Thierry Mudry - Irlande: la guerre de la liberté

Thierry Mudry

Irlande: la guerre de la liberté

Brochure téléchargeable librement (44 pages)

soit à :

http://vouloir.hautetfort.com/media/02/02/173627974.pdf

soit à :

http://fr.calameo.com/books/000127172a9ae2ad27d34

 

 

Storia della cultura fascista

Storia della cultura fascista

di Luca Leonello Rimbotti

Fonte: mirorenzaglia [scheda fonte]

È appena uscito un libro eccellente sul Fascismo e la sua importanza come moderno movimento rivoluzionario: non esitiamo a considerarlo un vero e proprio manuale di base, in grado di rompere gli steccati del conformismo vetero-ideologico e di porsi come strumento di contro-cultura di qualità: su di esso può essere ricostruita pezzo a pezzo tutta la storiografia del nuovo Millennio sul Fascismo. E con esso si può finalmente buttarsi alle spalle la lunga e avvilente stagione in cui a dominare la scena erano gli intellettuali codardi e opportunisti, i gestori della menzogna storica, i grandi camaleonti allevati in gioventù dal Regime, da questo messi in pista e poi, alla prova dei fatti, rivoltatiglisi contro come un groviglio di serpi rancorose, subito asservite ai nuovi padroni del dopoguerra. L’eccezionale uscita editoriale si chiama Storia della cultura fascista (il Mulino) di Alessandra Tarquini, una giovane ricercatrice di scuola defeliciana che già conoscevamo come ottima storica di Gentile e del gentilianesimo. Di questo libro bisogna parlare alto e forte. Deve essere da tutti conosciuto, studiato, divulgato. Non foss’altro per quella compostezza ed equanimità che, a distanza di quasi settant’anni dalla fine del Fascismo, è il minimo che si possa richiedere ad uno studioso di oggi.

Fatti i conti con i vecchi rottami della faida ideologica, appartenenti a una stagione ingloriosamente trapassata, la Tarquini passa in rassegna tutte le componenti che hanno costituito l’anima del movimento e del Regime fascisti: l’uno e l’altro sono da lei giudicati essenzialmente come soggetti politici rivoluzionari portatori di modernità e di cultura innovatrice. Viene così rovesciato l’assunto propagandistico di quanti avevano per decenni irriso il Fascismo, dicendolo privo di una sua originale ideologia, di una sua peculiare cultura, di una sua spinta modernizzatrice. La studiosa – in questa che è propriamente una storia della storiografia sul Fascismo – precisa che, per la verità, negli ultimi decenni già si erano avuti i sintomi di un generale ripensamento degli storici in materia. I tempi dei Quazza, dei Bobbio, dei Santarelli, dei Tranfaglia e compagni, una volta crollato il comunismo sovietico e prontamente liquidata la sbornia marxista che aveva dettato legge soprattutto negli anni Settanta, ha lasciato campo a posizionamenti più seri. Le boutade sul Fascismo reazionario e sul Mussolini pagato dai padroni capitalisti, le pedestri generalizzazioni sugli incolti picchiatori, tutte cose che comunque rimangono a testimonianza di un’atmosfera italiana popolata da studiosi sovente di rara bassezza qualitativa, vengono sostituite con l’analisi che oggi «gli storici hanno capovolto i loro giudizi e sono passati dal negare l’esistenza della cultura fascista al ricostruire i suoi diversi e molteplici aspetti considerandoli non solo importanti, ma addirittura decisivi per capire il fascismo».

Quando, negli anni Sessanta, uscirono gli studi capitali di Mosse e De Felice, la canèa antifascista fece di tutto per spingerli ai margini. Poi, mano a mano, si aprivano spiragli, si notavano marce indietro. Poterono così aversi i libri, per dire, di Isnenghi, Turi, Zunino, che, pur non rinunciando alla polemica ideologica anche fuori posto, tuttavia dimostravano che la repubblica delle lettere si stava rendendo conto che il Fascismo era stato un fenomeno ben più complesso che non “l’orda degli Hyksos” immaginata da Croce e sulla cui traccia si era gettata la muta degli storici marxisti o di scuola azionista. Poi, soprattutto dall’estero, arrivarono in successione un Gregor, uno Sternhell, un Cannistraro, ma specialmente poi un Griffin, e su questa scia si è potuta avere in Italia la densa produzione soprattutto di Emilio Gentile, ma anche di tutta una serie di nuovi storici, che nell’insieme hanno prodotto con risultati notevoli indagini anche minute sul Fascismo come combinazione di mito e organizzazione, di totalitarismo e modernità.

Intendiamoci, il rigurgito passatista è sempre dietro l’angolo: e ogni tanto ancora escono libri che sembrano scritti, e male, quarant’anni fa, e pur sempre i vecchi Tasca o Salvatorelli continuano qua e là a far pessima scuola. Ma, in generale, le nebbie si stanno diradando e il Fascismo comincia a vedersi riconosciuti alcuni tratti fondamentali. Che, come la Tarquini ben precisa, furono essenzialmente la modernità, la centralità del popolo e la cultura. Il tutto, incardinato sul principio del primato della politica, dette vita ad una autentica rivoluzione. Anzi, come la storica puntualizza, si trattò proprio di una sorta di rivoluzione conservatrice, che se da un lato proteggeva quanto di buono vi era nel tessuto sociale tradizionale, dall’altro si presentava con un massimo di proiezione sul futuro. Ciò che la Tarquini, riferendosi ad esempio a Sternhell, ha sottolineato nel senso che il Fascismo fu un fenomeno politico «dotato di una propria ideologia rivoluzionaria non meno coerente del liberalismo e del marxismo, che aveva espresso la volontà di creare una nuova civiltà e un uomo nuovo». Fu infatti anche una rivoluzione antropologica, un tentativo di rifare l’uomo accentuandone le disposizioni alla socialità e al solidarismo, infrangendo così sia l’individualismo liberale che la massificazione collettivista marxista.

La Tarquini riassume gli ambienti che erano alla base della concezione politica fascista: i “revisionisti” (guidati da Bottai, con elementi di spicco come Pellizzi);  gli “intransigenti” (con Soffici, Maccari, Ricci come punte di lancia); e i “gentiliani” (Cantimori, Spirito, Carlini, Volpicelli, Saitta fra gli altri). Tra queste posizioni si muovevano uomini ai limiti dell’una o dell’altra cerchia e talvolta si avevano passaggi non contraddittori, trasversali, come ad es. un Malaparte o un Longanesi, vicini sia a “Strapaese” che a “900″ di Bontempelli.

Grazie a questi gruppi venne assicurata la centralità del popolo nella visione del mondo fascista, il popolo come “pura forza”, cioè «un soggetto depositario di valori positivi», per il quale, come scrive la Tarquini, gli scrittori politici «si impegnavano nella società del loro tempo sostenendo la costruzione di un nuovo Stato nazionale e popolare». Qualcosa che accendeva la modernità. Le veloci pagine della studiosa ricordano che il Fascismo fu cultura, e anzi alta cultura, sin dagli inizi del Regime vero e proprio, con il “Manifesto degli intellettuali fascisti” voluto da Gentile nel 1925 e che vedeva schierati alcuni pesi massimi della cultura italiana del Novecento, fra i quali Pirandello, Volpe, Codignola, Ungaretti, Soffici, che si andavano ad affiancare ai D’Annunzio, il “primo Duce del Fascismo”, ai Marinetti, ai Cardarelli, ai Papini, etc. E siamo in attesa di qualcuno che ci dica quale altro regime si sia mai avvalso di una così potente schiera di aperti sostenitori.

Ma la Tarquini è anche originale, laddove traccia percorsi nuovi: ricordando l’influenza che il filosofo Giuseppe Rensi (in anni recenti al centro di un processo di rivalutazione, dopo un lungo oblìo) ebbe sul Fascismo e sulla sua idea di autorità; oppure sulla figura di Emilio Bodrero, storico della filosofia e docente alla Scuola di Mistica Fascista, secondo il quale, sin dal 1921, il Fascismo doveva «mobilitarsi come forza rivoluzionaria, per conquistare il potere e dare vita a un nuovo ordine politico».

La Tarquini ricorda anche l’avanguardismo giovanile, fulcro incandescente di elaborazione ideologica e di spinta rivoluzionaria il cui programma, sin dagli esordi del 1920, esprimeva un massimo di moderna socialità, dato che proponeva di «adeguare i programmi scolastici alle esigenze professionali dei ragazzi» e di «abolire il voto in condotta, di sostenere gli studenti più poveri e di rendere obbligatorio l’insegnamento dell’educazione fisica». E poi c’erano le donne. E che donne…da Ada Negri (prima donna nominata all’Accademia d’Italia, nel 1940), alla Deledda (che partecipò alla stesura del testo unico per le scuole medie), fino alla Sarfatti, regina incontrastata del modernismo fascista in politica, in letteratura e nelle arti.

E, a proposito dell’arte e della sostanza del Fascismo come «politicizzazione dell’estetica» e volontà di «socializzazione degli intellettuali» (e in campo artistico basti ricordare la passione fascista di un Sironi, di un Severini, di un Primo Conti, di un Piacentini, di un Terragni, etc.), l’autrice rammenta la presenza massiccia di artisti e letterati di primo piano nello squadrismo (Rosai, Maccari, Malaparte-Suckert, ma potremmo aggiungere lo stesso Marinetti, oppure Lorenzo Viani, Gallian, etc.), così come non manca di scrivere che l’enorme fermento ideologico e culturale messo in moto e catalizzato dal Fascismo si presentò, come avevano già indicato i vari Nolte, Mosse e Del Noce, come «un fenomeno politico figlio della modernità», così da «esprimere una forte spinta alla modernizzazione dell’economia, della società e della cultura». Il senso della missione dei giovani, il progetto di un destino comune, l’esaltante prospettiva di un popolo unito e socialmente avanzato furono il cuore dello sforzo culturale messo in campo dal Fascismo, che poté usufruire di un vero e proprio esercito di intellettuali d’alto e non di rado altissimo livello: ad un impietoso confronto, l’odierna incolta e rozza liberaldemocrazia mondiale – priva di intellettuali che superino il quarto d’ora di celebrità mediatica – ne esce distrutta.

Tante altre notizie su www.ariannaeditrice.it

Archeological Cultures

Archaeological Cultures

By Andrew HAMILTON

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

In the attempt to understand who we are and where we came from, history takes us only so far. Once the written record thins and ends—not far back in time, evolutionarily speaking—we are left primarily with archaeological evidence and inferences from linguistics.

Prehistory is a world of few facts and much guesswork. In the early historical period, when archaeological evidence and spotty written records at least complement one another, existing knowledge is extended. But when the historical record ends completely and archaeologists take over, the situation becomes much more opaque.

The unit of prehistorical analysis is the “culture,” characterized by a defined range of material artifacts. Cultures may be named after particularly rich geographical sites, after unique artifacts, or after regions in which sites of a certain type frequently occur. For each culture a geographical distribution can be mapped and radiocarbon dating pinpoint an estimated date and duration. A series of prehistorical maps can be drawn showing sequences of cultures analogous to sequences of peoples and states on historical maps.

Therefore, cultures should be visualized both “horizontally” and “vertically.” The horizontal dimension is a culture’s geographic distribution, the vertical its development, persistence, and disappearance across time, as well as the sequential succession of different cultures.

Thus, cultural change in prehistoric Europe can be envisioned as a shifting mosaic of different cultures (white ethnic groups or “populations”) moving across the continental landscape in both time and space.

Kossinna’s Law

The term “culture” entered archaeology through 19th century German ethnography, where the Kultur of tribal groups and rural peasants was distinguished from the Zivilisation of urbanized peoples. Kultur was used by German ethnologists to designate the distinctive ways of life of a particular people or Volk.

The idea of archaeological cultures became central to the discipline in the 20th century thanks to the work of Gustaf Kossinna (1858–1931) of the University of Berlin, the most famous archaeologist in the German-speaking world of his day (he was also a linguist).

Kossinna perceived the archaeological record as a mosaic of clearly defined cultures (Kultur-Gruppen or culture groups) that were strongly associated with race. He was particularly interested in reconstructing the movements of direct prehistoric ancestors of Germans, Slavs, Celts and other Indo-European ethnic groups in order to trace the Aryan race to its homeland or Urheimat.

Kossinna developed the theory that regionally delimited ethnic groups can be defined by the material cultures identified by archaeologists. A unified set of archaeological artifacts, a culture, was the sign of a unified ethnicity: “Sharply defined archaeological cultural areas correspond unquestionably with the areas of particular people or tribes.”

This statement is known as “Kossinna’s law.” The only objection to it is the imputation of an invariable identity between archaeological cultures and ethnic or racial groups (populations). The science is more complicated than that.

Kossinna’s law applies best to Neolithic and subsequent eras. The advent of agriculture was accompanied by a population explosion—the Neolithic Demographic Transition. By contrast, in the earliest human era, the Paleolithic, distinct cultural groups and differences are less readily discernible in the archaeological record.

Kossinna’s ideas have made him anathema to guardians of the racial Zeitgeist. Symptomatic of the dumbing down of academia, he is invariably depicted as a proto-Nazi.

Unfortunately, Kossinna’s “academic racism” is warm tap water compared to the poisonous brew of any of the hundreds of professors of Jewish Studies, Holocaust Studies, “Whiteness Studies,” Asian Studies, African Studies, Native American Studies, and Latino Studies active in universities today. Kossinna and other white academics routinely vilified as “racists” are sorry contenders for the mantle. For real hate you must examine today’s academy.

The Linear Pottery Culture

Kossinna’s concept of archaeological culture was introduced into the English-speaking academy by Australian-born, English-descended Stalinist archaeologist V. Gordon Childe, who stated in The Danube in Prehistory (1929):

We find certain types of remains—pots, implements, ornaments, burial rites, house forms—constantly recurring together. Such a complex of regularly associated traits we shall term a “cultural group” or just a “culture.” We assume that such a complex is the material expression of what today would be called a people.

Noted for synthesizing archaeological data from a variety of sources, Childe was the first academic to construct a prehistory of the entire European continent (The Dawn of European Civilization, 1925). He also wrote The Aryans: A Study of Indo-European Origins (1926), a cause for discomfort among the politically correct today.

Examples of very early Neolithic cultures in Europe include the Starčevo-Kőrös-Criş culture ^[3] (Serbia-Hungary-Romania) and the Karnavo culture of Bulgaria.

The first agrarian society in central and eastern Europe was the Linear Pottery culture (Linearbandkeramik, LBK), formerly known as the Danubian culture after V. Gordon Childe’s book. Starting around 5500 BC from the middle Danube (Bohemia, Moravia, Hungary) it expanded northward along the Rhine and the other rivers going north through the German and Polish plains toward the North Sea.

According to McEvedy’s hypothesis in 1967,

Given that the Danubians were a genuine people and remained so until provincial differences began to appear among them a millennium after they had expanded across central Europe, it is difficult to avoid the view that their movement created an Indo-European heartland which must be postulated for roughly this time and place on purely linguistic grounds. Therefore the Danubian culture represents the arrival and establishment of the Indo-Europeans in Central Europe. (Colin McEvedy ^[5], The Penguin Atlas of Ancient History, 9)

Limitations of the Culture Concept

By definition, a prehistory in racial and ethnic terms remains hypothetical. Despite its popularity as a means of organizing the archaeological record, a simple correlation between peoples and distinctive archaeological cultures is not always warranted.

Nevertheless, as Colin McEvedy observed 45 years ago, “We are not so helpless in this matter as the puritans pretend.” And Indo-Europeanist archaeologist J. P. Mallory adds, “While one may deny the necessity of assuming an invariable one-to-one correlation between an archaeological [culture] and a linguistic entity, it is equally perverse to assume that there can be no correlation between the two.” (In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth, 1989, 164. Emphasis added.)

It will likely soon be possible to make well-founded inferences about the genotypes of ancient populations from DNA analyses of human remains. To a limited extent this is already occurring.

It is perfectly acceptable to make reasonable predictions and assumptions about white prehistory based upon archaeological, linguistic, anthropological, and genetic evidence. Archaeologists and prehistorians formulate analogous hypotheses and assumptions about scores of matters all the time.

What is not acceptable is to deny prehistoric evidence due to racist-ideological dogmas motivated by the determination that whites must and will be denied a sense of collective identity.

People so motivated are keenly aware that the development of identity among whites akin to that enjoyed by Jews and non-whites could derail the genocidal policies upon which contemporary politics and the culture war are predicated.

---

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/07/archaeological-cultures/

Herman Wirth en de Indo-Europese voorgeschiedenis

door Marc. EEMANS

Ex: http://marceemans.wordpress.com/

Toen het Derde Rijk ineengestort was hebben heel wat gezellen van het eerste uur gepoogd zich – met min of meer sukses – als slachtoffers van het nationaal-socialisme voor te doen. Anderzijds had de regelrechte nazi-jacht die de overwinnaars ontketenden tot gevolg dat een aantal persoonlijkheden die tot de konservatieve revolutie behoorden en vanaf het begin duidelijk afstand hadden genomen van Hitler, toch werden verdacht, vervolgd en soms zelfs gedood.

Dat was onder meer het geval met de jurist Carl Schmitt, de schrijvers Ernst en Georg Jünger en Ernst von Salomon, de wijsgeren Martin Heidegger en Hermann von Keyserling, Rudolf von Sebottendorf, een der meest eminente leden der Thule-Gesellschaft, of nog de geleerden Friedrich Hielscher en Herman Wirth.

 

Ernst Jünger bracht de oorlog door te Parijs, als Duits officier. Hij had kennis van het tegen Hitler gerichte komplot van 20 juli 1944, maar was een van de weinige, zoniet de enige samenzweerder die werd gespaard. Hoe Heidegger vervolgd werd door de fanatici van het regime hebben wij hier reeds beschreven (zie: Martin Heidegger en de traditie van het Westers denken, in TK&S afl. 12, november 1980, pag. 150/11-20). Met opmerkelijke waardigheid en een stoïcisme dat dat der Oudheid evenaart, verdroeg hij zowel deze vervolging als, na 1945, die door linksen van allerlei pluimage.

Men kent Ernst von Salomons boek Der Fragebogen (1951), waarin hij de soms lachwekkende, maar altijd hatelijke aard van de “denazifikatie-riten” aanklaagt. In feite trad von Salomon nooit tot het nationaal-socialisme toe, dat hij – net als o.m. Julius Evola – zijn demagogische en plebeïsche aard verweet. Zijn vriend uit de dagen van de Brigade Ehrhardt, Hartmut Plaas, werd in 1944 omgebracht in het KZ Ravensbrück.

Datzelfde misprijzen vinden we bij Hermann von Keyserling, stichter van de School der Wijsheid, die echter toch, na de anarchie van de Weimar-republiek, de opkomst van het nationaal-socialisme begroette als een zegen voor Duitsland, maar zich dan weer plots uit alle politieke aktiviteit terugtrekt.

Rudolf von Sebottendorf kreeg last met de nazi-autoriteiten na de publikatie van zijn boek Bevor Hitler kam: het werd meteen verboden en bijna alle beschikbare eksemplaren vernietigd. Maar ook na 1945 blééf het door de Geallieerden verboden, zodat dit boek, dat voor de genesis van het nationaal-socialisme van kapitaal belang is, omzeggens onvindbaar werd, vermits het nooit heruitgegeven of vertaald werd. (1) De schrijver zelf verliet Duitsland en verdronk in 1945 in de Bosporus, in geheimzinnige omstandigheden.

Een geheimzinnig personage is ook Friedrich Hielscher. Men kent zijn naam doorgaans nog enkel omdat hij Wolfram Sievers, sekretaris-generaal van het wetenschappelijk instituut Ahnenerbe bijstond, toen die op 2 juni 1948 als “oorlogsmisdadiger” in Landsberg werd opgehangen. Hielscher zélf werd door de denazificeerders niet verontrust. Men beweerde dat hij lid zou zijn geweest van de Thule-Gesellschaft, maar in de ledenlijst van dit genootschap (opgesteld door Rudolf von Sebottendorf en door René Alleau gepubliceerd in zijn Hitler et les sociétés secrètes, Grasset, Parijs, 1969) vinden we zijn naam niet terug.

Ernst Jünger, die hem goed moet hebben gekend, noteert in zijn Parijs’ dagboek op 14 oktober 1943 “Hielscher bevestigde het vermoeden – dat ik al lang koesterde – dat hij een Kerk zou gesticht hebben. De dogmatiek is hij al voorbij en in de liturgie is hij ver gevorderd. Hij heeft mij een reeks gezangen getoond en een cyclus feesten, het heidens jaar, die een ganse ordening godheden, kleuren, dieren, spijzen, edelstenen, planten … omvat.” De konfrontatie Hielscher-Sievers, tijdens diens laatste ogenblikken, lijkt de thesis “Hielscher, kerkstichter” te bevestigen, als men tenminste geloof mag hechten aan hen die Wolfram Sievers’ martelgang beschreven. Jean-Claude Frère schrijft in zijn boek Nazisme et sociétés secrètes (Grasset, Parijs, 1974): “Toen Sievers zijn vonnis vernam, vroeg hij in zijn laatste ogenblikken te worden bijgestaan door Hielscher. Dit werd hem toegestaan; en toen kon men, aan de voet van de galg, het verbazend, krankzinnig schouwspel beleven van twee mannen die een onbekende ritus voltrokken, onbegrijpelijke formules spraken, en alle aanwezigen – tot de beul toe – zenuwachtig maakten. Tenslotte drukte Hielscher Sievers tegen zich aan, de veroordeelde trad achteruit, boog voor zijn meester en leverde zich dan, onbewogen, aan de beul over.”

In het spoor van de studie der geschiedenis van onze voorouders zullen we straks Herman Wirth ontmoeten, maar blijven we nog even bij Friedrich Hielscher stilstaan. Hij werd geboren in 1902, studeerde rechten en bewoog zich in de jaren twintig in zgn. nationaalrevolutionaire kringen, op een behoorlijke afstand van het nationaal-socialisme. Hij schreef diverse boeken, waaronder Das Reich (1931) en raakte bevriend met Sievers, die hem het werk leerde kennen van Herman Wirth, wiens leerlingen ze beide werden. Hun wegen liepen echter weldra sterk uiteen: terwijl Sievers het nationaal-socialisme vervoegde ging Hielscher in de oppositie. Das Reich werd verboden en hij kreeg bij herhaling last met de nazi-autoriteiten. Hij werd de ‘ideoloog’ van een verzetsgroep die men best als Widerstandsgruppe Hielscher kan aanduiden. Toch bleef hij met Sievers bevriend, werkte aan de rand van het Ahnenerbe met hem mee en zou hem zelfs in zijn verzetsaktiviteiten hebben betrokken – wat hij tevergeefs, om Sievers van de strop te redden, voor het Nürnbergtribunaal trachtte te bewijzen.

Carl Schmitt werd er door zijn tegenstanders van beticht te hebben meegewerkt aan het opstellen van wetten, ten tijde van het Derde Rijk: ongetwijfeld deed hij dat ook. Vanaf 1935 werd hij echter de schietschijf van een aantal aan het nazi-regime onderworpen juristen en een aanval tegen hem in het officiële SS-blad Das schwarze Korps bracht hem ertoe zich volledig terug te trekken uit het openbare leven. Na 1945 hield een geallieerde onderzoekskommissie zich met hem bezig, klasseerde de aantijgingen “zonder gevolg” en rehabiliteerde hem.

Alvorens we nu de idee en het werk van de protohistoricus Herman Wirth behandelen, schetsen we eerst zijn levensloop. Herman Wirth Roeper Bosch, Nederlander, werd in 1885 te Utrecht geboren, als zoon van een turnleraar. Hij studeerde Germaanse filologie, volkskunde, geschiedenis en muziekwetenschap aan de universiteiten van Utrecht, Leipzig en Bazel. In 1910 doktoreert hij op de thesis De ondergang van het Nederlandse Volkslied, die een jaar later in Den Haag als boek verscheen. In 1909 was hij al tot lektor benoemd aan de universiteit van Berlijn, voor het vakgebied Nederlandse filologie.

Hij meldt zich in 1914 als oorlogsvrijwilliger in het Pruissische leger en wordt kort daarop verbindingsofficier te Brussel. Hij onderhield de kontakten met de groep Jong Vlaanderen, die de motor was van het aktivisme, en nam ook aktief deel aan de proklamatie van de Raad van Vlaanderen in 1917 en de kortstondige Vlaamse zelfstandigheid , die in 1918 met de nederlaag van het Duitse keizerrijk ter ziele ging (2). Intussen was hij, in 1916, aan de Berlijnse universiteit tot professor benoemd.

ln 1920 probeerde Wirth in Nederland onder de benaming Dietse Trekvogels een jeugdbeweging van de grond te krijgen, naar het model van de Wandervogel in Duitsland en de Blauwvoeterie in Vlaanderen. In 1923 vestigt hij zich dan in Marburg an der Lahn, als zelfstandig ethnograaf en begint met zijn diepgaand onderzoek naar de Europese pre historie. In 1925 werd hij lid van de  N.S.D.A.P., maar in juli 1926 stapt hij er weer uit. In 1928 laat hij bij Diederichs in Jena zijn bekend werk Der Aufgang der Menschheit verschijnen. In die periode behoorden Friedrich Hielscher en Wolfram Sievers tot zijn trouwste leerlingen. Net ais Wirth zelf werkten ze, op diverse vlakken, aan Ahnenerbe mee, ook al was alleen Sievers een partijman. Wirth was trouwens een van de oprichters van Ahnenerbe en moet er één der invloedrijke leden van zijn geweest, vermits hem meteen de sektie Studie van voorhistorisch schrift en symbolen werd toevertrouwd. In 1935 en 1936 was hij vele maanden op studiereis in Skandinavië. In 1938 brak hij met Ahnenerbe, wei onder de dubbele druk van de vakhistorici, die hem voor een dilettant hielden, en van de nazi•ideologen die hem hoogst kwalijk namen dat hij niet ophield te proklameren dat elke Führerkultus historisch gezien een vervalverschijnsel is…

De eerste bekende anti-Wirth brochure was van de hand van Prof. Dr. Paul Hambruch en droeg de alleszins niet dubbelzinnige titel: Die Irrtumer und Phantasien des Prof. Dr. Herman Wirth/Marburg, Verfasser von “Der Aufgang der Menschheit” und “Was heisst deutsch”. Dit denunciërende geschrift werd dan nog uitgerekend door het Deutscher Polizeiverlag uitgegeven (Lübeck, 1931). De latere Berlijnse n.s.-rektor Alfred Baeumler, bekend o.m. om zijn even perfide als doldrieste aanvallen tegen Heidegger, volgde weldra met het boekje Was bedeutet Herman Wirth für die Wissenschaft? (1932).

ln datzelfde jaar volgde van de geoloog Prof. Dr. Fritz Wiegers Herman Wirth und die deutsche Wissenschaft, waarin Wirth openlijk van dilettantisme werd aangeklaagd: “De geschriften van deze ethnoloog vormen slechts een weefsel van valse besluiten, van onbewezen beweringen en van ontkenningen van wetenschappelijke evidenties” … En verder: “De ‘ontdekkingen’ van Wirth zijn niets meer dan de fantazieën van een door de religieuze gedachte geobsedeerde geest”. In 1934 verscheen dan van Rudolf Glaser een brochure die Herman Wirth kategorisch verwierp, ditmaal niet in naam van de wetenschap, maar in naam van het nationaal-socialisme: Wer ist Herman Wirth? Volkstümliche Aufsatze über die Forschungen Herman Wirth’s von Rudolf Glaser. In de bibliografie vindt men al 62 pro- en contra-Wirth geschriften.

Natuurlijk verschenen er ook artikels en werken die van sympathie en belangstelling getuigden, maar de (tegen)partij had een veel grotere invloed, vooral toen Prof. Dr. Wiegers het argument hanteerde dat Wirth nog in 1932 relaties onderhield met de vrijmetselarij en Bolko Freiherr von Richthofen, de voorzitter van de Beroepsvereniging der Duitse Prehistorici, de aandacht trok op Wirth’s vriendschappelijke betrekkingen met bepaalde Joden… In een brief aan Prof. Hans F.K. Günther schreef Richthofen dat hij “niet begreep waarom men Wirth zou moeten ontzien omwille van taktische en humanitaire redenen” en op 16 januari 1934 liet hij aan Ministerialrat Sunkel weten: “Herr Wirth weiss genau, dass ihm führend besonders kiimpferische Nationalsozialisten gegenüberstehen. Mit Heil Hitler und deutschem Gruss, Ihr ergebenster gez. B. Frhr. v. Richthofen”.

Ook voor de grote kampagne tegen zijn ideeën en zijn persoon moet Herman Wirth binnen Ahnenerbe wel aanstoot gegeven hebben, door zijn onderzoekingen naar een oerkultuur en een oerreligie, die op een heel andere man-vrouw-relatie steunde, als hoogste godheid een “Almoeder” zou gekend hebben en eerder “demokratisch” van inslag was, in de zin van de latere IJslandse demokratie dan.

Wirth verdedigde de stelling dat de overheersend mannelijke trekken in de late kultuur, met hun overwaardering van het militaire leiderschap, typische dekadentieverschijnselen waren uit een periode van kulturele laagkonjunktuur zoals de tijd van de grote volksverhuizingen en de Vikingerperiode. De pogingen van het nationaal-socialisme om precies met deze periodes terug aan te knopen waren hem dan ook een politieke gruwel én kulturele nonsens.

In zijn studie Die Frage der Frauenberge – eine europäische Gegenwartsfrage (1972) komt Herman Wirth nog eens terug op zijn oude thesis: “De Vrouwenberg bij Cappel, nabij Marburg, is een van de meer dan honderd vrouwenbergen, maagden-, jonkvrouwen- enz. – bergen, -burgen, -stenen van het Duitse taalgebied en volksgebied. Wat hun ontstaan en hun bloeitijd betreft behoren deze Vrouwenbergen tot een bepaalde grote periode van het Avondland, gaande van de periode der grote stenen graven en de rotstekeningen in de Jongsteentijd tot bij het begin van de Volksverhuizingen. Over de geschiedenis en de betekenis van deze “Vrouwenbergen” is niets bekend. Dat er niets over geweten is, dat men niet eens geprobeerd heeft op het vraagstuk van de “Vrouwenbergen” enige vat te krijgen, heeft een tweeledige reden. De eerste reden is van psychologische aard: in een nog altijd mannelijk-ideologisch gericht wetenschapssysteem kan het probleem van een blijkbaar verheven plaats van de vrouw op religieus, kultureel en sociaal vlak geen geschiedkundige betekenis en belangrijkheid worden toegekend. En de tweede reden was dat de “Vrouwenbergen” tot de zgn. voorgeschiedenis behoren, d.w.z. dat er over dit onderwerp geen historische bronnen, geen schriftelijke overlevering (inskripties, berichten) bestaat. Dat er daarover toch een schriftelijke overlevering bestond en bestaat, niet in letterschrift maar in symboolschrift, daarvan hadden en hebben de totnogtoe bevoegde wetenschappen tot op de dag van vandaag geen idee: de prehistorici niet, maar evenmin de volkskundigen, de germanisten, de godsdiensthistorici, de mythologen enz.”

Zijn vriend Dr. Joachim Weitzäcker schrijft: “Na Herman Wirth’s “verwijdering” uit Ahnenerbe, dat hij gesticht had (3), verloor hij in 1938 zijn leerstoel aan de Berlijnse universiteit, omwille van zijn op gewetensbezwaren gegrondveste oppositie en zijn eis tot vrij onderzoek. Hij moest terug naar Marburg en kreeg verbod om nog onderricht te geven, te publiceren en in het openbaar te spreken. Tenslotte leverde de wet van het stilzwijgen zijn naam aan de vergetelheid over…”

Maar Wirth was niét helemaal vergeten: in 1945 namen de Amerikanen zijn bibliotheek en zijn omvangrijke dokumentatie in beslag; hij bleef aan dezelfde verbodsbepalingen onderworpen als tijdens de laatste zeven jaren van het Hitlerregime.

Zonder dokumentatie en bijna zonder bestaansmiddelen, herbegon hij, bijgestaan door zijn echtgenote Margarete Schmitt, en enkele vrienden, met bewonderswaardige moed aan zijn levenswerk. In 1960 verscheen in Wenen Um den Ursinn des Menschseins. Hij stichtte de Europaische Sammlung für religionsgeschichte en, in 1979 begon hij – 94 jaar jong! – in de ruïnes van een oud slot te Lichtenberg nabij Kusel, met de installatie van een museum en van archieven, die al zijn geschriften en zijn verzamelingen zou herbergen.

De allerlaatste jaren, haast volledig verlamd, werkte hij onverdroten verder, geholpen door enkele trouwe vrienden, en in leven gehouden met wat schaarse subsidies. Begin van dit jaar is hij er overleden.

Laat ons nu (noodgedwongen oppervlakkig) onderzoeken, wat Herman Wirth’s werk betekent. In zijn paleo-epigrafische opzoekingen, die de historische rekonstruktie van een oerreligie beogen, waagt Wirth zich in feite erg ver in de voorhistorie. In zijn opvatting zouden de Indo-europeërs slechts de vertegenwoordigers zijn van een erg late, hoogstens protohistorische periode.

Inderdaad, al wat de voorstanders van de “primordiale traditie”, waarvan René Guénon en Julius Evola de meest eminente vertegenwoordigers zijn, als positief d.i. kontroleerbaar kunnen bevestigen, gaat niet verder achteruit dan de eerste geschriften, waarmede volgens hen in feite de geschiedenis begint. Al de rest is slechts gissing, die op – weliswaar konvergerende – tradities steunt … doch het blijven tradities, om niet het woord ‘legenden’ te gebruiken. De meeste van Wirth’s werken moeten ook tot deze konjekturale wetenschap gerekend worden, en al zijn opsommingen van tekens en symbolen, waarvan hij de uitleg geeft, steunen (althans volgens zijn criticus Fritz Wiegers) slechts op vaak vernunftige interpretaties, die niet of moeilijk kontroleerbaar zijn. Dat er naast het “letterschrift” ook een koherent “symboolschrift” bestaat, word t intussen minder betwist dan ten tijde van Wirth’s eerste werken: het probleem ligt op het vlak van de duiding.

Vermelden we terloops dat de klassieke prehistorici wantrouwig staan tegenover elke subjektieve interpretatie. Ze doen opgravingen, ontdekken fossielen of voorwerpen van aile aard, klasseren ze en situeren ze meestal naar gelang de vindplaats. Uit hun ontdekkingen kunnen we afleiden, dat in deze of gene periode de Homo sapiens die of deze stap zette in de langzame opgang der mensheid naar wat we prozaisch “beschaving” noemen. Zo spreekt men over lager-, midden-, en lioger-paleoliticum, mesoliticum, neoliticum, bronstijdperk en ijzertijdperk, mét hun onderverdelingen, die ais “beschavingen” bestempeld worden, en waarvan de recentste die van Hallstatt en die van La Tène zijn. Om die periodes te dateren gebruikt men heden de radio-carbonmethode. Intussen ontdekken de prehistorici aanwijzingen omtrent de religie, de technologie, de begrafenisriten, zonder de eerste kunstuitingen te vergeten.

Onder de resten van een tamelijk geëvolueerde beschaving vermelden we de rotstekeningen van Altamira en Lascaux, die volgens de klassieke prehistorici uit het laag-neoliticum stammen (zowat tussen 35.000 en 10.000 v.o.j.). Vermits ze in een geografische ruimte liggen die zich ver van Noord-Europa bevindt, konden ze noch Wirth, noch de geleerden van Ahnenerbe interesseren, vervuld ais ze waren van die Indo-europese beschaving, waarvan de oudste sporen niet vroeger te situeren zijn dan in het 5de of 4de milennium vóór onze tijdrekening. Eerder zou men van het 3de of zelfs het 2de milennium moeten spreken, wat onze Europese primordiale traditie wei érg dicht bij ons legt. Werkt een kenner van de Indo-europese traditie ais Georges Dumézil trouwens niet bij voorkeur op geschreven bronnen? En nu weten we, dat het schrift van tamelijk recente datum is.

De klassieke prehistorici struikelen nog over raadsels, zoals die van de megalithen. Ze stellen hun bestaan vast, wagen een interpretatie, maar trekken geen besluiten: dat laten ze liever over aan geleerden als Wirth, die ze voor het overige wantrouwen. En wat raadsels ais Atlantis of het verloren kontinent Mu betreft, verkiezen ze er niet aan te raken en laten gissingen omtrent die vraagstukken over aan mensen die ze ais specialisten van “science-fiction” beschouwen.

Wij moeten toegeven dat de klassieke prehistorici al wat wij onze “primordiale Traditie” noemen, ignoreren; het vertrekpunt van deze benaming en van de vraagstukken die er verband mee houden, vindt men in een werk van de Duitse taalkundige Franz Bopp Vergleichende Grammatik des Sanskrit, Zend, Griechischen, Lateinischen, Lithauischen, Gotischen und Deutschen, dat uit de jaren 1833-52 stamt. Het vraagstuk van de Indo-europeërs breidde zich vlug uit van de taalkunde naar het probleem van het woongebied der volkeren die Indo-europese talen spraken en schreven, zonder dat de geleerden het eens konden worden over het vertrekpunt en de datering van deze verspreiding. Het zou interessant zijn dit probleem te bestuderen: men zou dan vaststellen dat op dit vlak de grootste verwarring heerst. Wat zeker is: overal waar de Indo-europeërs zich vestigden, overvleugelden ze de bevolking die al in dat gebied woonde, en onderwierpen ze hen (de Dravida’s in Indië b.v.).

Overal, zowel in Europa ais in Azië, vormden ze de twee overheersende kasten, die de geestelijken en die der strijders of ridders.

Om naar Herman Wirth te rug te keren, stellen we vast dat hij, al zat hij dan min of meer in de lijn van Bachofen, de theoreticus van het matriarchaat, toch niet afkerig was van de Odinistische mythologie, die hij uit de graffiti op de rotswanden van Noord-Europa meende te mogen afleiden en die hij poogde in te voegen in zijn konstrukties omtrent een matriarchale godsdienst. Ook de runen horen daar ergens bij, zodat men in zijn theorieën een soort mythisch-godsdienstig synkretisme mag zien, waarvan het “Mutter Erde”-begrip het sluitstuk is. Het is onbetwistbaar (de klassieke prehistorie bévestigt het ons) dat er in het Atlantisch Europa van het derde millenium een “megalitische” godsdienst bestond, met aanbidden van een vruchtbaarheidsgodin, die tegelijk de begrafenis-riten voorzat. Maar even zeker is dat er sinds het neoliticum (wellicht zelfs sinds het paleolitieum) een verering van de vrouwelijke godheid bestond: dit wordt bevestigd door talrijke beelden, als de “Venus” van Savignano (Italië), Gargarino (USSR) en Willendorff (Oostenrijk); of door de vrouwenkoppen van Dolmi Vestaniee (Tsjeehoslovakije) en Brassempuy (Frankrijk), wat ons zéker tot zowat 30.000 jaren vóór onze tijdrekening terugvoert.

Wirth’s onderzoeken waren vooral op Noord-Europa gericht, zoals zijn reizen uit 1935-36 aantonen. Wij moeten er, om met de klassieke prehistorici te spreken, uit besluiten dat zijn onderzoek vooral het zogenaamd mesoliticum betrof, dat aanvangt rond 10.000 v66r onze jaartelling en zich uitstrekt over het neoliticum en de twee metaaltijdperken, tot de eerste eeuwen van onze jaartelling, voor de kerstening van Noord-Europa.

Volgens de primordiale Traditie moet er echter, vóór die tijd, een ander, veel zachter klimaat geheerst hebben, toen Groenland en Spitzbergen groene en vruchtbare gebieden waren , (de naam Groenland wijst er op!). Hoe dit tijdperk situeren ? Laat ons het antwoord afwachten van de geologen, de prehistorici of de historici van de primordiale Traditie. Immers, in welke periode van het Pleistoceen de groene velden van het aloude Ultima Thule situeren ? Wie weet gaat het om een vrij recente periode, uit het zesde tot derde milennium vóór onze jaartelling, en die men in de geologie de Atlantische periode noemt. Toen was het legendarische Mu-gebied allang, rond 12.500 of 12.000 jaar voor onze jaartelling, in de golven verdwenen (4). Waarschijnlijk verdween, tijdens dezelfde natuurramp, Atlantis, dat andere hypothetische land .

Wat er ook van zij, doorheen heel zijn lange loopbaan heeft Wirth niet opgehouden, zijn studies over Europa’s voorgeschiedenis voort te zetten, daarbij vooral de aandacht vestigend op de paleo-epigrafie.

In zijn speurtocht naar al wat de voorhistorische Moeder Aarde-kultus kan bevestigen, heeft hij het onmetelijk belang onderstreept van de pre-Indo-europese beschaving voor het kultureelleven én de religie in Europa. Het magisch-religieuze leven in die periode hield hem voortdurend bezig, en hij bewees dat vóór de stroom Indogermaanse veroveraars, die over heel de antieke wereld van de Atlantische oceaan tot het Nabije- en Verre-Oosten neerstortte, er hier reeds mensen leefden die zich even zeer als de nieuwkomers om geestelijke zaken bekommerden.

Mogelijk zijn Wirth’s werken getekend door een zeker dilettantisme, maar loopt niet iedereen die zich in de kronkelingen van ons oudste verleden waagt, dit risiko ? Hoeveel bewonderaars van dat geheimzinnig verleden goochelen niet met min of meer fantaisistische gevolgtrekkingen en benaderingen, zich tegelijk als “gezaghebbend” voordoend ? Zij weten, wat u, de lezer, niet weet; zij zijn ingewijd en u bent het niet. Zij halen hun ‘wetenschap’, rechtstreeks of onrechtstreeks, bij een of ndere Tibetaanse monnik, of bij een of andere, min of meer geheimzinnige Goeroe, die de sleutel tot een eeuwenoud mysterie bezit…

Laat ons maar toegeven: hoeveel pretentieuze domheden vinden we niet onder de dekmantel van wat onze vrienden van de Traditie, de ‘Primordiale Traditie’ noemen ? René Guénon en Julius Evola hebben zich veel moeite getroost, de kwakzalvers van de – zogezegd – traditionele wetenschappen te ontmaskeren. Desondanks lopen ze nog rond en staan ze voortdurend klaar, u om het even welke valse ‘revelatie’ of welk produkt van hun op hol geslagen verbeelding ook aan te smeren …

Moeten we Herman Wirth bij de kwakzalvers van de Traditie onderbrengen ? Wij zijn overtuigd van niet, maar wél dienen we met omzichtigheid de resultaten van zijn onderzoekingen te beschouwen.

Zo heeft hij zich vér in de zogenaamde Ura Linda-kroniek gewaagd. Is ze een vervalsing, een louter literaire fantasie in de aard van de “Ossian-liederen” ? Is het een laattijdige kompilatie van een mondelinge traditie, ais de “Kalewala” ? De vraag blijft gesteld.

Vergeten we anderzijds ni et dat hij zolang hij persona grata was bij Ahnenerbe, ais groot geleerde op het vlak van de prehistorie werd beschouwd; en dat hij na zijn ongenade, zelfs het recht verbeurde les te geven en in het openbaar te spreken.

Jean Beelen schreef: “De onmetelijke verdienste van Prof. Wirth ligt erin, de oerperiode van het geschrift en de symboliek te hebben dóórgelicht en te hebben bewezen dat de mensen uit die tijd een kosmisch aanvoelen hadden dat aan de basis lag van een volkse godsdienst”. Dat is al héél wat en zo moeten we wei rekening houd en met al wat hij deed, en al wat hij schreef, zelfs al blijven we vrij te redetwisten over zijn – onbetwistbaar belangrijke – aanbreng inzake de voorgeschiedenis van de Westerse wereld.

