées est volontiers condescendant : il est question de « richesse du folklore et des arts populaires » ; rien de bien subversif, et cependant cela a conduit Georges Duhamel à pousser des cris d’orfraie au long de cinq éditoriaux d’avril et de mai 1950. Avec au moins une conséquence heureuse,celle d’avoir incité Maurras à écrire ce qu’il avait sur le cœur, sans doute depuis cinquante ans et plus.

Il y a eu deux éditions de Jarres de Biot, comportant en plus du texte lui-même des illustrations et des poèmes. Nous avons noté les variantes entre les deux éditions, et reproduit l’ensemble des illustrations. Nous publierons en revanche les poèmes à part, dans un autre cadre, car ils n’ont aucun rapport avec la loi Deixonne ni avec Georges Duhamel.

http://maurras.net/2013/03/02/maurras-inlassable-avocat-des-langues-regionales/#more-1901

La poudrière des Balkans

La poudrière des Balkans...

La Nouvelle Revue d'Histoire est en kiosque (n° 70, janvier - février 2014).

Le dossier central est consacré aux Balkans comme zone de déchirement et de conflit tout au long du XXe siècle. On peut y lire, notamment,  des articles de Philippe Conrad ("Histoire des Balkans" ; "1914-1915, la Serbie dans la guerre"), de Tancrède Josseran ("Les guerres balkaniques de 1912-1913"), de Gérard Hocmard ("Les conflits balkaniques et la politique britannique"), de Rémy Porte ("L'Armée d'Orient 1915-1919"), d'Yves Morel ("L'échec du royaume yougoslave") de Martin Benoist ("L’État oustachi de Croatie"), de Frédéric Le Moal ("Le combat perdu des tchetniks"), de Thierry Buron ("Churchill et les résistances yougoslave et grecque") et de Alexis Troude ("Yougoslavie : une désintégration programmée").

Hors dossier, on pourra lire, en particulier, un entretien avec le général, et historien,  André Bach ("Commémoration du centenaire de 1914") ainsi que des articles d'Emma Demeester ("Gaston d'Orléans, un adversaire de Richelieu"), de Rémi Soulier ("Michel de Nostredame, un médecin des âmes"), de Jean Kappel ("L'aventure française au Sahara"), de Pierre de Meuse ("Quand la France était en Syrie"), d'André Cubzac ("L’avènement et le triomphe du marché") et d'Yves Nantillé ("Le septennat de Giscard d'Estaing").

 

La Démocratie au Moyen Âge !

by Morpheus

 

Ex: http://www.cercledesvolontaires.fr

 

En dépit de la vague romantique qui, au XIXe siècle, va entreprendre une réhabilitation partielle et souvent mythique du récit « historique » de cette longue époque (un millénaire) que les érudits de la renaissance ont reléguée au rang de « moyen-âge », l’imagerie commune en garde encore des idées complètement fausses : le moyen-âge, pour beaucoup, c’est l’époque où le petit peuple, ignorant et analphabète, est soumis au diktat implacable d’un ordre politique militaire monarchique, et d’un ordre spirituel clérical séculaire et dogmatique ; c’est l’époque des seigneurs, de l’inquisition, des sorcières et des bûchers ; c’est l’époque des guerres incessantes, des croisades sanglantes et de la peste ; en résumé, le moyen-âge serait une époque obscure, sombre, « gothique ». Voici ce que nous en dit Michel FRAGONARD :

« (…) l’histoire représente, au XIXe siècle, un enjeu « politique » essentiel (en témoigne d’ailleurs l’attention des gouvernements, dont l’action d’un Guizot, lui-même historien, est le meilleur exemple) : sa promotion est inséparable de l’affirmation du sentiment national, fruit à la fois de la Révolution française et des courants romantiques allemands ; et l’un des enjeux essentiels est la question des origines nationales. On comprend alors l’intérêt des historiens, initiateurs et propagateurs de cette conscience nationale, pour le Moyen Age, aux fondements de la nation. Intérêt non dépourvu de considérations idéologiques : au moment où, en France, conscience nationale et aspiration démocratique sont intimement liées dans une mystique du « peuple » (notion combien ambiguë), l’œuvre d’Augustin Thierry (Récits des temps mérovingiens, Essais sur la formation et les progrès de l’histoire du Tiers État) est sous-tendue par une thèse historico-ethnique (les origines proprement « gauloises » du peuple français, à contre-pied d’une historiographie « aristocratique » insistant sur les origines franques). Dans cette quête historique d’un Moyen Age où se trouvent les sources de la nation, l’exemple le plus illustre, en France, est celui de Michelet, qui consacre six volumes de sa monumentale Histoire de France (inachevée) au Moyen Age et qui, dans ses autres ouvrages, revient régulièrement sur la période (voir la Sorcière). »

Il nous suffit de voir à quoi ressemble ce mouvement culturel « gothique » né dans les années 1990, qui mêle à la fois l’imagerie mythique de ce moyen-âge du XIXe siècle et les idées les plus noires que le quidam se fait de cette ère. Vêtus et maquillé de noir ou de sombre, visages tristes ou désespérés, véhicules « morts-vivants » d’un romantisme lui-même sombre, noir et désenchanté.

Que dire alors de l’idée que l’on se fait au sujet de la politique au moyen-âge ? A l’évocation d’une démocratie au moyen-âge, la plupart vont faire les yeux ronds et se dire « mais de quoi parle-t-il ? ». Moyen-âge et démocratie sont deux termes que la plupart considèrent antinomiques. Or, la réalité est bien différente. La démocratie était plus vivace durant la majeure partie du moyen-âge et de la renaissance, qu’elle ne le fut depuis la Révolution. En fait, c’est la Révolution qui va éteindre un ensemble de pratiques démocratiques populaires qui perdurera jusqu’au XVIIIe siècle.

Ce que je découvre, en parcourant l’excellent livre de Francis Dupuis-Déri « Démocratie. Histoire politique d’un mot aux États-Unis et en France », est entre autre une déconstruction radicale de ce moyen-âge obscurantiste que l’élite contre révolutionnaire et le « siècle des Lumières » a durablement imprimé dans nos esprits. Permettez-moi de partager avec vous les quelques passages de ce livre qui nous éclairent sur cette activité démocratique vivace au moyen-âge.

« Au Moyen Age et pendant la Renaissance européenne, des milliers de villages disposaient d’une assemblée d’habitants où se prenaient en commun les décisions au sujet de la collectivité. Les « communautés d’habitants », qui disposaient même d’un statut juridique, ont fonctionné sur le mode de l’autogestion pendant des siècles. Les rois et les nobles se contentaient de gérer les affaires liées à la guerre ou à leurs domaines privés, d’administrer la justice et de mobiliser leurs sujets par des corvées. Les autorités monarchiques ou aristocratiques ne s’ingéraient pas dans les affaires de la communauté, qui se réunissait en assemblée pour délibérer au sujet d’enjeux politiques, communaux, financiers, judiciaires et paroissiaux[1]. »

Voilà déjà qui tranche avec les images d’une monarchie omnipotente et omniprésente, gérant, en collaboration avec l’Église, tous les faits et gestes de leurs sujets. En réalité, l’aristocratie nobiliaire avait bien d’autres chats à fouetter que de s’occuper des affaires du peuple, et elle laissait donc volontiers à ses gens le soin de s’occuper de leurs propres affaires. Le peuple disposait donc de fait d’une large autonomie, autrement plus grande que nous n’en disposons actuellement sous le régime prétendument représentatif. Et cette autonomie s’étendait sur des domaines importants et essentiels, comme nous allons le voir.

« On discutait ainsi des moissons, du partage de la récolte commune ou de sa mise en vente, de la coupe de bois en terre communale, de la réfection des ponts, puits et moulins, de l’embauche de l’instituteur, des bergers, de l’horloger, des gardes-forestiers, parfois même du curé, des gardiens lorsque sévissaient les brigands, les loups ou les épidémies. On y désignait ceux qui serviraient dans la milice, on débattait de l’obligation d’héberger la troupe royale ou de l’utilité de dépêcher un notable pour aller soumettre à la cour des doléances au nom de la communauté. »

Imaginez que, dans votre ville ou votre commune, de nos jours, vous puissiez, par le biais d’une assemblée communale publique, décider en commun de la répartition de la récolte commune ou de sa mise en vente (alors qu’aujourd’hui, les paysans – souvent les « serfs » modernes de l’industrie agro-alimentaire – se voient imposer leur cotât de production, les prix de vente, le cahier des charges et jusqu’aux semences qu’ils peuvent utiliser), la réfections ou l’édification des ouvrages d’art (routes, voiries communales, ponts, éoliennes, barrages, écluses, etc.), de qui, parmi les habitants, servira dans la police municipale (qui est maintenant un corps centralisé au service de l’Etat, et non du peuple). Impensable, n’est-ce pas ? Pourtant, les assemblées d’habitants étaient dynamiques.

« Il y avait environ dix assemblées par an, parfois une quinzaine. Elles se déroulaient sous les arbres (le chêne), au cimetière, devant ou dans l’église, ou encore dans un champ. Bref, dans un lieu public, car il était interdit de tenir l’assemblée dans un lieu privé, pour éviter les magouilles. Une étude statistique de quelque 1500 procès-verbaux indique que ces assemblées comptaient en moyenne 27 participants, soit une représentation d’environ 60% des foyers des communautés, et pouvaient même accueillir jusqu’à quelques centaines d’individus, dont 10 à 20% de femmes. Mais à l’époque, dix personnes suffisaient pour former « un peuple » et tenir une assemblée. La participation à l’assemblée était obligatoire et une amende était imposée aux absents quand l’enjeu était important. Un quorum des deux tiers devait alors être respecté pour que la décision collective soit valide, par exemple celle d’aliéner une partie des biens communs de la communauté (bois ou pâturage). Il était si important que la communauté s’exprime que même lorsque la peste a frappé dans la région de Nîmes, en 1649, l’assemblée a été convoquée dans la campagne sur les deux rives d’une rivière, pour permettre de réunir à la fois les personnes ayant fui la ville et celles qui y étaient restées. En général, le vote était rapide, à main levée, par acclamation ou selon le système des « ballote » distinguant les « pour » des « contre » par des boules noires et blanches. Lorsque la décision était importante, les noms des personnes votantes étaient portés au procès-verbal. »

Ainsi, le peuple, au moyen-âge, parvenait à s’autogérer sur tout un ensemble de domaines considérés non comme « privés », mais comme publiques, car à l’inverse de nous, les « modernes » atomisés par une culture du chacun pour soi (la culture individualiste que nous devons à l’origine aux physiocrates du XVIIIe siècle et à leurs successeurs libéraux et capitalistes du XIXe et du XXe siècle), nos ancêtres « médiévaux » avaient conscience de l’interdépendance mutuelle dans laquelle ils étaient, et la majeure partie des ressources produites par la terre étaient considérées comme un ensemble de richesses communes, non comme des richesses privées. Cela n’empêchait pas le commerce, l’artisanat, ni même une certaine forme d’industrie. Ils parvenaient, en dépit de leurs intérêts individuels, à s’entendre et à gérer eux-mêmes ces ressources en commun, chose qui nous semblent aujourd’hui hors de portée – il suffit, pour s’en convaincre, de voir les commentaires récurrents qui décrient l’apathie populaire et considère, aujourd’hui, la masse comme incapable de débattre et de décider communément de ses propres intérêts. Ainsi, il serait impossible aux hommes « modernes » de ce XXIe siècle de faire ce que les paysans « incultes » du moyen-âge faisaient couramment ? Si cela est vrai, pouvons-nous encore parler de « progrès de la modernité » ? Ne devrions-nous pas plutôt faire le terrible constat de la régression imposée par cette « modernité » ?

« La démocratie médiévale, bien vivante alors, mais aujourd’hui si méconnue, permettait au peuple de traverser de longs mois sans contact direct avec des représentants de la monarchie, une institution qui offrait finalement très peu de services à sa population composée de sujets, non de citoyens. En d’autres termes : un territoire et une population pouvaient être soumis à plusieurs types de régimes politiques simultanément, soit un régime autoritaire (monarchie pour le royaume, aristocratie pour la région) et un régime égalitaire (démocratie locale ou professionnelle). »

 

 

On rêverait, de nos jours, de disposer de cette autonomie et de ce régime égalitaire, rien qu’au niveau local de nos villes ou de nos communes. Or, même cela nous est refusé, et cette simple idée fait se dresser un mur de défit et de mépris qui, au moyen-âge ou à la renaissance, aurait donné lieu à une « jacquerie », une révolte justifiée du peuple contre l’oppression d’un pouvoir par trop dictatorial et jugé tyrannique. En Espagne, les autorités gouvernementales ont mis leurs institutions judiciaires en marche pour détruire cette expérience unique d’autogestion réussie dans la petite ville andalouse de Marinaleda, dont le succès jette une lumière crue sur l’échec de la politique libérale nationale. Décidément, les « élites » libérales, de gauche comme de droite, n’aiment pas la démocratie, et ils le montrent de façon brutale. Cet événement récent montre ce qui se produisit à la Révolution et qui signa durablement le glas de l’expérience démocratique populaire.