Marc. EEMANS

(Vert. Roeland Raes)
(1) Het boek van Sebottendorf is niet te verwarren met dat van Dietrich Bronder dat eveneens de titel “Bevor Hitler kam” draagt (Hans Pfeiffer-Verlag, Hannover, 1964). Het essay van R.H. Phelps “Before Hitler came”. Thule Society and German Order” (in het Journal of Modern History, 1963) is géén vertaling maar een zelfstandige studie.
(2) Over Herman Wirth en het aktivisme, over Herman Wirth en het Vlaams-nationalisme, is het laatste woord nog niet gezegd. Willemsen en Elias vermelden hem even in de rand. Heel wat meer gegevens vindt men in een studie van Dr. Lammert Buning over Wirth, verschenen in Wetenschappelijke Tijdingen, 3/74.
(3) In feite medegesticht, samen met Hermann Reischle, Heinrich Himmler, Adolf Babel, Georg Ebrecht, Erwin Metzner en Richard Hintmann.
(4) Zie James Churchward: “Mu, le continent perdu.”

History and Biology

History & Biology

By Revilo Oliver

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

American Opinion, December 1963 (part 4 of 4 of History and the Historians)

History is the record of what men do. Scientific discoveries and technological applications of them are often events of historical importance, but do not affect our understanding of the historical process since they shed no light on the behavior of men in civilized societies.

For example, the recent use of atomic fission to produce a more powerful explosive has no significance for a philosophy of history. Like the many changes in the technology of war that have occurred throughout history, this one will call for changes in tactics and strategy, alters to some extent the balance of power in the world, and may well occasion the fall and extinction of a world power so fat-headed that it does not understand the importance of technological superiority in warfare. But all this is merely history repeating itself. It is true that the improved weapons set bands of addle-pated neurotics throughout the country shrieking as wildly as a tribe of banshees out on a week-end spree; but that is merely another instance of the rather puzzling phenomenon of mass hysteria. It is also true that Communist agents have been scurrying about the country to brandish the phrase “nuclear holocaust” as a kind of up-to-date Jack-o’-Lantern to scare children. But while it is the historian’s task to understand the International Conspiracy in the light of such partial precedents as are available, the new weapon will not help him in that. He will merely marvel that a large part of our population is not only ignorant of history in general, but evidently has not read even the Old Testament, from which it would have learned that atomic bombs, as instruments of extermination, are much less efficient that a tribe of Israelites armed with the simplest weapons (see Joshua vi. 20 et passim).

As an exception to the general rule, however, our century has brought one new area of knowledge in the natural sciences that must profoundly affect our understanding of history both past and present–that is as relevant to the rise and fall of the Mitanni and the Hittites as it is to our future. Distressingly enough, the new science of genetics raises for the historian many more questions than it answers, but it discloses the existence of a force that must be taken into account in any philosophy of history.

Multiplex Man

Civilized human beings have long been puzzled by the mysterious diversity of human beings. It is possible, indeed, that mystery was part of the process by which some people were able to rise from barbarism to civilization. The perception requires mental powers that are by no means universal. The aborigines of Australia, for example, who are probably the lowest from of human life still extant, have a consciousness so dim and rudimentary that they multiplied on that continent for fifty thousand years without ever suspecting that sexual intercourse had anything to do with reproduction. Most savages, to be sure, are somewhat above that level, but no tribe appears to have been aware of its own diversity, let alone capable of thinking about it.

Human beings capable of reflective thought, however, must have begun early to marvel, as we still do, at the great differences obvious among the offspring of one man by one woman. Of two brothers, one may be tall and the other short; one stolid and the other alert; one seemingly born with a talent for mathematics and the other with a love of music.

Many were the theories that men excogitated to explain so strange a phenomenon. One of the principal grounds for the once widespread and persistent belief in astrology was the possibility of explaining the differences between two brothers by noting that, although engendered by the same parents, they were conceived and born under different configurations of the planets. In the Seventeenth Century, indeed, Campanella, whose plan for a Welfare State is the source of many of our modern “Liberal” crotchets and crazes, devised a whole system of eugenics to be enforced by bureaucrats who would see to it that human beings were engendered only at moments fixed by expert astrologers.

Again, the doctrine of metempsychosis, once almost universally held over a wide belt of the earth from India to Scandinavia, seemed to be confirmed by the same observations; for the differences between brothers were understandable, if their bodies were animated by souls that had had far different experiences in earlier incarnations.

There were also some theoretical explanations, such as the one that you may remember having read in the stately verse of Lucretius, that were sound bases for scientific inquiry, but they were not followed up. Until the last third of the Nineteenth Century, men learned nothing of the basic laws of heredity. Darwin’s knowledge of the subject was no better than Aristotle’s, and Galton’s enthusiasm for eugenics was no more firmly founded than was Plato’s. It remained for a humble and too modest priest, Father Johann Gregor Mendel, to make one of the most important scientific discoveries ever made by man.

Father Mendel’s Versuche über Pflanzen hybriden was published in 1886, but the famous professors in the great universities could not take a mere priest seriously–certainly not a priest so impudent as to contradict Darwin–and so they went on for decades pawing over problems that father Mendel had made obsolete as the epicycles of Ptolemaic astronomy. He was simply ignored and forgotten until 1900, when three distinguished biologists discovered independently and almost simultaneously some of the laws that he had ascertained and formulated.

It required some time for systematic study of genetics to get under way, and research has been greatly impeded by two catastrophic World Wars and by the obscurantism of Communists and “Liberal intellectuals.”

In Russia and other territories controlled by the Conspiracy, Marx’s idiotic mumbo-jumbo is official doctrine and the study of genetics is therefore prohibited. There are, however, some indications that research may be going on secretly, and it is even possible that, so far as human genetics are concerned, the knowledge thus obtained may exceed our own; for the Soviet, though usually inept in scientific work, has facilities for experiments that civilized men cannot perform. In the mid-1930′s, for example, there were reports that experiment stations in Asiatic Russia had pens of human women whom the research workers were trying to breed with male apes in the hope of producing a species better adapted to life under Socialism than human beings. It was reported a few years ago that the Soviet is now trying to create subhuman mutations by exposing their human breeding stock to various forms of irradiation. One cannot exclude the possibility that the monsters who conduct such experiments may incidentally find some significant data.

In the United States, the situation differs somewhat from that in Russia. Geneticists are permitted to continue their studies in peace so long as they communicate only with one another and do not disclose to the public facts of which the American boobs must be kept ignorant. Since it requires rare courage to provoke a nest of “Liberal intellectuals” or rattlesnakes, the taboo thus imposed is generally observed.

Grim Genetics

Despite the restraints placed on scientific investigation, and despite the awesome complexity of genetic factors in so complicated a creature as man, it is now virtually certain that all of the physiological structure of human beings, including such details as color of eyes, acuity of vision, stature, susceptibility to specific diseases, and formation of the brain are genetically determined beyond possibility of modification or alteration except by physical injury or chemical damage. Some of the processes involved have been well ascertained; others remain unknown. No one knows, for example, why the introduction of minute quantities of fluorine into drinking water will prevent development of the brain in some children and so roughly double the number of mongolian idiots born in a given area.

It is far more difficult to investigate intellectual capacities, since these must involve a large number of distinct elements, no one of which can be physically observed; but all of the evidence thus far available indicates that intelligence is as completely and unalterable determined by genetic inheritance as physical traits.

Moral qualities are even more elusive than intellectual capacity. There is evidence which makes it seem extremely probable that criminal instincts, at least, are inherited, but beyond this we can only speculate by drawing an analogy between moral and intellectual potentialities.

Many persons find the conclusions thus suggested unpleasant, just as all of us, I am sure, would be much happier if the earth were the immobile center of the universe and the heavens revolved about it. But although vast areas in the new science of genetics remain unexplored, and although the complexity of many problems is such that we cannot hope to know in our lifetime many of the things that we most urgently need to know, the principles of heredity have been determined with a fairly high degree of scientific probability. They are, furthermore, in accord with what common sense has always told us and also with the rational perception of our place in the universe that underlies religion.

We can blind children, but we cannot give them sight. We can stunt their minds in “progressive” schools, but we cannot give them an intelligence they did not inherit at birth. It is likely that we can make criminals of them by putting them (like the somewhat improbable Oliver Twist) in Fagin’s gang or its equivalent, but we cannot induce a moral sense in one who was born without it. We have always known that it is easy for man to destroy what he can never create.

One Certainty

The Mendelian laws and hence the finding that human beings, physically and intellectually, at least, are absolutely limited to the potentialities they have inherited — which may be impaired by external action but cannot be increased — are the accepted basis of all serious biological study today. From the standpoint of scientific opinion, to deny heredity is about equivalent to insisting that the earth is flat or that tadpoles spring from the hair of horses.

The point is worth noting, for even if you choose to reject the findings of genetics, that science will enable you to demonstrate one very important truth.

Our “liberal intellectuals,” who have done all in their power to deride, defile, and destroy all religion, are now sidling about us with hypocritical whimpers that the facts of genetics ain’t “Christian.” This argument does work with those whose religion is based on the strange faith that God wouldn’t have dared to create a universe without consulting their wishes. But if you inquire of the “intellectual,” as though you did not know, concerning scientific evidence in these matters, the chances are that he will assure you, with a very straight face, that he is, as always, the Voice of Science. Thus you will know that he still is what he has always been: a sneak and a liar.

The Warp of Culture

Given the facts that all men are born unequal; that the inequality, apparent even among children of the same parents, increases with differences in genetic strains; that civilization, by the very fact of social organization and the variety of human activity thus made possible, accentuates such differences; and that the continuity of a culture depends on a more or less instinctive acceptance of the common values of that culture — given those facts, it becomes clear that historians who try to account for the rise and fall of civilizations by describing political, economic, philosophic, and religious changes without reference to genetic changes in the population are simply excluding what must have been a very important factor, however little we may be able to measure it in the past or the present.

Whatever should be true of statutory and often ephemeral enactments in human jurisprudence, it is undoubtedly true of all the laws of nature that ignorance of the law excuses no-one from the consequences of violating it. And it may be unjust, as it is certainly exasperating, that we must often act with only a partial and inaccurate knowledge of such laws. But that is a condition of life. Societies are like individuals in that they must make decisions as best they can on the basis of such information as is available to them. You may have stock in a corporation whose future you may find it very difficult to estimate, but you must decide either (a) to sell, or (b) to buy more, or (c) to hold what you have. What you cannot do is nothing.

The scope of genetic forces in the continuity of a civilization, and, more particularly, of Western civilization, and, especially, of that civilization in the United States was illustrated by one of the most brilliant of American writers, Dr. Lothrop Stoddard, in The Revolt Against Civilization (Scribner’s, New York, 1922). The book was out of print for many years, for our “liberal intellectuals” promptly decided that the subject was one that American boobs should not be permitted to think about, and accordingly shovelled their malodorous muck on both book and author, in the hope of burying both forever. Copies of it disappeared from many libraries, and the book became hard to find on the secondhand market (I obtained my copy from a dealer in Italy).

I commend The Revolt Against Civilization, not as a revelation of ultimate truth, but as a cogent and illuminating discussion of some very grim problems that we must face, if we intend to have a future. The book, you must remember, was written when problems in genetics seemed much simpler than they do now in the light of later research, and when Americans felt a confidence and an optimism that we of a later generation can scarcely reconstruct in imagination. Some parts of the book will seem quaint and old-fashioned. Dr. Stoddard assumes, for example, that the graduates of Harvard are a group intellectually and morally above the average: That probably was true when he was an undergraduate and when he took his doctorate; he did not foresee what loathesome and reptilian creatures would slither out of Harvard to infest the Dismal Swamp in Washington. And when he urged complete toleration of Communist talk (as distinct from violence), he was thinking of soap-box oratory in Bug-House Square and the shrill chatter of parlor-pinks over their teacups; he did not foresee penetration and capture of schools, churches, newspapers, and political organizations by criminals who disseminate Communist propaganda perfunctorily disguised as “progressive education,” “social gospel,” and “economic democracy.”

But the book remains timely. What were sins of omission in 1922, when we were, with feckless euphoria, repeating the blunders that destroyed past civilization, are now sins of commission, committed with deliberate and malicious calculation by the enemies whom we have given power over us. And we should especially perpend Dr. Stoddard’s distinction between the ignorant or overly-emotional persons who “blindly take Bolshevism’s false promises at their face value,” and the real Bolshevik, who “are mostly born and not made.” That dictum is as unimpeachable as the poeta nascitur, non fit, that it echoes.

The Optimistic Pessimist

Since Stoddard wrote, the horizons have darkened around us. A recent and stimulating book is Dr. Elmer Pendell’s The Next Civilization. The title may remind you of an article that Arthur Koestler published in the New York Times on November 7, 1943 — an article whose bleak pessimism startled all but the very few readers who were in a position to surmise, form the hints which Koestler was able to smuggle into the pages of the Times, that he, an ex-Communist, was able to estimate the extent to which the Communist Conspiracy had already taken control of the government of the United States. Koestler, stating flatly that we would soon be engulfed in a Dark Age of barbarism and indescribable horror, called for the establishment of monasteries that, like the monasteries of the early Middle Ages, would preserve some part of human culture as seed for a new Renaissance in some distant future. Dr. Pendell, although he does not entirely deny us hope for ourselves, is primarily concerned with preserving the better part of our genetic heritage as seed for a future civilization that may have the intelligence to avoid the follies by which we are decreeing our own doom.

Dr. Pendell very quickly reviews the historical theories of Brook Adams, Spengler, Toynbee, and others to show that they all disregard the fact that decline in a civilization is always accompanied by a change in the composition, and deterioration in the quality, of the population.

We know that such changes took place in every civilization of which we have record. The majority of Roman citizens in 100 A.D. were not related at all to the Roman citizens in 100 B.C. We know that the great Roman families died out from sheer failure to have enough children to reproduce themselves, and we have reason to believe that all classes of responsible Romans, regardless of social or economic position, followed the fashion of race suicide.

Since the Romans had the preposterous notion that any person of any race imported from any part of the world could be transformed into a Roman by some magic in the legal phrases by which he was made a Roman citizen, the children that the Romans did not have were replaced by a mass of very diverse origins. Some of the importations undoubtedly brought with them fresh vigor and talent; some were incapable of assimilating civilization at all and could only imitate its outer forms without understanding its meaning; and some, while by no mens inferior in intelligence and energy, had a temperament which, although eminently suited to some other civilization, was incompatible with the Roman. For some estimates of the deterioration of the population of the empire that the Romans founded, see the late Tenny Frank’s History of Rome (Holt, New York) and Martin P. Nilsson’s Imperial Rome (Schocken, New York).

When Dr. Stoddard wrote, we were merely behaving as thoughtlessly as the Romans: Carpe diem and let tomorrow take care of itself. But now, as Dr. Pendell hints and could have stated more emphatically, the power of government over us is being used, with a consistency and efficiency that must be intentional, to accelerate our deterioration and hasten our disappearance as a people by every means short of mass massacre that geneticists could suggest. To mention but one small example, many states now pick the pockets of their taxpayers to subsidize and promote the breeding of bastards, who, with only negligible exceptions, are the product of the lowest dregs of our population, the morally irresponsible and mentally feeble. An attorney informs me that in his state and others the rewards for such activity are so low that a female of this species has to produce about a dozen bastards before it can afford a Cadillac, and will have to go on producing to take care of the maintenance. Intensive breeding is therefore going on, and the legislation that was designed to stimulate it may therefore be said to be highly successful.

The United States is now engaged in an insane, but terribly effective, effort to destroy the American people and Western civilization by subsidizing, both at home and abroad, the breeding of the intellectually, physically, and morally unfit; while at the same time inhibiting, by taxation and in many other ways, the reproduction of the valuable parts of the population — those with the stamina and the will to bear the burden of high civilization. We, in our fatuity, but under the control of persons who must know that they are doing, are working to create a future in which our children, if we have any, will curse us for having given them birth.

When Dr. Pendell tells us what we must do, if we are to survive or even if we limit ourselves to the more modest hope that human civilization may survive on our planet, is to reverse the process — to encourage the reproduction of the superior stock and to check the multiplication of the inferior — he is unquestionably right. He may also be right when he urges that we must do more than desist from interfering with nature for the purpose of producing biological deterioration — that we must, instead, interfere with nature to ameliorate and improve our race. But here, I fear, Dr. Pendell, although he almost despairs of our civilization and looks to the next one, is yet too optimistic. There are two practical difficulties.

Our Coup d’Etat

Dr. Pendell proposes voluntary eugenic associations and “heredity corporations,” which, no doubt, would help a little, as he argues, but which, as he is aware, would not have much more effect than a few buckets of water thrown into the crater of Mauna Loa. At this late date, to accomplish much for ourselves or even for our putative successors, we must use at least the taxing power of government, if not its powers of physical coercion, to induce or compel the superior to have children and to prevent the inferior from proliferating. So here enters on the stage that most unlovely product of human evolution, the bureaucrat, whom we shall need to apply whatever rules we may devise. And –if you can stand a moment of sheer nightmare, dear reader — imagine, just for five seconds or so, what mankind would be like, if the power to decide who was or was not to have children fell into the hands of a Senator Fulbright, a Walt Rostow, and Adam Yarmolinsky, a Jack Kennedy, or a Jack The Ripper.

For that dilemma, of course, there is an obvious solution — but, so far as I can see, only one. You, my dear reader, Dr. Pendell, and I must form a triumvirate and seize absolute power over the United States. Unfortunately, I can’t at the moment think of a way of carrying out our coup d’etat, but let’s leave such details until later. Assume that we have that power, which we, certainly, are determined to use wisely and well. What shall we do with it?

Dr. Pendell is certainly right. We must breed for brain-power: We must see to it that the most intelligent men and women mate with one another and have many children. And we can identify the intelligent by testing their “I.Q.” and by their grades in honest college courses (as distinguished from the childish or fraudulent drivel that forms so large a part of the college curriculum today).

Let us not digress from the subject by questioning the relative validity of the various tests used to determine an “intelligence quotient.” And we shall ignore the exceptions which, as every teacher knows, sometimes make the most conscientious grading misleading. Father Mendel, to whom we owe the greatest discovery ever made in biology, failed to pass the examination for a teacher’s license in that field. A.E. Houseman, one of the greatest classical scholars in the world, failed to obtain even second-class honors at Oxford, and was given a mere “pass.” But such exceptions are rare. Let us assume that we can test intelligence infallibly. Is that enough?

It is always helpful to reduce generalizations to specific examples. Percy Bysshe Shelley was one of the great English poets; Albert Einstein, although fantastically over-advertised by yellow journalism, was a great mathematician. Both were brilliant men in more than one field of intellectual activity (Shelley is said to have exhibited a considerable talent for chemistry, among other things, and Einstein is said to have done well in courses on the Classics). Both, I am sure, would have placed themselves in the very highest bracket of any intelligence test, and (if so minded) could have been graduated summa cum laude from any college curriculum that you may advise. Both were, in their judgement of social and political problems, virtually morons. Merely a deficiency of practical common sense, you say? Yes, no doubt, but both acted on the basis of that deficiency and used their intellectual powers to exert a highly pernicious influence. One need not underestimate either the beauty of Shelley’s poems or the importance of the two theories of relativity to conclude that the world would be better off, had neither man existed.

But we must go farther than that. It is odd that most of the persons who urge us to foster “superior intellect” and “genius,” whether they recommend eugenics or educational subsidies or other means, simply ignore the phenomenon of the mattoid (see Lothrop Stoddard, op. cit., pp. 102-106, and the article by Max Nordau there cited).

A mattoid is a person possessed of a mentality that is, in the strict sense of the word, unbalanced. He is a Shelley or Einstein tilted just a few more degrees. He exhibits an extremely high talent, often amounting to genius, in one kind of mental activity, such as poetry or mathematics, while the other parts of his mind are depressed to the level of imbecility or insanity. Nordau, who was an acutely observant physician, noted that such unbalanced beings are usually, if not invariably, “full of organic feelings of dislike” and tend to generalize their subjective state of resentment against the civilized world into some cleverly devised pseudo-philosophic or pseudo-aesthetic system that will erode the very foundations of civilized society. Since civilized people necessarily set a high value on intellect, but are apt to venerate “genius” uncritically and without discrimination, the mattoid’s influence can be simply deadly. Nordau, indeed, saw in the activity of mattoids the principal reason why “people [as a whole] lose the power of moral indignation, and accustom themselves to despise it as something banal, unadvanced, and unintelligent.”

Nordau’s explanation may be satisfactory so far as it goes, but moral insanity is not by any means confined to minds that show an extraordinary disproportion among the faculties that can properly be called intellectual and can be measured by such things as intelligence tests, academic records, proficiency in a profession, and outstanding research. The two young degenerates, Loev and Leopold, whose crime shocked the nation some decades ago although the more revolting details could not be reported in the Press, were reputed to be not only among the most brilliant undergraduates ever enroled in the University of Chicago, but to be almost equally proficient in every branch of study. One could cite hundreds of comparable examples.

Most monsters that become notorious have to be highly intelligent to gain and retain power. Lenin and Trotsky must have had very active minds, and the latter, at least, according to persons who knew him, was able on occasion to pass as a cultivated man. Both probably had a very high “I.Q.” All reports from China indicate that Mao Tse-tung is not only extremely astute, but even learned in the Chinese culture that he is zealously extirpating. A few Communists or crypto-Communists who have been put in prominent positions may be mere stooges, but the directors of the Conspiracy and their responsible subordinates must be persons of phenomenally high intelligence.

It is clear that there is in the human species some biological strain of either atavism or degeneracy that manifests itself in a hatred of mankind and a list for evil for its own sake. It produced the Thugs in India and the Bolsheviks in Russia (cf. Louis Zoul, Thugs and Communists, Public Opinion, Long Island City). It appears in such distinguished persons as Giles de Rais, who was second only to the king of France, and in such vulgar specimens as Fritz Haarmann, a homosexual who attracted some attention in Germany in 1924, when it was discovered that for many years he had been disposing of his boy-friends, as soon as he became tired of them, by tearing their throats open with his teeth and then reducing them to sausage, which he sold in a delicatessen. And it animates the many crypto-Communist who hold positions of power or influence in the United States.

It is probable that this appalling viciousness is transmitted by the organic mechanisms of heredity, and although no geneticist would now even speculate about what genes or lack of genes produce such biped terrors, I think it quite likely that the science of genetics, if study and research are permitted to continue, may identify the factors involved eventually — say in two or three hundred years. I know that we most urgently and desperately need to know now. But it will do no good to kick geneticists: The most infinite complexity of human heredity makes it impossible to make such determinations more quickly by the normal techniques of research. (Of course, a brilliant discovery that would transcend those methods is always possible, but we can’t count on it.)

It is quite likely that at the present rate, as eugenicists predict, civilization is going to collapse from sheer lack of brains to carry it on. But it is now collapsing faster and harder from a super-abundance of brains of the wrong kind. Granting that we can test intelligence, we must remember that at or near the top of the list, by any test that we can devise, will be a flock of diabolically ingenious degenerates. And even if we could find a way to identify and eliminate the spawn of Satan, we should still have problems.

What causes genuine “liberal intellectuals”? Many are pure Pragmatists. They have no lust for evil for its own sake; they wouldn’t betray their country or their own parents for less than fifty dollars — and not for that, if they thought they could get more by bargaining. Others are superannuated children who want to go on playing with fairies and pixies, and are ready to kick and bite when disturbed at play; but they have the combination of lachrymose sentimentality and thoughtless cruelty that one so often finds in children before they become capable of the rational morality of adults. But all of our “liberal intellectuals” were graduated from a college of some sort, and many of them, I am sure, have a fairly high “intelligence quotient” by modern tests. I do not claim or suggest that they are the result of hereditary defects; I merely point out that we do not know and have no means of finding out. We can’t be sure of anything except that our society now has as many of those dubious luxuries as it can endure. And yet we are going to encourage them to raise the intellectual level.

Come to think of it, my friends, I guess we’d better postpone our coup d’etat for a couple of centuries.

The Shape of Things to Come

For a neat antithesis to Dr. Pendell’s book and, at the same time, a very significant application of genetics, I suggest Roderick Seidenberg’s Anatomy of the Future (University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill; 175 pages). Mr. Seidenberg — I call him that because I haven’t been able to find out whether or not it should be “Dr.” — told us what our future was going to be in an earlier book, Posthistoric Man (same publisher; 256 pages), which, according to the “liberal” reviewers, made him a gigantic “philosopher of history.” In the present volume, however, he has condescended to tell us again and in fewer pages — which may make this one the better bargain.

Mr. Seidenberg, according to Mr. Seidenberg, has surveyed with his eagle eye the whole course of human history and, what is more, the whole course of biological evolution since life first appeared on this planet. That is how he knows about the “ineluctable determinism” that is going to put us in our places.

The Prophet takes his departure from the now familiar phenomenon called the “population explosion” (see American Opinion, April 1960, pp. 33 f.). He says that an increase in the number of human beings automatically increases the “complexity” of society.

Of course, we have been hearing about this “complexity” for years. I am sure that you, poor harried reader, have reflected, every time that you leap into your automobile, how much simpler life would be, if you had to worry about the health of your horses, the condition of your stable, the quality of your oats and hay, the disposition and sobriety of your coachman, the efficiency of your ostlers, and the reliability of the scavengers whom you have hired to keep clean your mews. And I know that whenever you, in Chicago, pick up the telephone to call your aunt in Miami, you remark, with may a bitter oath, how much less complex everything would be, if all that you had to do was find and hire a reliable messenger who would ride express to her house and deliver your hand-written note in a month or so — if he was not waylaid on the road, and if his horse did not break a leg or cast a shoe, and if he did not decide to pause at some bowsing-ken en route for an invigorating touch of delirium tremens. Sure, life’s gettin’ awfully complicated these days; ain’t it a fact?

Well, as we all know, life’s getting complexer every minute ’cause there are more Chinese and Congolese and Sudanese than there were a minute ago; and that means, according to Mr. Seidenberg, that we have just got to become more and more organized by the minute. And the proof of this is that, if you want to resist the ever increasing organization and socialization of society, you have to join some organization, such — I interpolate, for I need not tell you that Mr. Seidenberg would never mention anything so horrid — such as The John Birch Society. The need to join organizations to resist the organization of society proves the point, for, as is obvious, if you in 1776 had wished to resist the rule of George III, you would not have needed to join the patriots of your colony. And if, in 490 B.C., you had wished to resist the Persian invasion of Europe, you would have had no need to join, or cooperate with, your fellow Athenians who marched to Marathon. In those days of greater individualism, you, as an individual, could have stood up alone on your hind legs and stuck out your tongue — and that, presumably, would have scared Darius and his armies right into the middle of the Hellespont. But alas, no more! So, you see, History proves that the day of the individual has passed forever, and the day of Organization has come.

You must not smile, for Mr. Seidenberg is in earnest, and even if he is a bit weak in knowledge of past and present, his projection of the future has seemed cogent not merely to “liberals,” but even to thoughtful readers.

Forward to Irkalla!

Mr. Seidenberg bases his argument on inferences that he draws with apparent logic from three indisputably correct statements about the contemporary world and from a widely accepted biological theory.

1) We have all observed that we are being more and more subjected to a Welfare State, which, with Fabian patience, takes away each year some part of our power to make decisions for ourselves regarding our own lives. It is perfectly obvious that if this process continues for a few more decades (as our masters’ power to take our money to bribe and bamboozle the masses may make inevitable), we shall have lost the right to decide anything at all, and shall have become mere human livestock managed by a ruthless and inhuman bureaucracy at the orders of an even more inhuman master.

2) Our Big Brains agree with Mr. Seidenberg in believing, or pretending to believe, that “the kernel of marxism…consists in elaborating…the social message of Christ.” They assure us, therefore, that it is simply unthinkable that Americans could ever be so wicked as to fight to survive. Thus we have got to be scared or beaten into One World of universal socialism in which, as Walt Rostow, Jack Kennedy, and others now gloatingly and openly tell us, not only our nation but our race must be liquidated and dissolved in a vast and mongrel mass of pullulating bipeds.

3) The number of human beings — anatomically human, at least — is undoubtedly increasing at an appalling rate. The United States is already overpopulated for optimum life, although no critical reduction in our standard of living would be necessary for the better part of a century, if our masters permitted us to remain an independent nation. But our increase is nothing compared to the terrible multiplication of the populations of Asia and Africa, caused, for the most part, by our export to those regions of our medical knowledge, medicines, food, and money. Although we Westerners might stave off a crisis for a few decades by working harder and ever harder to support our betters and to speed up the rate at which they are breeding, it is clear that we (unless we do something unthinkable) must soon be drowned in the flood that we, like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice, started but did not know how to stop. So, even if we did not have Master Jack and his accomplices or employers to arrange for our liquidation, the sheer multiplication of the human species would produce the same result anyway.

One has but to glance at a graph of the world’s population to see that it is rapidly approaching the point at which the vast human swarm can be kept alive, even on the level of barest animal subsistence, only by the most expert management of every square inch of earth’s arable surface plus expert harvest of the very oceans themselves. In that monstrous human swarm jammed together on our planet, like a swarm of bees hanging from a limb, there can be no privacy, no individuality, no slightest deviation from the routine that must be maintained just to keep alive the maximum number that can subsist at all.

Now the theory of biological evolution, as usually stated, provides that species must adapt themselves to the conditions of survival. Men, having bred themselves into a maximum swarm, become mere units of the species, and will obviously be most efficient when they perform every action of the routine by an automatic reflex. This means that thought and even consciousness will become not only unnecessary but intolerable impediments to the efficient functioning of the human animals. Obviously, the human minds must disappear in order to permit billions of human ants to make the globe an ant-hill in which they can all live in perfect socialism.

That is what “ineluctable determinism” makes ineluctable, but Mr. Seidenberg, who is as adroit in twisting words as any editor of the New York Times, shows you how nice that will be. The Revelations of Freud have shown that we are now just bundles of instincts. Mankind will necessarily evolve to the higher state of what Mr. Seidenberg calls “pure reason.” As he explains, “pure reason” is now found only among the forms of life that are biologically superior to us because better adapted to environment. The examples which he gives are “ants, bees, and termites,” whose “essentially unchanged survival during sixty million years testifies to the perfection of their adjustment…to the conditions of life.” We must strive to become like them — nay, the “ineluctable determinism” inherent in the “population explosion” and the need for a “more advanced society” will make us, willy nilly, just like ants and termites — intellectually and spiritually, that is, for Mr. Seidenberg does not seem to entertain a hope that human beings will ever be able to crawl about on six legs.

In this perfected socialist world there can be no change and hence no history: That is why the perfect man of the near future will be, in Seidenbergian terminology, “post-historic.” Everybody will be happy, because there will be no individuals — only organisms that are part of a species and have no separate consciousness. To see how attractive the inevitable future is, you have only to reflect, dear reader, how much happier you would be, if you were an ant or a cockroach in your basement. You could operate by what Mr. Seidenberg calls “pure reason.” You could not possibly be affected by religion, art, literature, philosophy, science, capitalism, racial discrimination, or any of the other horrid things that will have to be blotted out anyway in the interests of Equality and Social Justice. You could never have a thought to trouble you. You would have no consciousness; hence you would not know that you exist, and would have no organ that could feel pain when somebody steps on you. What more could you want?

If you are so reactionary as to prefer to be conscious, even at the cost of being unhappy from time to time, you may be amused by the similarity of Mr. Seidenberg’s vision of the future to the scene described in one of the oldest of the Babylonian tablets, on which the cuneiform characters represent an oddly sibilant and staccato language: a-na maat la tari kak-ka-rifi-ti-e ila istar marat ilu sin u-zu-un-sa is- kun, etc.

“To the land whence none return, the place of darkness, Ishtar, the daughter of Sin, her ear inclined.”Then inclined the daughter of Sin her ear to the house of darkness, the domain of Irkalla; to the prison from which he that enters comes not forth; to the road whose path does not return; …to the land where filth is their bread and their food is mud. The light they behold not; in unseeingness they dwell, and are clothed, like winged things, in a garment of scales…”

Of all of mankind’s nightmarish visions of a future existence, that Babylonian conception of the dead as crawling forever, like mindless insects, in a fetid and eternal night has always seemed to me the most gruesome.

Joy is not Around the Corner

Mr. Seidenberg’s ecstatic vision of the New Jerusalem has, I am sorry to say, imposed on a least two men of scientific eminence who should have known better. They permitted themselves to be confused by the theory of biological evolution. If man evolved, over a period of 500,000 years or more, from an ape (Australopithecus) that discovered that by picking up and wielding a long bone it could increase its efficiency in killing other apes, is it not possible that our species can go on evolving and become, in another 500,000 years or less, the perfectly adjusted biped termites that Mr. Seidenberg predicts? Heavens to Betsy, I’m not going to argue that point. Granted!

And isn’t the “population explosion” a fact? Sure it is, but don’t overlook one detail — the time factor. At the present rate, the globe, sometime between 2000 and 2005 A.D. — that is to say within forty years — will be infested by 5,000,000,000 anatomically human creatures, the maximum number for which food can be supplied by even the most intensive cultivation. And then, to keep the globe inhabitable at that bare subsistence level, it will be necessary to kill every year more people than now live in the whole United States — kill them with atomic bombs or clubs, as may be more convenient.

I shall not argue about what human beings could or could not become by biological evolution in half a million years: We all know, at least, that there is going to be no biological evolution in fifty years. And, if we stop a moment to think about it, we also know that the world is not going to have a population of five billion. Not ever.

The population of the world is going to be drastically reduced before the year 2000. [See Oliver's later revision of his prediction in his article "What Hath Man Wrought? ^[2]" -- Editor]

The reduction could come through natural causes. It is always possible — far more possible than you imagine, if you have not investigated the relevant areas of scientific knowledge — that next week or next year may bring the onset of a new pestilence that will have a proportional mortality as great as that of the epidemic in the time of the Antonines or the Black Plaque of the Middle Ages. Alternatively, the events described in John Christopher’s brilliant novel, No Blade of Grass, could become fact, instead of fiction, at any time. And there are at least three other ways, all scientifically possible, in which the world could be partly depopulated in short order by strictly natural forces beyond our control.

But if Nature does not act, men will. When things became a bit crowded in east Asia, for example, the Huns and, at a later time, the Mongols, swept a wide swath through the world as locusts sweep through a wheat field. And wherever they felt the inspiration, they were every bit as efficient as any quantity of hydrogen bombs you may care to imagine. In the natural course of human events, we shall see in the near future wars of extermination on scale and of an intensity that your mind will, at present, refuse to contemplate. The only question will be what peoples will be among the exterminated.

If the minority of the earth’s inhabitants that is capable of creating and continuing (as distinct from aping) a high civilization is exterminated (as it now seems resolved to be), or if for some reason wars of extermination fail to solve the problem, civilization will collapse from sheer lack of brains to keep it going, and the consequent reversion to global savagery will speedily take care of the excess in numbers. In a world of savages, not only would the intricate and hated technology of our civilization be abolished, but even the simplest arts might be forgotten. (Every anthropologist knows of tribes in Polynesia and Melanesia that forgot how to make canoes, although without them it became almost impossible to obtain the fish that they regard as the most delicious food, or how to make bows and arrows, although they needed them for more effective hunting and fighting.) A world of savages in 2100 probably would not have a population more numerous than the world had in 4000 B.C.

The ordinary course of nature and human events (separately or in combination) will, in one way or another, take care of the much-touted “population explosion,” and Mr. Seidenberg knows it. You have only to read him carefully to see that all his talk about history, biological evolution, and “ineluctable determinism” is strictly for the birds — or, at least, bird-brains.

Do-It-Yourself for Socialists

Like all internationalists, Mr. Seidenberg envisages a One World of universal socialism.

Every student of history and mankind (as distinct from the ignorant theorists who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) well knows what is needed for a successful and stable socialism. And our intelligent socialists know it, too. There are two essentials, viz.: (1) a mass of undifferentiated human livestock, sufficiently intelligent to be trained to perform routine and often complicated tasks, but too stupid to take thought for their own future; and (2) a small caste of highly intelligent planners, preferably of an entirely different race, who will direct the livestock and, with the aid of overseers who need be but little more intelligent than the overseen, make sure that the livestock work hard and breed properly and do not have unsocial thoughts. The owners must be so superior to the owned that the latter will not regard themselves as of the same species. The owners must be hedged about with a quasi-divinity, and their chief, therefore, must be represented as an incarnate god.

Mr. Seidenberg knows that and tells us so. Our blissful future, he says, is assured by the emergence of “administrators [whose] special talents place them above other men.” The most important of these special talents is enough intelligence to understand that “moral restraints and compassions [and] …the attitudes and values upon which they were based have become obsolete.” On the basis of such progressive thinking, “the relatively small elite of the organizers” will manipulate the “overwhelming social mass” and guide it toward its destiny, “the mute status of unconscious organisms.”

The Chosen Few will do this by promoting “the spiritual and psychological dehumanization of man” and “a vast organizational transmutation of life.” For this glorious purpose, various techniques are available; for example, as Mr. Seidenberg tells us, “there is, plainly, more than a nihilistic meaning in the challenging ambiguities of modern art.” And, in a masterfully managed society, “the gradually inculcated feeling of helplessness…will make the mass of humanity ever more malleable and dependent upon the complex functioning of society, with its ensuing regimentation under organized patterns of behavior.” But the Supermen will use, above all, “a scientific program of genetic control to assure the complete adjustment of the human mass to its destiny” and Reactionaries and other American swine, whose “anachronistic stance” and silly efforts to avoid “the mute status of unconscious organisms” show that they “belong essentially to the past.”

As for the Supermen, who form “the nucleus of an elite of administrative functionaries and organizers ruling over the vast mass of men,” you can bet your bottom dollar (so long as Master Jack permits you to have one) that that Master Race has no intention of becoming like the bipeds that it will supervise and selectively breed for more and better mindlessness until it has attained its “historic” goal, “the settling of the human race [as distinct from its owners] into an ecologic niche of permanent and static adjustment,” which, as Mr. Seidenberg says in a moment of candor, in simply “living death.” Obviously, when this goal has been achieved, human beings, deprived of mind and even consciousness, will differ from the Master Race as much as ants and bees now differ in intelligence from human beings. Glory be!

To any attentive reader of the book, it is clear that the author, under the guise of a transparently inconsistent prophecy about a distant future, is presenting a plan for a near future that is to be created, in spite of history, in spite of nature, and in spite of mankind, by the purposeful and concerted action of a small band of “elite” conspirators, comparable to, if not identical with, the directors of the International Communist Conspiracy.

To publish such a plan in a book sold to the general public seems a fantastic indiscretion, even when one allows for the breath-taking effrontery that our Internationalists are now showing in their confidence that Americans have already been so disarmed and entrapped in the “United Nations” that, for practical purposes, it’s all over except for the butchering. When I first read these books, therefore, I was inclined to believe that the author was trying to warn us.

The Veiled Prophet of Doylestown

My inquiries, necessarily hasty and perfunctory as I write this article to meet a deadline, have elicited almost no information about Mr. Seidenberg. I do not know what region on earth was blessed with his nativity, what academic institutions bestowed the benison of their degrees upon him, or even what may be his liaison with the University of North Carolina. He is said to be an architect, but he is not listed in the 1962 edition of the American Architects’ Directory. He is said to practice that art in Doylestown, Pennsylvania, but an informant in that town reports that he is not listed in the telephone directory as an architect, although there is listed under his name, without indication of profession or occupation, a telephone which did not answer, when called on successive days.

I do not have the facilities of the FBI, so all that I really know about Mr. Seidenberg, apart from his books, is that he surfaced momentarily on February 22, 1962, in the pages of the New York Times, to emit a yip for the abolition of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. (And if you wonder why anyone should now yip against a Committee that appears to have been virtually silenced by the concerted howling of our enemies after the release of Operation Abolition, I can only tell you that, according to persons who should know, the Committee has amassed in Executive Sessions testimony which, if published, would expose some of the most powerful anti-humans in Washington.)

Mrs. Sarah Watson Emery, in her excellent book, Blood on the Old Well (prospect House, Dallas, cf. American Opinion, October, 1963, pp. 67 ff.), reports that the elusive Seidenberg, in a conversation with her, “clearly implied that he wrote the books in order to bring about the ghastly future” that he “so confidently predicts.” If Mrs. Emery is right, Mr. Seidenberg’s books are inspirational literature for the Master Race of “administrators,” who are now taking over the whole world. They can own and operate the world forever in perfect Peace, if, by a scientific application of genetics, they reduce human beings to the status of mindless insects.

Is One World Feasible?

You, my patient reader, may be a member of the Radical Right and hence unenthusiastic about the happiness that is being planned for you. If so, I confess that I, whom a learned colleague recently described as a “filthy Fascist swine,” share your misgivings. But let us here consider the Seidenbergian ideal exclusively as a problem in genetics. Is it possible?

Probably not, by the hit-and-miss methods that the Conspiracy has thus far employed.

As Mr. Seidenberg carefully points out, “Russia [under Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushchev] and America [under Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Kennedy] are basically akin by reason of the dominance of their organizational trends,” but — hélas! — even today “the collectivization of society is only in its incipient stages in Russia.” And the reason is obvious. Although Ulyanov (alias Lenin) and Bronstein (alias Trotsky) butchered millions of reactionary Russians who wanted to be individual human beings, and although Dzhugashvili (alias Stalin) butchered millions more, and although Saint Nick (formerly Khrushchev) shot, hacked to pieces, or starved seven million in the Ukraine alone when he as just a local manager for the Communist Conspiracy, the nasty Russians are still unregenerate. Although the world’s vermin have had absolute control of Russia for almost half a century and have certainly worked hard to exterminate every Russian who had in himself a spark of self-respect, human decency, or even the will to live, observers agree that the recent failure of crops would have precipitated a crisis and possibly even a revolt of blind desperation, if Master Jack had not ordered his American cattle to provide the wheat that Comrade Nick needed to keep his own restive cattle fairly quiet. And it is quite likely that if the Conspiracy were to lose control of the United States and so be forced to retreat somewhere in the world, the Russian people would revolt anyway. The most systematic butchery has not destroyed the genetic transmission of human instincts. And it is unlikely to do so for centuries, at least.

Americans are apt to be even more refractory, and I am sure that One Worlders, now that they think their final victory almost achieved, must be giving thought to the problem of what to do with them. (And I need not remind you that advanced minds are not troubled by “moral restraints” and the other “attitudes and values.”) The American kulaks were useful and even necessary to fight wars “to make the world safe for democracy” and to finance with “foreign aid” the Communist conquest of the world, but when that goal has been achieved, they are likely to be a real nuisance.

There are rumors, for example, that Master Jack is planning to send the U.S. Army — which, as purged by Yarmolinsky and his stooges, will presumably be a docile instrument for the abolition of the nation it was established to defend — to seal off one area of the country after another, drive the white swine from their homes, and search them to confiscate such firearms or other weapons as they may have in their possession. It may be necessary to beat a few hundred of the white pigs so that their squealing will teach the other livestock to obey their owner, but, according to the rumors, nothing more than that is contemplated. But even if the operation is successful, one can foresee endless trouble. Human instincts are more or less fixed by heredity.

It is no wonder, therefore, that Mr. Seidenberg foresees “long-range genetic manipulation designed not only to improve the human stock according to the social dictates of [the proprietors of] a collectivized humanity, but above all to eliminate, in one manner or another, any traces of anti-social deviation.”