« Les communautés d’habitants et les guildes de métiers perdent peu à peu de leur autonomie politique non pas en raison d’un dysfonctionnement de leurs pratiques démocratiques, qui se poursuivent dans certains cas jusqu’au XVIIIe siècle, mais plutôt en raison de la montée en puissance de l’État, de plus en plus autoritaire et centralisateur. [...] Or, si la démocratie locale peut bien s’accommoder d’un roi et même l’honorer, c’est dans la mesure où il se contente de rendre justice et de vivre surtout des revenus de ses domaines. De nouveaux prélèvements fiscaux et l’élargissement de la conscription militaire sont perçus dans les communautés comme le résultat de mauvaises décisions du roi ou de ses conseillers, et comme une transgression inacceptable et révoltante des coutumes et des droits acquis. L’assemblée d’habitants est alors un espace où s’organise la résistance face à cette montée en puissance de l’État. »

Voilà ce que l’élite contre-révolutionnaire – les « patriotes » et les « pères fondateurs » du XVIIIe siècle, ont très bien compris, et voilà pourquoi ils se sont attaché à décrier cette population agissante. Jugeons donc de cette sentence de ce procureur de la république qui este contre Babeuf dans un procès en trahison – et l’accuse par ailleurs d’être un « anarchiste » :

« Qui oserait calculer tous les terribles effets de la chute de cette masse effrayante de prolétaires, multipliée par la débauche, par la fainéantise, par toutes les passions, et par tous les vices qui pullulent dans une nation corrompue, se précipitant tout à coup sur la classe des propriétaires et des citoyens sages, industrieux et économes ? Quel horrible bouleversement que l’anéantissement de ce droit de propriété, base universelle et principale d’ordre social ! Plus de propriété ! Que deviennent à l’instant les arts ? Que devient l’industrie ?[2] »

Que voulait Babeuf ? Selon lui, la société était divisée en deux classes aux intérêts opposés, soit l’élite et le peuple. Chacune voulait la république, mais l’une la voulait bourgeoise et aristocratique, tandis que l’autre entendais l’avoir faite populaire et démocratique. Populaire et démocratique ? Vous n’y pensez pas !

L’interdiction de s’assembler est alors justifiée par un discours qui relève de l’agoraphobie politique : on présente les assemblées comme tumultueuses et contrôlées par les pauvres. En 1784, l’intendant de Bourgogne explique ainsi que : « ces assemblées où tout le monde est admis, où les gens les moins dociles font taire les citoyens sages et instruits, ne peuvent être qu’une source de désordre ». Le ton est donné. Ce genre de discours, nous ne le connaissons que trop, encore aujourd’hui. Pourtant, l’historien Antoine Follian écrit qu’il « n’y a probablement pas plus de  »tumultes » au XVIIIe siècle qu’au XVIe siècle. Soit les autorités s’offusquent de choses qui n’en vallent pas la peine, soit ce n’est qu’un prétexte pour servir une politique de resserrement des assemblées sur les  »notables » ».

Parfois, le rejet des principes démocratiques sont moins virulents, tout en étant pourtant suffisamment catégoriques pour en rejeter l’idée même. Ainsi Bresson écrit dans ses Réflexions sur les bases d’une constitution, par le citoyen[3] :

« Je sais fort bien ce qu’est une république démocratique ; mais je ne peux concevoir une constitution démocratique pour un pays qui ne peut être une république démocratique. Dans une république démocratique, le peuple en corps a le débat des lois, adopte ou rejette la loi proposée, décide la paix ou la guerre, juge même dans certaines circonstances. Cela est impossible, physiquement impossible en France ; ainsi la France ne peut être une république démocratique : c’est mentir à la nature même des choses que de la nommer ainsi[4]. »

De l’autre côté de l’Atlantique, dans les États-Unis émergeant de leur propre révolution, d’autres expriment la même idée, pour les mêmes raisons, ainsi par exemple le fédéraliste Noah Webster qui explique :

« Dans un gouvernement parfait, tous les membres d’une société devraient être présents, et chacun devrait donner son suffrage dans les actes législatifs, par lesquels il sera lié. Cela est impraticable dans les grands États ; et même si cela l’était, il est très peu probable qu’il s’agisse du meilleur mode de législation. Cela a d’ailleurs été pratiqué dans les États libres de l’Antiquité ; et ce fut la cause de malédictions innombrables. Pour éviter ces malédictions, les modernes ont inventé la doctrine de la représentation, qui semble être la perfection du gouvernement humain. »

On voit bien, aujourd’hui, la damnation à laquelle nous a mené, en un peu plus de deux siècles de « perfection du gouvernement humain », la représentation ! son bilan à lui seul réduit en miette les sophismes des pères fondateurs et révèle surtout que leur dialectique avait essentiellement pour vocation le service de leurs intérêts de classe sociale dominante, et que ces arguments étaient très certainement fondés… pour décrier l’aristocratie bourgeoise !

De  nos jours, les mêmes sophismes et les mêmes raisonnements antidémocratiques, exprimant une agoraphobie politique (détestation de la démocratie dite « directe ») culturellement imposée depuis deux siècles à l’inconscient collectif, se retrouvent jusque dans la conception populaire qui, comme par une sorte de syndrome de Stockholm collectif, se fait elle-même, parfois, défenseur de cette rhétorique qui peut se résumer en quatre points, comme le synthétise Francis Dupuis-Déri dans son livre :

« 1) le « peuple », poussé par ses passions, serait déraisonnable en matière politique et ne saurait gouverner pour le bien commun. »

> Je ne dirais pas les choses autrement au sujet des gouvernements prétendument représentatif et de cette « élite » oligarchique qui nous gouverne depuis deux siècles. Pour le dire autrement : « c’est c’ui qui dit qui est » (désolé, mais c’est vraiment là qu’on en est !).

« 2) conséquemment, des démagogues prendraient inévitablement le contrôle de l’assemblée par la manipulation. »

> En conséquence, des lobbys financiers et industriels prennent inévitablement le contrôle de l’assemblée par la corruption et la manipulation, tandis que les démagogues divisent les peuples dans de faux enjeux politiques de façade, laissant libre court en coulisses aux magouilles politiques les plus scandaleuses.

« 3) l’agora deviendrait inévitablement un lieu où les factions s’affrontent et la majorité impose sa tyrannie à la minorité, ce qui signifie généralement qu’en démocratie (directe), les pauvres, presque toujours majoritaires, opprimeraient les riches, presque toujours minoritaires. »

> L’agora devient le lieu où des factions s’affrontent sur des enjeux factices (au travers les affrontement des partis politiques pour accéder ou conserver le pouvoir), permettant toujours aux minorités (généralement les plus riches) de l’emporter sur la majorité (généralement les plus pauvres ou les moins bien nantis).

« 4) enfin, la démocratie directe peut être bien adaptée au monde antique et à une cité, mais elle n’est pas adaptée au monde moderne, où l’unité de base est la nation, trop nombreuse et dispersée pour permettre une assemblée délibérante. »

> Dès lors, l’oligarchie (travestie en pseudo démocratie « moderne ») est bien adaptée au gouvernement des États modernes libéraux, et toute forme de démocratie, même locale, est une entrave inacceptable à la main mise des marchés sur les ressources et à l’exploitation des travailleurs actifs, toujours majoritaires, par la minorité rentière passive, toujours minoritaire. Francis Dupuis-Déri est très clair sur un point essentiel :

« L’idée et l’idéal de « république » a déterminé en grande partie la formation du régime électoral libéral que nous connaissons aujourd’hui sous le nom de « démocratie ». Donc, l’idée de « démocratie » n’a pas joué de rôle déterminant dans l’instauration des démocraties modernes libérales pour la simple et bonne raison que les patriotes les plus influents et leurs partisans étaient animés par un idéal républicain. La république représentait le régime modèle de patriotes notoires [...]. »

C’est donc dire – et là je m’adresse tout spécialement à vous, amis français (je suis Belge) – que la république fut, a toujours été, et est encore l’enterrement définitif de tout projet de (vraie) démocratie. En ne cessant, comme une antienne, de vous référer à « la République »[5], vous vous faites défenseur d’un régime qui dès l’origine et à toutes les époques fut instauré pour empêcher la démocratie et imposer le dictat d’une minorité possédante et dominante sur une majorité dépossédée et dominée. Si j’étais français, je ne militerais donc certainement pas pour une « VIème République », mais bien pour une « Première Démocratie ».

Au minimum, il nous faut reconquérir cette précieuse et vitale autonomie communale que même la vile engeance monarchique accordait aux gueux que furent nos ancêtres, et que nous refusent avec force et obstination nos prétendus représentants « démocratiquement élus » (cherchez l’erreur). Si nous ne nous en montrons pas capable, alors que la malédiction de la tyrannie oligarchique et ploutocratique continue à s’abattre implacablement sur nous et qu’elle étouffe à jamais nos plaintes et nos cris !

Nous pourrons alors à nouveau aller crever dans les tranchées en chantant avec Jacques Brel « Oui not’ Monsieur, oui not’ bon Maître ».

Comme en ’14…

Morpheus

 

---

[1] Henry Bardeau, « De l’origine des assemblées d’habitants », Droit romain : du mandatum pecuniae – Droit français : les assemblées générales des communautés d’habitants en France du XIIIe siècle à la Révolution, Paris, Arthur Rousseau, 1893, p. 63.

[2] Gérard Walter, op. cit., p. 230-231.

[3] Où l’on peut voir que l’idée de Étienne Chouard n’a rien de neuf et fut bel et bien menée – et tuée dans l’œuf – au moment de la Révolution.

[4] Jean-Baptiste Marie-François Bresson, op. cit., p. 2-3.

[5] Prenez donc, s’il vous plaît, un peu de recul et montrez-vous, juste un moment, autocritique, et vous verrez à quel point ce mot de « république » vous empoisonne l’esprit et obscurcit ce que votre discernement pourrait éclairer : les républiques n’ont jamais été des démocraties, mais au contraire, furent toujours des oligarchies.

William Joyce

William Joyce

By Kerry Bolton

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

William Joyce, more infamously known to history as “Lord Haw Haw,” the epitome of a British Traitor, was hanged on the basis of a passport technicality on January 3, 1946. Like the name “Quisling” (see Ralph Hewin’s excellent biography Quisling: Prophet Without Honour) much nonsense persists about Joyce. 

The following is redacted from my introduction to William Joyce’s Twilight Over England ^[2] (London: Black House Publishing, 2013). The second part of the introduction, not included here, examines the primary points of Joyce’s book, the continuing relevance of which is its cogent criticism of Free Trade liberalism and international finance.

***

Twenty-five years ago I was told a little anecdote by a work colleague, a middle aged Englishman. He said that as a small lad in England he and his friends were one Christmas eve singing carols to earn some pocket money. One household they came to was particularly memorable for him during those Depression years. A gentleman answered the door, invited the children inside and gave them each not only a cake but also a shilling. What struck my work colleague all those years later, still, was not only the generosity of the amount each child had been given, but more particularly, that someone from the ‘middle class’, invited a group of working class children in to the household where they received their cakes and coins. Such lack of social snobbery was a rarity that my work colleague had never forgotten. My English friend concluded by stating that the kind benefactor was named William Joyce.

My English friend was no Nazi; not even vaguely ‘right-wing’. His anecdote on this humanity of William Joyce, enduringly hated as a traitor, whose very name, as ‘Lord Haw-Haw’, as he was dubbed by the Allied propaganda machine, is Britain’s equivalent to Norway’s Quisling, and America’s Benedict Arnold. Joyce, as a British ‘Nazi’, is automatically regarded as a rogue, a lunatic, an apologist for mass murder and aggression, a fool, or any combination thereof. Yet the anecdote from my English friend’s childhood betrays a human side to the likes of William Joyce that just maybe indicates the he was none of those things, but a man of entirely different character. For in Twilight Over England, written while Joyce’s beloved Britain – yes, beloved Britain – was at war with Germany, and while Joyce had made the fateful decision that siding with those who were fighting Britain was the greatest manifestation of that love of Britain, we have the testament of a man deeply anguished at the level to which his people had been reduced by a rapacious system. That this system of international finance and Free Trade is more fully enthroned today and over more of the world than in Joyce’s time shows the relevance of this volume for the present and foreseeable future. In Twilight Over England we might discern – if we open our minds, and for a little while at least, leave behind the prejudgements and the victor’s hateful propaganda – the historical circumstances, centuries in the making, that brought this Briton to a martyr’s death.

Indeed, J A Cole, as objective a biographer that one could expect, described Joyce as ‘intelligent, well-educated, dedicated, hardworking, fluent and sharp-tongued’.[1] Although critical of Joyce, Cole also described him as ‘so unlike the stereotype which fear and prejudice had created’.[2] As a paid broadcaster for the Germans during the war, Joyce retained a character devoid of egotism and vanity, living frugally, refusing pay raises and perks other than cigarettes, and only being persuaded with some difficulty to buy himself a smartly-cut suit.[3] How far away the reality of Joyce was from the character depicted, apparently without a shred of good conscience, by Rebecca West, who gloated at Joyce’s trial, referring to him as opening ‘a vista into a mean life’, always speaking ‘as though he was better fed and better clothed than we were, and so, we now know, he was’,[4] going so far as to describe Joyce as ‘a tiny little creature’,[5] presumably confident that such was the hysteria that nothing she wrote against him would be challenged. It is as though West, and a gaggle of lesser slanderers, took all that Joyce truly was and turned it on its head. However, anyone with an eye to fame or money can still write whatever junk they can contrive on certain events related to the Second World War, and seldom are they called to account for their humbug. Indeed, to expose the lies can render one a jail sentence in many states and the destruction of one’s reputation and career.[6]

Joyce was a rare combination in history: an activist, a revolutionary, and a tough fighter, scarred with a Communist-welded razorblade. He was not some sallow intellectual whose only battle was fought within the brain and with verbosity at a safe distance from one’s targets. He had been the Director of Propaganda for a mass movement, Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists, which like Fascist movements across the world in the aftermath of the First World War, attracted individuals of many types and classes in solidarity. In Britain these included the American expatriate poet Ezra Pound, a founder of modern English literature;[7] Wyndham Lewis, novelist, painter, philosopher and co-founder with Pound of the Vorticist arts movement; the British nature writer and Hawthorne Prize Winner Henry Williamson, who never repudiated his belief in the heroic virtues of Mosley or Hitler, even after the war and who, like many who joined Mosley, was a First World War veteran haunted by the prospect of another war, but also reminded of the Europe that might still be when on Christmas Eve 1914 Germans and Britons greeted each other in no-man’s land to play football, returning to slaughter one another the following day; the military strategist, General J F C Fuller, father of modern tank warfare; and many others of the highest intellectual and cultural calibre.

William was born in New York on 24 April 1906, his father, Michael Francis Joyce, a Catholic, having migrated from Ireland in 1892, and marrying Gertrude Brooke, daughter of a Lancashire physician. In 1906 the family returned to Ireland, Michael having done well as a builder, and now becoming a publican and a property owner. William was educated at Catholic schools, and at an early age threw himself with gusto into whatever he did: When assisting at a service in the chapel he swung the censer with such force that the glowing incense flew down the aisle. He received his broken nose not through a fist fight with a Communist during the 1920s or 30s, but with a boy at school who had called him an ‘Orangeman’, because of the Joyce family’s avidly pro-British sentiments at the time of Ireland’s tribulations. His nose was not properly attended to, and hence William always had a distinctively nasal tone to his voice. During the Republican rebellion Michael’s properties endured arson. Young William saw the body of his neighbour, a policeman, on the road, with a bullet through his head. On another occasion he witnessed a Sinn Feiner cornered and shot by police.[8]

In 1920 the British Government reinforced the Royal Irish Constabulary with the Black & Tan paramilitaries. At fourteen, William served as a spy for the authorities, keeping his eyes and ears open for snippets of information that might be of use, and ran a squad of sub-agents. With the truce of 1921, and the departure of the British, the Joyce family moved to England. At 15, eager to continue serving King and Empire, he enlisted in the army at Worcester, giving his age as 18, but his real age was soon discovered and he was discharged. At 16 he joined the Officer Training Corps at the University of London, and after graduating from Battersea Polytechnic, enrolled at Birbeck College, part of the University.

Of Joyce’s intellectual gifts, his lifelong friend and comrade, John MacNab related to Cole:

‘He kept no files, diaries or notes of any kind, but he could recall the date, place and circumstances of remote events and meetings with people. He never forgot a face or a name, and could give a full account, unhesitatingly, of almost anything that had ever happened to him. At intervals of years he would repeat the same account without the least variation. He could quote – always exactly – any poem he had ever read with attention, and even notable pieces of prose. As a Latin scholar his technical qualifications were inferior to my own, yet he was the one who could quote Virgil or Horace etc., freely and always to the point, not I’.[9]

MacNab stated that Joyce was a multi-linguist, gifted in mathematics and his ability to teach it. ‘He read widely in history, philosophy, theology, psychology, theoretical physics and chemistry, economics law, medicine, anatomy and physiology. When he broke his collarbone in 1936 while skating, he was able to set it himself due to his knowledge of physiology. He was a talented pianist’.[10]

British Fascisti

While pursuing a BA in Latin, French, English and History, in 1923 he joined the British Fascisti, founded that year by Miss R L Linton-Orman, a member of a distinguished military family who had served with the Women’s Reserve Ambulance during the Frost World War and had twice been awarded the Croix de Charité for gallantry for heroic rescues in Salonica.[11]

The first such body to be established in Britain, inspired by the assumption to power by Mussolini in 1922, and the destruction of Communism in Italy, there was not much ideological substance to the British Fascisti (later ‘British Fascists’), other than loyalty to ‘King and Empire’, a determination to form a paramilitary force to stop Communism in the event of revolution or strikes, and to maintain order at Conservative Party meetings when Communists and Labourites threatened violence. The membership was drawn mainly from the middle and upper classes, and included a good number of retired officers. The first president of the British Fascists was Lord Garvagh, who was succeeded by Brigadier-General Blakeney, later associated with both Arnold Leese’s Imperial Fascist League, a small but persistent anti-Semitic group; and Mosley’s British Union.[12] The present of such personalities indicates the impression that Fascist Italy was making on important sections of Britain, and that it could never be dismissed as the collective delusions of a ‘lunatic fringe’.

Despite the lack of ideological substance, many stalwart Fascists got their start with the British Fascisti, including those who were to play a prominent role in the British Union of Fascists (BUF). It was as leader of the ‘I Squad’ of the British Fascisti that on 22 October 1924 Joyce stationed his men at Lambeth Baths Hall in South-East London, to protect the election meeting of Jack Lazarus, Conservative party Parliamentary candidate for Lambeth North, from Communist attack. These were times in which electoral meetings not approved by the Left were subjected to attack from Communist and Labour party thugs armed with razors, often put into potatoes for throwing, and spiked sticks. Hence, the British Fascisti emerged at a time of a very real threat of violence by the Left against the Conservative and Unionist parties, regardless of the other shortcomings of the organisation as a serious political alternative.

The Communist assault on Lazarus’ election meeting was ‘vicious’.[13] A ‘Jewish Communist’, as Joyce described him, jumped on his back and tried to slash his throat with a razor, but only succeeded in cutting Joyce from mouth to ear, his neck protected by a thick woollen scarf. He did not realise he had been slashed until the crowd drew back aghast, and he attempted to stem the blood with a handkerchief given to him, then walked to the police station where he collapsed.

While active with the British Fascisti, Joyce was also president of the Conservative Society at Birbeck College, where he developed his oratory, seeing Conservatism as the upholder of ‘Anglo-Saxon tradition and supremacy’.[14] Meanwhile, 1926 proceeded with a General Strike that did not result in the threat of a Soviet Britain, and the British Fascisti went into decline. That year Joyce married Hazel Barr, while continuing to do well with his studies, and the following year obtained First Class Honours in English, but did not complete his MA. His attempts for several years to introduce the Conservative Party to ‘true Nationalism’ failed. Biding his time, as the several small Fascist groups that arose failed to impress him, Joyce taught at the Victoria Tutorial College, and then at King’s College.

The Red thuggery that the British Fascists had attempted to combat continued. A target was to be not a party from the Right but from the Left: the New Party, founded in 1931 by the Labour Party’s most promising young politician, Sir Oswald Mosley, after Labour Caucus refused to adopt Mosley’s bold plan for unemployment.[15] The New Party was regarded as traitorous by the Labour Party, and was subjected to violent attacks by Communists and Labourites. It was such violence that contributed to Mosley’s turning to Fascism and forming his Blackshirt squads to protect the meetings that he could not efficiently protect during the New Party electoral campaigns, although even then he had started forming a squad of stewards trained in boxing by Jewish boxing champion Ted ‘Kid’ Lewis. Mosley records that extreme Left reaction had been subdued until the promising results of the New Party vote came out in a by-election.[16] Mosley, referring to the General Election soon after, related: ‘All over the country we met a storm of organised violence. They were simply out to smother us, we were to be mobbed down by denying us our only resource: the spoken word; we were to be mobbed out of existence’.[17]

In 1932 Mosley visited Fascist Italy, and like many others was impressed by what he saw at a time when Britain continued to stagnate. Joyce read the news reports of Mosley’s visit with interest but, having long had an increasing animosity against Jewish influence in Britain, was more interested in the progress that the Hitler movement was making in Germany.[18] When Mosley re-established the New Party as the British Union of Fascists most of the adherents of other Fascist groups, particularly the British Fascists, joined him. Joyce joined the BUF in 1933,[19] and, fatefully, obtained a British passport by falsely claiming that he had been born a British subject, with the expectation that he might accompany Mosley on a visit to Hitler.

Joyce was soon noted in the BUF for his oratory skills, and he resigned his teaching post at Victoria Tutorial College and his studies at London University to become the BUF’s West London Area Administration Officer. He then became Propaganda Director, addressing hundreds of meetings. It was on hearing Joyce, then 28, speaking that ex-Labour MP John Beckett,[20] joined the BUF, and committed himself to National Socialism, having previously been impressed by what he had seen in Fascist Italy, declaring Joyce to be one of the greatest orators who had recruited thousands to Fascism.[21] Indeed, Joyce filled in for Mosley if the latter could not attend a function. Jeffrey Hamm, a young Mosleyite before the war, who became particularly active in Mosley’s post-war Union Movement, reminisced on Joyce’s oratory that ‘his wit and repartee were proverbial’. ‘On one occasion a buxom lady in the crowd was shouting abuse at him, culminating in an angry roar: “You bastard!” Quick as a flash Joyce gave her a cheerful wave, as he cried: “Hullo, Mother!”’[22]

Joyce divorced Hazel amicably in 1934. He had sired two daughters who were close to their father, despite his hectic life as a Fascist leader.

His BUF classes on Fascist ideology, held jointly with his closest colleague, John Angus Macnab, with whom he also established a private tutoring business, were used to propagate his own views on Fascism, and here he introduced the term National Socialism to the movement, which was renamed the British Union of Fascists and National Socialists in 1936.[23] Although Joyce believed that National Socialism was intrinsically based on the nation from which it arose, was more inclined to quote Thomas Carlyle than Hitler, and eschewed both the swastika and the fasces when creating his own movement, he saw Hitler as a closer example to consider than Mussolini, not least because Hitler dealt with the Jewish question head-on. It was Joyce who coined the BUF axiom: ‘If you love your country you are National. If you love your people, you are Socialist. Be a National Socialist’. The reader will find this phrase cogently explained in Twilight Over England.

Joyce met Christian Bauer, who represented Goebbels’ newspaper Der Angriff, in Britain, and at Bauer’s request, after his return to Germany, Joyce maintained contact with him,[24] although it transpired that Bauer was more important when in Britain than he was in Germany.

In 1937 Joyce married Margaret White, a Manchester BUF organiser, who had accepted his proposal at a party, even although the two hardly knew one another. It had been literally ‘love at first sight’ between the two, and a scholarly member of her branch remarked on the engagement that it ‘may be uncomfortable being married to a genius. And William is a genius, you know!’[25] On the first day of the year, the Public Order Act was introduced banning the wearing of uniforms at public political functions; i.e. the black shirt, prohibiting the effective stewarding of open-air meetings, and other measures designed to impinge on the BUF campaign. As previously stated, Mosley had adopted a black shirt uniform to establish a disciplined and recognisable formation to keep order at his meetings having experienced Red thuggery at New Party meetings, as had the Conservative Party many years. The banning of the uniform saw a considerable rise in disorder at BUF functions. Despite the great deal of nonsense that had been alleged about ‘Fascist violence,’ the Blackshirts always answered the razorblade and the cosh with fists when necessary. One of these great myths is that Lord Rothermere, proprietor of the Daily Mail, who had supported the BUF during the first few years, withdrew his support in 1934 because of such Fascist violence. In fact, as related by Randolf Churchill some thirty years later, it was due to ‘the pressure of Jewish advertisers’.[26]

By 1937, both Joyce and Beckett, editor of Action and The Blackshirt, had become increasingly critical of BUF administration. Matters were decided when Mosley was obliged through financial stringency to reduce the paid-staff by four-fifths. Among them were both Joyce and Beckett. Macnab, the editor of Fascist Quarterly, resigned in protest at Joyce’s dismissal. Macnab & Joyce, Private Tutors, was a now established to earn a modest income to offer tuition for university entrance and professional preliminary examinations, and to teach English to foreign pupils of sound character.

National Socialist League

Joyce’s concerns were directed towards forming a new political organisation that would more precisely reflect his view on British National Socialism. Joyce, Beckett, McNabb and a few others founded the National Socialist League. Despite Joyce’s admiration for Hitler, his organisation was based on British roots. That a front-group for the League was named the Carlyle Club after Thomas Carlyle, whom Joyce often cited as a precursor of British National Socialism, is indicative of the British character of his variation of National Socialism. After all the concept of the National and the Social synthesis is universal, and movements of such a type had been arising spontaneously and independently of one another since the immediate aftermath of the First World War. One might refer to the Legion of the Archangel Michael in Romania, the Hungarist movement in Hungary, National-Syndicalist Falangism in Spain, and many others throughout the world. The Israeli scholar Dr Zeev Sternhell provides a convincing argument for the emergence of proto-Fascism from a union of Left-wing syndicalist and Right-wing Monarchist theorists in France as early as the late 19th century.[27] Mosley’s ‘Fascism’ had been based on his Birmingham manifesto to cure unemployment through a massive public works programme that had been rejected as too radical by the Labour Government, not by reading Mein Kampf or Mussolini’s Doctrine of Fascism.

As for Joyce’s National Socialist League, it was surprisingly ‘democratic’ in structure, with leaders elected at branch level, and no fuehrer-complex being evident in either Beckett of Joyce. Nor was there a paramilitary complexion to the group.[28] The symbol was a ship’s steering wheel, the design of which is also suggestive of a Union Jack, below which was the motto: ‘Steer Straight’. A newspaper was published, The Helmsman. Funding came from Alec Scrimgeour, an elderly stockbroker, whom Joyce had known since the BUF, and who treated Joyce as a son. Cole mentions that one supporters ‘claimed to be the King of Poland’. This cannot be anyone other than the New Zealand poet Geoffrey Potocki de Montalk who, unlike his many contemporaries who were embracing to Communism, being a Monarchist, embraced the Right, then Fascism and National Socialism, and never recanted. Indeed, even in December 1945, Potocki printed an ‘Xmas card’, the ‘X’ in the shape of a swastika, with a poem that paid tribute to ‘our William Joyce’. As to his eccentric claim to the throne of Poland, it was as legitimate as any other, being descended from a Polish noble lineage. [29]

The primary ideological text of the League was National Socialism Now, published in September 1937. National Socialism Now is a cogent 57 pages defining the fundamentals of National Socialist ethos, method of statecraft, and type financial and economic systems. Joyce’s opening lines are that,

‘We deal with National Socialism for Britain; for we are British. Our League is entirely British; and to win the victory for National Socialism here, we must work hard enough to be excused the inspiring task of describing National Socialism elsewhere’.[30]

While National Socialism was forever linked with the name of Hitler, no matter where it arises it ‘must arise from the soil and people or not at all’.