Those are, doubtless, sound general principles, but what, specifically, is to be done with the Americans when the “United Nations” takes them over? One could, as Mr. Seidenberg delicately hints in one passage, just castrate all the males. (If this idea seems shocking to you, remember that that’s just your “anachronistic stance.”) Or one could adopt the policy which the Soviet, according to a report that was leaked “from U.N. official sources” and reported in the now defunct Northlander (September, 1958), uses in Lithuania, where all potentially troublesome males were rounded up and shipped to Siberia and then replaced in their own homes by public-spirited Mongolian males eager to improve the quality of the Lithuanian population. A Baluba or a Bakongo thus installed in every American home would not only effectively end “discrimination” and promote the “World Unity” desiderated by Internationalists, but would also — according to a “scientific” study made by a Professor Of Sociology in a tax-supported American university and reported both in his class-room lectures and in his broadcasts over a radio-station entirely owned by that university — fulfill the secret yearnings of all American womanhood.

This may seem a perfect solution (if you have a “One World” viewpoint), but it has, I fear, its drawbacks. Balubas and such are just fine for exterminating white men in Africa and creating chaos under direction from Washington and Moscow, but I suspect that anyone who tries to regiment them to do work is in for a powerful lot of trouble. After they have served their purpose, it will be necessary to exterminate them, too. And the Masters, after they have blotted out the civilization they hate, are going to need workers, not cannibals and other savages, if, in keeping with the Seidenbergian vision, they are to rule the world forever.

Now Americans and Europeans are excellent workers. What is needed, obviously, is not to destroy them but to convert them, as Mr. Seidenberg predicts, into true zombies, that is to say, creatures that have no will or personality of their own and therefore do whatever they are told. But that transformation, so far as I can learn from geneticists whom I have consulted, is genetically impossible by any process of selective breeding within any reasonable length of time — say a thousand years or less. This, I am sure, our author realizes, for after admitting that “the art of brainwashing and, even more so, the science of controlling society by pharmaceutical manipulation, are in their infancy,” he places his hope for the future in “the ever increasing techniques and the ever more refined arts of mental coercion.” Presumably, the human mind and will can be destroyed by drugs, or perhaps by an improved technique of lobotomy, to produce the kind of “mental health” requisite in the zombies who, like mindless insects, are to work to support the Master Race of the future. But this is not genetics, and the qualities thus induced in individuals cannot be transmitted genetically. The Masters, therefore, will be put to the trouble of operating on each generation of biped insects as it is produced — and, what is even worse, there is some reason to doubt that the zombies would or could reproduce themselves.

So, you see, the New Dispensation of which Internationalists dream is by no means assured, either historically or biologically. For that matter, it is even possible that enough Americans may object in time to frustrate the “determinism” that only their ignorance, apathy, or cowardice could make “ineluctable.” But I cannot speculate about that possibility here. I have sought only to show you, as dispassionately as possible, what kind of thoughts very advanced minds are thinking about you these days.

Source: http://www.revilo-oliver.com/news/1963/12/history-and-biology/ ^[3]

---

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/07/history-biology/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/schwabe-deathofthegravedigger.jpeg

[2] What Hath Man Wrought?: http://revilo-oliver.com/rpo/What_Hath_Man_Wrought.html

[3] http://www.revilo-oliver.com/news/1963/12/history-and-biology/: http://www.revilo-oliver.com/news/1963/12/history-and-biology/

1940: l'autre uchronie

1940 : l’autre uchronie

par Noël RIVIÈRE

L’uchronie est l’histoire fictive de possibilités historiques non advenues. Elle aide à comprendre ce qui a réellement eu lieu en poussant les logiques des autres scénarios envisageables tout en respectant une certaine vraisemblance. Les uchronies sont de plus en plus l’objet de travaux. L’un des derniers en date est celui de Jacques Sapir sur le thème « Et si la France n’avait pas signé l’armistice de 1940 et avait continué la guerre ? » C’est le What if : que se serait-il passé si… Les uchronies nécessitent de tenir compte des informations dont disposaient les protagonistes au moment des faits.

Il est en ce moment à la mode de dérouler un scénario à propos de la guerre de 39-45 : Et si la France avait continué la guerre ? (Jacques Sapir et aa, Taillandier, 2010).

Pierre Clostermann lui-même avait défendu l’idée que les forces français en Afrique du nord, en 1940 auraient permis de continuer la guerre. Reste à savoir pour quel résultat. Un résultat qui aurait peut-être au final été particulièrement favorable à l’Allemagne. Explications.

Supposons donc une absence d’armistice le 22 juin 1940.

Fin juin, les Allemands sont à Marseille, Nice, Perpignan et sur la côte basque. Compte tenu de leur maîtrise de l’air, ils investissent la Corse sans grande difficulté et obligent bien avant cela la flotte française à se replier en Algérie, sauf destruction totale ou partielle comme celle qu’a connue la flotte italienne face aux Anglais dans le golfe de Tarente, en 1940, voire au cap Matapan, en 1941, toujours face à l’aviation anglaise. À partir de là, les Français continuant la guerre, les Allemands n’eussent eu d’autres choix que de les poursuivre en Afrique du Nord. On lit parfois le propos comme quoi les Allemands n’ont même pas pu franchir la Manche ou le Pas de Calais et que donc ils auraient été bien en peine de franchir la Méditerranée. Cela n’a rien à voir. Derrière la Manche, il y a avait une nation industrielle de cinquante millions d’habitants. En Algérie – l’A.F.N., c’était essentiellement l’Algérie – il y avait sept millions d’habitants dont moins d’un million de Pieds-Noirs. Peu d’industrie et presque pas de pièces de rechanges pour les armes. Autant dire que les Allemands auraient pu débarquer sans se heurter à une résistance comparable à celle de la Royal Air Force au-dessus de la côte anglaise en août-septembre 1940.

Mais surtout ils avaient l’alliance italienne. Un débarquement à Tunis aurait été à une extrême proximité de la Sicile – et les Allemands ont réussi ce débarquement alors qu’étaient proches les flottes américaines et anglaises, en novembre 1942, et alors qu’ils avaient d’autres priorités sur le front de l’Est. Quand bien même ce débarquement eut présenté des difficultés qu’ils eussent voulu contourner, il leur suffisait de faire, dès juillet 1940, ce qu’ils ont fait en février 41 pour soutenir l’Italie, à savoir débarquer quelques divisions à Tripoli. De là, ils pouvaient rapidement gagner la Tunisie et la conquérir (elle aurait fait l’objet d’un « don » à l’Italie qui n’avait cessé de la revendiquer depuis 1936). La question du ravitaillement de leurs troupes aurait été considérablement simplifiée, puisque Malte tenue par les Anglais se trouvait sur la route Sicile – Libye mais pas sur la route Sicile – Tunisie.

En outre le contrôle de la Tunisie et de la Libye aurait tellement isolé Malte que sa conquête serait devenue possible, bien que sans doute coûteuse. Avec cinq ou six divisions, les Allemands auraient pu, de Tunis conquérir l’Algérie jusqu’à la frontière du Maroc espagnol sans grandes difficultés. La flotte française n’aurait eu comme possibilité d’échapper à la destruction, compte tenu de l’impossibilité pour les forces aériennes françaises en A.F.N. de la protéger, que de se replier vers Dakar. Compte tenu de l’étirement des lignes de communication des Allemands, il est bien possible que le Maroc aurait représenté le point ultime de leur expansion à l’Ouest de l’Afrique. L’A.O.F. et l’A.E.F. serait restés à la France résistante, avec l’appui de la flotte britannique, d’une partie de son aviation, et aussi sans doute avec un gros appui matériel américain, sinon un appui directement militaire impliquant la belligérance. Mais cet appui n’aurait pas été instantané compte tenu des délais de la montée en charge de l’industrie américaine (plutôt 1941 que 1940).

À partir de la conquête du Maroc français, la position britannique de Gibraltar aurait été isolée. Elle serait restée tenable si l’Espagne était restée neutre mais facilement neutralisée par l’aviation allemande. Quant à l’Espagne justement, qu’aurait-elle fait ? Franco était très prudent mais l’Allemagne installée militairement au Maroc, grande aurait été sa tentation d’entrer en guerre du côté de l’Axe, avec comme condition l’acquisition par l’Espagne du Maroc français. En tout cas, même restée neutre, l’Espagne aurait dû (comment les refuser sans le risque que l’Allemagne fomente un coup d’État à Madrid, appuyé sur les plus pro-allemands des phalangistes ?) accorder des facilités militaires à l’Allemagne et peut-être le passage vers Gibraltar (via Perpignan ou tout simplement via le Maroc espagnol) pour son démantèlement comme base anglaise. En tout état de cause, l’Allemagne aurait pu disposer de bases navales utiles pour ses sous-marins sur la côte Atlantique du Maroc.

Et pendant ce temps-là en Égypte ? Il n’y a pas de raison de changer quelque chose à l’histoire réelle ici, à savoir que les Anglais, supérieurs aux Italiens en organisation, en matériel, voire en moral des troupes auraient mis en difficulté les troupes de Mussolini, d’autant plus que une fois les Allemands engagés contre la France en Afrique du Nord, l’enjeu de celle-ci aurait été plus fort encore et que les Anglais auraient été sans doute offensifs en Libye et d’abord en Cyrénaïque pour soulager le mieux possible les Français face à l’attaque allemande en Tunisie et en Algérie. Mais là encore, il eut suffit de quelques divisions (l’Africa Korps n’en avait que trois début 41) pour arrêter les Anglais, voire pour les rejeter sur le canal de Suez. Et dans la réalité, rappelons que la contre-offensive anglaise face aux Italiens n’intervient qu’en décembre 1940. Mettons que six divisions eussent été nécessaires pour, dès le dernier trimestre 1940, conquérir l’Égypte et lui donner une indépendance confiée bien sûr à des pro-allemands. Nous sommes à six divisions allemandes donc en Afrique du Nord à l’Est, et autant à l’Ouest, voire dix divisions à l’Ouest (face aux Français). Ce n’était pas au-dessus des moyens des Allemands.

Dans ces conditions, que pouvait-il advenir de Malte ?

Malte, loin de toute position alliée après une poussée allemande sauvant la Cyrénaïque des Anglais – au minimum – voire conquérant l’Égypte, et à l’Ouest, après la conquête allemande de la Tunisie et de l’Algérie, Malte, bien que solidement défendue, pouvait être conquise, comme l’a été la Crête dans des conditions plus difficiles, car la Crête était à proximité de l’Égypte où se trouvait les forces aériennes et navales britanniques. Une fois l’Égypte conquise et là encore quelles que soient les qualités militaires des Anglais, ils n’étaient pas en position de faire face à six divisions allemandes et à une forte aviation (qui bien entendu n’aurait pas été engagée dans une inutile bataille d’Angleterre), les Allemands pouvaient avancer vers la Palestine et conquérir la Syrie. Ils se trouvaient alors à proximité de l’Irak et de ses activistes indépendantistes et pro-allemands (voir la tentative de Rachid Ali en avril 1941) et pouvaient les soutenir. En complément, ils isolaient Chypre et pouvaient y débarquer (là encore peut-on douter de leur capacité à ce genre d’opération quand on voit, dans un contexte très dégradé pour eux, leur conquête-éclair du Dodécanèse en octobre-novembre 43 ?). C’est alors toute la Méditerranée orientale qui eut été entre les  mains des Allemands ainsi que la Méditerranée occidentale si l’Algérie avait aussi été conquise (et comment aurait elle pu ne pas l’être compte tenu de la faiblesse des Français en A.F.N., non ravitaillés par la Métropole ?)

Les Allemands pouvaient aussi, après ou en même temps,  avec trois ou quatre divisions supplémentaires (il faut tenir compte des forces d’occupation et de contrôle des territoires déjà occupés même si les populations y auraient été plutôt pro-allemandes) descendre la vallée du Nil, prendre Khartoum et Port-Soudan et ainsi, en établissant la liaison avec l’Afrique orientale italienne, empêcher sa conquête par les Britanniques qui a commencé en mars 1941. Le premier problème des Allemands aurait été le manque de camions, mais ils auraient pu réquisitionner tous les camions français sans entraves en l’absence d’armistice.

Une chronologie uchronienne

• 30 juin 1940 : fin de l’occupation de toute la France métropolitaine.

• 7 juillet : occupation de la Corse à partir de l’Italie et de Nice.

• 1er août : débarquement à Tunis (à partir du sud de l’Italie) avec l’appui des Italiens ou débarquement à Tripoli de cinq ou six divisions allemandes marchant vers Tunis.

• 10 août : jonction avec les Italiens de Tripolitaine dans l’hypothèse de débarquement direct à Tunis ou prise de Tunis dans l’autre cas.

• 15 août : prise du port de Bône.

• 20 août : prise d’Alger.

• 25 août : prise d’Oran et de Mers El-Kebir.

• 27 août : arrivée à la frontière du Maroc espagnol.

• 1er septembre : prise de Fès au Maroc.

• 5 septembre : prise de Rabat et de Casablanca.

On peut supposer au mieux que les Français réussissent à résister au sud du Maroc, vers Marrakech. L’armée et surtout l’aviation allemande atteint ses limites logistiques, pour l’instant les Allemands ne poussent pas plus loin.

• 6 septembre : début de l’offensive allemande pour la conquête de l’Égypte.

• 20 septembre : prise du Caire.

• 30 septembre : achèvement de la conquête de l’Égypte.

• 30 octobre : attaque du Soudan.

• 25 novembre : jonction avec les Italiens d’Érythrée et d’Éthiopie. Installation de bases de sous-marins dans l’océan Indien, notamment en Somalie.

Un tel scénario eut nécessité quelques vingt-cinq divisions engagées hors d’Europe. L’effort n’impliquait donc nullement de dégarnir le continent européen. Mais, par contre, il eut amené un changement complet de vision et eut nécessité même ce changement de vision. Il s’agissait alors de rompre avec les ambitions néo-coloniales en Europe même : espace vital au détriment des Russes et des Ukrainiens, réduction des Slaves en esclavage. À l’inverse, cela eut été l’adoption d’une véritable politique mondiale. Objectif : non pas la conquête totale du monde, mais un contrepoids réel aux puissances thalassocratiques. Non pas s’enfermer dans une forteresse Europe mais lui donner de l’air par des débouchés vers les grands océans (Maroc pour l’Atlantique, Somalie pour l’océan Indien, voire Madagascar plus tard…), liaisons avec le Japon, contrôle complet de la Méditerranée et éviction de la Grande-Bretagne de ce grand lac où elle n’a rien à faire du point de vue continental européen, politique pro-arabe et post-coloniale de transition des peuples vers l’indépendance dans la coopération avec l’Europe.

Au-delà des perspectives ouvertes par cette histoire virtuelle, il reste une quasi-certitude : l’Allemagne a beaucoup perdu à l’Armistice de juin 40, elle s’est enfermée dans une victoire strictement continentale en s’interdisant une politique réellement mondiale, anticipant sur les risques futurs d’entrée en guerre des États-Unis en prenant des gages en Afrique du Nord, au Moyen-Orient, vers la Mésopotamie, et jusqu’au Soudan et l’océan Indien. Quelle chance pour l’Allemagne si… la France avait voulu continuer la guerre en 1940 !

Noël Rivière

---

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

URL to article: http://www.europemaxima.com/?p=1948

The Fascist Past of Scotland

The Fascist Past of Scotland

Ex: http://xtremerightcorporate.blogspot.com/

Today, Scottish nationalism is associated mostly with the left. Traditional, conservative nationalism such as produced the Jacobite wars was long in going but seems gone for good at this point. However, Scottish fascists have long been involved in the troubled life of what goes under the blanket-term of ‘British fascism’. Nonetheless, it is important to note the history of nationalism in modern Scotland, which of course existed when Scotland was an independent nation but which survived after the union with England and was never seen in a more pure form than in the Jacobite uprisings that are so famous. Although not often considered, the Jacobite restoration efforts were actually very corporatist at heart. Just to refresh, at its core, corporatism is nothing more than the organization of society based on corporate bodies and the use of those corporate bodies in exercising power for the nation as a whole. This was, in a real sense, what the Jacobite risings were all about and in a very traditional way, upholding the ancient values of western civilization.

It was, from the beginning, the intention of the Jacobites to maintain the distinct nationalism of the three kingdoms individually. We saw this with the declaration of independence following the landing of King James II in Ireland. It was a principle reiterated by King James III in 1715 and Prince Charles III in 1745. The system they were fighting for, that they intended to restore, was very traditional and very corporatist. That was for a union of the distinct kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland under one Crown. Furthermore, particularly concerning Scotland, it was also a fight to maintain the established, traditional clan structure. Power in Scotland had always been very corporatist in nature, based on the power of the chieftains of the various clans, united by their common loyalty to the House of Stuart and a divinely based monarchy. For Scotland, the clans were the basic corporate bodies of society.

 

Of course, the Jacobites were ultimately unsuccessful and it was, of course, no coincidence, that the Hanoverians (English or Scottish) who sought to wipe out Scottish nationalism specifically by destroying the clan system (which was most significant) as well as all of the outward signs of Scottish nationalism such as the Gaelic language, kilts and all the rest. A sad event to be sure, but it happened and one must move on. Fortunately, some of this was to be restored in time as the Jacobite threat to the government in London faded into history and Scotland came to see itself fully as a part, as a partner, of the glorious achievements of the British Empire and these were certainly considerable. Even as early as the late 18th Century the Scots dominated in the high command of the British army and the highland regiments became among the most feared and fearsome in the world on battlefields from North America to India. The Scots were, very early on, just as committed to British greatness as anyone and this is seen in the number of Jacobite exiles to America who fought for the British Crown against the American revolutionaries who were set to partition British North America.

In modern times, however, liberalism began to creep in and ever since as far back as the 1830’s Scotland has tended to be dominated by the leftist party (Whig, Labour, etc). In 1934 the Scottish National Party was founded, bent on the division of Great Britain and at least some degree of independence for Scotland. Socialist parties also sprang up. These, of course, had an influence on what was considered far-right politics as it would anywhere else but nonetheless, those Scots labeled as “fascists” tended almost to a man to support the union, the British Empire and British power and greatness, seeing the nations of the British Isles as stronger together than apart. Of course the most famous such organization was the British Union of Fascists and there were a number of prominent Scots aligned with or associated with that movement, and a few should be mentioned.

 

Few embodied these values as much as Sir Louis Greig, a decorated naval surgeon, accomplished rugby player and longtime friend of King George VI, going back to his days as the Duke of York when Greig took the young prince under his wing and even helped encourage his marriage to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. This match worked out so well that the future queen displaced Greig as the closest confidant of George VI, but he did not seem to mind much. He was an ardent supporter of the British Empire and a staunch monarchist, absolutely loyal to his King and Country. This was a firm matter of principle for him, not something based on his own friendship with the Duke of York as his support for the Crown did not falter in the least during the short reign of King Edward VIII with whom he did not get along well. It was also around this time that Sir Oswald Mosley left the Tory party for Labour and then left the Labour Party to form the British Union of Fascists. While trying to strengthen his grouping of blackshirts Mosley formed the January Club, an elite circle of the nationalist community in an effort to attract upper class support for the BUF and put a more respectable face on the fascist movement. Greig was a prominent member of the January Club (he was also by then a Wing Commander in the RAF) and his support, along with others, helped the BUF become more mainstream and it was shortly thereafter that the Daily Mail openly supported the fascist cause. As for Sir Louis Greig, he did not suffer for his fascist associations and continued to serve in the armed forces until his death in 1953. His grandson was even a page of honor to Queen Elizabeth II.

 

Another prominent Scotsman in the BUF, and one of impeccable ‘blue blood’ if not impeccable reputation was Lord Josslyn Hay, Earl of Erroll. Born in London, son of Lord Kilmarnock, he carried the coronet of his grandfather, the then Earl of Erroll, at the coronation of King George V in 1911. He dropped out of Eton and began working in the diplomatic service with his father to earn a living (contrary to what many think, having a title does not automatically mean having vast wealth). It is interesting, if not significant to note the extensive he spent in Berlin at this time. However, despite passing his civil service examination he did not go to work for the Foreign Office but instead caused society tongues to wag by marrying Lady Idina Sackville. Her father was an earl, her former husband a politician, who she had divorced, and she was married again when she began her affair with Hay before divorcing that husband to marry him. It was all very scandalous but the two felt ‘unencumbered’ by social norms and traditional values and married in 1923. Moving to the colonies they set up housekeeping in Kenya where they lived a life of libertine debauchery. In 1934, while visiting England, Hay joined the British Union of Fascists. As Earl of Erroll he attended the 1936 coronation of King George VI, joined the military in World War II and began an affair with a married woman which, most believe, led to his murder in 1941 in Kenya.

Less colorful than Hay, but probably an even more staunch fascist Scotsman was Robert Forgan. The son of a minister in the Church of Scotland, he was educated in Aberdeen, became a doctor and served in World War I, later becoming an STD expert. While working in Glasgow he became a socialist, out of concern for the urban poor of course, and also entered politics as a member of the Independent Labor Party. He supported the very socialistic “Mosley Memorandum” which resulted in his break with mainstream leftists and his formation of the New Party. Mosley and Forgan were almost inseparable. He was one of the most successful politicians of the New Party, a key player in organizing and fleshing out the movement and even stood as godfather to Mosley’s son Michael. He was less visible but no less important when Mosley dropped the New Party idea and went on, instead, to found the British Union of Fascists. It was Forgan who worked behind the scenes to enlist more legitimate, acceptable supporters for the BUF, obtain funding for the movement and he was largely responsible to setting up the January Club.

 

This, however, eventually led to problems between Mosley and Forgan, though not initially. Forgan was adamant that, despite parallels being drawn with the Nazis in Germany, the BUF was not anti-Semitic. Originally, this was true as Mosley took more inspiration from Mussolini and his National Fascist Party (which was not anti-Semitic) rather than Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Working through the January Club and his connections in government, Forgan even tried to bring some prominent Jews on board, appealing to their liberal views of economic and social issues and assuring them that the hatred of Jews was simply a ‘German thing’ rather than a ‘fascist thing’. However, he had little success in getting anyone to take a chance and as the “star” of Hitler continued to rise Mosley became more enraptured with him and increasingly anti-Semitic in his rhetoric. Forgan had become deputy-leader of the BUF next to Mosley himself but this trend was taking the group down a path he refused to follow. In 1934 the BUF became pretty openly anti-Semitic and a disgruntled Forgan left the party, convinced Mosley was making a mistake. He was thoroughly done with politics and stayed out of the fray, finally passing away in 1976 as a largely forgotten figure.

La rivolta di Maritz e De Wet nel 1914

La rivolta di Maritz e De Wet nel 1914, preannuncio della rivincita boera sull’Inghilterra

Autore: Francesco Lamendola

Ex: http://www.centrostudilaruna.it/

La Repubblica Sudafricana, come è noto, era uscita dal Commonwealth britannico nel 1949 e vi è stata riammessa solo nel 1994, dopo che era stato rimosso l’oggetto del contendere, ossia dopo che fu smantellata la legislazione sull’Apartheid.

A volere fortemente la politica della “separazione” fra bianchi e neri era stata la componente di origine boera della comunità europea, insediatasi al Capo di Buona Speranza nel XVII secolo e poi, durante le guerre napoleoniche (1797), respinta verso l’interno dagli Inglesi, ove, nel XIX secolo, aveva dato vita alle due fiere Repubbliche indipendenti del Transvaal e dell’Orange.

Poiché la Grande Migrazione dei Boeri al di là del fiume Orange, o Grande Trek, come è nota nei libri di storia sudafricani, ebbe luogo all’incirca nella stessa epoca in cui, da settentrione, giunsero le tribù bantu che, originarie della regione dei laghi dell’Africa orientale, a loro volta respingevano Boscimani e Ottentotti, i Boeri e, in generale, i bianchi sudafricani hanno sempre negato validità all’affermazione secondo cui, nel loro Paese, una minoranza bianca si sarebbe imposta su di una maggioranza nera, sostenendo, al contrario, che essi avevano raggiunto e colonizzato le regioni dell’interno prima dei Bantu, e non dopo.

Sia come sia, i Boeri sostennero due guerre contro l’imperialismo britannico: una, vittoriosa, nel 1880-81, ed una, assai più dura, nel 1899-1902, terminata con la piena sconfitta della pur coraggiosa resistenza boera, guidata dal leggendario presidente Krüger. Il conflitto era stato reso inevitabile non solo dai grandiosi progetti espansionistici dell’imperialismo inglese, impersonato in Africa da uomini come il finanziere Cecil Rhodes e dal celebre slogan “dal Cairo al Capo” (di Buona Speranza), ma anche e soprattutto dalla scoperta di ricchi giacimenti auriferi e di miniere di diamanti nel territorio delle due Repubbliche boere.

Non fu, quest’ultima, una vittoria di cui l’immenso Impero Britannico poté andar fiero: esso riuscì a piegare la resistenza di quel piccolo e tenace popolo di contadini-allevatori solo dopo che ebbe messo in campo tutte le risorse umane, materiali e finanziarie di cui poteva disporre nei cinque continenti e solo dopo che i suoi comandanti ebbero fatto ricorso alla tattica della terra bruciata, distruggendo fattorie e raccolti, e soprattutto trasferendo ed internando la popolazione boera nei campi di concentramento, ove a migliaia morirono di stenti e di malattie.

È pur vero che la pace, firmata a Pretoria il 31 maggio 1902, ed il successivo trattato di Veereniging, che sanciva la sovranità britannica sulle due Repubbliche, accordarono ai vinti delle condizioni relativamente miti, se non addirittura generose. In particolare, il governo inglese si accollò l’onere del debito di guerra contratto dal governo del presidente Krüger, che ammontava alla bellezza di 3 milioni di lire dell’epoca, ed accordò uno statuto giuridico speciale alla lingua neerlandese, non riconoscendo ancora la specificità della lingua afrikaans.

È degno di rilievo il fatto che nel trattato di stabiliva esplicitamente la clausola che ai neri non sarebbe stato concesso il diritto di voto, ad eccezione di quelli residenti nella Colonia del Capo, in cui i coloni inglesi costituivano la maggioranza bianca; perché, nell’Orange e nel Transvaal, i Boeri non avrebbero mai accettato una eventualità del genere, e sia pure in prospettiva futura.

L’intenzione del governo britannico era quella di integrare progressivamente i Boeri nella propria cultura, a cominciare dall’educazione e dalla lingua; ma il progetto di anglicizzare i Boeri attraverso la scuola si rivelò fallimentare e nel 1906, con l’avvento al governo di Londra del Partito Liberale, esso venne abbandonato. Non solo: le autorità britanniche dovettero riconoscere l’afrikaans come lingua distinta dal neerlandese e questo rappresentò un primo passo verso il rovesciamento dei rapporti di forza, all’interno della comunità bianca sudafricana, tra i coloni di origine britannica e quelli di origine boera.

Picture: Manie Maritz

Un altro passo fu la nascita, il 31 maggio 1910, dell’Unione Sudafricana, grazie alla riunione delle quattro colonie del Capo, del Natal, dell’Orange e del Transvaal: a soli otto anni dalla conclusione di una guerra straordinariamente sanguinosa e crudele, caratterizzata da pratiche inumane tipicamente “moderne”, quali la distruzione dei raccolti, il trasferimento forzato di intere popolazioni ed il loro internamento in veri e propri lager, il Sudafrica diventava un Dominion autonomo nell’ambito dell’Impero britannico, con una maggioranza afrikaner; processo che sarebbe culminato nel 1931 con la conquista della piena indipendenza, votata dal Parlamento di Londra con il cosiddetto Statuto di Westminster.

Un episodio poco noto al pubblico occidentale è quello della rivolta anti-britannica scoppiata nell’Unione Sudafricana nel 1914, sotto la guida dei generali boeri Manie Maritz e De Wet, in coincidenza con lo scoppio della prima guerra mondiale, cui l’Unione medesima partecipò al fianco della Gran Bretagna, soprattutto per il deciso appoggio dato alla causa britannica da uomini prestigiosi della comunità afrikaner come Louis Botha e Jan Smuts.

In effetti, non tutte le ferite dell’ultimo conflitto erano state sanate e una parte della popolazione afrikaner, animata da forti sentimenti nazionalisti, non immemore della simpatia (sia pure solamente verbale) mostrata dal kaiser Wilhelm II Hohenzollern per la causa boera, ritenne giunto il momento della riscossa e si dissociò dal governo di Pretoria, invocando, anzi, la lotta aperta contro gli Inglesi al fianco della Germania.

Al di là del corso inferiore dell’Orange, dal 1884, si era costituita la colonia tedesca dell’Africa Sudoccidentale (oggi Namibia) e i capi afrikaner insorti speravano che da lì – o, più verosimilmente, da una rapida vittoria degli eserciti tedeschi in Europa – sarebbero giunti gli aiuti necessari per sconfiggere le forze britanniche e per rialzare la bandiera dell’indipendenza boera sulle terre dell’Orange e del Transvaal.

Così ha rievocato quella vicenda lo storico francese Bernard Lugan, “Maître de Conferences” all’Università di Lione III, specialista di storia dell’Africa e per dieci anni professore all’Università del Ruanda, nel suo libro Storia del Sudafrica dall’antichità a oggi (titolo originale: Histoire de l’Afrique du Sud de l’Antiquité a nos jours, Paris, Librairie Académique Perrin, 1986; traduzione italiana di L. A. Martinelli, Milano, Garzanti, 1989, pp. 195-99):

«Quando, il 4 agosto 1914, scoppi la guerra, l’Unione Sudafricana si trovò automaticamente impegnata, in quanto Dominion britannico, a fianco degli Inglesi, ossia nel campo dell’Intesa. Ne risentì immediatamente la coesione fra le due componenti bianche della popolazione. Gli anglofoni accettarono l’entrata in guerra come un dovere verso la madrepatria, mentre gli Afrikaner si divisero in due gruppi: il primo, uniformandosi alle vedute di Botha e di Smuts, proclamò la propria solidarietà con la Gran Bretagna, il secondo, con alla testa Hertzog, propose che l’Unione rimanesse neutrale fino a quando non avesse a subire un attacco diretto. Il fondatore del Partito nazionalista rifiutava ogni obbligo diretto, ed affermava il diritto del Sudafrica di decidere liberamente, in situazioni drammatiche come quella presente. Quando, nel settembre 1914, il Parlamento di Città del Capo accolse la richiesta di Londra di arruolare nell’Unione un corpo militare per l’occupazione dell’Africa sud-occidentale tedesca, in una larga parte dell’opinione pubblica afrikaner le reazioni furono violente. Scoppiò un’insurrezione, capeggiata dagli antichi generali boeri Manie Maritz e De Wet, che si diffuse rapidamente fra gli ufficiali superiori dell’esercito sudafricano: dodicimila uomini, per lo più originari dell’Orange, presero le armi contro il loro governo. Sembrava imminente una guerra civile fra Afrikaner, e il rischio era grande perché i ribelli avevano proclamato la Repubblica sudafricana:

“PROCLAMA

DELLA RESTAURAZINE

DELLA REPUBBLICA SUDAFRICANA

Al popolo del Sudafrica:

Il giorno della liberazione è giunto. Il popolo boero del Sudafrica è già insorto ed ha iniziato la guerra contro

LA DOMINAZIONE BRITANNICA, DETESTATA ED IMPOSTA.

Le truppe della Nuova Repubblica Sudafricana hanno già ingaggiato la lotta contro le truppe governative britanniche.

Il governo della Repubblica Sudafricana è provvisoriamente rappresentato dai signori

Generale MARITZ

maggiore DE VILLIERS

maggiore JAN DE WAAL-CALVINIA

Il Governo restituirà al popolo sudafricano l’indipendenza che l’Inghilterra gli ha sottratto dodici anni or sono.

Cittadini, compatrioti, voi tutti che desiderate vedere libero il Sudafrica,

NON MANCATE DI COMPIRE IL VOSTRO DOVERE VERSO L’AMATA

E BELLA BANDIERA “VIERKLEUR”!

Unitevi sino all’ultimo uomo per ristabilire la vostra libertà e il vostro diritto!

IL GOVERNO GERMANICO,LA CUI VITTORIA È GIÀ SICURA, HA PER PRIMO RICONOSCIUTO ALLA REPUBBLICA SUDAFRICANA IL DIRITTO DI ESISTERE, ed ha con ciò stesso mostrato di non avere alcuna intenzione di intraprendere la conquista del Sudafrica come hanno preteso i signori Botha e Smuts al Parlamento dell’Unione.

Kakamas, Repubblica Sudafricana, ottobre 1914.

IL GOVERNO DELLA REPUBBLICA SUDAFRICANA

(Firmato) MARITZ, DE VILLIERS, JAN DE WAAL”.

Botha decise di proclamare la legge marziale il 12 ottobre, due giorni dopo che Maritz, alla testa di un reggimento sudafricano, aveva disertato per raggiungere le truppe germaniche proclamando la propria intenzione di invadere la provincia del Capo. I sostenitori più irriducibili della causa boera giudicavano la Germania capace di infliggere all’Inghilterra una sconfitta definitiva, e che quindi si presentasse loro un’occasione unica per prendersi la rivincita sui vincitori del 1902, e restituire il Sudafrica agli Afrikaner. Ma il movimento fu disordinato: i “kommando”, organizzati frettolosamente, male armati, malvisti da una parte della popolazione che aveva appena finito di medicare le ferite del 1899-1902, non furono in grado di affrontare le unità dell’esercito regolare. Gli ultimi ribelli si arresero il 2 febbraio 1915.

Poté così cominciare la campagna contro l’Africa sud-occidentale tedesca. Londra aveva fatto sapere che essa sarebbe stata considerata come un servizio reso all’Impero, e di conseguenza l’Impero ne avrebbe tratto dei vantaggi politici al momento del trattato di pace.

La sproporzione delle forze era tale che i Tedeschi non potevano far altro che cercar di ritardare una sconfitta inevitabile. Disponevano di 1.600 effettivi, rinforzati da 6.000 riservisti mobilitabili su di una popolazione bianca di 6.000 persone. Il colonnello Heydebreck non poté impedire la manovra sudafricana: Botha sbarcò a Swakompund cin 12.000 uomini, Smuts a Lüderitz con 6.000, ed oltre 30.000 uomini passarono il fiume Orange. Il 5 maggio 1915 venne occupata Windhoek, la capitale della colonia tedesca; una sporadica resistenza continuò ancora, favorita dalla vastità della steppa, fino al 9 luglio 1915, quando ad Otavi fu sottoscritta la resa delle truppe del Reich. La campagna era stata breve e le perdite umane limitate: con essa Botha diede all’Unione il protettorato sull’Africa sud-occidentale.

Alle elezioni generali dell’ottobre 1915 Botha dovette affrontare l’opposizione sempre più forte del Partito nazionale di Hertzog. I nazionalisti afrikaner respingevano nuove forme di partecipazione del Sudafrica alla guerra, e in particolare si opponevano all’invio di contingenti in Africa orientale. Per esprimere e difendere gli interessi afrikaner durante la campagna elettorale il Partito nazionale diede vita a un proprio giornale, “Die Burger”.

Botha conservò la maggioranza in Parlamento con 54 seggi, ai quali si aggiunsero i 40 seggi ottenuti dagli Unionisti che appoggiavano la politica militare del primo ministro. Tuttavia il Partito nazionale, con 27 seggi, poté far sentire la propria voce: da quel momento si sarebbero dovuti fare i conti anche con esso.

Nel 1916 fu inviato in Tanganica un corpo di 15.000 Sudafricani in rinforzo al’armata inglese che, quantunque numerosa, non riusciva ad aver ragione delle truppe tedesche del generale Lettow-Vorbeck. Nell’agosto del 1914 quest’ultimo – allora colonnello – aveva a disposizione aveva a disposizione solo 3.000 europei e 16.000 ascari per la difesa dell’intera Africa orientale tedesca: ma con queste scarsissime forze e senza ricevere rifornimenti alla madrepatria resistette fino al novembre 1918 ad oltre 250.000 soldati britannici, belgi, sudafricani e portoghesi. Nella guerra di imboscate con la quale Alleati e Tedeschi si affrontarono nel Tanganica meridionale, il contingente sudafricano, comandato prima del generale Smuts e in seguito dal generale Van Deventer, ebbe una parte di primo piano.

La 1a Brigata sudafricana sbarcò a Marsiglia il 15 aprile 1916. Incorporata nella 9a Divisione scozzese fu inviata nel giugno sul fronte della Somme, ove fra il 14 e il 19 giugno i volontari si distinsero nei combattimenti del bosco di Delville, mantenendo le loro posizioni a prezzo di fortissime perdite: 121 ufficiali su 126 e 3.032 soldati su 3.782. Ricostituita con l’arrivo di altri volontari, la brigata prese parte nel 1917 alla battaglia di Vimy e di Ypres, e nel 1918 alla battaglia di Amiens, nel corso della quale perdette 1.300 uomini su 1.800 impegnati nel combattimento. Fu ricostituita per la terza volta e poté partecipare alle ultime fasi della guerra.

In complesso l’Unione Sudafricana fornì agli Alleati un contingente di 200.000 uomini, dei quali 12.452 caddero in guerra. Sempre più numerosi divennero gli Afrikaner che non vollero più esere chiamati obbligatoriamente a combattere per la Gran Bretagna, ben decisi a conquistarsi un autonomia maggiore e magari una totale indipendenza. Su questo punto Hertzog non ottenne a Versailles alcuna soddisfazione, perché gli Alleati confermarono la situazione esistente pur offrendo all’Unione un mandato sull’Africa sud-occidentale».

 

Paradossalmente, proprio la presenza di un protettorato germanico sulla sponda settentrionale del fiume Orange, ai confini della Provincia del Capo, aveva svolto una funzione importante nel rafforzare i legami fra l’Unione Sudafricana e la madrepatria britannica, dal momento che la componente inglese della popolazione bianca sudafricana aveva vissuto con disagio quella vicinanza, se non con un vero e proprio senso di pericolo.

Nel 1878, la Colonia del Capo aveva ottenuto da Londra un tiepido consenso ad occupare la Baia della Balena, enclave strategica in quella che ancora non era la colonia tedesca dell’Africa sud-occidentale; ma quando, nel 1884, quasi da un giorno all’altro, il cancelliere Bismarck aveva proclamato il protettorato del Reich, cogliendo del tutto alla sprovvista il Foreign Office, quella sensazione di minaccia si era concretizzata quasi dal nulla e certamente svolse un ruolo importante nel rinsaldare il legame di fedeltà del Dominion con l’Inghilterra, prima e durante la guerra mondiale del 1914-18.

Una situazione analoga si era verificata, in quegli stessi anni, con il Dominion dell’Australia (e, in minor misura, della Nuova Zelanda): la presenza tedesca nell’Oceano Pacifico, specialmente nella Nuova Guinea nord-orientale, nell’Arcipelago di Bismarck e nelle isole Marshall, Marianne, Palau e Caroline, oltre che in una parte delle Samoa, abilmente sfruttata dalla propaganda inglese, generò una sorta di psicosi nell’opinione pubblica australiana che, in cerca di protezione da una possibile minaccia germanica, fu spinta a cercare nel rafforzamento dei legami morali e ideali con la madrepatria uno scudo contro i Tedeschi (la stessa cosa si sarebbe ripetuta nel 1941, questa volta nei confronti della minaccia giapponese, ben più concreta e immediata).

Per quel che riguarda la rivolta boera di Maritz e De Wet, il suo rapido fallimento fu dovuto alla scarsa adesione della popolazione boera: scarsa adesione che fu l’effetto non già di un sentimento di solidarietà o di una problematica “riconoscenza” verso la Gran Bretagna, entrambe impossibili e per varie ragioni, quanto piuttosto, come evidenzia Bernard Lugan, per la stanchezza dovuta alla prova durissima del 1899-1902 e per il desiderio di non riaprire troppo presto quelle ferite e di non mettere a repentaglio, e in circostanze a dir poco incerte, quei margini di autonomia che, bene o male, il governo inglese a aveva riconosciuto ai Boeri.

Si trattava, come abbiamo visto, di margini di autonomia che essi, specie attraverso l’azione politica dei nazionalisti di Hertzog e Malan, erano decisi ad allargare per via pacifica, ma con estrema determinazione, fino alle ultime conseguenze, stando però attenti a giocare bene le loro carte e a non esporsi, con una mossa imprudente, ad una nuova sconfitta, con tutti gli effetti politici negativi che ciò avrebbe inevitabilmente comportato.

In questo senso, il fatto che solo con estrema fatica, e solo dopo due anni dall’inizio della guerra, l’Unione Sudafricana accettasse di inviare un consistente corpo di spedizione contro l’Africa Orientale Tedesca (la breve campagna contro l’Africa Sud-occidentale tedesca del 1915 era stata solo il naturale corollario del fallimento della rivolta boera); e che, nel 1917-18, una sola brigata venisse inviata a combattere fuori del continente africano, mentre forze canadesi, australiane e neozelandesi ben più consistenti stavano combattendo o avevano già combattuto al fianco della Gran Bretagna, in Europa e nel Medio Oriente (campagna di Gallipoli), sta a testimoniare quanto poco l’opinione pubblica sudafricana fosse giudicata “sicura” all’interno del sistema imperiale e quanto poco affidabili le truppe sudafricane, soprattutto boere, in una campagna militare che si svolgesse lontano dai confini dell’Unione e che, quindi, non presentasse un carattere chiaramente difensivo.

Anche il “mandato” sulla ex Africa Sud-occidentale tedesca, in effetti, si deve leggere soprattutto come un palliativo ideato dal governo di Londra che, tramite i suoi buoni uffici presso la Società delle Nazioni, intendeva dare un contentino al nazionalismo afrikaner, sempre illudendosi di poter allontanare la resa dei conti con il partito di Hertzog e Malan e la perdita di ogni effettiva sovranità sul Sudafrica e sulle sue immense ricchezze minerarie.

Si trattò, invece, di un calcolo miope, che non servì a distrarre l’attenzione dei nazionalisti afrikaner dal perseguimento della piena indipendenza e che, viceversa, creò i presupposti per una ulteriore complicazione internazionale: perché, come è noto, il governo sudafricano considerò il mandato sull’Africa Sud-occidentale come una semplice finzione giuridica e il Parlamento sudafricano legiferò nel senso di una vera e propria annessione di quel territorio e non certo nella prospettiva di avviarlo all’indipendenza.

Non bisogna mai dimenticare che l’Impero britannico, nel 1914, comprendeva un quarto delle terre emerse e un complesso di territori, come l’India, abitati da centinaia di milioni di persone, con ricchezze materiali incalcolabili. Lo storico del Novecento e, in particolare, lo storico delle due guerre mondiali, non dovrebbe mai prescindere dalla ferma, tenace volontà dei governi inglesi, specialmente conservatori, di difendere in ogni modo quell’immenso patrimonio, nella convinzione di poter trovare la formula politica per allentare, forse, la stretta, ma di conservare la sostanza di quella situazione, estremamente invidiabile per la madrepatria.

I governanti britannici erano talmente convinti di poter riuscire nell’impresa che perfino Churchill, firmando, nel 1941, la Carta Atlantica insieme a Roosevelt, nella quale si sanciva il solenne impegno anglo-americano in favore della libertà e dell’autodecisione dei popoli, era lontanissimo dal supporre che solo sei anni dopo l’Inghilterra avrebbe dovuto riconoscere l’indipendenza dell’India e del Pakistan, cuore e vanto di quell’Impero.

Essi temevano l’effetto domino di qualunque rinuncia coloniale sul resto dell’Impero ed è per questo che repressero con tanta ferocia l’insurrezione di Pasqua del 1916, a Dublino, salvo poi concedere all’Irlanda, ma solo a guerra finita, una indipendenza mutilata, conservando quell’Ulster in cui, fra nazionalisti protestanti e indipendentisti cattolici, si sarebbero riprodotte, ma a parti rovesciate, le stesse dinamiche distruttive del Sudafrica, diviso fra bianchi di origine inglese e bianchi di origine boera, dopo la vittoria militare inglese del 1902.

La storia ci mostra che non sempre chi vince sul piano militare vince anche, nel medio e nel lungo periodo, sul piano politico.