‘It springs from no temporary grievance, but from the revolutionary yearning of the people to cast off the chains of gross, sordid, democratic materialism without having to put on the shackles of Marxian Materialism, which would be identical with the chains cast off’.[31]

Joyce returned to a theme that he had introduced to the BUF, that the synthesis of Nationalism and Socialism is a logical development; that ‘the people’ are identical with ‘the nation’, and anything else, whether called ‘nationalism’ or ‘socialism’, is a waste of time. It was Socialism that provided the foundation for class unity rather than class antagonism, which had been engendered by the dislocations caused by industrialism and usury. Such class division is aggravated rather than transcended by Marxism and other forms of materialistic socialism. Both Capitalism and Marxism are international. Indeed Marx pointed this out in The Communist Manifesto, and described anyone resisting this internationalising tendency of Capitalism as ‘reactionary’, because the historical process towards Communism is aided by Capitalist internationalisation, and what Marx called the ‘uniformity in the mode of production’ across the world.[32] Today we call this ‘globalisation’ and the process has been accelerating. What has emerged is not Communism, but a Capitalist ‘new world order’. Communism is not even anti-Capitalist, but an extension of it, and hence, as Joyce explains in Twilight, it is Nationalism, intrinsically based on Socialism, that not only opposes Capitalism, but transcends it. Equally, any Socialism that embraces internationalism is not only hopeless in combating Capitalism, but assists in its victory. We are now able with both hindsight and observing present-day events, to confirm that this indeed the case. Communism, and Social Democracy literally failed to ‘delver the goods’, and now Free Trade Capitalism runs rampant over the entire world, imposed by US weaponry where, where debt to international finance and the opiate of the shopping mall and MTV are insufficient. The Socialism of Joyce’s day, represented mainly by the Labour Party, did not oppose the system of international finance any more than the Conservative Party, that had long since forsaken its patriotic and rural origins, and both permitted a system of Liberal Free Trade that invested capital to build up cotton manufacturing in India for example, while allowing the mill workers of Lancashire to rot.[33] The same situation is visited upon us in recent years, with Tony Blair’s ‘New Labour’ in Britain, and in New Zealand, the Labour Party during the 1980s, being in the forefront of inaugurating ‘Free Trade’ in the name of ‘socialism’. Joyce saw it going on in his own day. We relive it today. The same old abandonment to Capitalism by Social Democracy, which had also obliged Mosley to resign from the Labour Party in disgust.

The weakness of Westminster parliamentary democracy allowed international finance to carry on unhindered. Joyce’s British National Socialism advocated the ‘leadership principle’, with authority to act, but in Britain’s case the symbol of unity within one personality had existed for centauries in the form of the Crown, and Joyce did not envisage a National Socialist Britain that need be under the dictatorship of a British ‘fuehrer’. Indeed, he advocated the corporatist or organic state that he had alluded to in his BUF pamphlet, Dictatorship. In NS Now Joyce pointed to the guilds of Medieval Britain, and outlined a corporate state based on the revival of the guilds as taking over many functions of the state. Both employers and employees would be represented in the same corporative organs, which was the method of successful industrial organisation that would be enacted in Germany in the Reich Economic Chamber. Parliament would hence be a corporative body with representatives elected from such guilds.

Joyce next turned his attention to the financial system. National Socialist banking reform is based the premise that money and credit should serve the people, and not master them. Hence, credit and currency should be issued by the state according to the production of the people, allowing the people to consume that production. Private financial interests should not issue credit and currency as a profit -making commodity. Currency and credit are only intended as a means of exchanging goods and services. That is the method that National Socialist Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan used and by which they flourished in the midst of the world Depression.[34] Again, there is nothing intrinsically ‘fascist’ or ‘nazi’ in such a banking system. The First New Zealand Labour Government had initiated the same type of policy, issuing 1% Reserve Bank state credit in 1935 for the construction of New Zealand’s iconic state housing project, which itself solved 75% of the unemployment rate.[35] Banking reformers around the world were demanding that the state assume its prerogative to issue the nation’s own credit and currency, without recourse to becoming indebted in perpetuity to international finance.[36] As Joyce was to emphasis in Twilight, it was this struggle between productive work and parasitism that led to the world war, the fact being that it was the Axis states that posed a deathly challenge to this parasitism the world over. New Zealand, despite the Labour Government measures in 1935, true to Social Democratic form, did not go beyond those limited measures, despite their success, and despite the promises the party had made in its 1934 election manifesto. Again, Social Democracy posed no real challenge to the system of world trade and banking that was – and remains – in the hands of a few parasites.

The League was ‘openly and unashamedly Imperialist.’ One of the primary aims of ‘Fascism’ was to create autarchic or self-sufficient economics states, or geo-political blocs. Of course, with Britain being the greatest imperial power, British Fascism or National Socialism sought to re-create the Empire as an autarchic bloc, where investments would be made only within the Empire, and not placed outside the Empire, only to undermine the manufacturing the agricultural sectors of the Empire peoples. Joyce pointed out that the system of international trade and finance was the enemy of both the British and the Colonial peoples; that both were equally exploited, and granting independence to India was not going to change that situation a jot. National Socialism would end usury and exploitation in India with the same methods as in Britain.[37] What Fascism was trying to address was the iniquitous system that is today called ‘globalisation’, whereby investments can be moved out of states and indeed entire industries shut-down and relocated to cheap labour pools, and currency speculators can make vast fortunes overnight by destroying entire economies. That is the system that won the Second World War against the Axis and that is the system that has driven the world to the present debt crisis, as it inevitably would. That is the system for which the Allied troops fought and died, just as the same plutocratic wire-pullers of ‘democracy’ declare war on states that are problematic to the ‘new world order’.

Finally, Joyce addressed the matter of foreign policy. Even then the war drums were being beaten against Germany, Italy and Japan. Joyce saw the keystone of world peace and order being an alliance between Britain and Germany with the assistance of Italy, which would form a bulwark against both international finance and Communism. From the 1920s, when Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, an alliance with Britain and Italy was envisaged as the cornerstone of Germany’s future foreign policy, Hitler definitively stating: ‘In the predictable future there can only be two allies for Germany in Europe: England and Italy’.[38] Was this mere cant, albeit dictated a decade before Hitler came to Office, while sitting in a jail following the abortive Munich putsch? Hitler in both public and private pronouncements always affirmed his admiration for the British Empire and the kinship that should have existed between the Third Reich and the Empire. Like Joyce, he believed that the two would be a great stabilising force in the world, and legitimate scholarship has only confirmed these views.

Captain A H M Ramsay, Conservative Member of Parliament for Midlothian and Peeblesshire from 1931 until his detention through 1940-1944, under Defence Regulation 18B along with Mosley and 1000 others, wrote after the war a volume much in the mode of Joyce’s Twilight and NS Now not only in regard to the war but also the takeover of Britain by international finance. Joyce had been a member of Ramsay’s Right Club that campaigned against war with Germany.[39] Like Joyce, Ramsay pointed to the Judaic character of the Puritan revolutionary zealots, whose armies ‘marched around Scotland, aided by their Geneva sympathisers, dispensing Judaic justice’.[40] Ramsay proceeds to consider the formation of the Bank of England with the encumbering of Britain with a National Debt; a matter that is dealt with in relative detail by Joyce in Twilight. Ramsay points out that the officialdom of ‘world Jewry’ had ‘declared war’ on Germany as soon as Hitler assumed Office. An ‘international economic boycott’ was declared by the World Jewish Economic Federation, headed by Samuel Untermeyer from the USA, who wrote in The New York Times of a ‘holy war’ against Germany, in which both Jew and Gentile must embark, while the Jews were the ‘aristocrats of the world’.[41] The Jewish leadership through its influence on politics, business and media the world over, hoped to economically strangle Germany. They could not ruin Germany through such means however, because the Hitler regime’s banking and trade reform not only withdrew Germany from the international finance system, but through barter proceeded to capture the markets of central Europe and South America. As Joyce was to emphasise in Twilight, this was the real cause of the world war; a conflict between two systems, one productive and creative, the other parasitic and exploitive.

It should be pointed out that Ramsay enjoyed the friendship and confidence of British Prime Minster Neville Chamberlain in the moths immediately preceding the World War. Ramsay alludes to Chamberlain’s guarantee to assist Poland in the event of invasion on the basis of a supposed Germany ultimatum that transpired to be fraudulent,[42] and that Germany had sought for months a negotiated solution for the return of Danzig and the ‘Polish Corridor’ to Germany, while Poland resorted to what today would be called ‘ethnic cleansing’ of the Germans within Poland; a matter which will be considered further.

Ramsay points out that Hitler had ‘again and again made it clear that he never intended to attack or harm the British Empire’. [43] Indeed, what is called the ‘Phoney War’ ensued, where no real fighting was taking place. The situation changed immediately Churchill became Prime Minister. Then the previous policy of only bombing military targets was reversed, and British Bomber Command was ordered to bomb civilian targets, a strategy that would eventually lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of German civilians by the end of the war, the fire-bombing of Dresden,[44] Hamburg, Berlin and other German cities going down in infamy as obliterating in deadly infernos more victims than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Actions speak louder than words, as it is said, and Hitler on numerous occasions offered his hand of friendship, while still in a position of strength, indeed winning the war. One of the most notable occasions is that involving the British invasion of Dunkirk, around which much nonsense about British heroism continues to be spoken. Ramsay cites the pre-eminent official British military historian Captain Liddell Hart. This nonsense continues despite Hart’s book on World War II, The Other Side of the Hill, having been published in 1948, with chapter 10 entitled ‘How Hitler beat France and saved Britain’. Ramsay comments that the chapter would ‘astound all propaganda-blinded people… for the author therein proves that not only did Hitler save this country; but that this was not the result of some unforeseen factor, or indecision or folly, but was of set purpose, based on his long enunciated and faithfully maintained principle’. Hart details how Hitler halted the Panzer Corps on 22 May 1940, allowing the British troops to escape back to Britain. Hitler had cabled Von Kleist that the armoured divisions were not to advance or fire. Von Kleist ignored the order, and then came an ‘emphatic order’, according to Von Kleist, that he was to ‘withdraw behind the canal. My tanks were kept halted there for three days’.[45] Hart records a conversation between Hitler and Marshall Von Runstedt two days later (24 May):

‘He [Hitler] then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilisation that Britain had brought into the world… He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church – saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops, if she should be involved with any difficulties anywhere. He concluded by saying that his aim was to make peace with Britain, on a basis that she would regard compatible with her honour to accept’. [46]

Captain Hart comments on the above: ‘If the British army had been captured at Dunkirk, the British people might have felt that their honour had suffered a stain, which they must wipe out. By letting it escape, Hitler hoped to conciliate them’.[47] Hart alluded to the pro-British sentiments in Mein Kampf and the manner by which Hitler did not deviate from his desire for an alliance with Britain. As we now know, so far from the British people being cognisant of the equanimity of Hitler towards them, the propaganda machine merely used this to further inflame them toward war, and Dunkirk had ever since been portrayed as a great feat of British moral courage.

Even during the early 1920s, when Hitler was in jail dictating Mein Kampf he realised that any future goodwill between Germany and Britain relied on the question as to ‘whether the exiting influence of the Jews is not stronger than any understanding or good intentions and will this frustrate and nullify all plans’.[48] Mosley, Ramsay, Admiral Sir Barry Domvile and hundreds of others jailed under 18B, who sought peace with Germany, were aware of this also. However, there were still prominent people within Britain who were free, to whom Hitler might appeal for peace, and it is presumably with these in mind that Hitler kept open the prospect of a negotiated peace with honour.

However, eminent people who hoped for a negotiated peace with Germany were no match for the war party and its backers. Winston Churchill, whose drunken, opulent lifestyle had got him into debt, led the war party. He had personal reasons for assuring the destruction of Hitler, even if that also meant the destruction of the British Empire; which, of course, it did. By 1938 Churchill was bankrupt, and Chartwell House was about to be put on the market. A few days before however Sir Henry Strakosch, the South African Jewish mining magnate and financial adviser, came to the rescue and agreed to pay off Churchill’s debts.[49] Churchill had whored himself to international finance for the sake of £18,000, and in so doing doomed the lives of millions and the survival of the British Empire. Strakosch was financial adviser to General Smuts of South Africa, and in 1920 drafted the blueprint for the Reserve Bank of South Africa.[50] He has also served as adviser on setting up the Reserve Bank of India. Like the US Federal Reserve Bank and other central banks throughout the world, the reader should not be confused into thinking that these acted as state banks issuing state credit, even when they were, like the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, nationalised. These central banks were based on plans provided by individuals such as Strakosch, the Bank of England’s Sir Otto Niemeyer, and Warburg in the USA. The thraldom of most states to international finance, from which Germany, Italy and Japan had broken free, is the most significant cause of World War II, as explained by Joyce in Twilight.

Since the 1920s Churchill’s financial adviser for his stock market dealings had been Bernard Baruch, the international financier who had run the US War Industries Board during the First World War I, and had become the virtual dictator of the USA during the war years.[51] Nothing would or could divert Churchill from leading Britain into war with Germany.

To Germany

During the Munich crisis in 1938 Joyce foresaw the coming war, and the quandary that placed him as an avidly pro-British devotee of National Socialism and Anglo-German accord. He told Macnab that in the event of war, he could not fight against Germany in the service of international finance but neither could he be a conscientious objector and evade national service. He had already envisaged sending Margaret to Ireland with Macnab, while he would go to Germany, perhaps to fight the Russians[52].

Mosley’s answer was to immediately issue a call to his supporters to fully support the war effort once the war that he had vigorously campaigned against, had eventuated, while he and 800 of his followers were detained under Emergency Defence Regulation 18B. Mosley’s order stated that ‘Our members should do what the law requires of them; and, if they are members of the armed Forces or services of the Crown, they should obey their orders and, in every particular, obey the rules of the Service’. However, it was also a call to ‘stand-fast’ against the ‘corrupt Jewish money-power’ and ‘to take every opportunity within your power to awaken the people and to demand peace’.[53]

Among the first to die in the war were two Blackshirts, Kenneth Day and George Brocking, while on an RAF daylight bomber raid on Brűnsbuttel.[54]

While Joyce campaigned with his National Socialist League, and Mosley held meetings attracting the largest audiences ever seen in Britain to the very eve of war, Joyce also sought to widen his campaign. He was involved in an anti-war campaign with Lord Lymington, Conservative MP, and an early advocate of agricultural self-sufficiency and organic farming,[55] also a particular concern of both Joyce and the BUF.[56] Lord Lymington and Joyce created the British Council Against European Commitments. Lymington’s group joined with a similar organisation founded by Hastings William Sackville Russell, Lord Tavistock (later Duke of Bedford) and emerged as the British People’s Party (BPP), the policy of which not only included peace, but in particular advocacy of banking reform.[57] Joyce had confided in Beckett that he would probably go to Germany in the event of war, and Beckett left the League to become General secretary of the BPP. It is often commented that there was a fallen out between Joyce and Beckett, but, as will be seen, they remained steadfast friends.