Tale fu anche il caso del Sudafrica, dopo la conquista britannica del 1902; e, in questo senso, anche la fallita insurrezione boera del 1914, forse, deve essere valutata più come il primo annuncio della futura indipendenza del Sudafrica dall’Inghilterra, che come l’ultimo sussulto della precedente guerra anglo-boera.

Francesco Lamendola

Lépante et sa signification actuelle

Lépante et sa signification actuelle

par Jean-Gilles MALLIARAKIS

Ex: http://www.insolent.fr/

Comme tous les événements historiques, comme tous les anniversaires, la bataille de Lépante peut prêter à des discours extrêmement contradictoires. La victoire navale de la flotte commandée par Don Juan d'Autriche remonte au 7 octobre 1571. Certains commémoreront donc cet automne son 440e anniversaire. Sur le fond, on doit leur donner, par avance, raison. Rien ne se révèle pire que l'oubli, pas même les contresens d'un soir, d'une manifestation ou d'un discours. Oswald Spengler considérait, et il écrivit un jour "qu'au dernier moment c'est toujours un peloton de soldats qui sauve la civilisation". On a bien oublié de nos jours ce représentant de la révolution conservatrice. Et cette conception héroïque disconvient à notre époque où on se préoccupe plus de sécurité alimentaire que de défense des frontières.

Un petit mot quand même sur ce premier défi lancé à l'empire ottoman. Depuis le salutaire coup d'arrêt donné, sur l'Adriatique, par Skanderbeg (1405-1468) au XVe siècle (1), les armées de la Sublime Porte semblaient aux Européens pratiquement invincibles. Si l'on accorde la première place à l'action militaire, on ne peut que saluer cette expédition partie de Messine. Elle infligea une défaite matériellement considérable à la marine turque. Sur une flotte de 300 bâtiments, celle-ci subit la destruction de 50 navires et la capture de 100 par les chrétiens coalisés. 15 000 captifs européens furent libérés. Au nombre des 8 000 blessés occidentaux on doit rappeler au moins le nom de Cervantès.

On a présenté cette opération comme une sorte de 13e croisade. Et feu Oussama bin Laden la qualifierait certainement ainsi. Honnêtement toutefois, cette numérotation ne veut pas dire grand-chose, à moins de s'en tenir à la définition faussement stricte qu'on donne classiquement : Urbain II au concile de Clermont en 1095 aurait donné le signal de la première, oublions la quatrième et l'abomination de 1204 (2), retenons que le pontificat romain de saint Pie V (1567-1572) préconisa celle-ci, effectivement aboutie à Lépante. Soulignons que la résistance chrétienne à l'expansion de l'islam et aux persécutions des califes et de émirs avait commencé beaucoup plus tôt. Et elle reprendra.

En l'occurrence cette victoire de l'occident appartient à la gloire de l'Espagne. Le règne de Philippe II est ordinairement présenté aujourd'hui sous le jour le plus négatif. Lorsque le réalisateur indien Shekhar Kapur consacra en 2007 un [excellent] film à la gloire d'Elizabeth Ire et à son "Âge d'or" on doit déplorer qu'il présente, à l'inverse, la Cour de Madrid et tous les catholiques comme un ramassis de benêts obscurantistes. Une telle impression mensongère s'impose efficacement au spectateur mal informét. Or, s'il importe, par ailleurs, de cerner la provenance des mythes mémoriels, et si la tâche des historiens consiste à leur tordre le cou, la question la plus urgente porte sur leurs conséquences actuelles. Les pays protestants de l'Europe du nord ont été confrontés aux mêmes périls, et ils le seront plus encore dans les temps à venir.

Au moment où le Pape appelait à la lutte contre la menace islamique qui pesait au XVIe siècle sur l'Empire vénitien, d'autres croyaient nécessaire d'attiser les guerres de religion qui dévastaient la France et qui, deux générations plus tard, ruineront l'Allemagne. Le "roi très chrétien", en l'occurrence les trois derniers Valois, quoique le royaume des Lys ait atteint les rives de la Méditerranée, s'abstint de participer à une ligue, où s'impliquèrent au contraire toutes les nationalités de l'Europe du sud. Celle-ci se constitua solennellement en mai, on ne l'a pas célébré. Elle assemblait Venise et Gênes, le duché de Savoie et le royaume de Naples, le roi d'Espagne, les États pontificaux, et les chevaliers de Malte. Cette coalition manqua de cohésion au-delà de la bataille. Elle renonça même après sa victoire à l'objet qui l'avait vu naître : la menace ottomane sur Chypre. La Sérénissime république de Vénitiens, dont la préoccupation commerciale dominait la politique, céda en 1573 l'île d'Aphrodite aux sultans de Constantinople. Le trône d'Osman était occupé par le fort médiocre Sélim II l'Ivrogne. Son empire ne fut sauvé que par un Slave de Bosnie le grand vizir Mehmed-pacha Sokolli. (3)

Tout ceci peut paraître bien lointain. J'avoue la faiblesse de considérer qu'il s'agit d'un scénario parfaitement cohérent et actuel. Chypre resta captive entre les mains de son conquérant pendant 300 ans, comme l'Espagne avait subi 800 ans le joug islamique. (4) Il vaut mieux ne jamais perdre les guerres, et même quand on l'emporte il faut savoir consolider sa victoire et gagner la paix.

Au-delà de tels truismes eux-mêmes oubliés, les souvenirs événementiels demeurent également indispensables. La résistance chrétienne que représente Lépante sera continuée, plus tard, par l'Autriche des Habsbourg en Europe centrale et dans les Balkans, puis par la Russie des tsars.

Aujourd'hui où l'on nous berce de "l'union pour la Méditerranée", autre nom du projet "Eurabia", on veut nous faire oublier au-delà même des batailles la vraie menace d'autodestruction, pire encore que de conquête, qui pèse sur tous les Européens. Baisser la garde face au choc des civilisations, forme un seul et même projet avec celui d'effacer nos racines et de renoncer à nos libertés.

JG Malliarakis

Apostilles

1. Sur ce héros [oublié] de la chrétienté, vainqueur des Turcs, on lira avec plaisir le livre de Camille Paganel, "Histoire de Skanderbeg".
2. On se reportera utilement à la petite "Histoire de l'empire Byzantin" de Charles Diehl.
3. Issu du cruel mais efficace système appelé "devichirmé" – la cueillette – cet enfant arraché à sa famille, islamisé de force et formé pour servir de cadre à l'État, sera grand vizir de trois sultans successifs. Sur 26 grands vizirs dont on connaît l'origine, 11 semblent avoir été albanais, 6 grecs, 5 turcs, les autres tcherkesses, italiens, caucasiens ou serbes. C'est cela qui a permis à cet empire de durer.
4. cf. "La Conquête de l'Espagne par les Arabes" par Jules de Marlès.

Si cet article vous a intéressé ...
vous aimerez certainement "La Question turque et l'Europe" par JG Malliarakis
Du même auteur, vient de paraître "L'Alliance Staline Hitler".

Puisque vous appréciez l'Insolent
Adressez-lui votre libre contribution financière !

José Ortega y Gasset et le politique éminent

José Ortega y Gasset et le politique éminent

par Arnaud Giraud

Ex: http://fr.novopress.info/

José Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955) vient juste après la « génération de 1898 » – Azor, Baroja, Benavente, Ruben Dario, Unamuno… -, tous ces jeunes écrivains rebelles qui aspirent à la renaissance de l’Espagne.

Il naît à Madrid dans une famille bourgeoise très impliquée dans la vie littéraire et artistique. Formé par les Jésuites, il perd la foi très tôt et suit un cursus universitaire qu’il double d’une carrière journalistique. Il rompt ses premières lances avec Miguel de Unamuno, en désaccord sur l’«essence de l’Espagne », la nature exacte du « casticisme », de l’âme espagnole. Ortega y Gasset s’ouvre à l’Europe en fréquentant les universités allemandes. Séduit dans un premier temps par le kantisme puis lecteur de Nietzche, il se rapproche des phénoménologues (Husserl) et, un peu plus tard de Heidegger, de six ans son cadet.

Ce qui nous retient ici est beaucoup moins son « ratiovitalisme » qu’il résume en un phrase : « Le vital est le concret, l’incomparable, l’unique… », moins sa métaphysique qui joue aux lisières de l’essentialisme et de l’existentialisme que son analyse spectrale du temps et de l’espace européens. Les huit volumes d’essais regroupés sous le titre « El Espectador » (Le Spectateur), les articles de la « Revista de Occidente » (1923-1936) mettent en scène la presque totalité des cultures européennes passées et présentes. Cette prolixité est servie par une érudition hors du commun, un style incisif et raffiné qui joue de l’allégorie, de la métaphore.

Théoricien et acteur de l’éducation qu’il veut soustraire à la férule cléricale, Ortega y Gasset fonde en 1913 la Ligue d’Education politique. Il s’agit d’armer la jeune génération en l’ouvrant à la modernité. La montée simultanée du communisme et du fascisme conduit Ortega y Gasset à écrire son essai le plus connu : « La Révolte des masses » (1930). C’est là une ample réflexion sur l’impact grandissant de la technique sur la « culture moderne ». Mais c’est aussi un appel aux Européens pour qu’ils relèvent le défi lancé par l’U.R.S.S. engagée dans un plan quinquennal « titanesque » pour bâtir une « énorme économie ». Avec cet avertissement :

« Si l’Europe, en attendant, persiste dans le vil régime végétatif de ces dernières années, les nerfs amollis par le manque de discipline, sans projet de vie nouvelle, comment pourrait-elle éviter l’effet de contamination d’une entreprise aussi imposante ? C’est ne pas connaître l’Européen que d’espérer qu’il puisse entendre sans s’enflammer cet appel d’un nouveau « faire » alors qu’il n’aura rien d’aussi « actif » à lui opposer. »

Engagé dans les débats qui déchirent l’éphémère république espagnole (1931-1936), Ortega y Gasset finit par s’en détacher. A titre privé, il penche pour les nationalistes puis préfère quitter l’Espagne. Il n’y revient qu’en 1945, suspect à la fois aux yeux de la dictature franquiste et de l’opposition républicaine.

La pensée politique d’Ortega y Gasset va à rebours des poncifs actuels. Trop vite définie comme libérale (après Tocqueville, avant Aron), elle repose sur une conception exigeante et même hautaine de l’Histoire :

« J’ai dit, et je le crois toujours, chaque jour avec une conviction plus énergique, que la société humaine est toujours aristocratique, bon gré, mal gré, par sa propre nature ».

Lorsqu’il ausculte l’«archétype du politique » et qu’il se penche aussi bien sur Mirabeau que sur César ou Napoléon, il est fortement conseillé aux âmes sensibles de s’écarter. Puisque, d’abord, il ne faut pas confondre l’archétype et l’idéal : « Les idéaux, ce sont les choses comme nous estimons qu’elles devraient être. Les archétypes, ce sont les choses selon leur inéluctable réalité. »

Modèle d’archétype de « politique éminent » : Mirabeau. Un mauvais sujet, certes, qui déborde d’excès et de désordres dans sa vie privée et sociale mais aussi un politique puissant et inspiré. Tout simplement parce qu’il se bat pour une politique nouvelle dont l’objectif est la monarchie constitutionnelle. En toute lucidité, parce que c’est le moins mauvais des choix. Ce « libéralisme démocratique », Mirabeau en voit « dans tout son développement futur  la futur nouvelle politique et il voit même au-delà : il voit ses limites, ses vices, sa dégénérescence et jusqu’aux moyens de la discréditer… »

Mirabeau est sans doute profondément immoral, vénal, mais le projet l’emporte sur l’homme. A Joseph-Marie Chénier (le cadet du poète guillotiné) qui proclame : « Il n’y a point de grand homme sans vertu », à Robespierre qui veut tout assujettir aux « principes immortels », Mirabeau oppose sa détermination qui ne s’embarrasse pas des moyens. Ortega y Gasset nous demande de ne pas scruter le grand homme avec le regard du valet de chambre qui en décompte les « petits vices » et toutes les « petites vertus » qui lui font défaut.

Antonio Machado, G. Marañón, José Ortega y Gasset, Ramón Pérez de Ayala

Le grand politique est tout, sauf pusillanime, il en est le contraire : C’est un « magnanime »… un homme qui a une mission créatrice : vivre et être, c’est, pour lui, faire de grandes choses, produire des œuvres de grand calibre. » Alors que « le pusillanime (…) n’a pas de mission ; vivre c’est pour lui simplement exister pour soi, se conserver soi-même, c’est aller parmi les choses qui se trouvent déjà là… »

Ortega y Gasset s’emploie à opposer le politique éminent au « petit gouvernant commun ». Le plus grand : César, paradigme du Politique, comparé à Marius, Pompée, Marc Antoine, « splendide série de fougueux animaux humains (auxquels) il manque à tous la petite flamme de Saint Elme que produit sur les cîmes la combustion de l’esprit. Aucune vision, aucune prévision chez eux. Ils sont d’énormes automates sous le poids du Destin. Le Destin ne tombe pas du dehors sur César, il est en lui, c’est lui qui le porte et qui est le Destin. »

Lorsqu’il  se penche sur l’Espagne et sur l’Europe de son temps composée de « peuples très vieux, et la vieillesse se caractérise par l’accumulation des organes morts, des matières cornées… », Ortega y Gasset ne cache pas son inquiétude. En 1927, il n’identifie pas de « politiques éminents », ni chez les successeurs de Lénine, ni le Mussolini qui pactise avec le vieil ordre social. Plus tard, au tournant du siècle, les grands tyrans lui inspirent une vive répugnance.

Pour lui, la marque du grand politique tient à sa disponibilité d’esprit lorsque, plongé en pleine tourmente, il peut encore distraire son esprit et l’ouvrir à d’autres champs de réflexion et de création. Marc Aurèle sur le limes composant ses réflexions morales, César écrivant un traité d’Analogie lorsqu’il traverse les Alpes pour conquérir la Gaule, Napoléon, en pleine retraite de Russie dictant à Caulaincourt le règlement de la Comédie française : « Quand un esprit jouit de son propre exercice et ajoute à l’allure obligée le saut luxueux – comme le muscle de l’adolescent qui complique la marche par le saut pour le pur plaisir de jouir de sa propre élasticité – ,c’est qu’il s’est complètement développé, qu’il est capable de tout comprendre. »

José Ortega y Gasset. Tabeau de Zuloaga

Lorsque Ortéga y Gasset publie, en 1930, « La Révolte des masses » il lui apparaît que les  politiques éminents se font plus rares et qu’ils cèdent la place à ceux qu’il appelle les « hommes vulgaires, les « hommes-masse » ou encore le « se?orito satisfait » qu’il dépeint ainsi :« Si l’on étudie la structure psychologique de ce nouveau type d’homme-masse (…) on y relèvera les caractéristiques suivantes : en premier lieu, l’impression originaire et radicale que la vie est facile, débordante, sans aucune tragique limitation ; de là, cette sensation de triomphe et de domination qu’éprouvera en lui chaque individu moyen, sensation qui, en second lieu, l’invitera à s’affirmer lui-même tel qu’il est, à proclamer que son patrimoine moral et intellectuel lui paraît satisfaisant et complet (…). Aussi – en dernier lieu – interviendra –t-il partout pour imposer son opinion médiocre, sans égards, sans atermoiements, sans formalités ni réserves… »

Sept ans plus tard, Ortega y Gasset préface la traduction française de « La Révolte des masses ». Il vit à l’écart de la guerre civile espagnole, n’ayant pu choisir entre la république et la junte de Burgos. Il réaffirme sa foi dans un « grand Etat national européen » mais déclare : « Les hommes d’esprit épais n’arrivent pas à concevoir une idée aussi déliée, aussi acrobatique, une idée où la pensée agile ne doit se poser sur l’affirmation de la pluralité que pour bondir sur la confirmation de l’unité, et vice versa. »

Faute d’agir, faute d’avoir vu un « politique éminent » surgir et s’imposer à l’Europe, Ortega y Gasset plaide pour un individualisme qui n’est en fait qu’une veille aristocratique, faite de « haute hygiène » et de « vie créatrice ». Une claustration factuelle non dénuée de grandeur mais qui ramenait le philosophe à sa position initiale de « spectateur ».

Armand Giraud pour Novopress France

[cc] Novopress.info, 2011, Dépêches libres de copie et diffusion sous réserve de mention de la source d’origine
[http://fr.novopress.info]

Präventivschlag Barbarossa

Stefan Scheil Präventivkrieg Barbarossa Fragen, Fakten, Antworten                  Band 26 der Reihe Kaplaken. 96 Seiten, kartoniert, fadengeheftet, 8.50 € ISBN: 978-3-935063-96-8 8,50 EUR incl. 7 % UST exkl. Versandkosten

Der Historiker Stefan Scheil ist einer der besten Kenner der Diplomatiegeschichte zwischen 1918 und 1945. In mehreren Büchern hat er Entfesselung und Eskalation des II. Weltkriegs analysiert und der platten These widersprochen, Deutschland sei alleinverantwortlich für dessen Ausbruch und Ausweitung. Im vorliegenden kaplaken faßt Scheil seine Studien zum deutschen Angriff auf die Sowjetunion im Jahr 1941 zusammen. Er stellt und beantwortet die Frage, ob es sich um einen Überfall oder einen Präventivkrieg gehandelt habe. Scheil geht in seiner Argumentation von vier Bedingungen aus, die jeden Präventivkrieg grundsätzlich kennzeichnen, und legt sie als Maßstab an das „Unternehmen Barbarossa“ an.     Scheils Untersuchung mündet in über 50 Fragen, die jeder aufmerksame Leser selbst beantworten kann, bevor Scheil die Antwort gibt. Wer die Argumentation nachvollzieht, wer die Äußerungen und Planungen von sowjetischer Seite liest und den geheimen Aufmarsch der Roten Armee an der Westgrenze Rußlands zur Kenntnis nimmt, kann zuletzt Scheils Fazit nur zustimmen: „Wenn das Unternehmen Barbarossa nicht als Präventivkrieg eingestuft werden kann, hat der Begriff Präventivkrieg seinen Sinn überhaupt verloren.“

François Mitterrand & the French Mystery

François Mitterrand & the French Mystery

Dominique Venner

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

Translated by Greg Johnson

In the center of all the questions raised by the sinuous and contradictory path of François Mitterrand is the famous photograph of the interview granted to a young unknown, the future socialist president of the Republic, by Marshall Philippe Pétain in Vichy, on October 15th, 1942.

This document was known to some initiates, but it was verified by the interested party only in 1994, when he saw that his life was ending. Thirty years earlier, the day before the presidential election of 1965, the then Minister of the Interior, Roger Frey, had received a copy of it. He demanded an investigation which went back to a former local head of the prisoners’ association, to which François Mitterrand belonged. Present at the time of the famous interview, he had several negatives. In agreement with General de Gaulle, Roger Frey decided not to make them public.

Another member of the same movement of prisoners, Jean-Albert Roussel, also had a print. It is he who gave the copy to Pierre Péan for the cover of his book Une jeunesse française (A French youth), published by Fayard in September 1994 with the endorsement of the president.

Why did Mitterrand suddenly decide to make public his enthusiastic Pétainism in 1942–1943, which he had denied and dissimulated up to that point? It is not a trivial question.

Under the Fourth Republic, in December 1954, from the platform of the National Assembly, Raymond Dronne, former captain of the 2nd DB, now a Gaullist deputy, had challenged François Mitterrand, then Minister of the Interior: “I do not reproach you for having successively worn the fleur de lys and the francisque d’honneur [honors created by the Third Republic and Marhsall Pétain’s French State respectively – Trans.] . . .” “All that is false,” retorted Mitterrand. But Dronne replied without obtaining a response: “All that is true, and you know very well . . .”

The same subject was tackled again in the National Assembly, on February 1st, 1984, in the middle of a debate on freedom of the press. We were now under the Fifth Republic and François Mitterrand was the president. Three deputies of the opposition put a question. Since the past of Mr. Hersant (owner of Figaro) during the war had been discussed, why not speak about that of Mr. Mitterrand? The question was judged sacrilege. The socialist majority was indignant, and its president, Pierre Joxe, believed that the president of the Republic had been insulted. The three deputies were sanctioned, while Mr. Joxe declared loud and clear Mr. Mitterrand’s role in the Résistance.

This role is not contestable and is not disputed. But, according to the concrete legend imposed after 1945, a résistant past is incompatible with a Pétainist past. And then at the end of his life, Mr. Mitterrand suddenly decided to break with the official lie that he had endorsed. Why?

To be precise, before slowly becoming a résistant, Mr. Mitterrand had first been an enthusiastic Pétainist, like millions of French. First in his prison camp, then after his escape, in 1942, in Vichy where he was employed by the Légion des combattants, a large, inert society of war veterans. As Mitterrand found this Pétainisme too soft, he sought out some “pure and hard” (and very anti-German) Pétainists like Gabriel Jeantet, an old member of the Cagoule [the right-wing movement of the late 1930s dedicated to overthrowing the Third Republic – Trans.], chargé in the cabinet of the Marshal, one of his future patrons in the Ordre de la francisque.

On April 22nd, 1942, Mitterrand wrote to one his correspondents: “How will we manage to get France on her feet? For me, I believe only in this: the union of men linked by a common faith. It is the error of the Legion to have taken in masses whose only bond was chance: the fact of having fought does not create solidarity. Something along the lines of the SOL,[1] carefully selected and bound together by an oath based on the same core convictions. We need to organize a militia in France that would allow us to await the end of the German-Russian war without fear of its consequences . . .” This is a good summary of the muscular Pétainism of his time. Quite naturally, in the course of events — in particular after the American landing in North Africa of November 8th, 1942 — Mitterand’s Pétainism evolved into resistance.

The famous photograph published by Péan with the agreement of the president caused a political and media storm. On September 12th, 1994, the president, sapped by his cancer, had to explain himself on television under the somber gaze of Jean-Pierre Elkabbach. But against all expectation, the solitude of the accused, as well as his obvious physical distress, made the interrogation seem unjust, causing a feeling of sympathy: “Why are they picking on him?” It was an important factor that reconciled the French to their president. It was not an endorsement of a politician’s career. It was Mitterrand the man who had suddenly became interesting. He had acquired an unexpected depth, a tragic history that stirred an echo in the secret of the French mystery.

Note

1. The SOL (Service d’ordre légionnaire) was constituted in 1941 by Joseph Darnand, a former member of the Cagoule and hero of the two World Wars. This formation, by no means collaborationist, was made official on January 12th, 1942. In the new context of the civil war which is then spread, the SOL was transformed into the French Militia on January 31st, 1943. See the Nouvelle Revue d’Histoire, no. 47, p. 30, and my Histoire de la Collaboration (History of collaboration) (Pygmalion, 2002).

Source: http://www.dominiquevenner.fr/#/edito-nrh-54-mitterrand/3845286 ^[3]

---

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/05/francois-mitterrand-and-the-french-mystery/

Croatie 1945: une nation décapitée

Christophe Dolbeau:

 

Croatie 1945: une nation décapitée

 

Particulièrement impitoyable, la guerre à laquelle fut confronté l’État Indépendant Croate entre 1941 et 1945 s’est achevée, en mai 1945, par l’ignoble massacre de Bleiburg (1). Tueries massives de prisonniers civils et militaires, marches de la mort, camps de concentration (2), tortures, pillages, tout est alors mis en œuvre pour écraser la nation croate et la terroriser durablement. La victoire militaire étant acquise (3), les communistes entreprennent, en effet, d’annihiler le nationalisme croate : pour cela, il leur faut supprimer les gens qui pourraient prendre ou reprendre les armes contre eux, mais aussi éliminer les « éléments socialement dangereux », c’est à dire la bourgeoisie et son élite intellectuelle « réactionnaire ». Pour Tito et les siens, rétablir la Yougoslavie et y installer définitivement le marxisme-léninisme implique d’anéantir tous ceux qui pourraient un jour s’opposer à leurs plans (4). L’Épuration répond à cet impératif : au nom du commode alibi antifasciste, elle a clairement pour objectif de décapiter l’adversaire. Le plus souvent d’ailleurs, on ne punit pas des fautes ou des crimes réels mais on invente toutes sortes de pseudo délits pour se débarrasser de qui l’on veut. Ainsi accuse-t-on, une fois sur deux, les Croates de trahison alors que personne n’ayant jamais (démocratiquement) demandé au peuple croate s’il souhaitait appartenir à la Yougoslavie, rien n’obligeait ce dernier à lui être fidèle ! Parallèlement, on châtie sévèrement ceux qui ont loyalement défendu leur terre natale, la Croatie.   De nouvelles lois permettent de s’affranchir des habituelles lenteurs judiciaires : lorsqu’on n’assassine pas carrément les gens au coin d’un bois, on les défère devant des cours martiales qui sont d’autant plus expéditives que les accusés y sont généralement privés de défense et contraints de plaider coupable…

 

Émanant d’un pouvoir révolutionnaire, aussi illégal qu’illégitime, cette gigantesque purge n’est pas seulement une parodie de justice mais c’est aussi une véritable monstruosité : en fait, on liquide des milliers d’innocents, uniquement parce qu’ils sont croates ou parce qu’on les tient pour idéologiquement irrécupérables et politiquement gênants. Au démocide (5) aveugle et massif qu’incarnent bien Bleiburg et les Marches de la Mort s’ajoute un crime encore plus pervers, celui que le professeur Nathaniel Weyl a baptisé aristocide et qui consiste à délibérément priver une nation de son potentiel intellectuel, spirituel, technique et culturel (« J’ai utilisé ce terme (aristocide) », écrit l’universitaire américain, « pour évoquer l’extermination de ce que Thomas Jefferson appelait ‘l’aristocratie naturelle des hommes’, celle qui repose sur ‘la vertu et le talent’ et qui constitue ‘le bien le plus précieux de la nature pour l’instruction, l’exercice des responsabilités et le gouvernement d’une société’. Jefferson estimait que la conservation de cette élite était d’une importance capitale »)-(6). Dans cette perspective, les nouvelles autorités ont quatre cibles prioritaires, à savoir les chefs militaires, les leaders politiques, le clergé et les intellectuels.

 

 

Delenda est Croatia

 

            Au plan militaire et contrairement à toutes les traditions de l’Europe civilisée, les communistes yougoslaves procèdent à l’élimination physique de leurs prisonniers, surtout s’ils sont officiers. Pour la plupart des cadres des Forces Armées Croates, il n’est pas question de détention dans des camps réservés aux captifs de leur rang, comme cela se fait un peu partout dans le monde (et comme le faisait le III^e Reich…). Pour eux, ce sont des cachots sordides, des violences et des injures, des procédures sommaires et au bout du compte, le gibet ou le poteau d’exécution. Il n’y a pas de circonstances atténuantes, aucun rachat n’est offert et aucune réinsertion n’est envisagée. Près de 36 généraux (7) sont ainsi « officiellement » liquidés et une vingtaine d’autres disparaissent dans des circonstances encore plus obscures. Colonels, commandants, capitaines, lieutenants et même aspirants – soit des gens d’un niveau culturel plutôt plus élevé que la moyenne – font l’objet d’un traitement spécialement dur et le plus souvent funeste. De cette façon, plusieurs générations de gens robustes et éduqués sont purement et simplement supprimées. Leur dynamisme, leur courage et leurs capacités feront cruellement défaut…

 

            Vis-à-vis du personnel politique non-communiste, les méthodes d’élimination sont tout aussi radicales. Les anciens ministres ou secrétaires d’État de la Croatie indépendante, tout au moins ceux que les Anglo-Saxons veulent bien extrader (8), sont tous rapidement condamnés à mort et exécutés (9). Les « tribunaux » yougoslaves n’établissent pas d’échelle des responsabilités et n’appliquent qu’une seule peine. Disparaissent dans cette hécatombe de nombreux hommes cultivés et expérimentés, certains réputés brillants (comme les jeunes docteurs Julije Makanec, Mehmed Alajbegović et Vladimir Košak), et dont beaucoup, il faut bien le dire, n’ont pas grand-chose à se reprocher. Leur honneur est piétiné et la nation ne bénéficiera plus jamais de leur savoir-faire. (Remarquons, à titre de comparaison, qu’en France, la plupart des ministres du maréchal Pétain seront vite amnistiés ou dispensés de peine). La même vindicte frappe la haute fonction publique : 80% des maires, des préfets et des directeurs des grands services de l’État sont assassinés, ce qui prive ex abrupto le pays de compétences et de dévouements éprouvés. On les remplacera au pied levé par quelques partisans ignares et l’incurie s’installera pour longtemps.  Moins brutalement traités (encore que plusieurs d’entre eux se retrouvent derrière les barreaux, à l’instar d’August Košutić ou d’Ivan Bernardic) mais tenus pour de dangereux rivaux, les dirigeants du Parti Paysan sont eux aussi irrémédiablement exclus de la scène politique ; leur formation politique, la plus importante du pays, est dissoute, tout comme les dizaines de coopératives et d’associations, sociales, culturelles, syndicales ou professionnelles, qui en dépendent… Coupé de ses repères traditionnels, le monde rural est désormais mûr pour la socialisation des terres et pour les calamiteuses « zadrougas » que lui impose l’omnipotente bureaucratie titiste.

 

Mort aux « superstitions »   

 

            Convaincus en bons marxistes que la religion est une superstition et que c’est bien « l’opium du peuple », les nouveaux dirigeants yougoslaves témoignent à l’égard des églises d’une hargne morbide. Les deux chefs de l’Église Orthodoxe Croate, le métropolite Germogen et l’éparque Spiridon Mifka sont exécutés ; âgé de 84 ans, le premier paie peut-être le fait d’avoir été, autrefois, le grand aumônier des armées russes blanches du Don… Du côté des évangélistes, l’évêque Filip Popp est lui aussi assassiné ; proche des Souabes, il était devenu encombrant… Vis-à-vis des musulmans, la purge n’est pas moins implacable : le mufti de Zagreb, Ismet Muftić, est publiquement pendu devant la mosquée (10) de la ville, tandis que dans les villages de Bosnie-Herzégovine, de nombreux imams et hafiz subissent un sort tout aussi tragique. Mais le grand ennemi des communistes demeure sans conteste l’Église Catholique contre laquelle ils s’acharnent tout particulièrement (11). Au cours de la guerre, le clergé catholique avait déjà fait l’objet d’une campagne haineuse, tant de la part des tchetniks orthodoxes que des partisans athées. Des dizaines de prêtres avaient été tués, souvent dans des conditions atroces comme les Pères Juraj Gospodnetić et Pavao Gvozdanić, tous deux empalés et rôtis sur un feu, ou les Pères Josip Brajnović et Jakov Barišić qui furent écorchés vifs (12). À la « Libération », cette entreprise d’extermination se poursuit : désignés comme « ennemis du peuple » et « agents de la réaction étrangère », des centaines de religieux sont emprisonnés et liquidés (13), les biens de l’Église sont confisqués et la presse confessionnelle interdite. « Dieu n’existe pas » (Nema Boga) récitent désormais les écoliers tandis que de son côté, l’académicien Marko Konstrenčić proclame fièrement que « Dieu est mort » (14). Au cœur de cette tempête anticléricale, la haute hiérarchie n’échappe pas aux persécutions : deux évêques (NN.SS. Josip Marija Carević et Janko Šimrak) meurent aux mains de leurs geôliers ; deux autres (NN.SS. Ivan Šarić et Josip Garić) doivent se réfugier à l’étranger ; l’archevêque de Zagreb (Mgr Stepinac) est condamné à 16 ans de travaux forcés et l’évêque de Mostar (Mgr Petar Čule) à 11 ans de détention. D’autres prélats (NN.SS. Frane Franić, Lajčo Budanović, Josip Srebrnić, Ćiril Banić, Josip Pavlišić, Dragutin Čelik et Josip Lach) sont victimes de violentes agressions (coups et blessures, lapidation) et confrontés à un harcèlement administratif constant (15). En ordonnant ou en couvrant de son autorité ces dénis de justice et ces crimes, le régime communiste entend visiblement abolir la religion et anéantir le patrimoine spirituel du peuple croate. Odieuse en soi, cette démarche totalitaire n’agresse pas seulement les consciences mais elle participe en outre de l’aristocide que nous évoquions plus haut car elle prive, parfois définitivement, le pays de très nombreux talents et de beaucoup d’intelligence. Au nombre des prêtres sacrifiés sur l’autel de l’athéisme militant, beaucoup sont, en effet, des gens dont la contribution à la culture nationale est précieuse, voire irremplaçable (16).

 

Terreur culturelle

 

            Un quatrième groupe fait l’objet de toutes les « attentions » des épurateurs, celui des intellectuels. Pour avoir une idée de ce que les communistes purs et durs pensent alors de cette catégorie de citoyens, il suffit de se rappeler ce que Lénine lui-même en disait. À Maxime Gorki qui lui demandait, en 1919, de se montrer clément envers quelques savants, Vladimir Oulianov répondait brutalement que « ces petits intellectuels minables, laquais du capitalisme (…) se veulent le cerveau de la nation » mais « en réalité, ce n’est pas le cerveau, c’est de la merde » (17). Sur de tels présupposés, il est évident que les Croates qui n’ont pas fait le bon choix peuvent s’attendre au pire. Dès le 18 mai 1944, le poète Vladimir Nazor (un marxiste de très fraîche date)-(18) a d’ailleurs annoncé que ceux qui ont collaboré avec l’ennemi et fait de la propagande par la parole, le geste ou l’écrit, surtout en art en en littérature, seront désignés comme ennemis du peuple et punis de mort ou, pour quelques cas exceptionnels, de travaux forcés (19). La promesse a le mérite d’être claire et l’on comprend pourquoi le consul de France à Zagreb, M. André Gaillard, va bientôt qualifier la situation de « Terreur Rouge » (20)…

 

            Les intentions purificatoires du Conseil Antifasciste de Libération ne tardent pas à se concrétiser et leurs effets sont dévastateurs. À Bleiburg comme aux quatre coins de la Croatie, la chasse aux intellectuels mal-pensants est ouverte. Dans la tourmente disparaissent les écrivains Mile Budak, Ivan Softa, Jerko Skračić, Mustafa Busuladžić, Vladimir Jurčić, Gabrijel Cvitan, Marijan Matijašević, Albert Haller et Zdenka Smrekar, ainsi que les poètes Branko Klarić, Vinko Kos, Stanko Vitković et Ismet Žunić. Échappant à la mort, d’autres écopent de lourdes peines de prison à l’instar de Zvonimir Remeta (perpétuité), Petar Grgec (7 ans), Edhem Mulabdić, Alija Nametak (15 ans) ou Enver Čolaković. Bénéficiant d’une relative mansuétude, quelques-uns s’en sortent mieux comme les poètes Tin Ujević et Abdurezak Bjelevac ou encore l’historien Rudolf Horvat qui se voient simplement interdire de publier. Tenus pour spécialement nocifs, les journalistes subissent quant à eux une hécatombe : Josip Belošević, Franjo Bubanić, Boris Berković, Josip Baljkas, Mijo Bzik, Stjepan Frauenheim, Mijo Hans, Antun Jedvaj, Vjekoslav Kirin, Milivoj Magdić, Ivan Maronić, Tias Mortigjija, Vilim Peroš, Đuro Teufel, Danijel Uvanović et Vladimir Židovec sont assassinés, leur collègue Stanislav Polonijo disparaît à Bleiburg, tandis que Mladen Bošnjak, Krešimir Devčić, Milivoj Kern-Mačković, Antun Šenda, Savić-Marković Štedimlija, le Père Čedomil Čekada et Theodor Uzorinac sont incarcérés, parfois pour très longtemps (21).

 

            La répression frappe très largement et les gens de presse ou les écrivains sont loin d’être les seuls à passer au tamis de la Commission d’enquête sur les crimes de collaboration culturelle avec l’ennemi (Anketna komisija za utvrdjivanje zločina kulturnom suradnjom s neprijateljem). Une « grande peur », pour reprendre l’expression de Bogdan Radica (22), règne sur la Croatie où des milliers de citoyens sont contraints de répondre à un questionnaire inquisitorial (le fameux Upitni arak). Artistes, universitaires, magistrats, médecins, personnels des hôpitaux, membres des institutions scientifiques ou sportives, tous sont visés et pour ceux qui ne satisfont pas aux nouvelles normes, la sanction est immédiate. Au nombre des plus sévèrement « punis », citons l’architecte Lovro Celio-Cega, le diplomate Zvonko Cihlar, le banquier Emil Dinter, l’ingénieur naval Đuro Stipetić ou les médecins Šime Cvitanović et Ljudevit Jurak (23), tous assassinés. Chez les musiciens, les peines sont plus légères : le compositeur (et franciscain) Kamilo Kob se voit tout de même infliger 6 ans de prison et son collègue Zlatko Grgošević 6 mois de travaux forcés, tandis que le célèbre maestro Lovro Matačić passe 10 mois derrière les barbelés et que son confrère Rado degl’Ivellio est chassé du Théâtre National. Le peintre (et prêtre) Marko Ćosić est condamné à 10 ans d’incarcération et le sculpteur Rudolf Švagel-Lešić à 5 ans de la même peine ; plus chanceux, les peintres Oto Antonini, Ljubo Babić et Rudolf Marčić sont simplement interdits d’exposition. Le ratissage entrepris par la police politique est très systématique et des gens très divers, souvent peu politisés, se retrouvent au bagne comme le chansonnier Viki Glovački, le photographe Ljudevit Kowalsky, le géographe Oto Oppitz, le financier Branko Pliverić ou l’orientaliste Hazim Šabanović.

 

            D’une brutalité inouie, cette grande purge cause dans la société croate un traumatisme profond, d’autant qu’elle s’accompagne de l’émigration massive et définitive de ceux qui parviennent à passer au travers des mailles du filet. Notons que pour parachever leur travail de déculturation, les communistes procèdent dans le même temps au nettoyage des bibliothèques publics et privées afin d’en extraire les « mauvaises » références. Sont ainsi pilonnés les ouvrages « oustachis » (y compris des éditions de Racine, Hugo ou Dostoïevski dont la seule « tare » est d’avoir eu recours à l’orthographe en vigueur sous l’État Indépendant Croate) et les « livres de l’ennemi », c’est à dire tous ceux qui sont rédigés en italien ou en allemand. On jette par exemple les textes de Nietzsche, Kant ou Dante ainsi que des traductions d’Eschyle, Homère, Sophocle, Euripide et Tacite (24)… Chef de l’Agitprop, Milovan Đilas (la future coqueluche des libéraux de Saint-Germain-des-Prés) recommande, en janvier 1947, de se débarrasser des livres de Roald Amundsen mais aussi des œuvres toxiques de Bernard Shaw et Gustave Flaubert (25). Restent toutefois, pour ceux qui veulent se cultiver, les ouvrages édifiants de Marx, Lénine et Dietzgen ( ! ) ou ceux des nouveaux maîtres à penser que sont Đilas, Kardelj et « Čiča Janko » (Moša Pijade)…

 

            Au terme de ce bref et sinistre panorama, il semble bien que l’on puisse, sans exagération, considérer l’épuration communiste de la Croatie comme un aristocide. Cruelle et imbécile, cette « chasse aux sorcières » n’a jamais eu pour but de châtier de quelconques « criminels fascistes » (il n’y en avait guère) mais bien de se débarrasser d’une intelligentsia supposément hostile et de priver la Croatie d’une grande partie de ses moyens afin de faire place nette aux apparatchiks du nouveau régime. L’opération a, hélas, parfaitement atteint ses objectifs et la Croatie mettra près de 25 ans à se doter d’une nouvelle élite digne de ce nom, puis encore 20 ans à émerger définitivement du cauchemar yougo-communiste !                                      

 

Christophe Dolbeau 

 

Notes

 

(1) Voir C. Dolbeau, « Bleiburg, démocide yougoslave », in Tabou, vol. 17, Akribeia, Saint-Genis-Laval, 2010, 7-26.

 

(2) À propos de ces camps, le témoin britannique Frank Waddams (qui résidait en Yougoslavie à la fin de la guerre) affirme que « la famine, la surpopulation, la brutalité et la mortalité en faisaient des endroits bien pires que Dachau ou Buchenwald » – cf. N. Beloff, Tito’s flawed legacy, London, Victor Gollancz, 1985, p. 134.

 

(3) Grâce, il faut bien le dire, à une aide massive des Alliés comme en atteste par exemple l’ampleur exceptionnelle de l’ « Opération Audrey » – voir Louis Huot, Guns for Tito, New York, L. B. Fischer, 1945 et Kirk Ford Jr, OSS and the Yugoslav Resistance, 1943-1945, College Station, TAMU Press, 2000.

 

(4) « Après la fondation de l’État, l’objectif suivant fut d’amener la nation à accepter à 100% le Parti Communiste et son monopole idéologique, ce qui fut d’abord obtenu par la persécution et en compromettant les adversaires de diverses manières, puis en veillant à éradiquer toute pensée hétérodoxe, c’est à dire divergeant ne serait-ce que de façon minime du point de vue du Comité Central du Parti Communiste » – D. Vukelić, « Censorship in Yugoslavia between 1945 and 1952 – Halfway between Stalin and West », Forum de Faenza, IECOB, 27-29 septembre 2010, p. 6.

 

(5) Voir R. J. Rummel, Death by Government, chapitre 2 (Definition of Democide), New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, 1994.

 

(6) cf. N. Weyl, « Envy and Aristocide », in The Eugenics Bulletin, hiver 1984. Voir également T. Sunić, « Sociobiologija Bleiburga », in Hrvatski List du 3 mars 2009 (repris dans The Occidental Observer du 15 mars 2009, sous le titre de « Dysgenics of a Communist Killing Field : the Croatian Bleiburg »).

 

(7) Junuz Ajanović, Edgar Angeli, Oton Ćuš, Franjo Dolački, Stjepan Dollezil, Julije Fritz, Mirko Gregorić, Đuro Grujić (Gruić), August Gustović, Muharem Hromić, Vladimir Kren, Slavko Kvaternik, Vladimir Laxa, Rudolf Lukanc, Bogdan Majetić, Ivan Markulj, Vladimir Metikoš, Josip Metzger, Stjepan Mifek, Ante Moškov, Antun Nardelli, Miroslav Navratil, Franjo Nikolić, Ivan Perčević, Makso Petanjek, Viktor Prebeg, Antun Prohaska, Adolf Sabljak, Tomislav Sertić, Vjekoslav Servatzy, Slavko Skolibar, Nikola Steinfl, Josip Šolc, Slavko Štancer, Ivan Tomašević, Mirko Vučković.

 

(8) Voir J. Jareb, « Sudbina posljednje hrvatske državne vlade i hrvatskih ministara iz drugog svjetskog rata », in Hrvatska Revija, N°2 (110), juin 1978, 218-224.

 

(9) Tel est le cas de M.M. Mehmed Alajbegović, Mile Budak, Pavao Canki, Vladimir Košak, Osman Kulenović, Živan Kuveždić, Slavko Kvaternik, Julije Makanec, Nikola Mandić, Miroslav Navratil, Mirko Puk et Nikola Steinfl.

 

(10) Le bâtiment sera fermé et ses minarets abattus en 1948.

 

(11) Au sujet de la querelle entre l’Église Catholique et l’État communiste yougoslave, voir l’article de B. Jandrić [« Croatian totalitarian communist government’s press in the preparation of the staged trial against the archbishop of Zagreb Alojzije Stepinac (1946) », in Review of Croatian History, vol. I, N°1 (décembre 2005)] et l’ouvrage de M. Akmadža (Katolička crkva u Hrvatskoj i komunistički režim 1945.-1966., Rijeka, Otokar Keršovani, 2004). 