As forebodings of war approached in 1939, one of the first to depart from Britain to Germany was Mrs Francis Dorothy Eckersley, a member of the BUF, whose son was at school there. Mrs Eckersley was to play a role in the Joyce’s settling in Berlin. Before Macnab visited Berlin, Joyce had asked him to take a message to Christian Bauer, asking whether Goebbels would arrange for the immediate naturalisation of Joyce and his wife, should they settle in Germany.[58] Defence Regulation 18B was about to be passed when Joyce received news from Macnab that naturalisation would be granted. He then received news from an MI5 agent to whom he given information on Communist activities, that it was likely he would be arrest under 18B within a matter of days.[59] The Joyce’s left for Germany on 26 August 1939, William convinced that imprisonment in Britain during the war would mean unbearable suffering for Margaret.

To the Joyce’s dismay, Christian Bauer did not have the influence in Berlin that had been assumed, and he had been ‘called up’. However, Mrs Eckersley did have connections with the Foreign Office, and Joyce was able to secure a part-time job as a translator of German scripts.[60] Within days, war had been declared by Britain against Germany, a declaration that was not met by the Germans with any more jubilation than it was met by the Joyces and many other Britons. In England, meanwhile Mosley was holding the largest rallies in British Union history, and just two months previously the biggest indoor hall in England had been filled with 20,000 people to hear Mosley.[61] Mosley was arrested under 18B on 23 May 1940, and his wife Diana on 29 June.[62] Captain Ramsay MP, and Admiral Sir Barry Domvile CB, founder of the Link, which had also campaigned for Anglo-German cooperation, were among the 1000 others.[63]

Mrs Eckersley’s friends had been at work to secure Joyce a position, and Dr Erich Hetzler, an official in the Foreign Office, who had studied economics in England, interviewed him. It is notable that during the interview Joyce explained he was a National Socialist and British, but that a National Socialist in Britain was not the same as in Germany.[64] Hetzler recommended Joyce to the English-speaking department of the Reich radio service. Norman Baillie-Stewart, a former Subaltern in the Seaforth Highlanders, headed the English news service, under the direction of Walter Kamm. Joyce’s first broadcast, reading a news bulletin, took place on 11 September 1939. He did well, but drew the immediately jealousy of Baillie-Stewart.[65]

The disparaging nick-name of ‘haw-haw’, which was to become synonymous with Joyce, first appeared in the Daily Express on 14 September 1939 where the columnist, the pseudonymous Jonah Barrington, commented on a broadcast from Germany: ‘A gent I’d like to meet is moaning periodically from Zeesen. He speaks English of the haw-haw, damit-get-out-of-my-way variety, and his strong suit is gentlemanly indignation’.[66] The name was picked up by British propaganda, and stuck, like the name of Quisling was to become synonymous with ‘traitor’.

Ironically, Barrington was describing Baillie-Stewart. Barrington and the media ran with the typically banal propaganda image, and ‘Lord Haw-Haw’ was introduced to the public as a figure of ridicule. Lord Haw-Haw soon became conflated with Joyce and stuck, since Joyce would become the leading British broadcaster, despite his own voice, affected by the broken nose he had since childhood, not being suggestive of the ‘Bertie Wooster’ type figure that Barrington was trying to portray.[67] Other half-witted attempts at satire by Barrington, with names such as The Whopper, Uncle Boo-Hoo and Mopey, fell by the way, while Lord Haw-Haw remained. It was Lord Donegal, writing for the Sunday Dispatch, who suggested that Lord Haw-Haw might be Joyce. However, the voice that he asked Macnab, then a volunteer ambulance driver, to hear, was Baillie-Stewart, and Macnab could reply honestly that it did not sound anything like Joyce.[68]

Joyce could now apply for naturalisation, and correctly recorded his birthplace as New York.[69] Margaret was employed writing women’s features for the radio network, and became known as Lady Haw-Haw. The broadcasts were widely listened to in Britain. The matter of the identities of Baillie-Stewart and William Joyce were soon resolved by the British, but ‘Lord Haw-Haw’ stuck with Joyce rather than with Baillie-Stewart,[70] another reflection of the puerility of British war propaganda. Comedians began to lampoon Lord Haw-Haw. The deaths of millions of Britons and Germans were such a whopping good laugh for those who could avoid service by larking about on the Home Front, while Mosleyites were among the first to enlist and die.

Interestingly, Cole discusses the insistence of ‘upper class’ origins for William Joyce by the British propaganda machine, and hence the maintenance of the ‘Lord Haw-Haw’ myth as an aristocratic ‘traitor’, perhaps also reminding audiences of Sir Oswald Mosley’s aristocratic birth, and the similar backgrounds of others who had sought conciliation with Germany and who had seen Fascism and National Socialism as a means of transcending class divisions. Cole writes: ‘The theme of the aristocratic traitor aroused such an immense public response that the jeering appeared to be directed as much at the traditional British upper classes as at an unknown traitor in Germany’.[71] The irony was that Joyce was the very antithesis of the character portrayed by British propaganda, as indicated by the opening anecdote of this introduction, and he lived simply and without thought of his material well-being.

A survey by the BBC concluded that Joyce was getting six million regular listeners daily, and 18,000,000 occasional listeners. The reasons for this included not only the mirth that had been directed at Lord Haw-Haw, but also that the broadcasts focused on ‘undeniable evils in this country… their news sense, their presentation’, making them ‘a familiar feature of the social landscape’.[72]

In early 1940 the Buro Concordia was formed under the direction of Dr Hetzler, which would focus on explaining National Socialism to English listeners. Joyce would lead the team and write the programmes. He refused insistent offers of a salary increase. The first programme was aired in February 1940, under the name of the New British Broadcasting Station, transmitting for half an hour from East Prussia, albeit under sparse conditions and resources.[73]

It was at this time, in February 1940, that Joyce was asked by the Foreign Office to write a book, Twilight Over England. While Joyce addressed a British audience, which would have few chances to read the book, the Foreign Office, had intended an English language testament for audiences in the USA and India. Twilight also went into German and Swedish editions, at least. The book as will be seen, is largely an indictment of the English system of Free Trade, the influence of Jews and the iniquity of international finance.

On hindsight, reading the volume today, one might be struck by its current relevance, as the world is plunged into what American strategists approvingly call ‘constant conflict’, in extending in the hallowed name of ‘Democracy’ the system of debt and exploitation which the Axis fought seventy years ago. As Joyce tried to explain, Westminster democracy and party government is a system that has not brought any meaningful benefits to the people who have lived under the ‘Mother of all Parliaments’ for centuries, let alone to tribesmen from the deserts of Afghanistan to the jungles of New Guinea, who are having this odd system born from the merchant class of England, imposed on them by force of arms. We still live under the same system that Joyce exposed, because international finance won the war.

By mid 1940 the British had ceased considering Lord Haw-Haw as a joke and were worried by what they thought was his inside knowledge of events in Britain. Other secret Anglophone broadcasting stations were planned under Buro Concordia.[74]. Meanwhile, Joyce’s commitment to Britain was indicated by his having defaced his British passport so that after it had expired it could not be used by German Intelligence, which was eager to obtain such passports.[75] So much for disloyalty.

In July 1940 Hitler made a peace offer to Britain, and Joyce was optimistic. On ‘Workers’ Challenge’, a broadcasting service pitched specifically to British workers, Joyce stated that British workers and German workers did not wish to fight each other. The British Communists had been saying that the war was between capitalist powers and was not a workers’ fight, until the party-line was reversed when Germany and the USSR came into conflict. ‘Workers’ Challenge’ called for a workers’ revolt against Churchill and a peace that would have nothing to do with the nazification of Britain. Of coursed, Churchill was committed to unconditional surrender, and the chance to save the Empire and Europe was rejected for the sake of Churchill’s ego, or perhaps mainly due to his £18,000 debt to Strakosch and his friendship with ‘Barney’ Baruch (?). As Joyce commented on his programme on 23 July, the rejection of peace would bring tragedy to England, and if Britons remained silent then it must be assumed that they consented to their own annihilation.[76] Joyce was prescient. Is there still doubt? While it might be a cliché to say that British won the war but lost the peace, that is beyond rational doubt. As for the impact of ‘Workers’ Challenge’, a BBC survey found that it had a ‘heavy following’, that ‘the following grows’, and that a lot of Joyce’s remarks ‘were true’.[77]

On 28 August the first air raid casualties in Berlin occurred. Both Joyce and the CBS foreign correspondent William Shirer, epitome of the anti-Nazi propagandist, were at the broadcasting house. Shirer, who had avoided meeting the ‘traitor’ for a year, noted in his diary that Lord Haw-Haw ‘in the air-raids has shown guts’.[78] Joyce went out to see the damage and was ‘profoundly moved’ by the devastation. Already there were comments on the civilian targets of the British, in contrast to the military objectives of the Luftwaffe, but could anyone in Germany have envisaged the criminal fire-bombing of defenceless German cities that was to become the speciality of Bomber Command?

Shirer, the inveterate anti-Nazi whose book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich became a classic history,[79] nonetheless observed Joyce as ‘an amusing and even intelligent fellow’, ‘heavily built and of about five feet nine inches, with Irish eyes that twinkle’.[80] He noted that Joyce had a deep hatred of capitalism. ‘Strange as it may seem, he thinks the Nazi movement is a proletarian one which will free the world from the bonds of “plutocratic capitalists”. He sees himself primarily as a liberator of the working class’.[81]

Shirer’s quip about the ‘strangeness’ of Joyce’s view of National Socialism as a movement fighting capitalism is perhaps best explained by Shirer’s own ignorance as to the character of both National Socialism and the war.[82] The reader will see the anti-plutocratic character of National Socialism explained in Twilight, a copy of which Joyce gave to Shirer.

Twilight was published in September 1940, by Santoro, an elderly Italian who owned a Berlin publishing house, Internationaler Verlag, the English edition running to 100,000 copies.[83] They were distributed at POW camps, where there were efforts to recruit for a Legion of Saint George (also known as the British Free Corps) as a unit of the Waffen SS to fight on the Eastern Front (not against fellow Britons).[84]

After a year of delays, the Joyce’s were German citizens. In 1941 Joyce registered for military service and was put in a reserved category. Joyce was now permitted to reveal his identity and stated:

‘I, William Joyce, left England because I would not fight for Jewry against Adolf Hitler and National Socialism. I left England because I thought that victory which would preserve existing conditions would be more damaging to Britain than defeat’.[85]

On 11 May 1941 Deputy Fuhrer Rudolf Hess reached Scotland on his ill-fated peace mission. It was undertaken at a time when war between the USSR and Germany was approaching, and the German authorities were obliged to repudiate the Hess mission as the lone efforts of someone who had become mentally unhinged. Perhaps Hess was unbalanced if he thought he could overcome the war party led by Churchill, but there was still thought to be a prominent peace party within influential circles who aimed for a negotiated peace. Hess had flown to Scotland in the hope of talking with the Duke of Hamilton, who was thought to be among the peace party. It is known that Hess had long been discussing possibilities of a peace mission to Britain, with Hitler’s knowledge, and that Hess’ friend Albrecht Haushofer had been in contact with the Duke of Hamilton.[86] New evidence has come to light that Hess probably did fly to Britain with Hitler’s approval. British historian Peter Padfield states that Hess brought with him to Britain detailed peace proposals from Hitler. The proposals asked for Britain’s neutrality in a coming conflict with the USSR, in return for which Germany would withdraw from Western Europe and would have no claims on Britain or the Empire.[87] Of course, such proposals were perfectly in keeping with the foreign policy aims that Hitler had desired since the 1920s, as we have seen previously. The proposals from Hitler specified German aims in Russia and even stated the precise time of the German offensive. Padfield remarks: ‘This was not a renegade plot. Hitler had sent Hess and he brought over a fully developed peace treaty for Germany to evacuate all the occupied countries in the West’.[88] Padfield also remarks on a significant ‘negotiated peace’ faction in Britain, and the ruin that peace would have meant for Churchill’s career. There is also allusion to this peace faction including the Royal Family.

Joyce expected he would soon die, whether fighting the Russians, during an air-raid or hanged. Awarded the War Merit Cross 1st Class, a civilian medal, which meant little to him, he was called up to the home guard, the Volkssturm, and he started training with weapons.[89] During the course of an air-raid, confined in a shelter, he proceeded to teach a French journalist English songs, which drew the attention of an air-warden. When Joyce refused the order to quieten a scuffle ensued, Joyce received a cut lip, and the warden a black eye. The air-raid warden stated that Joyce would be reported. Bellowing with laughter at the absurdity of the situation, Joyce was duly notified that he was charged with ‘sub-treason’, and that the warden had been the personal chauffer of Freisler, president of the People’s Court. His employers warned him that the charge was more serious than he assumed. However, the court and all traces of the documentation as well as Freisler’s chauffeur were buried in rubble from an air-raid and so was the charge of ‘sub-treason’.[90]

At the suggestion that the Joyces obtain false papers with the view to escaping as the war drew to a conclusion, Joyce was furious and adamant that ‘soldiers cannot run away, so why should I?’[91] For Joyce, from boyhood to the end of his life, honour an integrity were paramount, courage an instinct.

With Berlin in ruins, the staff of Buro Concordia prepared to relocate. With the impending Russian occupation of the city, the staff of the English Language Services proceeded to Apen, a small town between Bremen and the Dutch border, although Joyce would have preferred the barricades with his Volkssturm colleagues.

Finale

On 30 April 1945 the staff were called together and told of Hitler’s death. Lord and Lady Haw-Haw made their final broadcasts that day. Joyce reiterated what he had always said:

‘Britain’s victories are barren. They leave her poor and they leave her people hungry. They leave her bereft of the markets and the wealth that she possessed six years ago. But above all, they leave her with an immensely greater problem than she had then. We are nearing the end of one phase of Europe’s history, but the next will be no happier. It will be grimmer, harder and perhaps bloodier. And now I ask you earnestly, can Britain survive? I am profoundly convinced that without German help she cannot’.

Is there any reader who is so ignorant or so naïve, other than the ideologically or ethnically biased, who can deny that Joyce has been proved correct? Britain lost her Empire, lost her markets, the Commonwealth and colonial peoples were detached from her and left to wallow in Third World poverty, or become colonies of a US led world order, and debt became more than ever the preferred method of economics.

Orders came from Goebbels, the first from the Reichsminister that had acknowledged them, that the Joyces were not to fall into Allied hands. However, attempts to get them to neutral Sweden via Denmark or to Eire, were abortive. They ended up in Flensburg, back in the crumbling and occupied Reich. Joyce, as was his habit, adopted a rascally attitude even now, and played what he called ‘Russian roulette’ by greeting British soldiers, to see if they would recognise his voice. On a stroll back from the woods he encountered two officers collecting firewood, and approached them offering some sticks. One of the officers, Lieutenant Perry,[92] a returning Jewish refugee serving as an interpreter, a type that was now swarming over Germany in the wake of the Allied occupation, recognised Joyce’s voice. They pursued Joyce in a vehicle, and Perry asked, ‘You wouldn’t happen to be William Joyce would you?’ Joyce reached for the less than convincing fake identity papers that had been given to him by the Germans and was shot by Perry, the bullet entering through Joyce’s right thigh and passing through the left.[93]

The military authorities promptly called on Margaret Joyce at the lodging of an elderly widow, who was also detained, but quickly released, albeit not before her household food rations had been looted by the liberators.

Joyce’s first court appearance on treason charges was held at the Old Bailey on 17 September 1945. He entered a ‘not guilty’ plea. The main problem for the prosecution was in regard to whether Joyce was a British national under the protection of the Crown when he made his broadcasts in Germany. Joyce had never been a British citizen, and he had obtained a British passport for his move to Germany by making a false declaration. Two of the three charges could not be upheld. The case reached the House of Lords. However, Joyce was in no doubt that his hanging was required, and his defence team had even received death threats should he be acquitted. Joyce was hanged on the basis that because he had a British passport he was under the protection of the Crown when he started his broadcasts, and therefore committed high treason. The charge was dubious at best. He had never used his British status for protection at any time, and there is no reason to believe he would have in any circumstances. He moved to Germany with the intention of become a German citizen as promptly as possible, although German officialdom had been tardy in the process. Joyce was hanged on a passport technicality. Judgement was passed on 18 December 1945 to dismiss the appeal. Lord Porter dissented, stating that it was by no means clear that Joyce could have been considered to have owed allegiance to the Crown at the time of the broadcasts.[94]

Joyce on being told the decision wrote to Margaret that it was a relief the matter was over and that he found it undignified to have to plead for his life before his enemies, and to ‘observer their pretence at “fair play”’. Amidst the petty vengefulness of a befuddled and war-worn people, The Manchester Guardian nonetheless questioned the appropriateness of death sentences for Joyce and John Amery (whose trial had lasted eight minutes) for views that ‘were once shared by many who walk untouched among us’. Joyce appreciated the acknowledgment of his sincerity by the Guardian. His friends remained steadfast, and John Macnab was particularly active on Joyce behalf. Macnab, an avid Catholic, remarked on his last visits to Joyce that ‘being with him gave a sense of inward peace, like being in a quiet church’.[95] Some of his former teachers at Birbeck College, remembering the likeable and hardworking student, asked the prison Governor to relay their well-wishes to Joyce. He handed his brother Quentin his final message:

‘In death, as in this life, I defy the Jews who caused this last war: and I defy the power of Darkness which they represent. I warn the British people against the aggressive Imperialism of the Soviet Union.

‘May Britain be great once again; and, in the hour of the greatest danger to the West, may the standard of the Hakenkreuz be raised from the dust, crowned with the historic words “Ihr habt doch gesiegt”. I am proud to die for my ideals; and I am sorry for the sons of Britain who have died without knowing why’.

Joyce’s old friend, the one-timer Labour Party stalwart John Beckett, wrote to him in his final days: ‘Our children will grow up to think of you as an honest and courageous martyr in the fight against alien control of our country … That is how we shall remember you, and what we will tell our people’.[96] It has only recently been known that Beckett’s departure from the National Socialist League was for reasons other than a falling-out with Joyce. Beckett referred to this when writing to Joyce:

‘No one knows better than myself the sincerity of the beliefs which led to the course of action you chose. You remember we discussed the position in 1938, and the disagreement and respect I showed for your opinion then, remains’.[97]

Joyce replied in a letter that was intercepted and never given to Beckett:

‘Of course I remember, quite vividly, how we discussed the situation in 1938. I do not, in the most infinitesimal degree, regret what I have done. For me, there was nothing else to do. I am proud to die for what I have done’.[98]

Beckett in his farewell wrote to Joyce: ‘Goodbye, William, it’s been good to know you and there are few things in my life I am prouder of than our association. Yours always, John’.[99]

Joyce took holy communion, wrote to his wife and to Macnab, and at 9:00 am precisely he was taken from his cell by the hangman, Albert Pierrepoint and hanged.[100]

On the morning of 3 January 1946, the day of his execution, a crowd of 300 gathered outside Wandsworth prison; most to gloat but some to pay their final respects. Some of the crowd, on the notice of Joyce’s execution being posted up, set themselves apart from the crowd and gave the Fascist salute in Joyce’s honour.

Notes

[1] J A Cole, Lord Haw-Haw: The Full Story of William Joyce (London: Faber and Faber, 1987), 307

[2] Cole, 16.

[3] Cole, 212.

[4] Rebecca West, The Meaning of Treason (London: The Reprint Society, 1952), 3.

[5] Ibid., 4.

[6] One might recall the fates of Dr Robert Faurrison in France, Fred Leuchter in the USA, David Irving in England, Dr Joel Hayward in New Zealand, Ernst Zundel in Canada, et al.

[7] K R Bolton, Artists of the Right (San Francisco, Counter-Currents Publications, 2012), 97-119. Pound, stranded in Italy with his wife when the USA entered the war, broadcast for Italy on a programme called ‘Europe Calling’, analogous to Joyce’s broadcasts named ‘Germany Calling’. Handed over to US troops after the war by Italian partisans, Pound was confined in an animal cage under the scathing Pisan sun. The embarrassment of trying and hanging for treason one of the world’s greatest literary figures was avoided by declaring Pound unfit to stand trial, and he was confined to a mental asylum for thirteen years, after which, still undiagnosed or treated for any supposed ‘mental illness’, he was permitted to leave the USA and return to Italy.

[8] Cole, op. cit., 22-23.

[9] Ibid., 56.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Richard Thurlow, Fascism in Britain (London: Basil Blackwell, 1987), 51.

[12] Ibid., 53.

[13] Cole., op. cit., 30.

[14] Ibid.,  31.

[15] Oswald Mosley (1968) My Life (London: Black House Publishing, 2012), 294.

[16] Ibid, 295.

[17] Ibid., 297.

[18] Cole, op. cit., 39.

[19] Thurlow, op. cit., 98.

[20] In 1925 Beckett become the youngest Labour MP of his time, at the age of 30. Becoming increasingly radical, he was expelled from the Labour party and lost his seat in 1931, joining the BUF two years later.

[21] Cole, op. cit, 45.

[22] Jeffrey Hamm, Action Replay (London: Howard Baker, 1983), 151.

[23] Cole, op.cit., 57.

[24] Cole, op. cit., 59.

[25] Ibid., 65.

[26] Randolf Churchill in letter to The Spectator, 27 December 1963, cited by Mosley, My Life, op. cit., 363.

[27] Zeev Sternhell, Neither Left Nor Right: Fascist Ideology in France (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1986); The Birth of Fascist Ideology (Princeton, 1994).

[28] Cole, op. cit., 73.

[29] K R Bolton, ‘Geoffrey Potocki de Montalk: New Zealand Poet, “Polish King”, and “Good European”’, Counter-Currents Publishing, http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/08/count-potocki-de-montalk-part-iii/

[30] William Joyce, National Socialism Now, 1939, Chapter 1.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), 71-72.

[33] Joyce, NS Now, op. cit., Chapter 2.

[34] K R Bolton, The Banking Swindle (London: Black House Publishing, 2013), 103-120.

[35] Ibid., 96-100.

[36] Ibid, passim.

[37] W Joyce, NS Now, op. cit., Chapter 4.

[38] Adolf Hitler (1926), Mein Kampf (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1969), 570.

[39] Ramsay was one of the many veterans who had served in the First World War ‘with gallantry’ (Griffiths, 353) who were imprisoned under Regulation 18B. Members of the Right Club included Admiral Wilmot Nicholson (another First World War hero), Mrs Frances Eckersley, who was to assist the Joyce’s on their arrival to Germany; and the Duke of Wellington. Richard Griffiths, Fellow Travellers of the Right (London: Oxford University Press, 1983) 353-355.

[40] A H M Ramsay, The Nameless War (1952), 17.

[41] Ramsay, ibid., 54.

[42] Ramsay, ibid., 59-60.

[43] Ramsay, ibid., 62.

[44] David Irving (1966), The Destruction of Dresden (London: Futura Publications, 1980).

[45] Ramsay, op. cit., 67.

[46] Cited by Ramsay, ibid., 68.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Hitler, Mein Kampf, op. cit., 575.

[49] David Irving, Churchill’s War Vol. 1 (Western Australia: Veritas Publishing, 1987), 104.

[50] Stephen Mitford Goodson, Inside the Reserve Bank of South Africa (2013), 67-69.

[51] David Irving, op. cit., ., 14.

[52] Cole, op. cit., 77.

[53] Stephen Dorril, Black Shirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British Fascism (London: Penguin Books, 2007), 466.

[54] Ibid.

[55] Griffiths, op. cit., 319.

[56] The BUF had its own notable agricultural expert, Jorian Jencks, author of BUF rural policies.

[57] Griffiths, op. cit., 352.

[58] Cole, op. cit., 82-83.

[59] Cole, ibid., 86.

[60] Cole, 103.

[61] Robert Skidelsky, Oswald Mosley, 440.

[62] Ibid., 449.

[63] Ibid., 455.

[64] Cole, op. cit., 108.

[65] Ibid., 113.

[66] Ibid., 115.

[67] Ibid.

[68] Ibid., 118.

[69] Ibid., 121.

[70] Ibid., 124.

[71] Ibid., 126.

[72] Ibid., 127.

[73] Ibid., 137.

[74] Cole, 159.

[75] Ibid. 161.

[76] Cole, 164.

[77] Cole, ibid., 182.

[78] Cited by Cole, ibid., 170.

[79] William L Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (Secker and Warburg, 1977).

[80] Recall the description of Joyce’s appearance by Shirer with that of Rebecca West.

[81] Cited by Cole, op. cit., 174-175.

[82] Shirer was listed as a Communist sympathiser in a 1950 US publication, Red Channels: The Report of Communist Influence in Radio and Television, based on FBI documents. Shirer had been a member of the Committee for the Prevention of World War III, founded in the USA in 1944, which lobbied for the elimination of Germany. Among its members were James P Warburg, ‘ideologue’ of the society and a scion of the influential Warburg banking dynasty. Did Shirer ever regard the alliance between plutocrats and Leftists against the Axis to be ‘strange’? For several years after the war the Committee’s aims were implemented under the so-called Morgenthau Plan, named after US Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr., a supporter of the society. The Morgenthau Plan attempted to exterminate the German people through starvation, until being reversed by the Marshall Plan several years after the war, when it was realised that the Germans might be needed to fight the Russians, again.  See: James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation 1944-1950 (London: Little, Brown & Co., 1997).

[83] Adrian Weale, Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen (London: Weidenfield and Nicolson, 1994), 36.

[84] Ibid., passim.

[85] Cole, op. cit., 190.

[86] Wolf Rudiger Hess, My Father Rudolf Hess (London: W H Allen, 1986), 66-67.

[87] Jasper Copping, ‘Nazis “offered to leave Western Europe for free hand to attack USSR”’, The Telegraph, 26 September 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10336126/Nazis-offered-to-leave-western-Europe-in-exchange-for-free-hand-to-attack-USSR.html

[88] Peter Padfield, Hess, Hitler and Churchill (Icon books Ltd., 2013), cited by Copping, ibid.

[89] Cole, 219.

[90] Cole, 221.

[91] Ibid., 222

[92] The large numbers of Jewish lawyers and interpreters who entered Germany with the Occupation forces were given false names. See Cole, op. cit., 247.

[93] Ibid., 246.

[94] Ibid., 287.

[95] Cole, 300.

[96] Cited by Beckett’s son, the author and journalist Francis Beckett, ‘My Father and Lord Haw-Haw’, The Guardian, 10 February 2005, http://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/feb/10/secondworldwar.world

[97] Ibid.

[98] Ibid.

[99] Ibid.

[100] Adrien Weal, op.cit., 195.