 

(12) cf. Ante Čuvalo, « Croatian Catholic Priests, Theology Students and Religious Brothers killed by Communists and Serbian Chetniks in the Former Yugoslavia during and after World War II » – http://www.cuvalo.net/?p=46

 

(13) Signée par les évêques croates, une lettre pastorale du 20 septembre 1945 fait état de 243 prêtres assassinés, 169 emprisonnés et 89 disparus ; en septembre 1952, un autre document épiscopal parle de 371 religieux tués, 96 disparus, 200 emprisonnés et 500 réfugiés – cf. Th. Dragoun, Le dossier du cardinal Stepinac, Paris, NEL, 1958. Voir aussi I. Omrčanin, Martyrologe croate. Prêtres et religieux assassinés en haine de la foi de 1940 à 1951, Paris, NEL, 1962.

 

(14) Th. Dragoun, op. cité, p. 239.

 

(15) Ibid, p. 67, 213, 219, 248-254.

 

(16) On pense notamment au philosophe Bonaventura Radonić, à l’historien Kerubin Šegvić, au compositeur Petar Perica, au sociologue Dominik Barac, au byzantologue Ivo Guberina, à l’écrivain et distingué polyglotte Fran Binički et au biologiste Marijan Blažić, tous assassinés.

 

(17) cf. Le livre noir du communisme, sous la direction de S. Courtois, Paris, R. Laffont, 1998, p. 864.

 

(18) Avant la guerre, Vladimir Nazor (1876-1949) avait soutenu le royaliste serbe Bogoljub Jevtić puis le Parti Paysan Croate de V. Maček et en décembre 1941, il avait été nommé membre de l’Académie de Croatie (HAZU) par Ante Pavelić…

 

(19) cf. D. Vukelić, op. cité, p. 1.

 

(20) cf. G. Troude, Yougoslavie, un pari impossible ? : la question nationale de 1944 à 1960, Paris, L’Harmattan, 1998, p. 69.

 

(21) Sur 332 titulaires de la carte de presse, seuls 27 seront autorisés à poursuivre l’exercice de leur métier. Pour une étude exhaustive sur la répression dans le milieu journalistique, voir J. Grbelja, Uništeni naraštaj : tragične sudbine novinara NDH, Zagreb, Regoč, 2000, ainsi que l’article de D. Vukelić mentionné en note 4.

 

(22) Voir B. Radica, « Veliki strah : Zagreb 1945 », in Hrvatska Revija, vol. 4 (20), 1955.

 

(23) Expert de renommée internationale, il avait fait partie, en juillet 1943, de la commission chargée d’enquêter en Ukraine sur le massacre communiste de Vinnytsia.

 

(24) cf. D. Vukelić, op. cité, pp. 21, 23/24.

 

(25) Dans la liste des auteurs prohibés figurent aussi Maurice Dekobra, Gaston Leroux (pour Chéri Bibi !) et Henri Massis (il est vrai que ce dernier prônait la création d’un « parti de l’intelligence » ce qui n’était pas vraiment à la mode dans la Yougoslavie de 1945…).       

 

 

Revista de Historia del Fascismo - III

Revista de Historia del Fascismo - III

Sumario número III correspondiente a Marzo 2011:

TENDENCIAS
Henri De Man y el “socialismo ético”

Capítulo de Nè destra nè sinistra. La nascita dell’ideologia fascista, Zeev Sternhell, Akropolis, Nápoles 1984, págs. 119-139.
En España no existe ninguna obra relevante sobre Henri de Man y su “neosocialismo” o “planismo” que influyó ampliamente en los “no conformistas de los años 30”. De ahí que hayamos decidido presentar esta traducción de profesor Sternhell que ilustra la vida y la obra de este socialista que abandonó el marxismo hacia ese espacio gris que existió con el fascismo.

BIOGRAFIAS
Hugo Wast, de oficio escritor, de vocación nacionalista y antisemita

La conspiración del silencio no siempre alcanza sus objetivos. Los detractores de Hugo Wast no han podido evitar que en Argentina muchas calles lleven su nombre y que, sistemáticamente, bibliotecas públicas de las grandes ciudades recuerden en sus rótulos al que fuera uno de los mejores escritores argentinos del siglo XX. No en vano, cuando murió, Wast había vendido tres millones de ejemplares de sus obras. Incluso hoy, después de sesenta años de muro de silencio, sus obras son reeditadas con cierta frecuencia y en Google aparecen 18.000 referencias a su vida y obra. En buena medida, los grandes escritores argentinos del siglo XX se nutrieron de las obras de Wast. Sin embargo, lo más habitual cuando acudimos a biografías o historias de la literatura argentina poíticamente correctas se limitan a definir a Wast como “escritor antisemita”. Y lo era, pero era bastante más que eso: católico, conservador, dotado de una pluma ágil y vigorosa que se movía bien tanto en relato cortos como en novelas de gran calado, alguien, en definitiva, que merece ser recordado. Para quien esto escribe constituye un honor recordar la pluma de Hugo Wast y recomendar su lectura para los amantes de la literatura de expresión castellana.

DOSSIER: FASCISMO UNO Y TRINO
Tres orígenes para el mismo movimiento, tres concepciones de un mismo fascismo

Entre las distintas interpretaciones del fascismo se tiende a considerar a este movimiento político del siglo XX como algo homogéneo o, al menos, algo a lo que se reconocen solamente variedades nacionales. Parece una obviedad, pero no está de más recordar que el fascismo es un “producto de síntesis” entre “lo nacional” y “lo social”. Y si esto es así parece lógico que existan tres variedades de fascismo: aquel que es “más nacional que social”, aquel otro que es “más social de nacional” y, finalmente, aquel que intenta mantener el equilibrio entre “lo nacional y lo social”. Esto nos permite hablar de un “fascismo de derechas”, de un “fascismo de izquierdas” y de un “fascismo centrista”. Este esquema es fácilmente aplicable en todas aquellas naciones en las que el fascismo alcanzó el nivel de fuerza política pujante: Italia, Alemania, Francia, España…

FASCISMO Y SECTAS
Logia Thule: el ancestro inmediato del NSDAP. Mito y realidad.

Este artículo debería ser consultado tras la lectura de otro dos publicados anteriormente en la RHF: el dedicado al estudio de las sectas ariosóficas y el dedicado a la revista Ostara. Se ha escrito que la “Logia Thule” era la “rama bávara de la Orden de los Germanos” y esto es sólo cierto a medias y el matiz no deja de tener interés. El impacto de la Logia Thule sobre el NSDAP fue real… pero mínimo y no fue más allá de lo que se ha llamado “la prehistoria del nacionalsocialismo”.

SECTAS
La vertiente ocultista del peronismo (III de III)
Perón, masón y miembro de la Logia Propaganda 2

Es fácil divisar las dos vertientes de estas notas sobre la Logia Anael y el papel de López Rega. Una e ellas afecta al General Juan Domingo Perón, dirigente y fundador del justiciaismo argentino y seguramente el político mejor valorado y que despertó más entusiasmos en aquel país durante el siglo XX. La obra tiene que ver con López Rega. Ambas se refieren a su vinculación con el ocultismo. Las preguntas a formular son, pues, tres: ¿Hasta qué punto el general Perón, Eva Perón e Isabel Martínez de Perón creían en el espiritismo? ¿Se afilió Perón a la masonería? ¿Cuáles eran las fuentes doctrinales de López Rega?

COMENTARIOS
“La derecha radical y Europa”, respuesta a la revista Sistemas (III de III)

Llegamos al tercer y último jalón de nuestra respuesta a la revista Sistemas, considerada como “científica” a la vista de los errores de bulto contenidos… Seguramente se nos escapará alguna puntualización, pero estamos convencidos de que, al menos en sus líneas generales, habremos ayudado a plantear la cuestión de fondo: la necesidad de un debate profundo y vinculante sobre Europa en el seno de la “derecha radical”.

DERECHA FASCISTA
II PARTE: EL CAMPO MONÁRQUICO DURANTE LA REPÚBLICA

Continuando con la serie de artículos y comentarios sobre la “derecha fascista española”, añadimos hoy la tercera parte titulada: “El campo monárquico durante la República” y “Acción Española”, faltando la última parte sobre Renovación Española que publicaremos en el número 4 de la RHF.

TERRORISMO
LA OAS EN ESPAÑA. Notas sobre el libro A la sombra de Franco.

La lectura de la obra del villenero Gastón Segura Valero, A la sombra de Franco, subtitulada El refugio de los activistas franceses de la OAS, nos ha inspirado algunos comentarios que amplían el contenido de este libro –que no parece extremadamente aceptable y bien documentado- pero al que le hemos observado algunas carencias y huecos que intentaremos compensar en las páginas que siguen.

NEOFASCISMO
El nacimiento de Ordre Nouveau

Les mouvement d’extreme droite en France aprés 1944. François Duprat. Editions Albatros, París 1972, págs. 192-200

François Duprat, asesinado por un comando izquierdista en una carretera de Bretaña mediante la colocación de un artefacto explosivo bajo s vehículo en marzo de 1978 pertenecía a la dirección de Ordre Nouvea y es el autor de estas líneas incluidas como capítulo final de su obra Les Mouvements d’extreme droite. Vale la pena añadir que dos años después de que fueran publicadas estas páginas, Ordre Nouveau resultó prohibido por las autoridades, sin embargo impulsó la creación del Front National que hasta el pasado 15 de enero de 2011 ha sido dirigido por Jean Marie Le Pen. En torno a ese eje ha fructivado en los últimos 30 años el movimiento de oposición nacional en Francia, cuya semilla inicial fue Ordre Nouveau. Estos fueron sus primeros pasos.

 

Características:

Formato libro 150 x 210 mm
Páginas 216Tapas en cuatricomía con solapas

Pedidos: [e-mail]

Precio venta al público: 18,00 euros + 3,00 euros de gastos de envío (precios para España, resto mundo, consultar)

Forma e pago: ingreso en cuenta corriente BBVA (al hacer el pedido indicamos el número)

Bijna 180 jaar contrarevolutie in Spanje

Bijna 180 jaar contrarevolutie in Spanje

Ex: http://www.kasper-gent.org/

Het Carlisme is een Spaanse contrarevolutionaire en traditionalistische beweging ontstaan in 1833 als reactie tegen het verlichtingsdenken en de Franse revolutie. Directe aanleiding voor het ontstaan van de beweging was een Koningskwestie. De Carlisten zet zich af tegen ideeën als laïcisme, egalitarisme, rationalisme en individualisme. In deze zin is het Carlisme terug te vinden in de traditie van Joseph de Maistre.

De beweging had een grote invloed in de Spaanse politiek tot het einde van het regime van Francisco Franco in 1975. Het verdedigde het katholicisme en de monarchie in reactie tegen het liberalisme en het modernisme. Thans is het een buitenparlementaire beweging geworden.

Ontstaan en korte geschiedenis

Het Carlisme ontstond ten tijde van de Pragmatieke Sanctie van Ferdinand VII. Deze maakte hierin bekend dat zijn vader de Salische wet had afgeschaft. Deze oude wet stipuleerde een mannelijke erfopvolging van de Koningen. Omdat Ferdinand VII alleen dochters had wou hij deze wet zien verdwijnen, waardoor hij opgevolgd kon worden door zijn dochter (Isabella II) in plaats van zijn broer (Carlos). De laatstgenoemde accepteerde dit echter niet en riep zich in 1833, na de dood van Ferdinand VII, uit tot Koning van Spanje (Carlos V). Door deze koninklijke kwestie ontstond ook de naam ‘de Carlisten’: de reactionaire en katholieke aanhang van Carlos.

Hierna volgde een eerste periode in de Carlistische geschiedenis, een periode waarin men de macht voornamelijk langs militaire weg wou grijpen. Tijdens drie Carlistenoorlogen zouden de zonen van Carlos V de macht proberen grijpen. Na de derde Carlistenoorlog zou Carlos VII heel Noord-Spanje onder zijn Kroon verenigen. In 1874 zouden ze echter het onderspit delven tegen Alfons XII, de zoon van Isabella II. Hierbij werd de laatste afstammeling in mannelijk lijn van Carlos V vermoord, wat veel Carlisten er toe aanzette om Alfons XIII voortaan als legitiem koning van Spanje te erkennen.

Een ander deel van de beweging zette de strijd echter (niet-militair) verder, waarmee een tweede periode voor de beweging aanbrak. In deze periode (tot 1936) zouden ze zich omvormen tot een vreedzame politieke beweging. Xavier I was door de laatste afstammeling van Carlos V aangewezen als Koning en dus de rechtmatige troonsopvolger van Spanje. Zijn zoon Karel Hugo (I) trok zich politiek terug in 1979 en de huidige troonpretendent van Spanje is Sixtus Hendrik (I).

Een derde periode in de geschiedenis van de Carlisten begon in 1936 met de Spaanse burgeroorlog. De Carlisten streden aan de zijde van de overwinnende Falange en Francisco Franco. Op deze manier bleven ze tot het einde van het Franco-tijdperk een zeer significante rol spelen in de Spaanse politiek. Sinds het einde het regime in 1975 verloor de Carlistische beweging veel van zijn invloed en thans is het een buitenparlementaire groep worden.

Ideologie

Zoals reeds in de inleiding aangehaald is het Carlisme een contrarevolutionaire en traditionalistische beweging. Het zet zich af tegen de verlichtingsidee en de Franse revolutie met zijn vele uitwassen.

Het is echter moeilijk om een duidelijk ideologisch beeld te krijgen van de Carlisten. Als traditionalisten en monarchisten zetten ze zich immers af tegen het concept van ideologie als een drijvende politieke kracht. Tevens is er door de lange geschiedenis en het diverse publiek van volgelingen nooit echt een duidelijk ideologische lijn geweest.

Er zijn echter 4 begrippen die doorheen de geschiedenis van het Carlisme steeds terugkeren en duidelijk op de voorgrond staan: Dios, Patria, Fueros, Rey.

1) Dios (God). Carlisten zijn katholiek en zien het katholicisme als een fundamentele hoeksteen van Spanje, iets wat men ten allen tijde moet verdedigen (ook politiek). De Carlisten streven naar de verwezenlijking van de slogan ‘Christus Rex’, Christus Koning.

2)Patria (Vaderland).

3) Fueros (~subsidiariteit). Carlisten streven naar regionale autonomie en men ziet Spanje als een amalgaan van regionale gemeenschappen verenigd onder 1 Kroon.

4) Rey (Koning). Carlisten verwerpen het idee van nationale soevereiniteit en stellen dat alle soevereiniteit de Koning toebehoord. Deze macht is beperkt door de doctrine van de Kerk.

 

Op ideologische vlak vertonen de Carlisten veel overeenkomst met de Falangisten (bijvoorbeeld: sociaal conservatief en katholiek), maar toch zijn er aanzienlijke verschillen. Zo streven Falangisten naar sterke centralisatie binnen de staat, terwijl Carlisten voorstander zijn van regionale autonomie.

Tot de dag van vandaag inspireren Carlistische denkwijzen mensen in (voornamelijk Noord-) Spanje. Het regionalisme (niet te verwarren met separatisme!) blijft een belangrijk denkbeeld in het land. Een van de stichters van het Baskisch nationalisme had een Carlistische achtergrond. Op 7 mei 2007 zei Mgr. Fernando Sebastián Aguilar, Aartsbisschop van Pamplona en Tudela, dat het Carlisme waardig was om publiek en electoraal ondersteund te worden.

 

Symboliek

De Carlisten gebruiken als vlag het Bourgondisch Kruis. Hun uniform bestaat uit een rode baret en hun (nationaal) lied is het Oriamendi.

Por Dios, por la Patria y el Rey
Lucharon nuestros padres.
Por Dios, por la Patria y el Rey
Lucharemos nosotros también.

Lucharemos todos juntos
Todos juntos en unión
Defendiendo la bandera
De la Santa Tradición. (bis)

Cueste lo que cueste
Se ha de conseguir
Venga el Rey de España
A la corte de Madrid. (bis)

Por Dios, por la Patria y el Rey
Lucharon nuestros padres.
Por Dios, por la Patria y el Rey
Lucharemos nosotros también.

 

Mitterrand et le mystère français

 

Mitterrand et le mystère français

par Dominique VENNER

Ex: http://metapoinfos.hautetfort.com/

Au centre de toutes les interrogations que soulève l’itinéraire sinueux et contradictoire de François Mitterrand, sujet de notre dossier, figure en première place la photo devenue fameuse de l’entrevue accordée à un jeune inconnu, futur président socialiste de la République, par le maréchal Pétain, à Vichy, le 15 octobre 1942.

Ce document était connu de quelques initiés, mais il n’a été cautionné par l’intéressé qu’en 1994, alors qu’il voyait venir la fin de sa vie. Trente ans plus tôt, à la veille de l’élection présidentielle de 1965, le ministre de l’Intérieur du moment, Roger Frey, en avait reçu un exemplaire. Il demanda une enquête qui remonta jusqu’à un ancien responsable local de l’association des prisonniers, dont faisait partie François Mitterrand. Présent lors de la fameuse entrevue, il en possédait plusieurs clichés. En accord avec le général De Gaulle, Roger Frey décida de ne pas les rendre publics.

Un autre membre du même mouvement de prisonniers, Jean-Albert Roussel, en possédait également un tirage. C’est lui qui donna à Pierre Péan le cliché qui fit la couverture de son livre, Une jeunesse française, publié par Fayard en septembre 1994 avec l’aval du président.
Pourquoi, Mitterrand a-t-il soudain décidé de rendre public son pétainisme fervent des années 1942-1943, qu’il avait nié et dissimulé jusque-là ? Ce n’est pas une question anodine.

Sous la IVe République, en décembre 1954, à la tribune de l’Assemblée nationale, Raymond Dronne, ancien capitaine de la 2e DB, devenu député gaulliste, avait interpelé François Mitterrand, alors ministre de l’Intérieur : « Je ne vous reproche pas d’avoir arboré successivement la fleur de lys et la francisque d’honneur… » « Tout cela est faux », répliqua Mitterrand. Mais Dronne riposta sans obtenir de réponse : « Tout cela est vrai et vous le savez bien… »

 

Le même sujet fut abordé de nouveau à l’Assemblée nationale, le 1er février 1984, en plein débat sur la liberté de la presse. On était maintenant sous la Ve République et François Mitterrand en était le président. Trois députés de l’opposition de l’époque posèrent une question. Puisque l’on parlait du passé de M. Hersant (propriétaire du Figaro) pendant la guerre, pourquoi ne parlerait-on pas de celui de M. Mitterrand ? La question fut jugée sacrilège. La majorité socialiste s’indigna et son président, Pierre Joxe, estima que le président de la République était insulté. Les trois députés furent sanctionnés, tandis que M. Joxe rappelait haut et fort le passé de résistant de M. Mitterrand.

Ce passé n’est pas contestable et pas contesté. Mais, au regard de la légende bétonnée imposée après 1945, ce passé de résistant était incompatible avec un passé pétainiste. Et voilà donc qu’à la fin de sa vie, M. Mitterrand décida soudain de rompre avec le mensonge officiel qu’il avait fait sien. Pourquoi ?
Pour être précis, avant de devenir peu à peu résistant, M. Mitterrand avait d’abord été un pétainiste fervent comme des millions de Français. D’abord dans son camp de prisonnier, puis après son évasion, en 1942, à Vichy où il fut employé par la Légion des combattants, grand rassemblement mollasson d’anciens combattants. Comme il trouvait ce pétainisme-là beaucoup trop endormi, il se lia à quelques pétainistes « purs et durs » (et très anti-allemands), tel Gabriel Jeantet, ancien cagoulard, chargé de mission au cabinet du Maréchal, l’un de ses futurs parrains dans l’ordre de la Francisque.

Le 22 avril 1942, il écrivait à l’un de ses correspondants : « Comment arriverons-nous à remettre la France sur pied ? Pour moi, je ne crois qu’à ceci : la réunion d’hommes unis par la même foi. C’est l’erreur de la Légion que d’avoir reçu des masses dont le seul lien était le hasard : le fait d’avoir combattu ne crée pas une solidarité. Je comprends davantage les SOL (1), soigneusement choisis et qu’un serment fondé sur les mêmes convictions du cœur lie. Il faudrait qu’en France on puisse organiser des milices qui nous permettraient d’attendre la fin de la lutte germano-russe sans crainte de ses conséquences… » C’est un bon résumé du pétainisme musclé de cette époque. Tout naturellement, au fil des événements, notamment après le débarquement américain en Afrique du Nord du 8 novembre 1942, ce pétainisme évolua vers la résistance.

La fameuse photo publiée par Péan avec l’accord du président provoqua un ouragan politique et médiatique. Le 12 septembre 1994, le président, miné par son cancer, dut s’expliquer à la télévision sous l’œil noir de Jean-Pierre Elkabbach. Mais contre toute attente, sa solitude d’accusé, doublée d’une détresse physique évidente, parut injustes, provoquant un élan de sympathie. L’interrogatoire d’Elkabbach avait suscité une réaction : « Mais pour qui se prend-il, celui-là ? » Ce fut un élément capital du rapprochement des Français avec leur président. Non que le bilan politique du personnage ait été approuvé. Mais l’homme, soudain, était devenait intéressant. Il avait acquis une épaisseur inattendue, celle d’une histoire tragique qui éveillait un écho dans le secret du mystère français.

Dominique Venner (La Nouvelle Revue d'Histoire, mai-juin 2011)

 

Note

(1). Le SOL (Service d’ordre légionnaire) fut constitué en 1941 par Joseph Darnand, ancien cagoulard et héros des deux guerres. Cette formation nullement collaborationniste fut officialisée le 12 janvier 1942. Dans le contexte nouveau de la guerre civile qui se déploie alors, le SOL sera transformé en Milice française le 31 janvier 1943. On se reportera à La NRH n° 47, p. 30 et à mon Histoire de la Collaboration, Pygmalion, 2002.

Revista de Historia del Fascismo - Julius Evola en Alemania

 

Revista de Historia del Fascismo

Sumario

REVISIONES

Hitler [no] me ha dicho: Rauschning, un falsario desenmascarado

Durante décadas el libro de Hermann Rauschning Hitler me ha dicho se ha considerado como un pieza fundamental del Caso Hitler. Desde obras “ligeras” como El retorno de los brujos de Louis Pauwels y Jacques Bergier hasta las  sesudas  obras  de  historiadores  académicos  como Trevor-Roper, era frecuente entre los años 50 hasta finales del milenio, recurrir a esta obra para dirimir cómo era la verdadera personalidad del führer. Aun hoy algunos siguen considerando a esta obra como “fuente primaria”… lamentablemente  para  ellos,  desde  hace  20  años,  está demostrado ad nauseam que la obra de Rauschning no tiene credibilidad sino que es uno de tantos ejemplos de propaganda de guerra.

BIOGRAFIAS

Abate Barruel: el padre de todas las conspiranoias

A  finales  del  siglo  XVIII  al  abate  Augustin  Barruel  consiguió una fama extraordinaria con la publicación de su obra Memorias para servir a la historia del jacobinismo en  donde  daba  una  explicación  teleológica  a  todos  los episodios que se habían sucedido en Francia a partir de 1780 y que se desencadenaron aquella orgía de sangre que  fue  la  Revolución  Francesa.  El  éxito  de  Barruel  fue tan rutilante como efímero, sin embargo, todavía hoy se le considera como el introductor de la visión conspirativa de la historia y su obra como el “padre” de todas las conspiraciones. Esta es la vida y la obra del abate Barruel…

NEOFASCISMO

L’Uomo Qualunque: un producto de postguerra

En la confusión de la Italia de la postguerra, durante un corto  ciclo  de  apenas  tres  años,  un  partido  político  de nuevo cuño llamó particularmente la atención: el Fronte dell’Uomo Qualunque, literalmente el Frente del Hombre Cualquiera (aunque otra traducción alternativa sería “del Pobre Diablo”) entendiendo como tal al ciudadano sin expectativas  que  sufre  las  consecuencias  de  las  situaciones  adversas  generadas  por  otros.  El Uomo  Qualunque fue  un  grito  de  desesperados  que  se  extinguió  pronto ingresando una parte sustancial de sus miembros en el Movimiento  Social  Italiano  que  heredó  también  buena parte de sus votos. 

MÍSTICA FASCISTA

Codreanu y su mística guerrera

Nuestro colaborador Eduardo Basurto nos envía este artículo sobre la mística guerrera de Codreanu que supone el primer estudio publicado en la Revista de Historia del Fascismo  sobre  esta  corriente  en  Rumania.  Además  de hacer honor al título, el estudio de Eduardo Basurto realiza un repaso a la historia de la varidad rumana del fascismo singularmente preciso.

CINEMATOGRAFÍA

Forces Occultes… El cine francés bajo la ocupación

Hasta hace poco inencontrable y desde que se han puesto en marcha las plataformas de intercambio de archivos Peer to Peer y youTube fácilmente accesibles en la red, Forces Occultes es un película extraña que responde en primer lugar a las exigencias antimasónicas del gobierno francés de Vichy y de la propaganda alemana. Pero nos equivocaríamos si considerásemos que Forces Occultes solamente  es  “propaganda”.  Es  mucho  más:  refleja  por primera vez en la historia del cine cómo es una iniciación masónica de la que hasta ese momento el “gran público” no tenía conciencia exacta en qué consistía. Y no hay en ella absolutamente ninguna falsificación. La pesquisa en torno  a Forces  Occultes  nos  llevará,  por  extensión  lógica, en la segunda parte de este artículo, a examinar el panorama del cine “colaboracionista” realizado durante la ocupación y terminará con una referencia a la figura de Claude Autant-Lara, fallecido en 2000 después de ser durante un período diputado europeo del Front National.

DOSSIER:

Julius Evola y el III Reich
Las relaciones y los proyectos de Julius Evola en Alemania 1930-1945.

I. Introduccion

II. Julius Evola y la cultura alemanas

III. Contactos en el Reich 

          - La Comunidad de  Trabajo de los nacionalistas

          - Con la “revolución conservadora”

          - La red del príncipe KarlAnton von Rohan

          - Gottfried Benn y el Rivolta  

          - Del Herrenklub a las SS

          - La “defensa de la raza” en Alemania e Italia

          - Los objetivos del período 1938-1943

          - Evola en el Cuartel General del Führer

 

Características: 

Formato libro 150 x 210 mm

Páginas 216

Tapas en cuatricomía con solapas 

Pedidos: [e-mail] 

Precio venta al público: 18,00 euros + 3,00 euros de gastos de envío (precios para España, resto mundo, consultar) 

Forma e pago: ingreso en cuenta corriente BBVA (al hacer el pedido indicamos el número) o pago a través de pay-pal (ver columna de la derecha)

 

Suscripción: 

6 números: 100 euros

12 números: 200 euros

D. Venner's "Le siècle de 1914"

Foundations of the Twenty-First Century: Dominique Venner's Le Siècle de 1914.

by Michael O'Meara

Ex: http://www.wermodandwermod.com/ 

A White Nationalist Reading of . . .

Dominique Venner
Le Siècle de 1914: Utopies, guerres et révolutions en Europe au XXe siècle
Paris: Pygmalion, 2006

“To recreate a new aristocracy is the eternal task of every revolutionary project.” –Guillaume Faye

At the beginning of twentieth century, peoples of European descent ruled the world. They made up a third of its population, occupied half its landmass, controlled Africa, India, Southeast Asia, and parts of coastal China; their industry and technology, along with their philosophy, science, and art, had no rival; the world was theirs and theirs alone.

A century later, all was changed: Peoples of European descent had fallen to less than 9 percent of the world’s population; their lands were everywhere inundated by non-Whites; their industry and technology outsourced to potential enemies; their state, social system, and media taken over by parasitic aliens; and, in the deepest demographic sense, they faced the not-too-distant prospect of biological extinction.

To understand this catastrophic inversion requires some understanding of the period responsible for it. We’re fortunate that after a lifetime studying its key movements, Dominique Venner, our greatest identitarian historian, has set out to chart its biopolitical contours.

Before the Deluge

As a historical (rather than a chronological) period, the twentieth century begins in 1914, with the onset of the First World War, whose devastating assault on European existence shook the continent in every one of its foundations, destroying not just its ancien régime, but ushering in what Ernst Nolte calls the “European Civil War” of 1917-45 or what some call the “Thirty Years War” of 1914-45. For amidst its storms of fire and steel, there emerged four rival ideologies — American liberalism, Russian Communism, Italian Fascism, and German National Socialism — each of whose ambition was to reshape the postwar order according to its own scheme for collective salvation. Our world, Venner argues, is a product of these contentious ambitions and of the ideological system — liberalism — that prevailed over its rivals.

Before the war of 1914 political ideologies lacked the “religious” fervor of their twentieth-century counterparts. Europe then was more than a geographic assortment of different peoples and states identified with different political creeds. It constituted a single biocivilization (a Race-Nation), whose ethnonational variants embodied alternative facets of the genetic-spiritual legacy bequeathed by the Greeks, the Aryans, and the Cro Magnons. Not a single great phenomenon experienced by any one European people, it followed, was not also experienced by the others: From the megalithic culture of the stone age, to medieval chivalry, to the rise of nationalism. In the modern period, the ties of blood and spirit linking the different European nations took institutional form in the Westphalian state system of 1648, which, with the exception of the revolutionary period (1789-1815), limited their numerous wars and conflicts to family disputes.

The greatest casualty of what contemporaries called the Great War would be the destruction of this system — and of the aristocratic elites who were its incarnation.

On the war’s eve, the aristocracy still represented that historic body whose function was to command, to fight, and to defend. In fact, in one form or another, it had always dominated European life — at least since the Aryans, that offshoot of the White race whose existence was premised on the rule of the “noble.” Though property-based and attached to the permanences of family, tradition, and rank, the pre-war aristocracy bore little resemblance to the decadent hereditary ruling class of liberal historiography. For Venner, it was, as an ideal type, an ever-renewing estate infused with the spirit of honor, duty, and loyalty to what was highest in White existence. As such, it typified its people’s essence, associating nobility with those who put their people’s interests before their own.

Except for republican France and Switzerland, all of Europe’s pre-war monarchical and imperial states were governed by aristocrats, whose Prussian spirit exalted simplicity, austerity, duty, and political incorruptibility. Against the leveling aspersions cast by liberals and democrats, Venner emphasizes the aristocracy’s dynamic, modernist, and genial character — opposed in essence to bourgeois democratic societies, which subordinate everyone to money (the realm of the Jews).

Cataclysm

No one in 1914 quite understood the type of the war they had gotten into. All the general staffs anticipated a short, decisive engagement like the “cabinet wars” of the eighteenth and ninteenth centuries — not realizing it might resemble the American War of Succession, whose closing stages anticipated the “Second-Generation War” of 1914 (a generation of war based on massed firepower, where “artillery conquers, infantry occupies”).

Though a traditional conflict between rival states at the start, by 1917, once the United States entered it, the war had been transformed not just into an industrial and social mobilization of unprecedented scope, but into an ideological crusade between democratic and authoritarian regimes. Worse, the democratic crusaders wouldn’t let the war end the way previous European wars had ended, when the jus publicum europaeum of the Westphalian system mitigated White strife and ensured the integrity of rival states. In the absence of this noble restraint, Europe was mutilated at its core: Nine million combatants were killed, the Hohenzollern, Hapsburg, and Romanov empires shattered, and an even greater hecatomb prepared for the next generation.

In the glow of this holocaust, Woodrow Wilson, the American champion of an anti-aristocratic, anti-European “democratism,” stepped upon the Old World’s stage to proclaim a new order based on liberal governance, free markets, and the egalitarian principle that the sovereign individual takes precedence over community, culture, history, and (in time) race — an order whose underlying principle rested on the rule of money — and, though Venner doesn’t say it, on money’s Chosen Ones.

The untenable Wilsonian settlement of 1918-19 collapsed soon enough, but it was hastened, in some cases provoked, by its ideological rivals. For Wilson’s plutocratic democracy did not go unopposed. In Russia, Communists proposed a more radically egalitarian version of his liberal utopia, a version whose methods differed from America’s market principles, but nevertheless upheld the same raceless materialist commitments born of Enlightenment liberalism. In Germany and Italy, a defensive Europeanism gave rise to more forthrightly anti-liberal ideologies to challenge the anti-Aryan or Jewish ethic of American capitalism and Russian Communism.

In this spirit, Mussolini’s Fascists called for a strong state exalting “authority, order, and justice” to unite Italian producers and soldiers in a national destiny free of the community-killing forces of liberal individualism and Communist collectivism. In a different way, Hitler’s National Socialists fought for a racial order, a Volksgemeinschaft, to overturn the Diktat of the Wilsonian peace, beat back the liberals’ assault on the body and spirit of the nation, and return Germany to its rightful place on the world stage. Both these movements opposing the anti-White subversions of the Wilsonians and Leninists did so, despite their plebeian-Caesarian politics, in a spirit akin to Europe’s ancient warrior aristocracies, whose tradition exalted personal power and regalian purpose.

Wilson’s Democratism

The focus of Venner’s history is the interwar struggle between liberalism, Communism, Fascism, and National Socialism. The focus in this reading is Wilson’s liberal democratism, whose “mission” it was to champion the plutocratic democracy of American capitalist enterprise, as it endeavored to wipe the historical slate clean of its European (especially its German and Catholic) accouterments.

Wilson’s crusading democratism stemmed from the dominant Puritan strain of America’s national tradition. Having settled their New Israel far from the morally compromised Europe they had fled and having identified their election with economic success, the Puritans defined themselves not in terms of their ancestor’s blood and heritage, but (once the spirit of capitalism overwhelmed their Protestant ethic) in terms of the Lockean “pursuit of happiness” — the very notion of which was alien to any sense of history and destiny. Such a Hebraic form of Christianity imbued the Wilsonians with the belief that their system was not only more virtuous than that of other peoples, but that it made them immune to their failings. (Though formally a Southerner, Wilson’s approach to Europe followed in the steps of earlier Northeastern Yankee elites, whose secularized Puritanism, in the form of Unitarian/Social Gospel humanism, motivated their century long assault on the religious and racial practices of the American South.)

The clash between aristocratic and democratic values — between Europe and America — reflected, of course, a more profound clash. Venner explains it in terms of Oswald Spengler’s Prussianism and Socialism (1919), which argues that the sixteenth-century Reformation produced two opposed visions of Protestant Christianity — the Calvinism of the English and the Lutheran Pietism of the Germans. The German vision rejected the primacy of wealth, comfort, and happiness, exalting the soldier’s aristocratic spirit and the probity this spirit nurtured in Prussian officialdom. English Protestants, by contrast, privileged wealth (a sign of election) and the external freedoms necessary to its pursuit. This made it a secularizing, individualistic, and above all economic “religion,” with each individual having the right to interpret the Book in his own light and thus to justify whatever it took to succeed.

Given England’s influence on America’s formation, Venner sees an analogous process at work in the United States. In the twentieth century, this process took the form of a money-driven variant of Calvinism, whose impetus has been to enfranchise those Puritan/Jewish/liberal/New Class projects that have been such a bane to white existence in the twentieth century: Those projects proposing a rupture with the past, the destruction of historic identities, and the creation of a new world where everything was possible — a new world where Jerusalem takes precedent over Athens, where the Brotherhood of Man is proclaimed with ethnocidal conviction, and America is celebrated as an anti-Europe.

So armed, the Wilsonians set out to destroy Europe’s ancient empires and aristocracies.

The New World

The war’s Wilsonian settlement (premised on the lie of German war guilt) left the traditional order in ruins, but, of even greater consequence, it prepared Europeans for future catastrophes, preeminently the Second World War (1939-45) — which would subject them to Soviet and American occupation and to a Judeo-corporate system intent on de-Europeanizing them by re-programming their morals and mentalities, deconstructing their thought and art, decolonizing their Asian and African empires, and eventually opening their gates to the Third World. The destruction of Europe’s aristocratic heritage had, in effect, been prelude to the ensuing assault on its blood and spirit.

Before the US entered the new world war set off by the failures of the Wilsonian peace, the promulgation of the Atlantic Charter (August 1941) called for another liberal crusade. In this spirit, the Charter’s democratic principles envisioned a postwar order based on monied interests, Anglo-American commerce, and liberal democracy — the foundations of which have become the present anti-White system. As an alliance combining the democratists’ most starry-eyed ideals and hard-headed interests, the US led coalition (the “United Nations”) aimed at destroying not just German Nazism, but the German nation, whose Prussian spirit rebuked everything the Wilsonians represented.

Eisenhower’s “Crusade in Europe” was accordingly waged with a ferocity unknown in European history. The two extra-European powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, were thus each ideologically committed to uprooting whatever remained of Europe’s living heritage. Their “anti-fascist” crusade was especially intent on criminalizing the Entente powers and the European values they embodied. The Nuremberg trials following the war would be the most conspicuous example of this crusading anti-Europeanism, but so too was the Allies’ effort to hunt down, silence, or kill their wartime opponents and to level Europe’s inherently anti-egalitarian order. (In France alone, 600,000 people were imprisoned following the “Liberation” and more than 40,000 summarily executed.)

Broken, demoralized, occupied, Europe in 1945 was ripe for re-education. The occupying powers’ culpablizing crusade would be especially effective in overcoming resistance to the new liberal utopia, even after the former allies embarked on their so-called Cold War (1947-89). Revealingly, American democratists were qualitatively more subversive than their more racially-conscious Russian counterparts. In the western half of the postwar’s US-SU Condominium, the culpabilitization of defeated Germany was extended to all of Western and Central Europe. (In the language of our little black brothers and sisters, original sin now became “a white thing.”) Europeans were henceforth expected to do penance for having once been powerful and creative, for having founded empires, for privileging rank, nobility, and valor, but above all for having been White and favored their own interests at the expense of Jews and other non-Europeans. The very idea of a White or European identity would, in fact, be treated hereafter as a pathology.

Japan, by contrast, suffered no such culpabilitization — not only because it experienced less of it, but also because Japanese culture refused to accept the victors’ image of itself. The culpabilitization of Europeans was so effective not simply because of the occupiers’ unchallenged power, but because it converged with a secularizing Christianity (a Judeo-Christianity?), whose Concordant with Caesar’s realm now sought to turn Europe’s former self-confidence into a form of self-loathing. The “irony” of this culpability (if irony is the word) was that the Europeans’ alleged guilt was a fraud: They had had no monopoly on so-called “crimes against humanity.” (The Anglo-American carpet bombing of civilians and the indiscriminate destruction of Europe’s great cities, the mass population transfers, the organized starvation campaigns, the unprecedented horrors associated with Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki — nothing of this affected the anti-European balance of Allied justice or brought Russian, English, or American war criminals into the dockets).

The Iron Cage

Following the Cold War, in which Europeans were mere spectators, a new view of history was programmed for popular consumption: The view that saw the history of twentieth-century Europe in terms of its struggle for the cause of Holy Democracy, with its market utopia of general prosperity, the limitless liberties of its private life, the glories of its occupiers’ Semitically fabricated mass culture, and its rainbow mixture of diverse races and cultures.

Accordingly, the Soviets’ command economy and totalitarian controlled society gave way after 1989 not to utopia, but to a system animated by the forces of consumption, bureaucracy, spectacle, and sex. For though the democratists’ methods differed from those of the Communists, they too aspired to a raceless economic paradise and, to that end, now resort to totalitarian measures to criminalize, demonize, or pathologize whoever opposes their subversions.

In 1920, in his most famous book, Max Weber pointed out that a modernity subject solely to the market’s economic criteria engenders a ruthless rationalization of human life — what he called “the iron cage.” Venner argues that since 1945 Washington has imposed its version of the iron cage on Europe.

This has especially been the case in the European Union (EU). Though the idea of unification was an old one, Wilson’s heirs favored a model geared not just to Europe’s democratic re-education, but to its transformation into a US economic protectorate, closely integrated into the transnational super-structures which Washington and New York set in place during the course of the Cold War. The Marshall Plan, for example, dictated greater economic cooperation and integration centered on US regulated international trade, while Jean Monnet, the principal architect of the “common market,” was a Wall Street insider, friend to New York Jewish banking interests. Then, after America’s cat paw, Britain, entered the EU in 1972, Europe’s homegrown democratists (”the American Party” which has governed Europe since 1945) gave themselves over entirely to the liberal project, turning Europe into a free-trade zone subject to purely economic consideration. In this spirit, they now define Europe in anti-political (i.e., liberal) terms indifferent to all those historic, traditionalist, and national barriers obstructing the race-mixing imperatives of their monetary reign.

Venner calls the global order born of post-1945 Wilsonianism a “cosmocracy.” The cosmopolitan plutocracy of this cosmocracy, which became globally hegemonic after Communism’s collapse, makes the nation state obsolete, denationalizes its elites, and racially mixes incompatible peoples and cultures in the name of an abstract, quantitatively-defined Humanity indifferent to the survival of European peoples. Heir to liberalism’s inherent cosmopolitanism, as well as to Communist internationalism and the Judeo-Christian distortion of White identity, the collective culpabilitization that has been used since 1945 to manipulate the European conscience remains one of the cosmocracy’s most important supports. For to deflect criticism and squelch resistance, liberals and ex-Communists (whose chief distinction is their indifference to race, breeding, and every qualitative ascriptions resistant to the Judeo-liberal conception of democracy) need only appeal to their “anti-hate” laws and “human rights” to silence whoever challenges their inquisitional reign.

 

 

Having been guilty of the Holocaust, colonialism, and other so-called forms of racism, Europeans are now expected to open their arms to the refuse of the overpopulated Third World. The colored invasion now transforming Europe is gradually compelling Europeans to awake to what is happening to them and to take steps, however tentative at this point, toward the Reconquest of their imperiled homeland. But no one in their “democratic” ruling elites — these bloodless executors of that transnational super structure whose Hebraic spirit champions the interests of the Bilderbergers and Trilaterals, the established parties, the MSM, the NGOs, and the universities, whose guiding arm is the Jewish dominated banking system headquartered in New York, and whose principal geopolitical orientation is the Washington-London-Tel Aviv axis — no one in these elites has the slightest understanding of what is happening under their very noses, seemingly oblivious or indifferent to what the importation of millions of Africans and Asians means to Europe.

Fortunately for Europe’s scattered remnant (and it was a remnant that reconquered Spain), the cosmocracy is creating a crisis of such massive proportion that it is likely to provoke a catastrophic collapse that will give Whites one last chance to regain control of their destiny.

The Beginning that Stands Before Us

Europeans after 1945 fell into dormition, losing all consciousness of who they were as a people. Like Germans after the original Thirty Years Wars (1618-48), their thirty-year blood expenditure left them totally depleted, forcing them off the historical stage and into the arms of everything that today threatens their existence.

Dormition, though, is not death. This seems especially the case in that the democratists’ utopia has come to rest on increasingly uncertain foundations. Its objective failures, I think it is fair to argue, are more and more imposing themselves on the collective consciousness, while, subjectively, Europe’s once cowed and beaten nations are gradually beginning to reject the democratists’ cosmopolitan agenda, as national-populist parties snip away at the authority of the established regime. The rebellion of May 2005, in which the French, then the Dutch electorates, rejected the proposed EU constitution — and did so against all the concerted forces of the existing system — was a revenge of sorts on May 1945 and on the Judeo-liberal vision of a Europe indifferent to its own genetic-cultural heritage. Other, more meaningful rebellions have also begun to stir.

Bad as things have become, there is thus still reason for hope. Venner stresses that history never ends — wars are never decisively won. Fukuyama had no sooner proclaimed “the end of history” — the undisputed triumph of Wilson’s market model of world order — than Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations predicted that the end of the Cold War’s ideological strife would lead to even more apocalyptic conflicts.

Few defeats, then, are irredeemable, but only as long as the defeated remain heroic: For our vision of the past (our vision of who we were) inevitably shapes what we are to become. Venner’s study is cause, though, not for optimism, but for caution and circumspection. Every European of good stock, he claims, cannot but admire the reckless heroism of Homer’s Achilles, but the greatest Homeric hero is Ulysses — Ulysses of the thousand guises, who used all his patience and cunning to regain his home.

Historically, resistance, reconquest, and renaissance are the Ulyssean work of small groups bound by the asceticism of ancient military orders and inspired by a will for action, thought, and decision. Not coincidentally, the struggles such groups wage create new aristocracies, for war is the most merciless of the selective forces. Only this, Venner believes, will enable us to regain our lands and all that we once were.