 

---

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/01/william-joyce/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/hawhaw.jpg

[2] Twilight Over England: http://www.blackhousepublishing.co.uk/product/product&path=65&product_id=106

Il telegramma Zimmermann: la vera ragione che spinse gli USA ad entrare in guerra nel 1917

Il telegramma Zimmermann: la vera ragione che spinse gli USA ad entrare in guerra nel 1917

Alessandro Lattanzio

Ex: http://aurorasitio.wordpress.com

Viene spesso, fin troppo spesso, affermato che la causa dell’entrata in guerra di Washington, nella Prima Guerra mondiale, sia stato l’affondamento da parte di un sommergibile tedesco del transatlantico inglese Lusitania, che trascinò con se 123 cittadini statunitensi. (1) In realtà la nave fu affondata nel 1915, mentre gli USA entrarono in guerra nel 1917. Infatti, entrarono in guerra in reazione alla faccenda del “telegramma Zimmermann”.

Il 16 gennaio 1917, Arthur Zimmermann, segretario agli Esteri della Germania imperiale, inviò un telegramma cifrato all’ambasciatore tedesco a Washington, utilizzando il nuovo codice 7500 che gli inglesi non avevano potuto decifrare, ma l’ambasciatore a Washington ritrasmise il telegramma nel vecchio codice 103040, noto agli inglesi, all’ambasciatore tedesco in Messico.

Il testo del telegramma affermava: “Abbiamo intenzione di cominciare la guerra sottomarina senza restrizioni il primo di febbraio. Ci adopereremo, nonostante ciò, a mantenere gli Stati Uniti neutrali. Nel caso non succeda, faremo al Messico una proposta di alleanza sulla seguente base: combattere insieme, fare la pace insieme, un generoso sostegno finanziario e la comprensione da parte nostra del diritto del Messico a riprendersi i territori perduti di Texas, New Mexico e Arizona. I dettagli sono lasciati a voi. Potrete informare il presidente (del Messico) di quanto sopra secretato non appena lo scoppio della guerra contro gli Stati Uniti è certo, e aggiungerei il suggerimento che avrebbe dovuto, di propria iniziativa, invitare il Giappone ad aderirvi immediatamente e anche a mediare tra il Giappone e noi. Si prega di richiamare l’attenzione del presidente sul fatto che l’impiego illimitato dei nostri sottomarini offre ora la prospettiva di convincere l’Inghilterra a fare la pace entro pochi mesi. Accusate ricevuta. Zimmermann”

In realtà, il telegramma venne concepito da un funzionario del ministero degli esteri tedesco, Hans Arthur von Kemnitz, che ne scrisse una prima bozza che Zimmermann firmò quasi senza leggere, probabilmente perché impegnato a redigere il testo diplomatico che giustificava l’annuncio della “guerra sottomarina senza restrizioni” contro il traffico navale diretto nel Regno Unito. Quando un altro funzionario seppe del telegramma, esclamò: “Kemnitz, quel fantastico idiota, ha fatto questo!?“
Berlino dovette criptare il telegramma perché la Germania era consapevole che gli alleati intercettavano tutte le comunicazioni transatlantiche, una conseguenza della prima azione offensiva della Gran Bretagna nella guerra. All’alba del primo giorno della Prima guerra mondiale, la nave inglese Telconia si avvicinò alle coste tedesche e tranciò i cavi sottomarini transatlantici che collegavano la Germania con il resto del mondo. Questo atto di sabotaggio costrinse i tedeschi ad inviare i messaggi tramite collegamenti radio poco sicuri o cavi sottomarini di proprietà estera. Zimmermann fu costretto a trasmettere il suo telegramma cifrato attraverso la Danimarca e la Svezia con un cavo sottomarino statunitense che passava anche per il Regno Unito. Va ricordato, inoltre, che uno stretto collaboratore del presidente statunitense Woodrow Wilson, il colonnello Edward House, fece si che il dipartimento di Stato degli USA consentisse ai tedeschi la trasmissione di messaggi cifrati diplomatici tra Washington, Londra, Copenhagen e Berlino.

Il telegramma di Zimmermann ben presto venne intercettato ed analizzato dalla Sala 40 dell’Ammiragliato inglese, l’ufficio dell’intelligence elettronica inglese. Winston Churchill, Primo lord dell’Ammiragliato inlgese, ordinò la creazione della sezione intercettazione e decodificazione dei messaggi criptati tedeschi, appunto la Sala 40, divenuta di vitale importanza per gli Alleati. La Sala 40 era formata da linguisti e criptoanalisti. Il telegramma Zimmermann, decifrato parzialmente da Nigel de Grey e dal reverendo William Montgomery, affermava che la Germania voleva istigare il Messico ad attaccare gli USA, un’informazione che avrebbe spinto il presidente degli USA Woodrow Wilson ad abbandonare la neutralità degli Stati Uniti, perciò Montgomery e de Grey lo passarono subito all’ammiraglio Reginald Hall, direttore della Naval Intelligence, aspettandosi che lo trasmettesse agli statunitensi. Ma l’ammiraglio lo ripose nella sua cassaforte, incoraggiando i criptoanalisti a completare il lavoro. Infatti, il 5 febbraio 1917, Hall non ebbe il nulla osta dal Foreign Office affinché consegnasse agli statunitensi tali informazioni. Ma Hall convocò un ufficiale dell’intelligence statunitense a Londra e gli diede lo stesso il telegramma. “In altre parole, il direttore dell’intelligence navale aveva unilateralmente preso la decisione di condividere un’informazione altamente sensibile con una potenza straniera, senza l’autorizzazione del proprio governo“.

Hall pensava che se gli statunitensi venivano a conoscenza del telegramma Zimmermann, i tedeschi avrebbero potuto concludere che il loro nuovo sistema di cifratura 7500 era stato spezzato, spingendoli a sviluppare un nuovo sistema di cifratura, bloccando così l’intelligence inglese. Inoltre “Hall era consapevole che la guerra totale degli U-boat sarebbe iniziata entro due settimane, e che essa avrebbe indotto il presidente Wilson a dichiarare guerra alla Germania imperiale, senza bisogno di compromettere la preziosa fonte dell’intelligence inglese”. Ma il 3 febbraio 1917, sebbene la Germania avesse avviato la guerra sottomarina senza restrizioni, il Congresso statunitense e il presidente Wilson annunciarono la prosecuzione della neutralità. D’altra parte, negli USA era diffuso un notevole sentimento anti-inglese, in particolare tra i cittadini di origini tedesche ed irlandesi, questi ultimi infuriati per la brutale repressione della Rivolta di Pasqua del 1916 a Dublino e, inoltre, presso la stampa statunitense Gran Bretagna e Francia non godevano di maggiore simpatia della Germania. Tutto ciò spinse gli inglesi a sfruttare il telegramma Zimmermann. All’improvviso, e in sole due settimane, Montgomery e de Grey completarono la decifrazione del telegramma. Inoltre, gli inglesi si resero conto che von Bernstorff, l’ambasciatore tedesco a Washington, trasmise il messaggio a von Eckhardt, l’ambasciatore tedesco in Messico, utilizzando il vecchio sistema di cifratura 103040 e “dopo aver fatto alcune piccole modifiche al testo” che poi von Eckhardt avrebbe presentato al presidente messicano Carranza. Se Hall avesse potuto avere la versione “messicana” del telegramma Zimmermann, i tedeschi avrebbero supposto che fosse stato reso pubblico dal governo messicano, e che non era stato intercettato dagli inglesi. Hall contattò un agente inglese in Messico, il signor H., che a sua volta s’infiltrò nell’ufficio telegrafico messicano. Il signor H. poté ottenere così la versione messicana del telegramma di Zimmermann. Hall consegnò tale versione del telegramma ad Arthur Balfour, il segretario agli Esteri inglese, che il 23 febbraio convocò l’ambasciatore statunitense a Londra Walter Page per consegnargli il telegramma di Zimmermann. Il 25 febbraio, il presidente Wilson ebbe la ‘prova eloquente’, come disse, che la Germania incoraggiava un’aggressione agli USA. Il telegramma, in realtà, affermava che il Messico avrebbe dichiarato guerra agli USA solo se questi avessero dichiarato guerra alla Germania. Ciò avrebbe giustificato l’intervento degli USA nella Prima guerra mondiale? Infatti il telegramma di Zimmermann viene citato come il casus belli della guerra tra USA e Germania imperiale. Ma, infine, il Messico sarebbe mai stato un serio nemico per gli Stati Uniti? Il Messico era preda da anni di una feroce guerra civile, non poteva costituire una qualsiasi seria minaccia per gli USA, e Berlino avrebbe dovuto saperlo. Il presidente messicano Venustiano Carranza assegnò a un generale il compito di valutare la fattibilità di un’aggressione agli USA, ma il generale concluse che non sarebbe stato possibile per i seguenti motivi:
- gli Stati Uniti erano militarmente molto più forti del Messico.
- le promesse della Germania erano ritenute appunto soltanto tali. Il Messico non poteva utilizzare alcun “generoso sostegno finanziario” per acquistare armi e munizioni, per la semplice ragione che poteva comprarli solo negli Stati Uniti, mentre la Germania non poteva inviare alcunché in Messico dato che la Royal Navy, ed eventualmente l’US Navy, controllava le rotte atlantiche.
- infine, il Messico aveva adottato una politica di cooperazione con Argentina, Brasile e Cile per evitare un qualsiasi contrasto con gli Stati Uniti e migliorare le relazioni regionali.

Comunque il telegramma fu reso pubblico, ma stampa e parte del governo degli Stati Uniti lo ritennero una bufala ideata dagli inglesi per coinvolgere gli USA nella guerra. Tuttavia, Zimmermann, in modo sbalorditivo, ne ammise pubblicamente la paternità, dicendo a una conferenza stampa a Berlino che semplicemente “non posso negarlo. E’ vero”. La Germania poteva benissimo dire che il “telegramma Zimmermann” era un falso, approfondendo così i gravi dubbi sulla faccenda espressi negli USA, dove l’opinione pubblica era poco restia a partecipare alla Grande Guerra. Perché allora Zimmerman confessò di averlo inviato?

Nell’ottobre 2005, venne scoperto il presunto dattiloscritto originale della decifratura del telegramma Zimmermann, “scoperto da uno storico rimasto ignoto” che lavorava su un testo ufficiale della storia del Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), il servizio segreto elettronico inglese. Si riteneva che tale documento sia il telegramma mostrato all’ambasciatore Page nel 1917. Molti documenti segreti relativi a tale incidente furono distrutti su ordine dell’ammiraglio Reginald Hall. Certo, tutto ciò suscita un sospetto: in realtà si sa cosa ha scritto Zimmermann (Kemnitz), ma non è noto cosa avessero di certo mostrato gli inglesi ai diplomatici e al presidente degli USA.

In Germania, le indagini su come gli statunitensi avessero ottenuto il telegramma Zimmermann portarono a credere che fosse stato violato in Messico, proprio come previsto dall’intelligence inglese. Quindi il presidente Wilson, che nel gennaio 1917 aveva detto che sarebbe stato un “crimine contro la civiltà” trascinare il suo popolo in guerra, il 2 aprile dello stesso 1917 affermò: “Consiglio che il Congresso dichiari che il recente corso del governo imperiale non sia in realtà nient’altro che una guerra contro il governo e il popolo degli Stati Uniti, e di accettare formalmente lo status di belligerante cui siamo stati così spinti”.

La diplomazia inglese (così come la sua propaganda nera) cercarono ostinatamente di convincere il presidente Wilson ad abbandonare la promessa di neutralità fatta nella sua campagna elettorale per le presidenziali del 1916, e di entrare in guerra a fianco degli Alleati, ma come affermò la storica statunitense Barbara Tuchman, “Una sola mossa della Sala 40 era riuscita laddove tre anni d’intensa diplomazia avevano fallito”.Alessandro Lattanzio, 3/1/2014

Note:
1) “Gli inglesi contarono 1198 vittime, tra cui 123 statunitensi, mentre in realtà i morti furono 1201; vennero infatti omessi i corpi dei tre tedeschi inviati sul Lusitania dall’attaché militare tedesco a Washington di allora, von Papen, per fotografare eventuali materiali sospetti. I tre furono scoperti e tenuti a bordo come prigionieri. In seguito, il segretario personale del presidente Wilson, Joseph Tumulty, fece credere a Washington che le spie fossero in possesso di un ordigno esplosivo, mentre invece si trattava della macchina fotografica”.

Fonti:
The Telegram that brought US into Great War is found, Ben Fenton
The Zimmermann Telegram, Joseph C. Goulden
The Zimmermann Telegram, Barbara Tuchman

Matthias HELLNER:

L’occupation de la Ruhr en 1923

 

Lorsque les Français sont entrés dans la Ruhr, les ouvriers ont déclenché la résistance passive et l’inflation a pris des proportions calamiteuses

 

En janvier 1923, les soldats français et belges occupent l’ensemble de la région de la Ruhr. Une vague d’indignation secoue alors toutes les couches de la population dans le Reich vaincu. Le Chancelier Cuno, en poste depuis le 22 novembre 1922, déclare qu’il faut organiser la résistance passive contre l’occupation. En France toutefois, les esprits se divisent pour juger l’entrée des troupes en territoire allemand, entrée justifiée par le retard d’une livraison de bois imposée par les clauses de réparation. Les socialistes tentent de démontrer les dangers d’une occupation. Clémenceau s’y opposait et le Maréchal Foch parlait d’un “terrible nid de guêpes” où la France avait mis la main.

 

Par l’appel à la résistance passive, toute la vie économique de la région occupée fut paralysée. Les hauts fourneaux furent éteints et les mines fermées. Les cheminots se mirent en grève et les fonctionnaires allemands s’en tinrent à la convention prise, d’éviter tous contacts avec les autorités occupantes. Pour transporter les minerais et le charbon de la Ruhr vers la France, des milliers de techniciens et de cheminots furent mobilisés pour travailler dans la région occupée. Mais dès que les transports se remirent à rouler, des vétérans allemands, dont d’anciens combattants des corps francs comme Heinz Oskar Hauenstein et Albert Leo Schlageter, passèrent à la résistance active et organisèrent des actions de sabotage. Ils firent sauter des ponts, des lignes de chemin de fer et des canaux pour empêcher le transport vers l’étranger des biens économiques allemands.