As Europeans enter the twenty-first century, one thing alone seems clear: The future will not resemble the present. The unimaginable is already waiting in the wings. But though history is full of the unforeseeable, the forces of culture, race, and history never cease to weight on a people’s destiny, as they intersect with present circumstance to affect the future’s course. In this Venner finds hope. For his Europe (which has existed for 30,000 years) is the Europe whose spirit struggles for all that is noble.

Source: VNN, 21 June 2007.

Anatolia: Una indoeuropeizacion frustrada

Anatolia: Una indoeuropeización frustrada

por Olegario de las Eras

 

Ex: http://identidadytradicion.blogia.com/

La herencia indoeuropea, concretada en una jerarquía de valores y principios y en un tipo humano determinado que desde la Prehistoria han dado forma a ciclos de civilización análogos, conforma el nervio de la comunidad constituida por los pueblos europeos, comunidad sentida y vivida más allá de las contingentes «fronteras nacionales». En efecto, es un hecho que las sucesivas oleadas de pueblos septentrionales, migrando en grupos masivos y compactos, de celtas a eslavos de helenos a germanos, fueron los materiales sobre los que en el transcurso de milenios cristalizaron la práctica totalidad de pueblos de nuestro continente. Siendo esto así, resulta aparentemente contradictorio que un territorio como el de la península de Anatolia en el que se documenta una presencia indoeuropea desde fines del III milenio a. n. e. y que ha visto sobre su suelo a hititas, luvitas, helenos, tracios, frigios, persas, gálatas o latinos entre otros, se perciba por parte de los europeos como algo ajeno. Pero la realidad es que los indoeuropeos no pudieron permanecer en todas partes donde llegaron: «Los indoeuropeos no siempre han vencido»: no tenemos más remedio que dar la razón, aunque sea por una vez, a J. P. Mallory.

     La llegada a las costas del Mediterráneo de grupos indoeuropeos produjo siempre necesariamente enfrentamientos con las poblaciones autóctonas: de la derrota y sometimiento de éstas dependió la posibilidad de supervivencia de aquellos. En realidad, la historia de las civilizaciones indoeuropeas del Mediterráneo (Hélade, Roma, la Céltica...) es la historia de una incesante lucha contra el elemento humano y espiritual aborigen1. Éste fue el caso también de los pueblos que hablaban las lenguas indoeuropeas del grupo anatolio, pueblos que conservaban firmemente su tradición religiosa y jurídico-política indoeuropea en el momento de asentarse en sus sedes históricas2. A su llegada la península se encontraba densamente poblada por gentes pertenecientes al complejo racial mediterráneo, su cultura calcolítica, cuyas raíces se encuentran en el creciente fértil,  se estructuraba en esos momentos alrededor de centros urbanos que dominaban amplios espacios y su religión, omnipresente en el registro, estaba determinada por los cultos ctónios y de fecundidad. Con toda probabilidad la lengua hablada fue la que posteriormente será conocida como hático. Si bien los resultados de su inmigración fueron devastadores3, el impacto demográfico no alteró el predominio del substrato neolítico como han demostrado los trabajos de M. Senyürek: el impacto numérico del elemento indoeuropeo, étnicamente nórdico4, fue demasiado pequeño como para perdurar física y espiritualmente por demasiado tiempo. Con el transcurso de los siglos, la dünne Herrenschicht, el delgado estrato señorial hitita, resultó fatalmente «hurritizado», «mesopotamizado» y «haticizado» y la destrucción del Imperio a fines del II milenio por obra de grupos frigios procedentes de más allá del Helesponto signará la desaparición de la propia lengua hitita. Los llamados reinos neohititas surgidos tras el desastre en el borde meridional del antiguo Imperio utilizarán el luvita en sus textos. Esta lengua, hablada en las zonas occidental y meridional de la península por comunidades en las que el elemento indoeuropeo parece haber presentado una mayor densidad,  resistió el embate, sobreviviendo en el licio5.

    A ojos del observador contemporáneo podría parecer que la presencia de los helenos en  áreas de la franja costera occidental, de los grupos licios y lidios y los aportes indoeuropeos de las invasiones del 1200 acabaría por vincular el Asia Menor a Europa. Sin embargo, tanto los propios testimonios lingüísticos, que nos hablan de la profunda acción del sustrato no indoeuropeo en las lenguas del grupo anatolio, tanto antiguas como recientes, como las influencias no helénicas que podemos descubrir cada vez con mayor peso en toda la Jonia nos demuestran que el destino de los hititas volvía a repetirse en el occidente y el sur peninsular: en ambos ámbitos los cultos de naturaleza telúrica, enraizados en el neolítico anatolio, van recobrando fuerza mostrando la abrumadora presencia de una población «no receptiva» a las concepciones espirituales indoeuropeas6.

     Tras el periodo de dominio persa, las conquistas de Alejandro y de Roma son los últimos empujes en la historia de Anatolia de raíz occidental7. Empujes políticos que tienen como efecto la integración de este territorio en la ecúmene helenística y en el Imperio pero una escasa relevancia en términos étnicos8. Y es en época romana cuando se constata un fenómeno ciertamente revelador: la muy temprana y fácil cristianización del ámbito anatolio que contrasta con el carácter de secta y muy minoritario de los seguidores del Galileo en la parte occidental del Imperio y la misma Grecia9, fenómeno paralelo al resto de áreas no europeas del Imperio.

     El fracaso de la renovatio imperii de Justiniano y las posteriores concepciones teocráticas de lejanas raíces próximo-orientales preludian el destino «no europeo» de Anatolia: Bizancio se percibe por los occidentales romano-germánicos como algo profundamente ajeno: la matanza de latinos de 1182 y las conquistas cruzadas jalonan este desencuentro. Pero este destino quedará sellado a partir de 1071 cuando los selyúcidas ocupen la mitad oriental de Anatolia. Tres siglos después toda Anatolia pertenece a los otomanos. Los procesos de «turquización» étnica y lingüística y de islamización comenzados en el siglo XI, que culminan con las masivas deportaciones contemporáneas de griegos y armenios, borrarán todo resto lingüístico (excepción hecha del pueblo kurdo, cuya lengua pertenece al grupo iranio, que está padeciendo un etnocidio por parte del estado turco del cual no es este lugar para hablar) e ideológico indoeuropeo de la península. Sólo los rasgos nórdicos que muy de tarde en tarde se pueden observar en algún campesino de Capadocia, probablemente de sangre gálata, dan testimonio de aquellos antiguos ciclos de civilización hoy completamente agotados.    

 

---

1 Véase J. Evola, Rebelión contra el mundo moderno, Buenos Aires 1994, especialmente la Parte II capítulos V-X y la recopilación de textos del mismo autor sobre esta cuestión publicada por Ed. di Ar bajo el título La Tradizione Romana.

2 Véase, por ejemplo, E. Masson, Le combat pour L’inmortalité. Héritage indo-europeen dans la mytologie anatolienne, París 1991 y O. J. Gurney, Los hititas, Barcelona 1995, especialmente pp. 72 y ss.

3 P. Garelli, El Próximo oriente asiático, Barcelona 1982, pp. 27 y A. Romualdi, Los indoeuropeos. Orígenes y migraciones, Barcelona 2002, p. 173 n. 50.

4 V. Christian, «Die frühesten Spuren der Indogermanen in Vorderasien», en Rasse 1935 2ª año, nº 4, p. 121 y ss. y H.F.K. Günther, Rassenkunde des Jüdischen Volkes, Munich 1930, pp. 50-54. La extensión del rito de incineración ha dificultado enormemente el diagnóstico tipológico de los grupos conquistadores indoeuropeos: Gurney (op. cit., pp. 160 y ss.) llama la atención sobre las semejanzas entre los ritos de incineración descritos en las tablillas hititas y los homéricos. Entre las nuevas poblaciones que no incineran a sus muertos también se documentan tipos alpinos, inexistentes en Anatolia con anterioridad. Por otro lado, el proceso de «hurritización» del Imperio hitita se ve acompañado por una difusión desde el este del tipo armenoide o pre-asiático, actualmente muy bien representado entre la población turca (H.F.K. Günther op. cit., pp. 20-40).

5 Para una breve visión de conjunto de la problemática de las lenguas indoeuropeas del grupo anatolio véase F. Villar, Los indoeuropeos y los orígenes de Europa, Madrid 1996, pp.289 y ss. 

6 Baste recordar el culto de Ártemis Efesia como diosa de la fertilidad, el de Attys o el de la «frigia» Cibeles. 

7 Es preciso mencionar la aventura gálata que se inicia con los movimientos de diferentes grupos célticos en el siglo IV a. n. e. Algunos de estos grupos, apenas unos 20.000 individuos en su conjunto, de los cuales unos 10.000 guerreros, tras numerosas vicisitudes fueron asentados por Antíoco Soter en las llanuras frigias y sobre el Halys, tierras que desde entonces recibirán el nombre de Galacia. Derrotados por Atalo I, a cuyo sepulcro pertenecen las impresionantes estatuas helenísticas del guerrero gálata moribundo y de su caudillo quitándose la vida, fueron concentrados en su territorio donde dominarán a una población anatolia mucho más densa. Se helenizarán progresivamente pero conservarán su lengua hasta la cristianización. Sobre los gálatas véase H. Hubert, Los celtas y la civilización céltica, Madrid 1988, pp. 297-307.

8 Una aproximación muy interesante a los estados helenísticos en el que se aplican las categorías interpretativas de G. Dumézil puede verse en C. Preaux, El mundo helenístico, Barcelona 1984, 2 volúmenes.

9 Véase, por ejemplo, M. Simon y A. Benoit, El judaísmo y le cristianismo antiguo, Barcelona 1972, pp. 54.

O Barao "Sangrento" von Ungern-Sternberg - Louco ou Mistico?

 

O Barão "Sangrento" von Ungern-Sternberg - Louco ou Místico?

 

por Dr. Richard Spence

 

Ex: http://legio-victrix.blogspot.com/

 

"Meu nome está cercado por tamanho ódio e medo que ninguém pode julgar o que é verdade e o que é mentira, o que é história, e o que é mito."

(Barão Roman Fedorovich von Ungern-Sternberg, 1921)

Na Mongólia, havia uma lenda do príncipe guerreiro, Beltis-Van. Notável por sua ferocidade e crueldade, ele derramou "enormes quantidades de sangue humano antes de ter encontrado sua morte nas montanhas de Uliasutay." Seus assassinos enterraram os corpos do Príncipe e de seus seguidores bem fundo na terra, cobriram as tumbas com pedras pesadas, e adicionaram "encantamentos e exorcismo para que seus espíritos não irrompessem novamente, carregando morte e destruição." Essas medidas, foi profetizado, prenderia os terríveis espíritos até que sangue humano se derramasse novamente sobre o local.

No início de 1921, prossegue a história, "russos vieram e cometeram assassinatos perto das temíveis tumbas, manchando-as com sangue." Para alguns, isso explicava o que se seguiu.

Quase no mesmo instante, um novo chefe guerreiro apareceu em cena, e pelos próximos seis meses ele espalhou terror e morte pelas estepes e montanhas da Mongólia e mesmo nas regiões adjacentes da Sibéria. Entre os mongóis ele ficou conhecido como o Tsagan Burkhan, o "Deus da Guerra" encarnado.

Posteriormente, o Dalai Lama XIII proclamou-o uma manifestação da "divindade furiosa" Mahakala, defensor da fé budista. Historicamente, o mesmo indivíduo é mais conhecido como o "Barão Louco" ou o "Barão Sangrento". Seus detratores não se encabulam de chamá-lo um bandido homicida ou de psicopata.

O homem em questão é o Barão Roman Fedorovich von Ungern-Sternberg. Seus feitos podem apenas ser esboçados aqui. Com a eclosão da Revolução Russa, Barão Ungern achou-se na Sibéria oriental onde ele se alinou com o movimento anti-bolchevique "Branco". Porém, seus sentimentos monarquistas extremos e modos independentes o tornaram um perigo nessa facção.

Em 1920, ele liderou sua "Divisão Asiática Montada", uma coleção heterogênea de russos, mongóis, tártaros e outras tropas, para os ermos da Mongólia, uma terra efervescendo com resistência contra a ocupação chinesa. Reunindo mongóis sob sua bandeira, no início de fevereiro de 1921 Ungern conquistou uma aparentemente miraculosa vitória tomando o controle da capital mongol, Urga (hoje Ulan Bator), de uma grande guarnição chinesa. Ele então restaurou o líder temporal e espiritual dos mongóis, o "Buda Vivo" Jebtsundamba Khutukhtu Bogdo Gegen, ou, mais simplesmente, Bogdo Khan e se estabeleceu como chefe guerreiro sobre a Mongólia Exterior e os destacamentos russos Brancos que haviam se refugiado ali.

Cercando-se com um círculo interno de bajuladores homicidas e videntes, ele instituiu um reino de terror que clamou como vítimas judeus, comunistas autênticos ou suspeitos, e centenas de outros que, de algum modo, despertaram a ira ou suspeita do Barão. Em junho do mesmo ano, ele lançou uma mal-fadada invasão à Sibéria soviética que terminou com sua captura pelo Exército Vermelho e seu subsequente julgamento e execução em 17 de setembro.

Esse artigo foca no misticismo real e alegado do Barão Ungern e sua influência sobre suas ações. Uma questão chave é se sua suposta "loucura", em todo ou em parte, era uma interpretação equivocada de sua devoção ao budismo esotérico e outras crenças.

Background e Primeiros Anos

Enquanto o Barão passou a maior parte de sua vida no serviço dos Romanov, ele era quase completamente alemão por sangue. Ele veio ao mundo como Robert Nicholaus Maximilian von Ungern-Sternberg em 10 de janeiro de 1886 em Graz, Áustria. Na Estônia governada pela Rússia, seu pai, Teodor Leonard Rudolf von Ungern-Sternberg, introduziu seu filho na nobreza tzarista como Roman Fedorovich. Os Ungern-Sternbergs eram uma antiga e ilustre família. O Barão datava sua linhagem pelo menos em mil anos e se vangloriava com seus captores bolcheviques de que 72 de seus ancestrais haviam dado suas vidas pela Rússia em muitas guerras.

Existe a sugestão de instabilidade mental, mesmo loucura, em sua linhagem próxima. Por exemplo, um ancestral do fim do século XVIII, Freiherr Otto Reinhold Ludwig von Ungern-Sternberg, ganhou infâmia como pirata e assassino que morreu no exílio siberiano. O próprio pai de Roman tinha uma reputação de "homem mau" cuja violência e crueldade levou ao seu divórcio e a uma proibição de que ele tivesse qualquer "influência" sobre seus filhos.

No que concerne o estado mental de Roman von Ungern-Sternberg, obviamente um diagnóstico de insanidade só pode ser feito após um exame por um psiquiatra, algo impossível nesse caso. Porém, Dmitry Pershin, uma testemunha que tinha uma visão razoavelmente positiva do Barão, ainda sentia que Ungern sofria de alguma "anormalidade psicótica" que fazia com que ele perdesse a cabeça sob a mais "mínima provocação", usualmente com resultados terríveis.

História posteriores afirmaram que o comportamento aberrante de Roman era o resultado de um corte de sabre em sua cabeça, mas ele manifestava tendências violentas e rebeldes desde muito antes. Seus dias escolares foram marcados por constantes problemas; no Corpo de Cadetes Navais, ele recebeu não menos que 25 punições disciplinares antes de se retirar antes de uma expulsão garantida. Sua educação o deuxou com uma aversão permanente pelo "pensamento" que ele equiparava a "covardia."

Como oficial júnior antes e durante a Primeira Guerra Mundial, ele estabeleceu uma reputação como um encrenqueiro violento com uma tendência para a embriaguez. Porém, ele também recebeu medalhas por feridas e bravura inconsequente. Nas palavras de um superior, o jovem Barão era um "guerreiro por temperamento," que "vivia para a guerra" e aderia a seu próprio conjunto de "leis elementais." Essas últimas eram influenciadas por um interesse no misticismo e no ocultismo, principalmente da variedade oriental.

O Barão como Guerreiro Místico

Exatamente quando e onde esse interesse começou é incerto. A variedade pessoal de fé de Ungern, se é que era Budismo, aderia à seita mística tibetana Vajrayana ou Tântrica. O jovem Roman ganhou seu primeiro gosto do Oriente como parte da infantaria durante a Guerra Russo-Japonesa, e ele passou de 1908 a 1914 como um oficial cossaco na Sibéria e na Mongólia. Foi então, ele afirmou depois, que ele formou uma "Ordem de Budistas Militares" para servir ao Czar e lutar contra os males da revolução. As regras dessa Ordem incluíam o celibato e o "uso ilimitado de álcool, haxixe e ópio." Esse último era para ajudar os iniciados a superarem sua própria "natureza física" através dos excessos, mas como o Barão confessou, isso não funcionou como ele tinha planejado. Posteriormente, na Mongólia, ele impôs uma proibição rígida sobre a bebida. Ainda assim, ele afirmou, ele reuniu "três centenas de homens, ousados e ferozes," e alguns que não pereceram durante a luta contra a Alemanha e os Bolcheviques ainda estavam com ele em 1921.

Ungern abandonou sua comissão regular no fim de 1913. Sozinho, ele partiu para a vastidão da Mongólia Exterior que havia proclamado independência da China. Segundo um relato, ele ergueu-se como comandante das forças de cavalaria do inexperiente Exército Mongol, enquanto outro mantém que ele uniu-se a um bando de saqueadores do sanguinário rebelde anti-chinês, Ja Lama. Em algum ponto, Ungern acabou na cidade de Kobdo (Khovd) na Mongólia ocidental como um membro da guarda do consulado russo local.

Um de seus camaradas lembra que "quando se observava Ungern, sentia-se levado de volta à Idade Média...; ele era um retrocesso aos seus ancestrais cruzados, com a mesma sede por guerra e a mesma crença no sobrenatural." Outro lembra-se que ele demonstrava "um grande interesse pelo Budismo," aprendeu mongol e passou a frequentar lamas videntes. Segundo Dmitri Aloishin, um tardio e involuntário membro do exército do Barão, os "professores budistas de Ungern o ensinaram sobre a reencarnação, e ele firmemente acreditava que em matar pessoas fracas ele apenas fazia a elas um bem, já que elas poderiam ser criaturas mais fortes na próxima vida."

Os paralelos entre o anteriormente mencionado Ja Lama e o Barão parecem bem próximos para serem mera coincidência. Também conhecido como o "Lama com uma Mauser", Ja Lama brevemente tornou-se mestre da Mongólia ocidental. Outro "budista militante," ele ganhou uma temível reputação por arrancar o coração de seus infelizes prisioneiros e oferecê-los em taças em forma de crânio humano como bali (sacrifício) aos "deuses tibetanos do terror." Um desses rituais "tântricos" de execução ocorreu em Kobdo no verão de 1912, pouco antes de Ungern aparecer no local. Em fevereiro de 1914, o cônsul russo em Kobdo prendeu Ja Lama e algumas tropas cossacas, possivelmente incluindo Ungern, e escoltou os cativos ao exílio na Rússia. Teria Ja Lama se tornado um modelo para o Barão, ou mesmo uma inspiração religiosa?

Um ângulo tibetano figura proeminentemente na subsequente fuga mongol de Ungern. O Buda Vivo era ele mesmo um filho da Terra das Neves Perpétuas, e existia uma pequena comunidade tibetana em Urga. Uma centena, aproximadamente, desses homens formaram uma sotnia (esquadrão) especial nas forças do Barão e tiveram um papel crítico no ataque sobre Urga, tendo resgatado o Bogdo de sob os narizes de seus guardas chineses. Os chineses e mongois estavam convencidos de que o feito havia sido realizado através de feitiçaria. Esses tibetanos mantinham uma distância do resto do exército do Barão; aparentemente outros eram afastados por seu hábito de jantar em tijelas feitas com crânios humanos, talvez o mesmo tipo de vasilhames usados nos ritos de sacrifício de Ja Lama.

O nexo tibetano também garantiu para o Barão um elo com Lhasa e o Dalai Lama, a quem ele enviou cartas pessoais. Após se poder na Mongólia ter entrado em colapso, Ungern sonhou com liderar os remanescentes de sua diversão até o Tibet para se colocar a serviço do santo budista. O prospecto dessa missão extenuante e potencialmente suicida foi a gota d'água em provocar motim contra o Barão.

Também servindo sob Ungern em sua aventura mongol estava aproximadamente 50 soldados japoneses. Isso alimentou acusações de que ele seria um instrumento do imperialismo japonês. Enquanto está claro que as Forças Armadas japonesas monitoravam as atividades do Barão e achavam que ele poderia ser útil, é igualmente evidente que eles não tinham qualquer controle sobre ele. Ainda assim, esse minúsculo contingente japonês recebia rações melhores e o privilégio único de consumir álcool. Registros militares japoneses sugerem que os homens eram em sua maioria "pequenos aventureiros" atuando por conta própria, mas isso não está muito claro. Seu comandando, um Major ou Capitão Suzuki, havia conhecido o Barão em 1919 em um "Congresso Pan-Mongol" e a dupla mantinha uma amizade especial e secreta.

Uma possibilidade intrigante é que Suzuki não era um emissário do Exército de Mikado, mas de uma das sociedades secretas que o permeava, como a Sociedade do Dragão Negro, ou a ainda mais secreta Sociedade do Dragão Verde. Essa última era baseada em uma seita de Budismo esotérico, e sua agenda Pan-Asiática e Pan-Budista se confundia com as próprias crenças de Ungern. O Barão sentia que o Ocidente havia perdido seu ancoradouro espiritual e havia entrado em uma fase de desintegração moral e cultural. A Revolução Russa não era mais que uma manifestação dessa corrupção avançada. Apenas no Oriente, especificamente no Budismo, ele via uma força capaz de resistir a essa decadência e de restaurar uma ordem espiritual no Ocidente.

Os Lamas e Videntes do Barão

Ungern era fascinado por todas as formas de advinhação. Ele supostamente carregava consigo um baralho de cartas de Tarô, mesmo no calor da batalha. Como notado, em Kobdo ele se reunía com lamas advinhos e em Urga ele se cercava com um pequeno exército de videntes (tsurikhaichi), feiticeiros e xamãs. Aloishin recorda que os advinhos do Barão estavam sempre consultando as omoplatas assadas de ovelhas, se debruçando nas linhas "para determinar onde as tropas devem ser estacionadas, e como avançar contra o inimigo." Em outras ocasiões, Ungern ordenou que suas tropas parassem "em vários locais segundo velhas profecias mongois."

O médico do Barão, Dr. N. M. Riabukhin, maldisse os advinhos como "insolentes, sujos, ignorantes e mancos" e lamentou o fato de que Ungern "nunca dava um passo importante" sem consultá-lo. Os advinhos o convenceram de que ele era a encernação de Tsagan Burkhan, o Deus da Guerra. Para o oficial Branco Boris Volkov, a dependência do Barão nesses tipos parecia prova da "mentalidade imbecil do degenerado que se imaginava o salvador da Rússia."

Antes de sua investida contra a Sibéria Vermelha, Ungern gastou 20.000 preciosos dólares mexicanos para contratar milhares de lamas para "realizar para ele elaborados serviços nos templos e para convocar para seu auxílio todos os seus poderes místicos." A previsão de uma feiticeira drogada de que o fim do Barão se aproximava provou-se sombriamente precisa, e ajudou a convencê-lo de realizar a desastrosa invasão. Os lamas videntes falharam com ele quando eles o aconselharam a atrasar em dois dias o ataque contra Troitskosavsk, uma cidade fronteiriça chave. Isso deu aos vermelhos a oportunidade de trazer reforços e repelir o ataque. Posteriormente, oficiais subornaram um advinho buriat para mudar as previsões, o que levou Ungern a cancelar outros ataques e ordenar uma retirada para a Mongólia.

Mas se Ungern foi influenciado - e ludibriado - pelo sobrenatural, ele também sabia como usá-lo para sua vantagem. Antes de seu último ataque contra Urga, ele enviou advinhos para a cidade onde eles "encheran os soldados chineses com medo supersticioso" pela previsão de sua iminente chegada e espalhando rumores de que o Barão Branco era imune a balas e podia aparecer e desaparecer à vontade. Ele também ordenou que fossem acesas fogueiras noturnas nas colinas circundantes. Seus agentes mongois disseram aos crédulos chineses que as fogueiras eram Ungern oferecendo sacrifícios aos espíritos que se vingariam contra os filhos da China.

Uma pessoa impressionada desde cedo pela natureza peculiar do Barão foi o filósofo místico Conde Hermann Keyserling que conhecia Roman e seu irmão Constantin desde a infância. Keyserling depois considerou o Barão como "a pessoa mais impressionante que eu já tive a sorte de conhecer," mas também como uma massa de contradições. Ele via Ungern como alguém cuja "natureza havia sido suspensa...no vácuo entre o céu e o inferno," alguém "capaz das mais altas intuições e gentis amabilidades" junto com "a mais profunda aptidão para a metafísica da crueldade." As idéias metafísicas do Barão, acreditava Keyserling, estavam "fortemente relacionadas àquelas dos tibetanos e hindus." Keyserling estava convicto de que Roman possuía o poder oculto da "segunda visão" e "a faculdade da profecia".

Keyserling não foi o único que chegou a essas conclusões. Anos depois, o filósofo fascista e ocultista Julius Evola opinou que o Barão Ungern possuía "faculdades supranormais" incluindo clarividência e a habilidade de "olhar dentro das almas" dos outros. Ferdynand Ossendowski afirmou que ele fez exatamente isso em seu encontro inicial: "Eu estive em sua alma e sei tudo," afirmou o Barão, e a vida de Ossendowski estava garantida.

Muito do mesmo é repetido nos testemunhos de outros que conheceram Ungern. Aloishin achava que o Barão era patentemente insano, mas também sentia que ele "possuía um poder perigoso de ler os pensamentos das pessoas." Ele relembra como Ungern inspecionava recrutas olhando no rosto de cada homem, "sustentava aquele olhar por alguns momentos, e então rosnava: 'Para o Exército; 'De volta para o gado'; 'Liquidar'." Riabukhin menciona que em seu primeiro encontro "era como se o Barão quisesse saltar na minha alma." Outro oficial anônimo relembra que "Ungern olhava para todo mundo com os olhos de um predador," e isso instilava medo em todos os que o encontravam. Um soldado polonês em serviço mongol, Alexandre Alexandrowicz, aceita a "segunda visão" do Barão, mas acreditava que era seu intelecto "superior" que o ajudava a "avaliar qualquer homem em alguns minutos."

O Misterioso Ferdynand Ossendowski

 

 

Aparentemente, ninguém fez mais para criar a imagem recorrente do Barão Ungern do que o acima mencionado escritor polonês Ferdynand Ossendowski. Porém, ele é longe de ser uma fonte impecável. Antes de seu encontro com o Barão, Ossendowski tinha uma longa história como espião, criador de intrigas e fornecedor de documentos falsos. Ele quase certamente foi um agente da polícia secreta czarista, a Okhrana. Em 1917-1918 ele estava envolvido com os infamens Documentos Sissons, um dossiê fraudulento (ainda que acertado) sobre as intrigas germano-bolcheviques. Posteriormente, na Sibéria, Ossendowski serviu ao "Supremo Governante" Branco Almirante Kolchak como conselheiro econômico e, provavelmente, um espião. Ossendowski chegou na Mongólia como refugiado da maré Vermelha. Em seu muito lido livro de 1922, "Feras, Homens e Deuses", o polonês descreve seu encontro com o "Barão Sangrento" em detalhes vívidos, e não sem alguma simpatia pelo indivíduo. Não obstante, Ossendowski sabia que "diante de mim estava um homem perigoso," e que "eu senti alguma tragédia, algum horror em cada movimento do Barão Ungern." Nem Ossendowski mediu palavras sobre o clima de medo que assolava Urga sob o Barão. Ele descreve o suporte de subalternos homicidas de Ungern tais como o "estrangulador" psicótico Leonid Sipailov, o igualmente repelente Evgeny Burdukovsky e o sádico Dr. Klingenberg. O que Ossendowski convenientemente se esquiva de explicar é o mistério de sua própria sobrevivência nesse ambiente precário.

Nas opiniões de outros que testemunharam o governo do Barão, Ossendowski não era apenas sortudo e observador inocente. Konstantin Noskov observa que do momento de sua chegada na Mongólia, o "Professor" Ossendowski teve um "estranho papel compreendido por ninguém." "Ele interferia em tudo," afirma Noskov, "brigava muito habilmente e tecia complicadas intrigas políticas..." Pershin acusa que Ossendowski era outro que explorava a obsessão de Ungern com o sobrenatural, uma opinião ecoada por outro dos oficiais do Barão, K.I. Lavrent'ev. Ao encorajar "a fé do Barão no ocultismo e em outras coisas do além," Ossendowski tornou-se "conselheiro" do Barão, o que pod explicar uma afirmação posterior de que o polonês tornou-se o "Chefe de Inteligência" de Ungern.

Ossendowski, segundo Pershin, "cavou um caminho até uma posição próxima ao Barão" e então "extraiu todas as vantagens que ele queria." Essas incluíam dinheiro e passagem segura para a Manchúria "em conforto e, talvez, com algo mais que isso." Dr. Riabukhin e Noskov, ambos se lembram que Ossendowski foi inexplicavelmente o único sobrevivente entre um grupo de refugiados cujos outros membros foram assassinados sob as ordens de Ungern. Boris Volkov afirma ainda que Ossendowski teve um papel chave na formulação da infame e "mística" Ordem do Barão, e assim garantiu sua vida e uma grande soma de dinheiro. Noskov claramente declara que Ossendowski foi o autor da Ordem.

A "Ordem #15", o mais perto que Ungern chegou de definir uma filosofia ou missão, merece um exame mais atento. Como o Barão não estava no hábito de pronunciar ordens numeradas, a #15 é desprovida de sentido nesse contexto. Segundo Aloishin, esse número e a data de seu pronunciamento eram mais a obra de "lamas eruditos" que os escolheram como números da sorte. Basicamente, a Ordem define um esquema grandioso de iniciar uma onda expansiva de Contra-Revolução que limparia a Rússia de seu contágio radical e restauraria o trono Romanov sob o irmão do czar Nicolau, Mikhail Alexandrovich. O Barão, como muitos outros, não sabia que Mikhail já estava morto desde junho de 1918. A Ordem proclamava que "o mal que veio à Terra para destruir o princípio divino da alma humana deve ser destruído em sua raiz," e que "a punição só pode ser uma: a pena de morte, em vários graus."

O artigo mais notório, porém, era o #9 que declara que "Comissários, comunistas e judeus, junto com suas famílias, devem ser destruídos." O Barão possuía um ódio patológico dos judeus, e onde quer que seu poder alcançasse preponderância havia um impiedoso extermínio dessa comunidade. Até mesmo Pershin, que sentia que "as histórias acerca da impiedade de Ungern tem sido muito exageradas," admitiu que os assassinatos em massa dos judeus eram infelizmente verdadeiros e que o Barão era implacável nessa questão. Volkov sentia que Ungern usava pogroms como um instrumento para explorar o anti-semitismo entre os emigrados e as tropas, mas havia um zelo quase religioso em seu ódio. Em uma carta a um associado russo Branco em Pequim, o Barão alertou contra o "Judaísmo Internacional" e mesmo contra a influência insidiosa dos "Capitalistas Judeus" que eram um "onipresente, ainda que normalmente não percebido, inimigo." Em seu julgamento, o Barão garantiu a seu promotor judeu-bolchevique, Emelian Yaroslavsky, que "a Internacional Comunista foi organizada 3.000 anos atrás na Babilônia." Em seus sentimentos em relação aos judeus, Ungern certamente prefigura a mentalidade nazista, e muito do mesmo poderia ser dito a respeito de toda sua mistura estranha de anti-modernismo místico.

Em agosto de 1921, o reino despótico do Barão chegou a um fim quando oficiais desesperados da Divisão Asiática Montada ensaiou um golpe contra ele e sua pequena elite de lealistas. Quase miraculosamente, Ungern escapou o massacre geral e encontrou um refúgio final breve entre seus soldados mongóis. Eles também logo o abandonaram aos Vermelhos que se aproximavam, mas sim arrancar um fio de seu cabelo; eles ainda estavam convencidos de que ele era o Tsagan Burkhan e não podia ser morto.

Os soviéticos não sofriam dessas ilusões. Em seu julgamento em Novo-Nikolaevsk, ele foi um prisioneiro calmo, até mesmo digno. Ele havia previsto seu destino e o aceitado. A promotoria estava mais interessada em retratá-lo como um agente dos japoneses, o que ele negou. Porém, o Barão imediatamente admitiu os massacres e outras atrocidades. No que concerne sua disciplina brutal, ele se proclamou um crente em um sistema que havia existido "desde Frederico o Grande." Ele foi diante do pelotão de fuzilamento muito convicto de que eventualmente ele retornaria.

Um último ponto nos traz de volta a Ossendowski, que afirmou que o Barão buscava contato com o reino subterrâneo místico de Agarthu e seu governante misterioso, o "Rei do Mundo." Agarthi, é claro, é idêntica com Agarttha ou Shambhala, uma terra mística exaltada na mitologia hindu e budista. No início do século XX, a história foi pega e elaborada por escritores esotéricos ocidentais como Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre e Nikolai Roerich que acreditavam que ela descrevia um reino realmente oculto em algum lugar no norte do Tibet ou na Ásia Central. Por uma interessante coincidência, outro oficial da Divisão de Ungern foi Vladimir Konstantinovich Roerich, o irmão mais novo de Nikolai. Então novamente, talvez isso não seja nenhuma coincidência. Mas isso nos leva a outra história que é melhor guardada para outro artigo: "Estrela Vermelha sobre Shambhala: Inteligência Soviética, Britânica e Americana e a Busca pela Civilização Perdida na Ásia."

Exposing Stalin's Plan to Conquer Europe

Exposing Stalin’s Plan to Conquer Europe:
How the Soviet Union ‘Lost’ the Second World War

Daniel W. Michaels

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

Editor’s Note:

Since the publication of his review, Viktor Suvorov’s definitive statement of his research has been published as The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II ^[2] (Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 2008).

French translation here ^[3]

Viktor Suvorov (Vladimir Rezun)
Poslednyaya Respublika (“The Last Republic”)
Moscow: TKO ACT, 1996

For several years now, a former Soviet military intelligence officer named Vladimir Rezun has provoked heated discussion in Russia for his startling view that Hitler attacked Soviet Russia in June 1941 just as Stalin was preparing to overwhelm Germany and western Europe as part of a well-planned operation to “liberate” all of Europe by bringing it under Communist rule.

Writing under the pen name of Viktor Suvorov, Rezun has developed this thesis in three books. Icebreaker (which has been published in an English-language edition) and Dni M (“M Day”) were reviewed in the Nov.–Dec. 1997 Journal of Historical Review. The third book, reviewed here, is a 470-page work, “The Last Republic: Why the Soviet Union Lost the Second World War,” published in Russian in Moscow in 1996.

Suvorov presents a mass of evidence to show that when Hitler launched his “Operation Barbarossa” attack against Soviet Russia on June 22, 1941, German forces were able to inflict enormous losses against the Soviets precisely because the Red troops were much better prepared for war — but for an aggressive war that was scheduled for early July — not the defensive war forced on them by Hitler’s preemptive strike.

In Icebreaker, Suvorov details the deployment of Soviet forces in June 1941, describing just how Stalin amassed vast numbers of troops and stores of weapons along the European frontier, not to defend the Soviet homeland but in preparation for a westward attack and decisive battles on enemy territory.

Thus, when German forces struck, the bulk of Red ground and air forces were concentrated along the Soviet western borders facing contiguous European countries, especially the German Reich and Romania, in final readiness for an assault on Europe.

In his second book on the origins of the war, “M Day” (for “Mobilization Day”), Suvorov details how, between late 1939 and the summer of 1941, Stalin methodically and systematically built up the best armed, most powerful military force in the world — actually the world’s first superpower — for his planned conquest of Europe. Suvorov explains how Stalin’s drastic conversion of the country’s economy for war actually made war inevitable.

A Global Soviet Union

In “The Last Republic,” Suvorov adds to the evidence presented in his two earlier books to strengthen his argument that Stalin was preparing for an aggressive war, in particular emphasizing the ideological motivation for the Soviet leader’s actions. The title refers to the unlucky country that would be incorporated as the “final republic” into the globe-encompassing “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,” thereby completing the world proletarian revolution.

As Suvorov explains, this plan was entirely consistent with Marxist-Leninist doctrine, as well as with Lenin’s policies in the earlier years of the Soviet regime. The Russian historian argues convincingly that it was not Leon Trotsky (Bronstein), but rather Stalin, his less flamboyant rival, who was really the faithful disciple of Lenin in promoting world Communist revolution. Trotsky insisted on his doctrine of “permanent revolution,” whereby the young Soviet state would help foment home-grown workers’ uprisings and revolution in the capitalist countries.

Stalin instead wanted the Soviet regime to take advantage of occasional “armistices” in the global struggle to consolidate Red military strength for the right moment when larger and better armed Soviet forces would strike into central and western Europe, adding new Soviet republics as this overwhelming force rolled across the continent. After the successful consolidation and Sovietization of all of Europe, the expanded USSR would be poised to impose Soviet power over the entire globe.

As Suvorov shows, Stalin realized quite well that, given a free choice, the people of the advanced Western countries would never voluntarily choose Communism. It would therefore have to be imposed by force. His bold plan, Stalin further decided, could be realized only through a world war.

A critical piece of evidence in this regard is his speech of August 19, 1939, recently uncovered in Soviet archives (quoted in part in the Nov.–Dec. 1997 Journal, pp. 32–33). In it, Lenin’s heir states:

The experience of the last 20 years has shown that in peacetime the Communist movement is never strong enough to seize power. The dictatorship of such a party will only become possible as the result of a major war . . .

Later on, all the countries who had accepted protection from resurgent Germany would also become our allies. We shall have a wide field to develop the world revolution.

Furthermore, and as Soviet theoreticians had always insisted, Communism could never peacefully coexist over the long run with other socio-political systems. Accordingly, Communist rule inevitably would have to be imposed throughout the world. So integral was this goal of “world revolution” to the nature and development of the “first workers’ state” that it was a cardinal feature of the Soviet agenda even before Hitler and his National Socialist movement came to power in Germany in 1933.

Stalin elected to strike at a time and place of his choosing. To this end, Soviet development of the most advanced offensive weapons systems, primarily tanks, aircraft, and airborne forces, had already begun in the early 1930s. To ensure the success of his bold undertaking, in late 1939 Stalin ordered the build up a powerful war machine that would be superior in quantity and quality to all possible opposing forces. His first secret order for the total military-industrial mobilization of the country was issued in August 1939. A second total mobilization order, this one for military mobilization, would be issued on the day the war was to begin.

Disappointment

The German “Barbarossa” attack shattered Stalin’s well-laid plan to “liberate” all of Europe. In this sense, Suvorov contends, Stalin “lost” the Second World War. The Soviet premier could regard “merely” defeating Germany and conquering eastern and central Europe only as a disappointment.

According to Suvorov, Stalin revealed his disappointment over the war’s outcome in several ways. First, he had Marshal Georgi Zhukov, not himself, the supreme commander, lead the victory parade in 1945. Second, no official May 9 victory parade was even authorized until after Stalin’s death. Third, Stalin never wore any of the medals he was awarded after the end of the Second World War. Fourth, once, in a depressed mood, he expressed to members of his close circle his desire to retire now that the war was over. Fifth, and perhaps most telling, Stalin abandoned work on the long-planned Palace of Soviets.

An Unfinished Monument

The enormous Palace of Soviets, approved by the Soviet government in the early 1930s, was to be 1,250 feet tall, surmounted with a statue of Lenin 300 feet in height — taller than New York’s Empire State Building. It was to be built on the site of the former Cathedral of Christ the Savior. On Stalin’s order, this magnificent symbol of old Russia was blown up in 1931 — an act whereby the nation’s Communist rulers symbolically erased the soul of old Russia to make room for the centerpiece of the world USSR.

All the world’s “socialist republics,” including the “last republic,” would ultimately be represented in the Palace. The main hall of this secular shrine was to be inscribed with the oath that Stalin had delivered in quasi-religious cadences at Lenin’s burial. It included the words: “When he left us, Comrade Lenin bequeathed to us the responsibility to strengthen and expand the Union of Socialist Republics. We vow to you, Comrade Lenin, that we shall honorably carry out this, your sacred commandment.”

However, only the bowl-shaped foundation for this grandiose monument was ever completed, and during the 1990s, after the collapse of the USSR, the Christ the Savior Cathedral was painstakingly rebuilt on the site.

The Official View

For decades the official version of the 1941–1945 German-Soviet conflict, supported by establishment historians in both Russia and the West, has been something like this:

Hitler launched a surprise “Blitzkrieg” attack against the woefully unprepared Soviet Union, fooling its leader, the unsuspecting and trusting Stalin. The German Führer was driven by lust for “living space” and natural resources in the primitive East, and by his long-simmering determination to smash “Jewish Communism” once and for all. In this treacherous attack, which was an important part of Hitler’s mad drive for “world conquest,” the “Nazi” or “fascist” aggressors initially overwhelmed all resistance with their preponderance of modern tanks and aircraft.

This view, which was affirmed by the Allied judges at the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, is still widely accepted in both Russia and the United States. In Russia today, most of the general public (and not merely those who are nostalgic for the old Soviet regime), accepts this “politically correct” line. For one thing, it “explains” the Soviet Union’s enormous World War II losses in men and materiel.

Doomed from the Start

Contrary to the official view that the Soviet Union was not prepared for war in June 1941, in fact, Suvorov stresses, it was the Germans who were not really prepared. Germany’s hastily drawn up “Operation Barbarossa” plan, which called for a “Blitzkrieg” victory in four or five months by numerically inferior forces advancing in three broad military thrusts, was doomed from the outset.

Moreover, Suvorov goes on to note, Germany lacked the raw materials (including petroleum) essential in sustaining a drawn out war of such dimensions.

Another reason for Germany’s lack of preparedness, Suvorov contends, was that her military leaders seriously under-estimated the performance of Soviet forces in the Winter War against Finland, 1939–40. They fought, it must be stressed, under extremely severe winter conditions — temperatures of minus 40 degrees Celsius and snow depths of several feet — against the well-designed reinforced concrete fortifications and underground facilities of Finland’s “Mannerheim Line.” In spite of that, it is often forgotten, the Red Army did, after all, force the Finns into a humiliating armistice.

It is always a mistake, Suvorov emphasizes, to underestimate your enemy. But Hitler made this critical miscalculation. In 1943, after the tide of war had shifted against Germany, he admitted his mistaken evaluation of Soviet forces two years earlier.

Tank Disparity Compared

To prove that it was Stalin, and not Hitler, who was really prepared for war, Suvorov compares German and Soviet weaponry in mid-1941, especially with respect to the all-important offensive weapons systems — tanks and airborne forces. It is a generally accepted axiom in military science that attacking forces should have a numerical superiority of three to one over the defenders. Yet, as Suvorov explains, when the Germans struck on the morning of June 22, 1941, they attacked with a total of 3,350 tanks, while the Soviet defenders had a total of 24,000 tanks — that is, Stalin had seven times more tanks than Hitler, or 21 times more tanks than would have been considered sufficient for an adequate defense. Moreover, Suvorov stresses, the Soviet tanks were superior in all technical respects, including firepower, range, and armor plating.

As it was, Soviet development of heavy tank production had already begun in the early 1930s. For example, as early as 1933 the Soviets were already turning out in series production, and distributing to their forces, the T-35 model, a 45-ton heavy tank with three cannons, six machine guns, and 30-mm armor plating. By contrast, the Germans began development and production of a comparable 45-ton tank only after the war had begun in mid-1941.