 

Les autorités occupantes réagirent avec dureté. La région occupée fut complètement verrouillée et la police allemande désarmée. Krupp et d’autres industriels furent condamnés à quinze ans de prison. Partout des confrontations sanglantes eurent lieu. En mars, quatorze ouvriers de chez Krupp furent abattus; d’innombrables citoyens furent arrêtés ou expulsés. Lorsque les Français arrêtèrent Schlageter suite à une trahison, alors qu’il venait de faire sauter un pont près de Calkum, tous les recours en grâce furent inutiles, les Français voulant faire un exemple. L’officier de la Grande Guerre, âgé de 28 ans, fut fusillé le 26 mai. La résistance se poursuivit néanmoins sans discontinuer.

 

Fin mai, le parti communiste tente un coup de force et les soulèvements armés qu’il téléguidait furent anéantis par des volontaires armés. Au même moment, les attentats contre les occupants se multipliaient. Ainsi, le 10 juin à Dortmund, deux officiers français sont abattus en pleine rue. La réaction des Français a coûté la vie à sept civils.

 

Les tentatives françaises de détacher des régions rhénanes du Reich avec l’aide de mouvements séparatistes ne connurent aucun succès. Des attentats perpétrés contre des chefs séparatistes et la résistance de toute la population ruinèrent ces tentatives. Le 26 septembre, Stresemann, qui, le 13 août, avait remplacé Cuno au poste de Chancelier, déclare que la résistance passive doit se terminer. A ce moment-là, 132 Allemands avaient été tués; onze d’entre eux avaient été condamnés à mort mais un seul avait été exécuté. 150.000 personnes avaient été expulsées de la région; d’innombrables autres avaient écopé d’amendes ou avaient subi des peines de prison.

 

La République de Weimar était dans un état de désolation épouvantable. Non seulement elle avait dû renoncer au poids économique de la région de la Ruhr mais elle avait dû aussi payer pour entretenir la population paralysée par la résistance passive ordonnée par Cuno. L’inflation galopante ne pouvait plus être arrêtée. Le 1 juillet un dollar américain coûtait déjà 160.000 mark; le 1 août, le dollar valait 1.100.000 mark; le 1 novembre 130.000.000.000 mark et le 30 novembre 4.200.000.000.000 mark!

 

Pour stabiliser l’état de la République, il a fallu procéder à une réforme monétaire et, simultanément, l’Allemagne accepte en août 1924 le Plan Dawes lors de la Conférence de Londres, plan qui réglait le paiement des réparations sur des bases nouvelles. En juillet et en août 1925, les Français évacuent finalement une grande partie des régions occupées, sous pression de la Grande-Bretagne et des Etats-Unis. L’aventure de la Ruhr était terminée.

 

Matthias HELLNER.

(article paru dans “zur Zeit”, Vienne, http://www.zurzeit.at , n°25/2013).

Geschiedenisles: Nederlandse protestanten kozen in 16e eeuw kant van de islam

Geschiedenisles: Nederlandse protestanten kozen in 16e eeuw kant van de islam

 

Ex: http://xandernieuws.punt.nl

Lutheranen en Calvinisten uit Nederland en Engeland vochten zij aan zij met moslim invasiemacht

De unitaristische koning Sigismund zweert trouw aan sultan Suleiman de Grote. Beiden hadden hun afwijzing van de leer van de Drie-eenheid gemeen.

Op 15 december schreven we -op basis van onderzoek van een Amerikaanse auteur en een prent uit de 19e eeuw- dat Maarten Luther de kerstboom populair zou hebben gemaakt. Een Nederlandse auteur liet mij echter weten dat die afbeelding enkel fantasie was, en dat de kerstboom pas in de 19e eeuw in zwang raakte. Wél historisch verifieerbaar, maar nog minder bekend, is dat Luther het Vaticaan dermate haatte, dat hij een moslimheerser boven de paus verkoos. Dit leidde er mede toe dat protestanten in Holland, Vlaanderen en Engeland de kant kozen van de Ottomaanse Turken, toen deze Europa probeerden te veroveren. In onze tijd lijken veel kerken eenzelfde fatale fout te maken, door te beweren dat Jahweh en Allah één en dezelfde God zouden zijn.

Protestanten staan toch al niet bekend vanwege hun kennis van de historie van hun eigen kerken, noch van de inhoud of zelfs het bestaan van de meeste Bijbelse eindtijdprofetieën. Voor de meesten zal het daarom een schok zijn dat Luther toleranter stond tegenover moslims, dan tegenover katholieken en joden.

Luther schreef weliswaar een traktaat met de titel 'De oorlog tegen de Turk', waarbij hij zich op theologische gronden verzette tegen de islam, en de Duitsers opriep een invasie te weerstaan, maar hij schreef tevens: 'Laat de Turk geloven en leven zoals hij wil, net zoals men het pausdom en andere valse christenen laat leven.' En: 'Een slimme Turk is een betere heerser dan een domme christen.'

Haat tegen paus en joden groter dan afkeer van islam

De 'grote reformator' besefte heel goed dat de islam theologisch onverenigbaar was met het christendom, en ook wat er zou gebeuren als de Turken Europa zouden veroveren. Zijn haat tegen de paus en de joden was echter dermate groot, dat hij zijn volgelingen bewust opriep om desnoods een Turkse (moslim)heerser over zich te accepteren.

Tenslotte had Luther de joden en de paus als de 'antichrist' en 'de geïncarneerde duivel' omschreven, en ging hij zelfs zover dat hij zei dat sommige van zijn Duitse tijdgenoten 'feitelijk de komst en heerschappij van de Turken wilden, omdat ze vonden dat het Duitse volk wild en onbeschaafd was, ja, zelfs half-duivels en half-menselijk' (bron: The Ottoman Empire and early modern Europe, Daniel Goffman, 2002).

Sultan Suleiman en unitariër Sigismund

Suleiman de Grote, destijds de sultan van het Ottomaans Rijk, stuurde een brief aan Luthers volgelingen in Holland en Vlaanderen, waarin hij schreef dat hij zich verwant aan hen voelde, 'omdat ze geen beelden aanbaden, in één God geloofden en tegen de paus en de keizer vochten'. Met de Duitse prinsen die zich achter Luther schaarden wilde hij zelfs een alliantie vormen tegen de keizer en de paus, en beloofde hij bescherming aan de protestanten in Hongarije en Transsylvanië.

Eén van de grootste collaborateurs met Suleiman was een unitariër, John Sigismund Zápolya (koning John of János II), die tijdens zijn heerschappij over Hongarije afhankelijk was van de steun van de sultan, aan wie Sigismunds vader (koning John I) trouw had gezworen. Sigismund was de oprichter van de unitaristische 'kerk' van Transsylvanië, die bij de reformatorische kerken in ongenade was geraakt vanwege het ontkennen van de leer van de Drie-eenheid, die ook door de islam als godslasterlijk wordt afgewezen.

Marokko wilde alliantie met Ottomaans Rijk en Holland

Ongeveer een eeuw later stuurde Marokko een moslimdiplomaat naar Europa, met als doel een alliantie te vormen tussen het protestantse Holland, het Ottomaanse Rijk en de islamitische koninkrijken van Marokko en de Morisco's. Deze diplomaat, Al-Hajari, schreef in 'Het Boek van de Beschermer van de godsdienst tegen de beeldenaanbidders' dat 'hun leraren (Luther en Calvijn) hen (de protestanten) waarschuwden tegen de paus en de aanbidders van beelden; ze vertelden hen tevens de moslims niet te haten, omdat zij het zwaard van God in de wereld tegen de beeldenaanbidders zijn. Daarom kiezen zij de kant van de moslims.'

Vanwege hun gezamenlijke haat tegen de katholieke kerk was het voor de volgelingen van Luther en Calvijn niet moeilijk om de kant van de islamitische invasiemacht te kiezen. Met onder andere zijn halfhartige uitspraken over de islam had Luther hiervoor de basis gelegd. Daarmee hield het echter niet op; Murad III, de opvolger van Suleiman, schreef een brief waarin hij een alliantie met de Lutheranen in Vlaanderen en Spanje voorstelde:

'Wat jullie aandeel betreft: aanbid geen afgoden, jullie hebben de beelden en afbeeldingen en 'klokken' van de kerken verwijderd, en jullie geloof beleden door te verklaren dat God Almachtig één is, en de Heilige Jezus zijn Profeet en Dienaar, en nu met hart en ziel zoeken en verlangen naar het ware geloof. Maar de trouweloze die ze Papa noemen ontkent dat de Schepper Eén is, schrijft goddelijkheid toe aan de Heilige Jezus (vrede zij met hem!), en aanbidt beelden en afbeeldingen die hij met zijn eigen handen heeft gemaakt. Hiermee trekt hij de éénheid van God in twijfel en leidt hij velen dat verkeerde pad op.'

Lutheranen en Calvinisten steunden mosliminvasie Europa

Tijdens de slag van Lepanto in 1571 vochten Lutheranen en Calvinisten uit Holland en Engeland zelfs zij aan zij met de islamitische Ottomanen. Dit verraad kende ruim een eeuw later een vervolg in de cruciale slag om Wenen in 1681. Imre Thokoly, de leider van de protestanten in Hongarije, viel toen samen met de Ottomanen Wenen aan. Het is aan de genade van God en de Poolse koning Johannes Sobieski te danken dat het de moslims niet lukte om na Constantinopel ook Wenen te veroveren. Was dat wel gebeurd, dan was Europa wellicht al eeuwen islamitisch geweest.

De volgelingen van Luther en Calvijn kozen dus vóór de islam, omdat beide partijen het katholicisme als de grootste vijand beschouwden. In de 16e eeuw was het onder Nederlandse protestanten een algemeen gezegde dat zij 'liever een Turk dan een papist (volgeling van de paus)' zouden zijn. Eerder hadden Orthodoxe christenen in Constantinopel een vergelijkbaars credo: 'beter een tulband dan de tiara (kroon van de paus)'. Voor deze houding betaalden zij een bittere prijs, toen hun stad in 1453 door de Ottomaanse Turken werd veroverd, en duizenden van hen werden afgeslacht.

Geen excuus voor collaboratie met islam

Anno 2013/2014 dreigt de geschiedenis zich te herhalen. Opnieuw zoekt de islam met suikerzoete woorden toenadering tot de christelijke kerken, door te beweren dat wij dezelfde god zouden aanbidden, en wij veel met elkaar gemeen zouden hebben.

Johannes de Damascener, die werkte aan het hof van de Kalief van Syrië, noemde in zijn boek 'De Bron van Kennis' de islam echter de 'ketterij van de Hagarenen' (afstammelingen van Hagar, de moeder van Ismaël), Allah 'Baäl' en moslims 'verminkers van God', als tegenwerping tegen de (valse) beschuldiging van moslims dat christenen drie Goden zouden aanbidden.*

Christenen hebben geen enkel excuus voor het collaboreren met de islam. Hiermee hebben zij zelfs de kerk en hun geloof verraden, want juist in veel landen waar moslims de baas zijn wordt een uitroeiingsoorlog tegen christenen gevoerd. En als dat christenen niets zegt, dan zouden ze een korte blik op de islamitische leer moeten werpen, die immers de complete basis van het christelijke geloof -de 'Vader en de Zoon', het sterven van Jezus aan het kruis, de opstanding- ontkent en zich volgens de Bijbel daarmee aan de grootste godslasteringen schuldig maakt.

Samenwerking met islam = eigen doodvonnis tekenen

Honderden jaren geschiedenis laat zien dat iedereen die gaat samenwerken met de islam, uiteindelijk een prooi zal worden en op vaak bloedige wijze het onderspit zal moeten delven. De anti-Israël, antisemitische en pro-islamhouding van veel kerken is in dit opzicht even angstwekkend als veelzeggend. Zo verkettert de Lutheraanse Wereldraad regelmatig de Joodse staat voor het zich verdedigen tegen Palestijnse terroristen. En dat is niet zo vreemd als bedacht wordt dat Luther zelf tijdens het grootste deel van zijn leven een openlijke antisemiet was. (1)

Is dit een pleidooi om dan maar katholiek te worden? Zeker niet, want er is theologisch heel veel mis met de leer van het Vaticaan, dat tenslotte de basis heeft gelegd van de onbijbelse vervangingstheologie die ook door de protestantse kerken wordt geleerd, en die onder andere heeft geleid tot eeuwenlange Jodenvervolgingen en een aanhoudende blindheid voor het grootste deel van de Bijbelse eindtijdprofetieën.

Christenen moeten verschillen opzij zetten

Zoals we gisteren al schreven kan het Vaticaan echter nooit de 'hoer van Babylon' zijn, zoals veel kerken en groepen nog altijd leren. Katholieken belijden net als protestanten en evangelische/pinksterchristenen dezelfde Verlosser. In het licht van de islamitische oorlog tegen het christendom wordt het daarom hoog tijd dat christenen van alle gezindten hun theologische verschillen accepteren en laten voor wat ze zijn, en elkaar vinden in hun belijdenis dat Jezus de Christus is, is opgestaan uit de dood, en de enige Weg is om verzoend te worden met God de Vader. Doen we dat niet, dan zouden wij op termijn wel eens hetzelfde lot als de christenen in Azië en Noord Afrika kunnen ondergaan.

* Om een zijdelingse discussie over de Drie-eenheid te vermijden: noch de katholieken, noch de protestanten, noch de evangelischen zeggen drie Goden te aanbidden, maar één God die zich op drie wijzen manifesteert, namelijk als Vader, als Zoon, en als Heilige Geest - net zoals u zelf één persoon bent die uit drie 'delen' bestaat, namelijk geest, ziel en lichaam, waarbij uw lichaam is onderworpen aan uw geest (en zo de Zoon is onderworpen aan de Vader, zoals de Bijbel schrijft). Wij zijn immers naar Zijn beeld (Genesis 1:27) geschapen.

Xander

(1) Shoebat