By 1939 the Soviets had already added three heavy tank models to their inventory. Moreover, the Soviets designed their tanks with wider tracks, and to operate with diesel engines (which were less flammable than those using conventional carburetor mix fuels). Furthermore, Soviet tanks were built with both the engine and the drive in the rear, thereby improving general efficiency and operator viewing. German tanks had a less efficient arrangement, with the engine in the rear and the drive in the forward area.

When the conflict began in June 1941, Suvorov shows, Germany had no heavy tanks at all, only 309 medium tanks, and just 2,668 light, inferior tanks. For their part, the Soviets at the outbreak of the war had at their disposal tanks that were not only heavier but of higher quality.

In this regard, Suvorov cites the recollection of German tank general Heinz Guderian, who wrote in his memoir Panzer Leader (1952/1996, p. 143):

In the spring of 1941, Hitler had specifically ordered that a Russian military commission be shown over our tank schools and factories; in this order he had insisted that nothing be concealed from them. The Russian officers in question firmly refused to believe that the Panzer IV was in fact our heaviest tank. They said repeatedly that we must be hiding our newest models from them, and complained that we were not carrying out Hitler’s order to show them everything. The military commission was so insistent on this point that eventually our manufacturers and Ordnance Office officials concluded: “It seems that the Russians must already possess better and heavier tanks than we do.” It was at the end of July 1941 that the T34 tank appeared on the front and the riddle of the new Russian model was solved.

Suvorov cites another revealing fact from Robert Goralski’s World War II Almanac (1982, p. 164). On June 24, 1941 — just two days after the outbreak of the German-Soviet war:

The Russians introduced their giant Klim Voroshilov tanks into action near Raseiniai [Lithuania]. Models weighing 43 and 52 tons surprised the Germans, who found the KVs nearly unstoppable. One of these Russian tanks took 70 direct hits, but none penetrated its armor.

In short, Germany took on the Soviet colossus with tanks that were too light, too few in number, and inferior in performance and fire power. And this disparity continued as the war progressed. In 1942 alone, Soviet factories produced 2,553 heavy tanks, while the Germans produced just 89. Even at the end of the war, the best-quality tank in combat was the Soviet IS (“Iosef Stalin”) model.

Suvorov sarcastically urges establishment military historians to study a book on Soviet tanks by Igor P. Shmelev, published in 1993 by, of all things, the Hobby Book Publishing Company in Moscow. The work of an honest amateur military analyst such as Shmelev, one who is sincerely interested in and loves his hobby and the truth, says Suvorov, is often superior to that of a paid government employee.

Airborne Forces Disparity

Even more lopsided was the Soviet superiority in airborne forces. Before the war, Soviet DB-3f and SB bombers as well as the TB-1 and TB-3 bombers (of which Stalin had about a thousand had been modified to carry airborne troops as well as bomb loads. By mid-1941 the Soviet military had trained hundreds of thousands of paratroopers (Suvorov says almost a million) for the planned attack against Germany and the West. These airborne troops were to be deployed and dropped behind enemy lines in several waves, each wave consisting of five airborne assault corps (VDKs), each corps consisting of 10,419 men, staff and service personnel, an artillery division, and a separate tank battalion (50 tanks). Suvorov lists the commanding officers and home bases of the first two waves or ten corps. The second and third wave corps included troops who spoke French and Spanish.

Because the German attack prevented these highly trained troops from being used as originally planned, Stalin converted them to “guards divisions,” which he used as reserves and “fire brigades” in emergency situations, much as Hitler often deployed Waffen SS forces.

Maps and Phrase Books

In support of his main thesis, Suvorov cites additional data that were not mentioned in his two earlier works on this subject. First, on the eve of the outbreak of the 1941 war Soviet forces had been provided topographical maps only of frontier and European areas; they were not issued maps to defend Soviet territory or cities, because the war was not to be fought in the homeland. The head of the Military Topographic Service at the time, and therefore responsible for military map distribution, Major General M. K. Kudryavtsev, was not punished or even dismissed for failing to provide maps of the homeland, but went on to enjoy a lengthy and successful military career. Likewise, the chief of the General Staff, General Zhukov, was never held responsible for the debacle of the first months of the war. None of the top military commanders could be held accountable, Suvorov points out, because they had all followed Stalin’s orders to the letter.

Second, in early June 1941 the Soviet armed forces began receiving thousands of copies of a Russian-German phrase book, with sections dedicated to such offensive military operations as seizing railroad stations, orienting parachutists, and so forth, and such useful expressions as “Stop transmitting or I’ll shoot.” This phrase book was produced in great numbers by the military printing houses in both Leningrad and Moscow. However, they never reached the troops on the front lines, and are said to have been destroyed in the opening phase of the war.

Aid from the ‘Neutral’ United States

As Suvorov notes, the United States had been supplying Soviet Russia with military hardware since the late 1930s. He cites Antony C. Sutton’s study, National Suicide (Arlington House, 1973), which reports that in 1938 President Roosevelt entered into a secret agreement with the USSR to exchange military information. For American public consumption, though, Roosevelt announced the imposition of a “moral embargo” on Soviet Russia.

In the months prior to America’s formal entry into war (December 1941), Atlantic naval vessels of the ostensibly neutral United States were already at war against German naval forces. (See Mr. Roosevelt’s Navy: The Private War of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet, 1939–1942 by Patrick Abbazia [Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1975]). And two days after the “Barbarossa” strike, Roosevelt announced US aid to Soviet Russia in its war for survival against the Axis. Thus, at the outbreak of the “Barbarossa” attack, Hitler wrote in a letter to Mussolini: “At this point it makes no difference whether America officially enters the war or not, it is already supporting our enemies in full measure with mass deliveries of war materials.”

Similarly, Winston Churchill was doing everything in his power during the months prior to June 1941 — when British forces were suffering one military defeat after another — to bring both the United States and the Soviet Union into the war on Britain’s side. In truth, the “Big Three” anti-Hitler coalition (Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill) was effectively in place even before Germany attacked Russia, and was a major reason why Hitler felt compelled to strike against Soviet Russia, and to declare war on the United States five months later. (See Hitler’s speech of December 11, 1941, published in the Winter 1988–89 Journal, pp. 394–96, 402–12.)

The reasons for Franklin Roosevelt’s support for Stalin are difficult to pin down. President Roosevelt himself once explained to William Bullitt, his first ambassador to Soviet Russia: “I think that if I give him [Stalin] everything I possibly can, and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything, and will work with me for a world of peace and democracy.” (Cited in: Robert Nisbet, Roosevelt and Stalin: The Failed Courtship [1989], p. 6.) Perhaps the most accurate (and kindest) explanation for Roosevelt’s attitude is a profound ignorance, self-deception or naiveté. In the considered view of George Kennan, historian and former high-ranking US diplomat, in foreign policy Roosevelt was “a very superficial man, ignorant, dilettantish, with a severely limited intellectual horizon.”

A Desperate Gamble

Suvorov admits to being fascinated with Stalin, calling him “an animal, a wild, bloody monster, but a genius of all times and peoples.” He commanded the greatest military power in the Second World War, the force that more than any other defeated Germany. Especially in the final years of the conflict, he dominated the Allied military alliance. He must have regarded Roosevelt and Churchill contemptuously as useful idiots.

In early 1941 everyone assumed that because Germany was still militarily engaged against Britain in north Africa, in the Mediterranean, and in the Atlantic, Hitler would never permit entanglement in a second front in the East. (Mindful of the disastrous experience of the First World War, he had warned in Mein Kampf of the mortal danger of a two front war.) It was precisely because he was confident that Stalin assumed Hitler would not open a second front, contends Suvorov, that the German leader felt free to launch “Barbarossa.” This attack, insists Suvorov, was an enormous and desperate gamble. But threatened by superior Soviet forces poised to overwhelm Germany and Europe, Hitler had little choice but to launch this preventive strike.

But it was too little, too late. In spite of the advantage of striking first, it was the Soviets who finally prevailed. In the spring of 1945, Red army troops succeeded in raising the red banner over the Reichstag building in Berlin. It was due only to the immense sacrifices of German and other Axis forces that Soviet troops did not similarly succeed in raising the Red flag over Paris, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Rome, Stockholm, and, perhaps, London.

The Debate Sharpens

In spite of resistance from “establishment” historians (who in Russia are often former Communists), support for Suvorov’s “preventive strike” thesis has been growing both in Russia and in western Europe. Among those who sympathize with Suvorov’s views are younger Russian historians such as Yuri L. Dyakov, Tatyana S. Bushuyeva, and I. V. Pavlova. (See the Nov.–Dec. 1997 Journal, pp. 32–34.)

With regard to 20th-century history, American historians are generally more close-minded than their counterparts in Europe or Russia. But even in the United States there have been a few voices of support for the “preventive war” thesis — which is all the more noteworthy considering that Suvorov’s books on World War II, with the exception of Icebreaker, have not been available in English. (One such voice is that of historian Russell Stolfi, a professor of Modern European History at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. See the review of his book Hitler’s Panzers East in the Nov.–Dec. 1995 Journal of Historical Review.) Not all the response to Suvorov’s work has been positive, though. It has also prompted criticism and renewed affirmations of the decades-old orthodox view. Among the most prominent new defenders of the orthodox “line” are historians Gabriel Gorodetsky of Tel Aviv University, and John Ericson of Edinburgh University.

Rejecting all arguments that might justify Germany’s attack, Gorodetsky in particular castigates and ridicules Suvorov’s works, most notably in a book titled, appropriately, “The Icebreaker Myth.” In effect, Gorodetsky (and Ericson) attribute Soviet war losses to the supposed unpreparedness of the Red Army for war. “It is absurd,” Gorodetsky writes, “to claim that Stalin would ever entertain any idea of attacking Germany, as some German historians now like to suggest, in order, by means of a surprise attack, to upset Germany’s planned preventive strike.”

Not surprisingly, Gorodetsky has been praised by Kremlin authorities and Russian military leaders. Germany’s “establishment” similarly embraces the Israeli historian. At German taxpayers expense, he has worked and taught at Germany’s semi-official Military History Research Office (MGFA), which in April 1991 published Gorodetsky’s Zwei Wege nach Moskau (“Two Paths to Moscow”).

In the “Last Republic,” Suvorov responds to Gorodetsky and other critics of his first two books on Second World War history. He is particularly scathing in his criticisms of Gorodetsky’s work, especially “The Icebreaker Myth.”

Some Criticisms

Suvorov writes caustically, sarcastically, and with great bitterness. But if he is essentially correct, as this reviewer believes, he — and we — have a perfect right to be bitter for having been misled and misinformed for decades.

Although Suvorov deserves our gratitude for his important dissection of historical legend, his work is not without defects. For one thing, his praise of the achievements of the Soviet military industrial complex, and the quality of Soviet weaponry and military equipment, is exaggerated, perhaps even panegyric. He fails to acknowledge the Western origins of much of Soviet weaponry and hardware. Soviet engineers developed a knack for successfully modifying, simplifying and, often, improving, Western models and designs. For example, the rugged diesel engine used in Soviet tanks was based on a German BMW aircraft diesel.

One criticism that cannot in fairness be made of Suvorov is a lack of patriotism. Mindful that the first victims of Communism were the Russians, he rightly draws a sharp distinction between the Russian people and the Communist regime that ruled them. He writes not only with the skill of an able historian, but with reverence for the millions of Russians whose lives were wasted in the insane plans of Lenin and Stalin for “world revolution.”

Originally published in the Journal of Historical Review 17, no. 4 (July–August 1998), 30–37. Online source: http://library.flawlesslogic.com/suvorov.htm ^[4]

See also the National Vanguard review of Icebreaker here ^[5] and Hitler’s Reichstag speech of December 11, 1941 here ^[6].

---

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/04/exposing-stalins-plan-to-conquer-europe/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/stalin_victory.jpg

[2] The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591148383/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=countecurrenp-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399349&creativeASIN=1591148383

[3] here: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/04/le-plan-de-staline-pour-conquerir-leurope-comment-lunion-sovietique-%C2%ABperdit%C2%BB-la-2eme-guerre-mondiale/

[4] http://library.flawlesslogic.com/suvorov.htm: http://library.flawlesslogic.com/suvorov.htm

[5] here: http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/115/icebreak.html

[6] here: http://ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p389_Hitler.html

El misterio de los chinos rubios

Ex: http://www.idpress.org/

Si nos pusiésemos a pensar cuáles son los rasgos físicos y/o característicos de los chinos, coincidiríamos en decir que suelen ser más bajos, ojos rasgados y oscuros, pelo moreno y nariz pequeña. Ahora, imaginaos a un grupo de chinos cuyos rasgos son todo lo contrario: altos, rubios, ojos azules y nariz grande.

Liqian, una población al noroeste de China y a 300 kilómetros del Desierto del Gobi, cuenta entre sus habitantes con un nutrido grupo de personas que responden a estas últimas características.

Pruebas realizadas han demostrado que poseen un 56% de ADN caucásico, y aunque no se descarta ni asegura ninguna hipótesis, las conclusiones apuntan a que estas personas podrían ser herederos genéticos de un grupo de legionarios romanos que, muy posiblemente, llegaros hasta China dos mil años antes…

En el año 53 AC, siete legiones de soldados romanos, comandados por el general Marco Licinio Craso, fueron masacrados en la Batalla de Carrhae, la que debía de ser la gran conquista hacia la Ruta de la Seda del Imperio Romano.

Todo parece indicar que un centenar de legionarios pudieron escapar y huir en dirección a Oriente.

Tras miles de kilómetros y 17 años de peregrinación, llegaron al noroeste de China y allí se asentaron, prestando servicios como mercenarios y ayudando al ejército local en la Batalla de Zhizhi entre chinos y hunos.

Llamó especialmente la atención la forma de luchar de los recién llegados mercenarios. Su perfecta formación y disciplina hicieron que fuesen bien recibidos allí. Tras la batalla, los supervivientes de ese grupo se instalaron en la población de Liqian.

Hoy en día, dos mil años después, se tiene cierto convencimiento de que aquellos legionarios romanos son los antepasados de este grupo de chinos con aspecto europeo.

Esta teoría fue presentada por primera vez en la década de 1950 por Homer Dubs, profesor de Historia China en la Universidad de Oxford.

En el año 2007, se llevaron a cabo una serie de pruebas las cuales detectaron dos tercios de ADN caucásico entre ese grupo de habitantes.

Nadie se atreve a asegurar la ascendencia de esos chinos con rasgos occidentales, y lo atribuyen al continuo paso de diferentes etnias por la ruta de la seda.

Hay que recordar que un porcentaje alto de hunos eran caucásicos, lo cual también podría ser el origen de esta incógnita.

De momento, las diferentes excavaciones llevadas a cabo en la zona no han aportado ningún elemento proveniente de soldados romanos, como monedas, armas o cascos, por ejemplo. Si este hecho se produjese, podría ser esclarecedor para revelar si realmente aquel grupo de legionarios romanos que pudieron huir de la Batalla de Carrhae, llegaron a establecerse en China.


http://es.noticias.yahoo.com/blogs/ciencia_cultura/los-chinos-rubios-descendientes-de-los-romanos-p14121.html

 

Soft Power - der kulturelle Krieg der USA gegen Russland - 1991-2010

 

Soft Power – der kulturelle Krieg der USA gegen Russland, 1991–2010

 

Die neue Strategie und ihre Zentren

von Peter Bachmaier

In den letzten zwei Jahrzehnten hat eine Umorientierung des amerikanischen strategischen Denkens stattgefunden: Der Krieg wird nicht mehr rein militärisch definiert, sondern findet auch mit nicht militärischen, informativen und psychologischen Methoden statt, die man als «psychologische Kriegführung» [psychological warfare] oder «kulturellen Krieg» bezeichnet. Diese Methoden haben eine lange Vorgeschichte. Der amerikanische Militärstratege Liddell Hart entwickelte bereits vor dem Zweiten Weltkrieg die Strategie der indirekten Einwirkung [the strategy of indirect approach].¹ Während des Zweiten Weltkriegs wandten die  amerikanischen und britischen Streitkräfte die «psychologische Kriegführung» gegen Deutschland an, die nachher zur Umerziehung [re-education] des deutschen Volkes eingesetzt wurde. Nach dem Ende des Krieges gründeten die CIA und das Verteidigungsministerium nach dem Vorbild des Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, eines spezialisierten Instituts für den psychologischen Krieg in England, Denkfabriken [think tanks] wie die RAND Corporation, das Hudson Institute von Herman Kahn, und andere, die in erster Linie gegen die Sowjetunion gerichtet waren.

Die Methoden in diesen Zentren wurden von einer Reihe von sozialwissenschaftlichen Instituten entwickelt. Die amerikanischen empirischen Sozialwissenschaften, d.h. Soziologie, Politikwissenschaft, Psychologie, Anthro­pologie, Kommunikationswissenschaft [communication studies] u.ä. entstanden in ihrer gegenwärtigen Form durch die Initiative und Finanzierung militärischer und nachrichtendienstlicher Agenturen in den 40er und 50er Jahren.² Eine weitere Quelle waren die grossen Stiftungen wie die Carnegie Corporation, die Ford Foundation und die Rocke­feller Foundation. Es waren berühmte wissenschaftliche Zentren wie die New School for Social Research in New York, das ­Bureau of Applied Social Research in Princeton (von Paul Lazarsfeld geleitet), das Institut für Sozialforschung (geleitet von Max Horkheimer und Theodor W. Adorno, das 1949 nach Frankfurt zurückkehrte), das Center for International Studies (CENIS) am Massachusetts Institute of Technology, aber auch das von Michael Murphy und Gregory Bateson gegründete alternative Esalen Institut in Kalifornien – ein Zentrum der Gegenkultur, das auch an der Organisation des Woodstock-Festivals 1968 beteiligt war –, die diese Aufträge erhielten. Insbesondere die führenden Institute der Kommunikationswissenschaften waren durch die Programme für psychologische Kriegführung geprägt.
Diese Institute gaben Zeitschriften wie das Public Opinion Quaterly (POQ), die American Sociological Review, die American Political Science Review u.ä. heraus. An diesen Instituten arbeiteten Experten, meist Emigranten aus Deutschland und Österreich, die sich später grosse Namen in der Wissenschaft erwarben wie Paul Lazarsfeld, Oskar Morgenstern, Leo Loewenthal, Herbert Marcuse, Walter Lippmann, Harold Lasswell, Gabriel Almond, Daniel Lerner, Daniel Bell, Robert Merton u.v.a. Es waren dieselben Experten und Institute, die auch für die Umerziehung des Volkes in Deutschland verantwortlich waren. Einige dieser Projekte waren auch mit der Vorbereitung der Kulturrevolution der sechziger Jahre mit ihren Begleiterscheinungen Rockmusik, Drogenkultur und Sexuelle Revolution beschäftigt.
In besonderer Weise waren natürlich die «Soviet Studies» von der Regierung abhängig. Das Russian Research Project in Harvard, geleitet von Raymond Bauer und Alex Inkeles, war ein gemeinsames Unternehmen der CIA, der U.S. Airforce und der Carnegie Corporation. Das Institut veröffentlichte 1956 eine Studie mit dem Titel «How the Soviet System Works», die ein Standard-Lesebuch in Soviet Studies wurde.³ Zur psychologischen Kriegführung gehörten auch Radiosendungen der CIA nach Osteuropa, «eines der billigsten, sichersten und effektivsten Werkzeuge der U.S.-Aussenpolitik», wie Jean Kirkpatrick später erklärte, nämlich die Voice of America. RIAS Berlin, Radio Free Europe und Radio Liberty, die bis heute auf russisch und in den Sprachen der GUS senden.⁴ Diese Sender unterstanden dem Kongress für kulturelle Freiheit, der 1950 mit 400 Mitarbeitern in Paris von der CIA gegründet worden war.⁵
Der Sieg über die Sowjetunion wurde vor allem mit Hilfe dieser nicht militärischen Methoden erreicht. Die Strategie, die als Ziel keine Koexistenz mit der Sowjetunion, sondern eine «Demontage» des sowjetischen Systems vorsah, wurde von der Reagan-Administration 1982 ausgearbeitet.⁶ Der Plan umfasste sieben strategische Initiativen, darunter als Punkt 4: Psychologischer Krieg, gerichtet auf die Erzeugung von Angst, Unsicherheit, Verlust der Orientierung sowohl bei der Nomenklatura als auch bei der Bevölkerung.⁷ Dieser Krieg wurde nicht nur gegen den Kommunismus, sondern gegen Russland geführt, wie die direkten Aussagen Brzezinskis bezeugen: «Wir haben die UdSSR zerstört, wir werden auch Russland zerstören.» «Russland ist überhaupt ein überflüssiger Staat.» «Die Orthodoxie ist der Hauptfeind Amerikas. Russland ist ein besiegtes Land. Es wird aufgeteilt und unter Vormundschaft gestellt werden.»⁸
Im Jahr 1990 prägte Joseph Nye, ein Mitarbeiter des Council on Foreign Relations und Verbündeter von Zbigniew Brzezinski, für diese Methoden den Begriff «Soft Power» oder «Smart Power», der auf dieselbe Wurzel wie das «Social Engineering» zurückgeht.⁹ Er veröffentlichte im Jahre 2005 sein Buch «Soft Power: The Means to Success to World Politics», in dem er den Vorschlag machte, Amerika müsse durch seine Kultur und seine politischen Ideale attraktiv werden. Das Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, eine neokonservative Denkfabrik, in dessen Aufsichtsrat Henry Kissinger und Zbigniew Brzezinski sitzen, gründete 2006 eine Commission on Smart Power, von Joseph Nye und Richard Armitage geleitet, die 2009 ein Memorandum «A Smarter, More Secure America» vorlegt e, die das Ziel verfolgte, Amerikas Einfluss in der Welt mit «weichen» Methoden zu verstärken.¹⁰

Erste erfolgreiche Anwendung der neuen Strategie: die Perestrojka

Zum ersten Mal wurden diese neuen Methoden als Strategie in der Perestrojka eingesetzt, als Michail Gorbatschow an die Macht kam. Die Perestrojka hatte ihre positiven Seiten, sie stellte die Meinungs- und Bewegungsfreiheit wieder her, aber sie war auch eine massive Einflussnahme des Westens.¹¹ Innerhalb des Zentralkomitees der KPdSU und der Nomenklatura bildete sich eine Gruppe, die auf die Positionen des Westens überging und das westliche neoliberale System einführen wollte.
Der eigentliche Architekt der Perestrojka war Alexander Jakowlew, seit 1985 Sekretär des ZK der KPdSU für Ideologie, der in den 50er Jahren in Washington studiert hatte und seit damals ein überzeugter Anhänger des Neoliberalismus war, wie er mir bei einem Gespräch in Wien am 9. November 2004 erklärte. Zu seinem Netzwerk gehörten Leute wie Jegor Gajdar, Grigorij Jawlinskij, Boris Nemzow, Viktor Tschernomyrdin, German Gref und Anatolij Tschubajs. Jakowlew schuf mit ihnen in der UdSSR eine fünfte ­Kolonne des Westens, die bis heute im Hintergrund die Fäden zieht. Auch Boris Jelzin war ein Mann der Amerikaner, der im September 1989 auf Einladung des Esalen-Instituts in Kalifornien, das seit 1979 ein amerikanisch-sowjetisches Austauschprogramm unterhielt, bei einem Besuch in Washington direkt im amerikanischen Kongress angeworben wurde und 1991 mit ihrer Hilfe die Macht übernehmen konnte.¹²
Gorbatschow wurde durch Vermittlung von George Soros zum Mitglied der Trilateralen Kommission, die im Jänner 1989 in Moskau eine Konferenz abhielt, an der auch Henry Kissinger und Valéry Giscard d’Estaing teilnahmen.

Westliche Organisationen zur kulturellen Beeinflussung in Russland

In der Zeit der Perestrojka wurden auch die Logen und ihre Vorfeldorganisationen wieder zugelassen.¹³ Auf Ersuchen Kissingers erlaubte Gorbatschow im Mai 1989 die Gründung der B’nai Brith Loge in Moskau. Seit damals wurden in Russland etwa 500 Logen durch die Grosslogen von England, Frankreich, Amerika u.a. gegründet. Gleichzeitig wurden aber für Politiker, Unternehmer und Angehörige der freien Berufe, die keine Beziehung zu den Ritualen hatten, aber die Prinzipien der Logen teilten, offenere Organisationen, Klubs, Komitees und Stiftungen geschaffen. Es gibt einige tausend Logenmitglieder in Russland, die sich an den Ritualen beteiligen, aber darüber hinaus gibt es zehnmal so viele Mitglieder der «maçonnerie blanche», die keine Rituale benützen, aber die Prinzipien akzeptieren und von Logenbrüdern geleitet werden. Solche Organisationen sind der Klub Magisterium, der Rotaryklub, der Lionsklub, die Soros-Stiftung u.v.a. Diese Mitglieder halten sich für eine Elite, die besondere Rechte hat zu regieren.¹⁴
Um die Literaturszene zu kontrollieren, wurde das russische PEN-Zentrum gegründet, eine weitere Vorfeldorganisation. Zu seinen Mitgliedern gehörten bekannte Schriftsteller und Dichter wie Bella Achmadulina, Anatolij Pristawkin, Jewgenij Jewtuschenko, Wassilij Aksjonow und Viktor Jerofejew.
Die Stiftung «Offene Gesellschaft» von George Soros, bereits 1988 in Moskau gegründet, war in den 90er Jahren der mächtigste Mechanismus der Destabilisierung und Zerstörung in den Händen der Hintergrundmächte. Soros richtete seine Tätigkeit auf die Änderung der Weltanschauung der Menschen im neoliberalen Geist, die Durchsetzung des American way of life und die Ausbildung von jungen Russen in den USA. Mit den Mitteln der Soros-Stiftung wurden die wichtigsten russischen Zeitschriften finanziert und für die Unterstützung der Literatur spezielle Preise vergeben.¹⁵  
Im Rahmen seines Programms gab die Stiftung Lehrbücher heraus, in denen die russische Geschichte im neoliberalen, kosmo­politischen Sinne dargestellt wurde. Im September 1993, während das Parlament beschossen wurde, hatte ich Gelegenheit, an einer Preisverleihung im russischen Bildungsministerium teilzunehmen. George Soros verteilte Preise an die Autoren russischer Lehrbücher für ­Geschichte und Literatur, und der russische Bildungsminister Jewgenij Tkatschenko erklärte, was das Ziel der neuen Schulbücher war: «Es geht darum, die russische Mentalität zu zerstören.»
Die Programme von Soros waren im kulturellen Bereich so vielfältig, dass praktisch der gesamte nichtstaatliche Sektor von der Finanzierung durch die «Offene Gesellschaft» abhing. Das Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen (IWM), 1983 in Wien gegründet und ebenfalls von Soros unterstützt, förderte die Reform des Bildungswesens und der Universitäten in Russland und den postsozialistischen Ländern. Allein zwischen 1997 und 2000 vergab die Stiftung 22 000 Stipendien in der Höhe von 125 Millionen Dollar.¹⁶
Ein weiterer amerikanischer Think tank ist die Nationale Stiftung für Demokratie (NED), 1982 von Reagan gegründet, die ihrerseits wieder die Institute der Demokratischen und der Republikanischen Partei der USA und ihre Büros in Moskau finanziert. Sie unterstützt vor allem private Medien und prowestliche politische Parteien und Bewegungen. Das Budget der NED wird vom Kongress der USA als Unterstützung für das State Department beschlossen. Dem Vorstand gehören prominente Politiker an wie John Negroponte, Otto Reich, Elliot Abrams. Die NED ist die Fortsetzung der Operationen der CIA mit anderen Mitteln. Die NED finanzierte u.a. folgende russische Organisationen (2005): Gesellschaft «Memorial» für historische Bildung und den Schutz der Menschenrechte, Moskauer Helsinkigruppe, das Sacharowmuseum, Mütter Tschetscheniens für den Frieden, die Gesellschaft für russisch-tschetschenische Freundschaft, das Tschetschenische Komitee der nationalen Rettung (in einem Jahr insgesamt 45 Organisationen).¹⁷
Das Moskauer Carnegie-Zentrum wurde 1993 als Abteilung der Carnegie-Stiftung für internationalen Frieden, errichtet 1910 von Andrew Carnegie als unabhängiges Forschungszentrum für internationale Beziehungen, gegründet. Die Spezialisten des Moskauer Zentrums befassen sich mit den wichtigsten Fragen der Innen- und Aussenpolitik Russlands. Es gibt eine Sammlung von Informationen über die problematischen Punkte der Entwicklung des Landes. Das Zentrum publiziert Sammelbände, Monographien, Periodika und Nachschlagewerke sowie eine Vierteljahreszeitschrift «Pro et contra», die Serie «Working Papers» und führt regelmässig Vorträge und Konferenzen durch. Die Stiftung wird von grossen Firmen wie BP, General Motors, Ford, Mott sowie von Soros, Rockefeller, dem Pentagon, dem State Department und dem britischen Aussenministerium finanziert. Die Direktorin war bisher Rose Goettemoeller, frühere Mitarbeiterin der RAND Corporation, die derzeit stellvertretende Aussenministerin der USA ist.
Die Vertreter der russischen Geschäftswelt im Aufsichtsrat sind Pjotr Awen, Sergej Karaganow, Boris Nemzow, Grigorij Jawlinskij und Jewgenij Jasin, der Präsident der Moskauer Wirtschaftsuniversität. Führende Mitarbeiter sind Dmitrij Trenin, der auch für Radio Free Europe und Radio Liberty arbeitet, und Lilija Schewzowa, die beide regelmässig in den Westen eingeladen werden, um dort zu erklären, dass Russland die demokratischen Freiheiten einschränkt. Die Forschungen des Zentrums werden von der politischen Klasse Russlands und auch des Westens umfangreich benützt. Die Arbeit des Moskauer Zentrums wird von der Zentrale in Washington durch ein «Russland- und Eurasien-Programm» unterstützt.¹⁸
Die Stiftung Freedom House, 1941 auf Initiative von Eleanor Roosevelt gegründet, entstand aus dem Kampf gegen den Isolationismus in den USA. Offizielles Ziel war der Kampf gegen den Nationalsozialismus und Kommunismus, heute wird sie von Soros und der Regierung der USA finanziert. In den 90er Jahren gründete Freedom House Büros in fast allen GUS-Staaten und das Amerikanische Komitee für Frieden in Tschetschenien (Mitglieder: Brzezinski, Alexander Haig, James Woolsey – früherer CIA-Chef). Das bekannteste Projekt ist heute «Freiheit in der Welt», das seit 1972 jährlich alle Staaten der Welt analysiert, wo sie in «freie», «teilweise freie» und «unfreie» eingeteilt werden.¹⁹
Im Jahr 1992 wurde die russische Filiale der Rockefeller-Stiftung Planned Parenthood Federation in Moskau und 52 weiteren russischen Städten gegründet. Die Stiftung machte den Versuch, das Fach «Sexualkunde», das in Wirklichkeit die Auflösung der Familie und die Erziehung eines neuen Menschen zum Ziel hat, in allen russischen Schulen einzuführen. Dazu kam es jedoch nicht, da die Beamten des Bildungsministeriums, die Lehrer, die Eltern und die orthodoxe Kirche Widerstand leisteten und das Projekt auf einer Konferenz der Russischen Akademie für Bildungswesen im Jahr 1997 abgelehnt wurde.²⁰
Die Nichtregierungsorganisationen (NGOs) gelten im Westen als die Bausteine der Zivilgesellschaft. Im Falle Russlands haben sie nichts mit dem Aufbau einer direkten Demokratie zu tun, sondern sind Agenturen, die vom Westen finanziert und gesteuert werden.

Die westliche Einflussnahme auf das Bildungswesen und die Medien

Ein wichtiges langfristiges Ziel der westlichen Einflussnahme ist das Bildungs- und Hochschulwesen. Zunächst wurden nach der Wende von 1991 mit Hilfe westlicher Berater der Zentralismus und die marxistische Ideologie aufgelöst. Das Bildungsgesetz von 1992 und die Verfassung der Russischen Föderation von 1993 schrieben eine tiefgreifende Umorientierung des Bildungswesens im Zeichen eines neoliberal-demokratischen Paradigmas nach westlichem Vorbild fest. Es umfasste den Einbau marktwirtschaftlicher Elemente im Bildungswesen und den Aufbau einer Zivilgesellschaft.²¹
Die Vergabe von westlichen Krediten an das Bildungswesen war an die Erfüllung der Vorgaben gebunden. Auf diese Weise wurde das Bildungswesen im Sinn des neoliberalen Systems umgestaltet. Ein nichtstaatlicher Sektor mit teuren Privatschulen etablierte sich. Die privaten höheren und Hochschulen waren gewinnorientiert und verlangten Schul- und Studiengebühren. Durch die PISA-Studien der OECD wurde das Bildungswesen auf die Wirtschaft ausgerichtet. Viele Schulen in ländlichen Gebieten, die nicht mehr «rentabel» waren, wurden geschlossen. Viele Kinder gehen nicht mehr in die Schule oder schliessen sie nicht ab. Im Jahr 2000 gingen nach einem Unesco-Bericht 1,5 Millionen Kinder in Russland nicht in die Schule. Der Drogenkonsum der Schüler, der früher unbekannt war, breitete sich aus.²²
Am bedeutendsten war die Reform des Hochschulwesens, das gleich nach der Wende von Weltbank und Internationalem Währungsfonds evaluiert wurde, die dann ein Programm für eine Umstrukturierung nach angloamerikanischem Vorbild ausarbeiteten. Im Jahr 2004 wurde die Bologna-Deklaration gesetzlich beschlossen: d.h. der Übergang zum vierjährigen Bakkalaureat und zum anschliessenden zweijährigen Magisterstudium sowie eine Präsidialverfassung mit Hochschulräten, in denen Vertreter der Wirtschaft sitzen. Viele russische Bildungsexperten sehen darin eine Zerstörung der Tradition der russischen Universität, weil der Bildungsprozess auf die Weitergabe von Informationen reduziert wird. Von den etwa 1000 Hochschulen und Universitäten in Russ­land sind heute 40% privat, viele davon vom Westen errichtet, an denen eine neue Elite herangebildet wird.²³
Ein weiterer Sektor, der vom Westen mit grosser Aufmerksamkeit verfolgt wird, sind die Medien, die nach 1991 die grösste Wandlung durchgemacht haben. Sie wurden durch die neoliberalen Reformen nach 1991 privatisiert und von Oligarchen oder vom Ausland übernommen. Viele Fernsehstationen, Zeitungen und Zeitschriften erhielten ausländische Eigentümer wie die News Corporation von Rupert Murdoch, die heute die Zeitung «Vedomosti», die führende Finanzzeitung Russ­lands gemeinsam mit der «Financial Times» herausgibt und die News Outdoor Group, die grösste Werbeagentur, die in etwa 100 Städten Russlands aktiv ist, besitzt. Die Bertelsmann AG, die über das grösste europäische Fernsehunternehmen RTL verfügt, betreibt in Russland den landesweiten Sender Ren TV.²⁴ Die Bertelsmann-Stiftung, 1977 von Reinhard Mohn gegründet, eine der mächtigsten Denkfabriken der EU, arbeitet mit der Gorbatschow-Stiftung zusammen, die ihren Sitz in Moskau hat, aber auch eine Zweigstelle in Deutschland und in den USA unterhält.
Die Medien waren unter Jelzin fast vollständig in den Händen der neuen Oligarchie, die wiederum mit den westlichen Finanzzentren verbunden ist. Gusinskij besass den gröss­ten Fernsehsender NTW, und Boris Beresowskij kontrollierte die Zeitungen. Als Putin begann, den russischen Staat wieder zu stabilisieren, stellte sich als vordringlichste Aufgabe die Kontrolle der Medien, weil die Regierung sonst gestürzt worden wäre.
Zur Amerikanisierung muss man last not least die Alltagskultur rechnen, die mit Rockkonzerten, Internet, Privatfernsehen, Kino­palästen, Discotheken, Musik-CDs, DVDs, Comics, Werbung und Mode fast dieselbe wie im Westen ist.
 Das Ziel der amerikanischen Strategie ist der Transfer des westlichen Wertesystems auf die russische Gesellschaft. Der russische Staat soll entideologisiert werden. In der Verfassung von 1993 wurde die staatliche Ideologie als Kennzeichen des Totalitarismus desavouiert und im Art. 13 verboten.²⁵
Die offizielle sowjetische Ideologie beruhte auf einer materialistischen Philosophie, aber hatte Elemente einer nationalen Idee und war die Klammer, die den Staat zusammenhielt. Durch dieses Verbot wurde der Staat der Wertorientierungen der nationalen Idee beraubt. Die geistige Leere wird heute durch die westliche Populärkultur ausgefüllt.
Die kulturelle Offensive der USA hat das Ziel, in Russland eine multikulturelle, d.h. kosmopolitische, pluralistische und säkulare Gesellschaft zu schaffen, in der die einheitliche russische Nationalkultur aufgelöst ist. Das Volk, die Gemeinschaft der Bürger mit einer gemeinsamen Geschichte und Kultur, soll in eine multinationale Bevölkerung umgewandelt werden.

Der Widerstand des russischen Staates und der Intelligenzia

Das unter Staatspräsident Wladimir Wladimirowitsch Putin seit dem Jahr 2000 durchgesetzte Staatskonzept, insbesondere die Forderung nach einem starken Staat, beinhaltete eine teilweise Rezentralisierung, den Übergang von einem multinationalen zu einem nationalrussisch geprägten Staatsverständnis sowie die Tendenz, der russisch-orthodoxen Kirche und Religion eine Sonderstellung im Staat einzuräumen.
Im April 2001 übernahm der staatliche Energiekonzern Gasprom die Kontrolle über den Fernsehsender NTW. Die Tageszeitung «Sewodnja» (Heute) wurde eingestellt, der Chefredakteur des Wochenmagazins gekündigt. Boris Beresowskis Fernsehsender TW-6 wurde im Jänner 2002 geschlossen und Beresowski emigrierte nach England.
Im September 2003 wollte der Ölmagnat Michail Chodorkowski die liberale Wochenzeitung Moskowskije Nowosti übernehmen, um die liberalen Oppositionsparteien «Union rechter Kräfte» und «Jabloko» im bevorstehenden Wahlkampf zu unterstützen. Dieses politische Engagement war ein wichtiger Grund für die Verhaftung Chodorkowskis im Oktober 2003. Diese Massnahmen waren notwendig, weil es der Oligarchie sonst gelungen wäre, mit Hilfe der Medienmacht die Regierung selbst unter ihre Kontrolle zu bringen. Die drei wichtigsten Fernsehsender – ORT, Rossija und NTW – sowie ein bedeutender Teil der Druckmedien werden heute durch staatliche Konzerne (Gasprom und Wneschtorgbank) oder durch den Staat direkt (RTR) kontrolliert.
Der Oligarch Wladimir Potanin kontrolliert aber weiterhin die Tageszeitungen «Izwestija» und «Komsomolskaja Prawda». Derzeit gelten die «Nowaja Gaseta» (unter Kontrolle des Oligarchen Alexander Lebedew und des  ehemaligen sowjetischen Präsidenten Gorbatschow) und die Tageszeitung «Wedomosti» (ein Projekt des «Wall Street Journal» und der «Financial Times») als von der Regierung unabhängige Medien.²⁶ Seit dem Jahr 1993 wurden in Russland gemäss einer Statistik 214 Journalisten ermordet, darunter 201 Journalisten in der Jelzin-Ära und 13 seit dem Amtsantritt Putins, darunter aber die meisten in seiner ersten Amtszeit, während es in der zweiten Amtzeit nur mehr drei waren^.27
Die nationale Doktrin für Bildung 1999 und die Konzeption 2001 führten im inhaltlich-ideologischen Bereich das nationalpatriotische Gedankengut wieder ein. Eine Hinwendung zu Werten der Zarenzeit traf mit dem Postulat zusammen, die Vorzüge des Bildungssystems der Sowjetunion zu erhalten. Eine Sonderstellung haben die von der russisch-orthodoxen Kirche getragenen Privatschulen und Geistlichen Akademien inne, die seit 2007 staatlich anerkannt sind. In den Lehrprogrammen der Schulen wurden neue Gegenstände wie seit 1999 die obligatorische Vorbereitung auf den Wehrdienst und seit 2007 das Schulfach «Grundlagen der orthodoxen Kultur» eingeführt.²⁸
Zum kulturellen Krieg gehört auch die Kampagne der westlichen Medien gegen Russland, die seit zehn Jahren, vor allem aber seit der Verhaftung Chodorkowskijs 2003 geführt wird unter dem Schlagwort «Russland auf dem Weg zurück zum Sowjetsystem!» Ein weiteres Beispiel ist die sogenannte Verfolgung progressiver Künstler, die darin bestehen soll, dass blasphemische und pornographische Werke aus öffentlichen Ausstellungen entfernt wurden. Es handelte sich in der Regel um Provokationen westlich finanzierter NGOs. Das Sacharow-Zentrum, das sich die Durchsetzung der offenen Gesellschaft zum Ziel setzt, organisierte 2003 eine Ausstellung «Vorsicht! Religion», auf der auch blasphemische antichristliche Exponate ausgestellt waren. Daraufhin forderte die Duma die Staatsanwaltschaft auf, gegen die Leitung des Zentrums tätig zu werden. 2005 wurden die Organisatoren zu einer Geldstrafe verurteilt.
Im Jahr 2005 führte die Regierung einen neuen Staatsfeiertag am 4. November ein, in der Nähe des alten Feiertags der Oktober­revolution am 7. November. Diesmal sollte aber der Sieg über die polnischen Invasionstruppen im Jahre 1612 gefeiert werden. Im Jahr 2006 wurde ein neues Gesetz über die Nichtregierungsorganisationen verabschiedet, nach dem sich alle neu registrieren mussten und die ausländische Finanzierung genauer kontrolliert wurde. Anfang 2008 wurden alle regionalen Büros des British Council mit Ausnahme des Moskauer Büros geschlossen, weil man dem Council antirussische Tätigkeit vorwarf.²⁹
Im Unterschied zu der Zeit der ­Perestrojka und der Jelzin-Ära ist die russische Intelligenzia seit dem Nato-Angriff auf Jugoslawien 1999 nicht mehr neoliberal, sondern nationalpatriotisch eingestellt. Die Schriftsteller, Künstler, Filmschaffenden und Theaterleute sind heute Patrioten und werden vom Kreml unterstützt. Die Regierung kontrolliert auch die politische Berichterstattung der Medien, vor allem im Fernsehen, etwas weniger in den Zeitungen.
Die Hauptfigur der Traditionalisten war früher Alexander Solschenizyn, dem aber seine ungenügende Kritik des Westens vorgeworfen wurde. Die führende Gruppe sind heute die «Bodenständigen» [po venniki], sie sind christlich-orthodox, aber sehen die sowjetische Periode in der Tradition der russischen Geschichte. Ihre Ideologen sind Dorfschriftsteller wie Walentin Rasputin, Wassilij Below und Wiktor Astafjew. In den Zeitschriften «Nasch sowremennik», «Moskwa» und «Molodaja gwardija» wurde seit den 70er und 80er Jahren die patriotische Ideologie ausgearbeitet.
Die «Stiftung der historischen Perspektive», die von der ehemaligen Duma-Abgeordneten Natalia Narotschnizkaja geleitet wird, vertritt ein patriotisches und christliches Programm, verfügt über die Schriftenreihe «Zvenja», die Internetzeitschrift «Stoletie» und organisiert Vorträge und Tagungen. Die nationalpatriotische Intelligenz diskutiert eine grundsätzliche Änderung des Systems, die einen starken Staat und eine Schliessung der Grenzen vorsieht. Die Verbände der Kulturschaffenden wie der Schriftstellerverband, der Künstlerverband, der Verband der Filmschaffenden verfügen über Kulturhäuser, Galerien, Kinozentren und Zeitschriften und organisieren ein dichtes Programm von Veranstaltungen. Es gibt in Moskau 150 Theater, Opernhäuser und Konzertsäle, die überwiegend klassische Stücke aufführen. Regietheater, abstrakte Kunst und atonale Musik sind ein Minderheitenprogramm.³⁰
Österreich und Deutschland werden positiv gesehen, man sieht vor allem die alte deutsche Kultur, man hat ein Bild davon, das aus der Vergangenheit kommt, aber man weiss nicht wirklich, was in Deutschland heute vor sich geht. Alexander Solschenizyn hat immer gehofft, Deutschland werde eine Art Brücke zwischen Russland und dem Rest der Welt sein, weil sich Deutschland und Russland gegenseitig zueinander hingezogen fühlen.³¹ Die deutschen Medien zeichnen aber ein verzerrtes Bild von Russ­land: dass Russland auf dem Weg zurück zum Sowjetsystem ist und die neoliberalen Intellektuellen einen verzweifelten Abwehrkampf führen. Als Beispiel präsentiert man den Pornoschriftsteller Viktor Jerofejew, der von der Hamburger «Zeit» nach Deutschland eingeladen wurde.³² Die entscheidende Frage ist heute in Russland aber nicht, ob es wieder eine kommunistische Diktatur wird, sondern ob es eine «Diktatur des Relativismus» nach westlichem Vorbild oder eine christliche Gesellschaft wird.³³

Die religiöse Erneuerung

Der entscheidende Widerstand gegen die Verwestlichung kommt heute von der orthodoxen Kirche, die antimodernistisch und traditionalistisch eingestellt ist. Die Orthodoxie tritt für traditionelle Werte wie Ehe, Familie und Mutterschaft ein und lehnt die Homosexualität ab. Die Kirchen sind voll, überwiegend mit jungen und jüngeren Menschen. Die Jugend bekennt sich mehrheitlich zur Orthodoxie, d.h. zum Christentum, und heiratet wieder in der Kirche. Es gibt wieder 100 Millionen Gläubige, 30 000 Priester und 600 Klöster. Die Geistliche Akademie in Sergijew Possad ist voll, es gibt vier Bewerbungen für einen Platz. Es gibt eine orthodoxe Radiostation, einen Verlag, eine Reihe von Zeitschriften, Militärgeistliche in der Armee sowie eine Spitals- und Gefängnisseelsorge, und in den Schulen wurde de facto Religion als Unterrichtsfach zum ersten Mal seit 1917 wieder eingeführt. Nach den Umfragen bezeichnen sich 70% der Russen als religiös.³⁴
Im Jahr 2007 beschlossen die russisch-orthodoxe Kirche und der Vatikan, Gespräche aufzunehmen, um ihre langjährigen Differenzen zu beseitigen. Erzbischof Ilarion, Leiter des Aussenamts des Patriarchats, früher russisch-orthodoxer Bischof von Wien, sagte dazu: «Wir sind Bündnispartner und stehen vor der gleichen Herausforderung: einem aggressiven Säkularismus.»³⁵
Die Orthodoxie wird in Russland als die «Religion der Mehrheit» bezeichnet. Am 4. November, dem Tag der Nationalen Einheit in Russland, konnte ich eine ungewöhnliche Prozession auf dem Roten Platz beobachten. Der Patriarch ging in der ersten Reihe, die Spitzen des Islams, der jüdischen Gemeinde und der Buddhisten in der zweiten. Das war als sichtbares Symbol gedacht: «Der Patriarch ist das Oberhaupt der vorherrschenden Religion. Er eint die Gläubigen und fördert die Zusammenarbeit der Religionsgemeinschaften. Der Patriarch ist der geistige Führer des ganzen Volkes, nicht nur der orthodoxen Gläubigen.»³⁶

Schlussfolgerungen

Russland ist heute in einer Krise, die zunächst im Finanz- und Währungssystem zum Ausdruck kommt, aber genauso den Kulturbereich erfasst, ja sogar dort ihre tiefere Ursache hat, die darin besteht,  dass pluralistische säkulare Gesellschaft den Menschen keine wirkliche Gemeinschaft, keine Weltanschauung und keinen Sinn gibt.
Russland braucht nicht die «materialistische und egoistische Kultur» der gegenwärtigen westlichen Gesellschaft, sondern eine universelle nationale Ideologie, die alle Seiten des Lebens des Volkes erfasst, das Land entwickelt und alles abwehrt, was die Existenz des Volkes bedroht.³⁷
Die «Neufassung» [reset] der russisch-amerikanischen Beziehungen seit zwei Jahren ändert jedoch nichts an der langfristigen antirussischen Ausrichtung der amerikanischen Politik und hindert die CIA nicht daran, wieder aktiver in Russland zu werden. Auch Hillary Clinton betonte nach dem Besuch Obamas in Moskau, dass die USA am Konzept des absoluten Weltführers festhalten. Russland wird daher früher oder später vor der Wahl stehen, entweder einen souveränen Staat aufzubauen, der die Grenzen schliesst und die Unterminierung seiner Kultur abwehrt, oder zu kapitulieren und eine Provinz des Westens zu werden. •

Dr. Peter Bachmaier, geb. 1940 in Wien, Studium in Graz, Belgrad und Moskau, 1972–2005 Mitarbeiter des Österreichischen Ost- und Südosteuropa-Instituts, seit 2006 Sekretär des Bulgarischen Forschungsinstituts in Österreich, 2009 dreimonatiger Forschungsaufenthalt in Moskau. Vortrag, gehalten auf dem Kongress «Mut zur Ethik» in Feldkirch, 3. September 2010.

1 Basil Liddell Hart, Strategy: The Indirect Approach, 1. Aufl. 1929, 2. Aufl. 1954.
2 Christopher Simpson, Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological Warfare, 1945–1960, New York, Oxford U.P. 1994, p. 4.
3 Simpson, Science of Coercion, p. 87.
4 A. Ross Johnson, R. Eugene Parta, Cold War Broadcasting: Impact on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Woodrow Wilson International Center, Washington 2010.
5 Frances Stonor Saunders, Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War, London 1999, dt. Ausgabe: Wer die Zeche zahlt … Der CIA und die Kultur im Kalten Krieg, Berlin 2001; Simpson, Science of Coercion, p. 68.
6 Peter Schweizer, Victory: The Reagan Administration’s Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union, New York 1994.
7 S.G. Kara-Murza, A.A. Aleksandrov, M.A. Muraškin, S.A. Telegin, Revolucii na eksport [Revolutionen für den Export], Moskva, 2006.
8 Zitiert nach: V.I.Jakunin, V.Bagdasarjan, S.S.Sulakšin, Novye technologii bor’by s rossijskoj gosudarstvennost’ju [Neue Technologien des Kampfes gegen den russischen Staat], Moskva, 2009, str. 50.
9  oseph Nye, Bound to Lead: the Changing Nature of American Power, Basic Books 1990; Joseph Nye, Transformational Leadership and U.S. Grand Strategy, Foreign Affairs, vol. 85, No. 4, July/August 2006, pp. 139–148.
10 Richard Armitage, Joseph S. Nye, A Smarter, More Secure America, CSIS Commission on Smart Power, 2009.
11 Peter Schweizer, Victory: The Reagan Administrations’s Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse oft he Soviet Union, New York 1994.
12 Das steht in der offiziellen Jelzin-Biographie von Wladimir Solowjow, Elena Klepikowa, Der Präsident. Boris Jelzin. Eine politische Biographie, Berlin 1992. Nach der Anhörung Jelzins in einem Ausschuss des Kongresses sagte David Rockefeller: «Das ist unser Mann!»
13 O. A. Platonov, Rossija pod vlast’ju masonov [Russ­land unter der Macht der Freimaurer], Moskva 2000, S. 35.
14 Platonov, Rossija, str. 3.
15 Platonov, Rossija, str. 15.
16 Jakunin, Novye techologii, S. 81.
17 Jakunin, Novye technologii, S. 90.
18 Jakunin, Novye technologii, S. 94f.
19 Jakunin, Novye technologii, S. 92.
20 www.pravda.ru 03.19.2008.
21 Gerlind Schmidt, Russische Föderation, in: Hans Döbert, Wolfgang Hörner, Botho von Kopp, Lutz R. Reuter (Hrsg.), Die Bildungssysteme Europas, Hohengehren 2010 ( = Grundlagen der Schulpädagogik, Bd. 46, 3. Aufl.), S. 619.
22 Schmidt, Russische Föderation, S. 635.
23 Schmidt, Russische Föderation, S. 632.
24 Pierre Hillard, Bertelsmann – un empire des médias et une fondation au service du mondialisme, Paris 2009, p. 27.
25 «In der Russischen Föderation ist die ideologische Vielfalt anerkannt. Keine Ideologie darf als staatliche oder verbindliche festgelegt werden.» Art. 13 der Verfassung der Russischen Föderation, Dezember 1993.
26 A. Cernych, Mir sovremennych media [Die Welt der gegenwärtigen Medien], Moskva 2007.
27 Roland Haug, Die Kreml AG, Hohenheim 2007.
28 Schmidt, Russische Föderation, S. 639.
29 Das Feindbild Westen im heutigen Russland, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, Berlin 2008.
30 Vladimir Malachov, Sovremennyj russkij nacionalizm [Der gegenwärtige russische Nationalismus], in: Vitalij Kurennoj, Mysljaškaja Rossija: Kartografija sovremennych intellektual’nych napravlenij [Das denkende Russland: Kartographie der gegenwärtigen intellektuellen Richtungen], Moskva 2006, str. 141 ff.
31  nterview mit Alexander Solschenizyn, Der Spiegel Nr. 30, 23.07. 2007; Marc Stegherr, Alexander Solschenizyn, Kirchliche Umschau, Nr. 10, Oktober 2008.
32 Nikolaj Plotnikov, Russkie intellektualy v Germanii [Russische Intellektuelle in Deutschland], in: Kurennoj, Mysljaškaja Rossija, a.a.O., str. 328.
33 Westen ohne Werte? Gespräch mit Natalja Alexejewna Narotschnizkaja, Direktorin des russischen Instituts für Demokratie und Zusammenarbeit in Paris, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Nr. 51, 29.02.2008.
34 Jakunin, Novye technologii, str. 196ff.   
35 Interview in: Der Spiegel.
36 Der Spiegel, Nr. 51, 14.12.2009.
37 Papst Benedikt XVI. Enzyklika «Spe salvi», Rom 2007, in der er von einer «Diktatur des Relativismus» spricht; Jakunin, Novye technologii, str. 174f.

 

 

«Zukunftwerkstätten» in Russland

Im Juli 2010 fand in Jekaterinburg die 21. deutsch-russische Zukunftswerkstatt mit etwa 40 Teilnehmern im Rahmen des Petersburger Dialogs zwischen Deutschland und Russland statt. Diese Seminare, zu denen junge russische Führungskräfte eingeladen werden, wurden im September 2004 von der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Aussenpolitik begründet, die die erste «Zukunftswerkstatt» mit dem Thema «Deutschland und Russland in der globalen Welt» in den Räumen des Bertelsmann-Verlags Gruner und Jahr in Hamburg organisierte. Das Ziel der Seminare, die heute von der Körber-Stiftung unterstützt werden, ist die Aufarbeitung der kommunistischen Vergangenheit und die Verbreitung der Idee der demokratischen Zivilgesellschaft. Die deutschen Vortragenden erklären den jungen Russen, dass eine strategische Partnerschaft mit Russland nur auf der Basis gemeinsamer westlicher Werte möglich wäre. Sie geben ihnen den Rat, das imperiale Erbe Russlands zu beseitigen und sich den Spielregeln der Globalisierung zu unterwerfen.
Die Deutschen sagen den Russen, dass sie in Deutschland seit den 60er Jahren die Auseinandersetzung mit dem Krieg und dem Nationalsozialismus geführt und die Vergangenheit aufgearbeitet hätten, und werfen den Russen vor, mit der Erinnerung an den Sieg im Zweiten Weltkrieg an die sowjetische Identität anzuknüpfen und nicht bereit zu sein, den Totalitarismus umfassend aufzuarbeiten, womit sie eine weitere Demokratisierung der Gesellschaft verhindern würden. Die russischen Teilnehmer antworten, dass sich 1991 ein Bruch in ihrem historischen Bewusstsein vollzog, der zum Zerfall der fundamentalen Werte in der Gesellschaft führte. Die Russen sind bisher nicht bereit, sich vollständig «von der Vergangenheit zu lösen» und die «universalen Werte» zu akzeptieren.

Quelle: Newsletter, DGAP, 20.7.2010

Indoeuropeos y no indoeuropeos en la Hispania preromana

Recensión de Francisco Villar, Indoeuropeos y no indoeuropeos en la Hispania preromana.

Las poblaciones y las lenguas prerromanas de Andalucía, Cataluña y Aragón según la información que nos proporciona la toponimia. Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. Salamanca 2000

El proceso de indoeuropeización de la Península Ibérica es uno de los problemas más complejos a los que, desde hace ya muchos años, se enfrentan tanto la Prehistoria como la Lingüística. Es tal la cantidad de elementos en juego y de cuestiones a resolver que no resulta difícil augurar que serán muchas las generaciones de arqueólogos, filólogos, historiadores de la religión y antropólogos que investigarán y debatirán sobre este campo.  El camino por recorrer es largo y, como es sabido, son pocos los puntos que han  sido firmemente establecidos y, en consecuencia,  aceptados por todos. No es este lugar para hacer balance de la cuestión: un muy breve resumen se podrá encontrar en un artículo que publicamos en un número anterior de Terra Nostra o una exposición mucho más detallada en la Parte V de otra obra del autor del que nos ocupamos aquí, Francisco Villar, Los Indoeuropeos y los orígenes de Europa, 2ª ed., Madrid 1996. Brevemente, recordaremos que parece clara la existencia de tres estratos lingüísticos indoeuropeos prerromanos: por un lado, el  correspondiente al Alteuropäisch, por otro, el de la lengua de las inscripciones lusitanas y, por último, el celtibérico, existiendo posiciones encontradas sobre la naturaleza de cada una y el tipo de relaciones que pudieran haber existido entre ellas.

Este ya de por sí complejo panorama se ha visto más complicado, si cabe, por la hipótesis que presenta F. Villar en esta obra. En efecto, a lo largo de sus casi 500 páginas el autor intenta demostrar, a través del análisis de una ingente cantidad de material lingüístico, la presencia en la Península Ibérica de un estrato lingüístico indoeuropeo diferente a cualquiera de los otros tres detectados hasta el momento, un estrato de rasgos muy arcaicos que de confirmarse atestiguaría que el proceso de indoeuropeización de la Península fue mucho más complejo y profundo de lo que  se había supuesto.

La obra comienza haciendo repaso de una serie cuestiones relativas a la Lingüística Comparada, en especial un alegato de la validez de su método y una descripción de sus características, para continuar con un amplio comentario de la historia de la investigación paleolingüística en España, desde los dislates del padre Astarloa hasta los autores contemporáneos como Gorrochategui o de Hoz, haciendo especial hincapié en la progresiva complejidad de las concepciones del substrato, desde el vasco-iberismo originario, tesis que no se cansa durante toda la obra de denostar, y con razón, hasta la identificación de los diferentes niveles actualmente admitidos: los ya mencionados indoeuropeos junto al vasco, tartesio, ibérico, etc.

Tras estos dos capítulos a guisa de introducción, se adentra en el examen del material recogido: topónimos, hidrónimos, antropónimos y etnónimos, material organizado en series en función de un componente principal que es estudiado en todos los aspectos filológicos posibles, tanto fonéticos como morfológicos, y del que ofrece su correspondiente distribución geográfica, tanto en la Península como en Europa, norte de África u Oriente Próximo. Así, uno a uno, van siendo analizados todos los elementos susceptibles de formar parte de este estrato, proponiendo el carácter indoeuropeo, entre otros, de los siguientes: uba-, relacionado con las raíces indoeuropeas para agua *ap, *ab, *up; ur, relacionado con el ide *(a)wer- / (a)ûr, agua, río, corriente; urc- con el ide *war- / *ur- más el sufijo ko; uc-, en el que se habrían reunido tres componentes diferentes: uko (diminutivo), uko (sufijo hidronímico que aparece en lituano) y un apelativo relacionado con ûkis (lugar de habitación) también presente en lituano, bai-, relacionado con el ide *gwhêi, brillar, etc. Al estudio de los elementos susceptibles de ser agrupados en series que califica de mayores sigue el de las series menores (tur-, turc- y murc-) y de aquellos, muy numerosos, que por su escasa aparición en las fuentes no pueden ser seriados, pero que responden a unas mismas características lingüísticas, así como el análisis de la antroponimia susceptible de ser relacionada con este estrato.

Una vez analizado el material, Villar se adentra en la caracterización de la lengua o lenguas responsables de esta hidronimia,  toponimia y antroponimia, llegando a la conclusión de que no corresponde a ninguna de las lenguas indoeuropeas conocidas, siendo imposible su identificación con ninguno de los tres estratos indoeuropeos conocidos en la Península por diferentes razones (aquí no podemos dejar de mencionar que en su obra mencionada anteriormente relaciona el elemento tur-, presente en nuestro Turia, con el Alteuropäisch pp. 507-509), y sosteniendo que este estrato presenta fuertes relaciones con las lenguas itálicas y con las bálticas, generalmente, aunque no siempre, en las innovaciones con las primeras y en los arcaísmos con las segundas.

Durante toda la obra, y mediante el estudio de la distribución geográfica de los testimonios de este estrato se va evidenciando una concentración de estos elementos en dos áreas principales: la meridional y la ibérico-pirenaica, como el autor las denomina, que se corresponden con el área que hasta ahora se consideraba no indoeuropea (baste recordar la famosa frontera de los briga-). Resulta evidente que las consecuencias de las propuestas de Villar pueden resultar revolucionarias para nuestra protohistoria. El autor es consciente de ello y en un último capítulo analiza algunos de los etnóminos del área ibérica (ilérgetes, indicetes, volciani, etc.) atribuyéndoles etimologías indoeuropeas relacionadas con el estrato objeto del libro (seguras para dieciséis entre veintitrés, aunque posiblemente sean más todavía), lo que implica un masivo substrato indoeuropeo en todo esta área (Aragón, Cataluña y norte de Valencia), pero, sin embargo, renuncia explícitamente a intentar explicar el mecanismo de entrada de estas lenguas, emplazando a arqueólogos y prehistoriadores a abordar esta cuestión. Lo que sí sostiene es la imposibilidad de relacionar los Campos de Urnas con esta toponimia debido a motivos distribucionales (son prácticamente inexistentes en Andalucía) y cronológicos (relaciona el topónimo Alube de la Ilíada con el Guadalquivir y con los hallazgos micénicos allí efectuados, lo que dataría este estrato con anterioridad a las penetraciones de esta cultura. Por otro lado, considera que la densidad de este estrato casa mal con unos «recién llegados» como los Urnenfelder). No obstante, no parecen argumentos excesivamente fuertes: Infiltración y transformación de la cultura material son fenómenos que a menudo van parejos y aunque en la actualidad se tiende a ver en las transformaciones del bronce final tartésico influencias mediterráneas, algunos de los nuevos elementos no dejan de estar relacionados con el ambiente de las urnas, aunque tampoco podemos dejar de señalar que se ha hecho responsable a influencias del Mediterráneo los elementos indoeuropeos presentes en el tartesio. Por otra parte, la relación del Alube homérico con la Península no deja de ser una conjetura toponímica, apoyada sobre conjeturas cronológicas y arqueológicas, y en cuanto a la excesiva densidad que pueda presentar un substrato depende más bien de la profundidad de la «limpieza étnica» que de la antigüedad del proceso. Todo esto, no obstante, no deja de ser un mero comentario ante la superposición de esta toponimia y los Campos de Urnas en el área nordoriental peninsular, que resulta bastante sugerente y ante la propia naturaleza lingüística del substrato (sobre todo la presencia de elementos compartidos con diferentes grupos del «indoeuropeo nordoccidental») que no deja de evocar constantemente las ideas de H. Krahe sobre el «estado líquido» (flüssige Zustand) del complejo de las urnas desde el punto de vista lingüístico. No obstante, evidentemente es todavía muy pronto para intentar elaborar hipótesis arqueológicas sobre esta cuestión.

Un punto que quizá llame la atención a quienes han seguido la labor de Villar es el escaso espacio dedicado al paleoeuropeo y a sus presuntas relaciones con este estrato recién descubierto. Ya que ambas son lenguas ciertamente arcaicas y siguen un modelo distribucional diferente, aunque muy determinado en ambas por los cursos de agua, cabría esperar un análisis comparativo de ambas lenguas que nadie mejor que Villar está en condiciones de realizar. Estamos convencidos de que no tardará en abordar este problema.

En definitiva se trata de una obra destinada a tener un gran eco entre los especialistas no sólo en paleohispanística sino también en indoeuropeística y que abre nuevos caminos para el conocimiento del pasado de nuestros pueblos.                                                                                                                          

 

Olegario de las Eras.        

Drieu La Rochelle vide lo spettro di una nuova guerra e per questo credette nell'Europa unita

Drieu La Rochelle vide lo spettro di una nuova guerra e per questo credette nell’Europa unita

Francesco Lamendola

Ex: http://www.centrostudilaruna.it/

Vi sono scelte che non vengono perdonate, che fruttano al proprio autore la «damnatio memoriae» perpetua, indipendentemente dal valore del personaggio e da tutto quanto egli possa aver detto o fatto di notevole, prima di compiere, magari per ragioni contingenti e sostanzialmente in buona fede, quella tale scelta infelice.

È questo, certamente, il caso dello scrittore Drieu La Rochelle (Parigi, 1893-1945), il quale, nonostante i suoi innegabili meriti letterari e l’importanza di certe sue intuizioni politiche nel periodo fra le due guerre mondiali, per il fatto di aver aderito al Partito Popolare Francese dell’ex comunista Jacques Doriot ed averne condiviso, durante l’occupazione tedesca della Francia, le posizioni collaborazioniste, è stato scacciato per sempre dal salotto buono della cultura europea e ha subito la rimozione sistematica dei suoi meriti di europeista convinto, quando l’idea di un’Europa unita era una rara eccezione alla regola nel panorama uniforme dei gretti nazionalismi.

Ma chi era Pierre Drieu La Rochelle, prima di convertirsi al fascismo, nel 1934, e prima di accettare di collaborare con i Tedeschi nella Francia occupata, fino a ricoprire la direzione della prestigiosissima «Nouvelle Revue Française»?

Non è tanto la sua biografia che qui ci interessa, reperibile presso qualunque testo di letteratura francese, quanto l’itinerario spirituale che lo ha portato, rara e felice eccezione nel panorama degli anni Venti e Trenta, a perorare la causa di una unità europea capace di assorbire e ricomporre i nazionalismi esasperati e contrapposti.

Il primo dato significativo è la sua partecipazione alla prima guerra mondiale, dal principio alla fine (comprese tre ferite sul campo, di cui due nel solo 1914). Egli vi andò entusiasta, come tanti altri giovani della borghesia non solo francese, ma tedesca, russa, austriaca, italiana; ma ne tornò traumatizzato e disgustato. Aveva sognato la guerra eroica, e si trovò scaraventato in una carneficina di tipo industriale, dove la vittoria finale non andava al più audace o al più coraggioso, ma a quello che aveva alle spalle il più potente sistema industriale e finanziario.

Il pacifismo di Drieu La Rochelle, pertanto, non nacque da motivazioni etiche, ma, in un certo senso, estetiche: lettore entusiasta, fin dalla prima gioventù, dello «Zarathustra» nietzschiano, e quindi odiatore della mediocrità e della anonimità della società di massa, egli vide nella guerra moderna non già la smentita, ma il trionfo di quella mediocrità e di quella anonimità, dunque qualcosa di osceno e di stupidamente brutale.

Il secondo dato importante è la lucidità con la quale egli comprese che, a partire dal 1919, l’Europa aveva perduto il suo ruolo primario sulla scena della politica e dell’economia mondiali, a vantaggio di potenze imperiali di tipo “continentale”: Stati Uniti, Russia, e, in prospettiva, Cina e India. Prima di molti intellettuali e di molti uomini politici, egli comprese che nessun Paese europeo – tranne, forse, la Gran Bretagna, in virtù del suo immenso Impero coloniale – avrebbe potuto, alla lunga, reggere il confronto con quei colossi.

Pertanto, anche il suo superamento del nazionalismo – a cui aveva creduto appassionatamente – non si basa su ragionamenti di ordine umanitario, ma di “Realpolitik”. Così come Machiavelli vide lucidamente che gli Stati regionali italiani non avrebbero potuto reggere la sfida delle monarchie nazionali francese e spagnola, se non si fossero riformati da cima a fondo; allo stesso modo Drieu La Rochelle vide che gli Stati europei sarebbero usciti dal gioco delle grandi potenze mondiali se non fossero stati capaci di rinunciare alla pietra d’inciampo del nazionalismo e non avessero costruito una unione di tipo federale.

Il suo giudizio sul nazionalismo, dunque, non scaturiva da ragioni morali, ma politiche: esso aveva fatto il suo tempo. In altre epoche della storia aveva potuto svolgere un ruolo utile, anzi, necessario; adesso, non era altro che un peso morto, un ostacolo privo di senso (egli adopera il termine «rinsecchito») alla futura salvezza del Vecchio Continente.

Perché Drieu La Rochelle era una nazionalista, un francese che amava la Francia sopra ogni altra cosa; ma non fu mai un nazionalista gretto e miope, capace, cioè, di misconoscere la funzione storica e culturale svolta dalle «altre» patrie nella storia d’Europa. Egli, in particolare – cosa tanto più notevole, nel clima della «pace punitiva» imposta a Versailles da Clemenceau alla Germania sconfitta – non fu mai uno spregiatore della cultura tedesca; non solo: sostenne sempre che, accanto all’influsso della Grecia, di Roma e dell’Umanesimo italiano, la cultura francese era il risultato di un altro influsso, quello nordico d’oltre Reno, che aveva svolto un ruolo non meno significativo del primo.

Il terzo elemento è la ricerca tormentata, quasi affannosa, di una formula politica capace di fornire un orientamento spirituale e materiale ai popoli dell’Europa, usciti dalla prova durissima della prima guerra mondiale e frastornati da eventi di grande portata storica, potenzialmente minacciosi, quali la nascita dell’Unione Sovietica, il sorgere del fascismo e, poi, del nazismo, e la grande crisi di Wall Street del 1929. I suoi ondeggiamenti politici sono apparsi sovente quali segni di confusione ideologica e di velleitarismo; forse, sarebbe più giusto considerarli quali segni di una aspirazione ardente, ma sincera, a trovare un porto sicuro nella grande procella che in quegli anni infuriava sul mondo.

Il suo accostamento al Partito Popolare Francese di Doriot, ex comunista divenuto fautore di Hitler e Mussolini, giunge solo alla metà degli anni Trenta, dopo che egli sembra avere esplorato ogni strada, ogni possibilità, per individuare una via d’uscita dalla crisi della civiltà europea che gli sembrava, e a ragione, una crisi non solo economica e politica, ma innanzitutto spirituale. È come se egli avesse bussato a tutte le porte e, solo dopo averle trovate tutte chiuse a doppia mandata, si fosse risolto ad entrare nell’unica stanza che gli si rivelò accessibile.

In ogni caso, è certo che la sua adesione al collaborazionismo con i Tedeschi, dopo il 1940, non ebbe niente di opportunistico e niente di disonorevole, per quanto la si possa considerare politicamente discutibile o anche decisamente sbagliata. Egli non desiderava un’Europa asservita alla volontà di Hitler, e aveva sempre affermato di non intendere l’unità europea come il risultato di un’azione di forza da parte di una singola Potenza. Tuttavia, nel 1940, si trovò a dover fare una scelta irrevocabile: scelse quello che gli parve il male minore. È noto, d’altronde, che si adoperò per ottenere la liberazione di Jean Pulhan, detenuto nelle carceri naziste; ma questo sarebbe stato troppo facilmente dimenticato, nel cima da caccia alle streghe del 1945 che lo spinse al suicidio.

Nella sua ricerca di un nuovo ordine europeo che consentisse alle «patrie» francese, tedesca, inglese, italiana, di continuare a svolgere un ruolo mondiale nell’era dei colossi imperiali, si era accostato anche a certi ambienti industriali e finanziari che egli definiva «capitalismo intelligente», perché aveva intuito che, in un mondo globalizzato, anche il capitalismo avrebbe potuto svolgere una funzione utile, purché si dissociasse dal nazionalismo e contribuisse a creare migliori condizioni di vita per gli abitanti del Vecchio Continente. Grande utopista, e forse sognatore, Drieu La Rochelle si rendeva però conto della importanza dei fattori materiali della vita moderna, e intendeva inserirli nel quadro della nuova Europa da costruire.

Al tempo stesso, egli era un nemico dichiarato della tecnologia fine a se stessa e, più in generale, degli aspetti quantitativi, puramente economicisti della modernità. Una sua lampeggiante intuizione si può riassumere nella frase: «L’uomo, oggi, ha bisogno di ben altro che inventare macchine; ha bisogno di raccogliersi, di danzare: una grande danza meditata, una discesa nel profondo». Pertanto, egli vide lucidamente il pericolo della costruzione di un’Europa senz’anima, rivolta solo agli aspetti materiali dell’esistenza.

Si potrà definire questa posizione come tipicamente decadentistica; e, in effetti, non è certo un caso che, anche sul piano del suo itinerario letterario, egli si sia mosso fra Dadaismo, Surrealismo e Decadentismo alla Thomas Mann: sempre alla ricerca di una nuova via, di un varco fuori dal grigiore della mediocrità della società tecnologica e massificata. In un certo senso, il suo itinerario politico non è stato altro che il riflesso e il prolungamento di quel suo errabondo, infaticabile viaggio artistico alla ricerca, se non di una nuova Terra Promessa, certo di una via di fuga dagli aspetti più alienanti della modernità.

In fondo, la sua vicenda umana, artistica e politica fra vitalismo, pessimismo (pensò più volte al suicidio), estetismo, superomismo e «rivoluzione conservatrice» lo accomuna a personaggi come Ernst Jünger, i quali, dopo essere stati segnati irreversibilmente dall’esperienza della guerra di trincea, si dedicarono interamente alla ricerca di una nuova società, capace di dare un senso a quei sacrifici e di fare proprie cere esigenze del mondo moderno, volgendole però al servizio di un primato dello spirito sull’economia e sulla tecnica.

Quanto alla sua adesione finale al Nuovo Ordine nazista, non bisognerebbe dimenticare che egli non fu poi così isolato come si pensa, dal momento che intellettuali ed artisti del calibro di Ezra Pound, Knut Hamsun e Céline finirono per fare delle scelte analoghe alle sue, e ciascuno di essi in perfetta buona fede. Egli sperò, come quelli, di poter agire dall’interno del sistema hitleriano per affermare i valori in cui aveva sempre creduto, contro la doppia minaccia del totalitarismo politico russo e del totalitarismo finanziario americano; e, se commise un grave errore di giudizio, bisogna pur ammettere che, nel fuoco della seconda guerra mondiale, non tutto quel che oggi ci sembra evidente, con il senno di poi, lo era anche allora; e non tutto quel che si fece allora, nell’Europa dell’Asse, era totalmente folle e scellerato, come poi una Vulgata manichea lo ha voluto dipingere.

Ha scritto Alessandra La Rosa nel suo pregevole saggio «L’idea di Europa in Drieu La Rochelle» (nel volume L’Europa e le sue regioni, frutto di un Convegno internazionale svoltosi presso ‘Università di Catania ed organizzato dal Dipartimento di studi politici nel maggio 1990 (Palermo, Arnaldo Lombardi Editore, pp. 95-106 passim):

«Per Drieu fare l’Europa è una questione vitale da qualunque punto ci si pone, esterno o interno. “Il faut faire les Etates unis d’Europe parce que c’est la seule façon de defendre l’Europa contre elle-même et contre les autres groupes humains”. Se dal punto di vista estero bisogna fare l’Europa per far sì che non sia fagocitata dall’imperialismo capitalista americano e dall’imperialismo socialista risso, dal punto di vista interno i pericoli che nascono da un diffuso ed esasperato nazionalismo chiedono tale soluzione. L’unità europea è necessaria per porre fine alle lotte interne nate dai differenti interessi nazionali che potrebbero culminare in una ulteriore guerra fratricida da cui l’Europa non uscirebbe salva.

Secondo George Boneville, l’odio della guerra e l’amore dell’Europa presentano una stretta correlazione nella maggior parte delle riflessioni fatte dagli intellettuali sul tema dell’Europa. Nel caso di Drieu La Rochelle l’equazione è più complessa. Come vedremo l’atteggiamento europeista di Drieu non scaturisce da un rifiuto della violenza in sé, da un odio per la guerra tra le nazioni e quindi da un amore innato per la pace. L’esprit de guerre e la volontà di potenza sono presenti nel suo pensiero. Come dice Simon “il a chanté la guerre accoucheuse de héros”. Il primo conflitto mondiale viene accettato con entusiasmo da Drieu, che parte volontario. La guerra, al di là del suo carattere ideologico, rappresenta per Drieu l’occasione per permettere di risvegliare nell’uomo quelle virtù virili, come il coraggio, l’amore del rischio e il senso del sacrificio, attraverso le quali affermare la propria volontà di potenza, “en dépit de tous les obstacles et de toutes les menaces”.

Ma è anche vero che sul tema della guerra Drieu dimostra di avere delle esitazioni e dei ripensamenti che alla fine lo portano ad un superamento del suo atteggiamento antipacifista, come dimostra la sua argomentazione su l’unità europea. (…) È la realtà della guerra a mostrare a Drieu la portata dell’errore delle sue immaginazioni giovanili. Per l’uomo Drieu che ha vissuto l’esperienza amara delle trincee e frustrante del campo di battaglia, la guerra non è più “une novetaué mervelleuse, l’accomplissement qui n’était pas espéré de notre jeunesse”, ma solamente una esperienza da ripudiare fatta solo di distruzione e sofferenza (…). La speranza iniziale che la guerra fosse un movimento rivoluzionario rinnovatore e benefico fa posto alla presa di coscienza della estrema bestialità di ogni atto bellicistico. La  guerra è solo “geste obscene de la mort” reso ancora più ripugnante dall’uso di armi e di tecniche micidiali proprie della guerra chimica.. Sul campo di battaglia Drieu prende coscienza della profonda dicotomia esistente tra la guerra moderna, da lui vissuta, fatta di ferro , d scienza e di industria, e la guerra “éternelle”, da lui sognata, fatta di scontri frontali, di muscoli, di guerrieri. La “violence des hommes” caratterizza la prima, la “violence des choses” la seconda. La guerra moderna nega tutti i valori che giustificavano agli occhi di Drieu la guerra eterna (…).

La presa di coscienza che ciò che lui aveva vissuto come combattente era la forma decadente della guerra classica spiega il suo disincanto, il suo disgusto, il suo sentimento di sentirsi “blessé”. Ciò ha contribuito a far assumere a Drieu una posizione antimilitarista; ad aprire la strada del suo pensiero al pacifismo che negli anni venti si manifesta come protesta contro la guerra moderna. In tal senso si spiegano certamente le prime affermazioni di Drieu sulla necessità di evitare la ripetizione di una guerra se non si voleva l’agonia dell’universo. (…)

Il cambio di carattere della guerra eterna ci può aiutare a capire le dichiarazioni antimilitariste di Drieu come rifiuto della guerra moderna, ma se ci soffermassimo solamente sulle sue proteste contro la guerra moderna non potremmo capire le sue dichiarazioni di pacifismo assoluto, implicite nella sua posizione europeista. Infatti la condanna della guerra moderna non implica ancora la condanna morale della guerra in sé, quindi anche di quella che per Drieu è la “vera” guerra. È necessario perciò soffermarsi sul superamento della sua posizione nazionalista per capire come Drieu approdi all’internazionalismo pacifista che implica una condanna morale e politica della guerra.

Drieu La Rochelle non è certamente un intellettuale che crede nell’Europa “a priori” e che quindi nega di fatto l’idea nazionale. Tutt’altro (…). È indubbio che nel pensiero di Drieu è possibile individuare degli aspetti della dottrina nazionalista. Ma è anche vero che nello stesso pensiero giovanile di Drieu, ritenuto da alcuni il più patriottico, è possibile individuare delle affermazioni che lo allontanano dalla stretta osservanza del pensiero maurissiano. Nel poema “A vous Allemands” Drieu mostra di non condividere l’antigermanismo dell’Action Français.. Drieu prova del rispetto per il valore e la forza del nemico tedesco, fino a vedere nei tedeschi la fonte della rigenerazione nazionale. (…) Non solo Drieu rifiuta l’antigermanismo politico, ma anche quello filosofico, che invece caratterizzava il pensiero di Maurras. Per Maurras il pensiero francese è figlio dell’umanesimo mediterraneo, espressione quindi di quella ragione e di quella misura tipica del mondo greco-latino. Per Drieu, invece, il pensiero francese non è figlio solo del genio mediterraneo, ma anche delle influenze nordiche. (…)

Se certamente Drieu non è un intellettuale che nega a priori l’idea di nazione, bisogna anche ammettere che il discorso politico di Drieu è caratterizzati da fasi evolutive in cui vi è un ripensamento e un superamento degli aspetti nazionalisti del suo pensiero (…). Genève ou Moscou e L’Europe contre les patries sono testi in cui il superamento della posizione nazionalista di Drieu trova la sua completa realizzazione. Drieu si pone contro il concetto di unità nazionale, presentando l’esagono francese come un “carrefour” aperto sul mondo, aperto sull’Europa, nel cui seno già si realizza l’incontro del genio nordico e mediterraneo. La Francia contemporaneamente fiamminga, bretone, basca, alsaziana, realizzava già l’unità nella diversità (…).

Ogni manifestazione di nazionalismo culturale, integrale, è per Drieu espressione di un “ottuso” conservatorismo che porta a coniugare solo questo verbo: “Je suis français“. Contro l’isolazione culturale, mortale per la stessa creazione, Drieu sostiene l’assimilazione culturale, affermando che per vivere pienamente bisogna espandere la propria identità e non rimanere radicato nella propria (…).

Nel 1922 in Mesure de la France il rifiuto della guerra poteva sembrare più legato alle condizioni inaccettabili della guerra moderna meccanica e chimica, piuttosto che legato ad un superamento della sua posizione nazionalista. Ma i saggi politici di Genève ou Moscou e L’Europe contre les patries dimostrano come Drieu riunisca in uno stesso rifiuto la guerra e il nazionalismo che genera il primo. Il sentimento del patriottismo non corrisponde ala realtà delle cose. Esso è sorpassato. Cosa significa essere un patriota francese in un’Europa aperta ai grandi imperi? “Aujord’hui la France ou l’Allemagne, c’est trop petit” (…).

Rifiutando ogni forma di particolarismo nazionalismo nazionale Drieu esorta i Francesi a “mourir comme Français, à renaitre comme hommes” per poi diventare degli europei. La sua presa di posizione contro le patrie e il nazionalismo ha un corollario positivo: la sua professione di fede europea. (…) La sua speranza nella unione europea si colora, come nella maggior parte dei casi, di pacifismo morale e politico, che può sembrare paradossale in un futuro teorico del fascismo. “Les seuls adversaires de la guerre dans notre societé sons les objecteurs de coscience”. A costoro Drieu dedica un capitolo in Socialisme Fasciste parlandone con ammirazione e simpatia. Nella parte finale di L’Europe contre les patries fa sua la loro tesi. Sotto forma di dialogo col suo “io” Drieu dichiara che nell’evento di una guerra europea rifiuterà la mobilitazione poiché, se come uomo considera la guerra moderna il “geste obscene de la mort”, come europeo vede la sola speranza di sopravvivenza dell’Europa in una unità pacifica. L’amore della nuova patria europea impone non la guerra ma la pace (…).

Nel 1922, in Mesure de la France, egli si muove nella direzione di una Europa delle patrie. (…) Considerando ancora la patria come una realtà che non poteva essere negata, egli propende verso l’idea di una alleanza tra le patrie europee, sotto la forma di una confederazione, dove potrebbe essere creata qualche struttura in comune. Ma nello stesso del 1922 , rifiuta ogni soluzione che si fondi sull’egemonia di una nazione federatrice. (…)

Nel 1928 la posizione di Drieu diventa molto più radicale sul modo di realizzare l’unità europea. Il nome di “Ginevra”, presente nel titolo del suo saggio, indica come in questo periodo Drieu crede che la Società delle nazioni sia l’agente della unificazione europea. La sua speranza di vedere realizzare una unificazione europea sotto il segno liberale lo porta ad ammirare l’azione di alcuni politici: come “l’effort admirable et fécond d’Aristide Briand”. (…)

L’unificazione europea non è solo un’idea, non è solo un progetto morale. Drieu prende posizione anche sulle forze sociali ed economiche che debbono operare prr la sua realizzazione. Egli si rende conto che il sistema economico è un importante agente di unificazione (…) Negli anni Venti, dal 1925 al 1929, Drieu fa appello alla forza del sistema capitalista. Spera in un neo-capitalismo intelligente e riformatore che rinunci alla concorrenza selvaggia che regnava sia tra le azioni che all’interno d queste. L’alleanza tra capitalismo e nazionalismo non può essere, secondo Drieu, che accidentale; la logica stessa dell’evoluzione del capitalismo deve condurlo, se esso vuole sopravvivere, all’internazionalismo (…) Drieu sostiene i nuovi capitalisti, agenti di un sistema industriale intelligente, poiché li considera forze rivoluzionarie che concorrono alla realizzazione della unità europea».

Abbiamo paragonato Drieu La Rochelle a un viandante che bussa a tutte le porte, consapevole – come pochi suoi contemporanei lo erano stati – dei tempi tremendi che si andavano preparando, fin dall’epoca della conferenza di Versailles che, chiudendo il capitolo della prima guerra mondiale, apriva le ragioni per lo scoppio della seconda.

Tipica, in proposito, è stata la sua illusione che la Società delle Nazioni potesse svolgere il ruolo storico di tenere a battesimo la nascita della nuova Europa unita: illusione generosa e, a suo modo, non del tutto sbagliata, se gli uomini che erano allora alla guida dell’Europa avessero posseduto un po’ più di lungimiranza e un po’ più di saggezza. Invece, come è noto, la Società delle Nazioni divenne quasi subito un supplemento di potere per le ambizioni egemoniche della Gran Bretagna e della Francia, svuotandola di ogni credibilità e di ogni significato ideale.

Il risultato di quella miopia, di quel gretto egoismo nazionalista è noto: sia la Gran Bretagna che la Francia perdettero tanto i loro imperi coloniali, quanto il loro ruolo di potenze mondiali, subito dopo la fine della seconda guerra mondiale: avevano sacrificato una splendida occasione di mettersi all’avanguardia dell’unità europea per inseguire la chimera di una splendida autosuffcienza «imperiale», per la quale non possedevano né i mezzi, né la credibilità ideologica (dopo aver combattuto contro Hitler in nome della libertà dei popoli di tutto il mondo).

Che dire, dunque, del sogno europeista di Drieu La Rochelle?

Anche se, oggi, è di gran moda esercitarsi nel tiro al bersaglio sugli sconfitti e stracciarsi le vesti davanti agli errori e alle contraddizioni dei perdenti, nondimeno bisognerebbe recuperare quel minimo di onestà intellettuale per rendere atto a uomini come Drieu La Rochelle che il loro sogno non è stato solo e unicamente uno sbaglio; che un’Europa diversa e migliore avrebbe potuto nascere, e la tragedia della seconda guerra mondiale avrebbe potuto essere evitata, se altri uomini generosi avessero condiviso quel medesimo sogno.