The curse of Hiroshima

To date, the release of the world’s first atomic bomb from the US is justified.

by Dirk Pohlmann

Does Germany, or anny other country, need their “own” nuclear bomb? Sometimes this is discussed seriously, recently by Christian Hacke in the “Welt am Sonntag”. Before talking that way, one should first realize what atomic bombing actually means: genocide and unimaginable suffering. While Auschwitz is widely recognized as a terrible injustice, the second major human crime of the twentieth century is still partially justified by the perpetrators.Hiroshima was “necessary” to end the war against Japan. This is not only disgusting, it is also historically wrong, because much indicates that the bomb was above all a threat to Moscow.

The topic has kept me busy, on the one hand because as a student I had the Jesuit and philosophy professor Helmut Erlinghagen as a university teacher, who witnessed the attack on Hiroshima as a young man in the local Jesuit monastery there. He has told me in many private conversations about the apocalyptic consequences of helping the medical and nursing people through the helpless efforts of the monastery, as well as communicating his arguments and conclusions of reflection on his life theme. Second, as a journalist, I later interviewed Lieutenant Colonel Daniel McGovern, who was sent to Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a US military cameraman about a month after the blast to document the impact of the bomb on buildings and people. McGovern was a hard-nosed man, but the experiences in the atomically destroyed cities had rocked him to the core. And I’ve made a documentary about the history of Israeli nuclear weapons. The state of Israel is uniquely associated with both issues, Auschwitz and Hiroshima, and it wanted to be able to threaten a “new Hiroshima to prevent a new Auschwitz,” as historian Dr. Avner Cohen in my film.


When Daniele Ganser announced my first talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki on his Facebook page, there were readers who critically commented on how much these events are past, that today there are more important topics, casually speaking, why I would be dealing with old stuff to make money out of it.


In fact, Hiroshima is a topic as relevant as Auschwitz. But it is treated completely differently. Only a few people would come, for example. The idea of ​​calling Auschwitz an old junk, and who would do that in public, would soon be unemployed and socially isolated.


Discussions about Hiroshima, however, take place in a completely different thought environment.


The fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not treated with the same level of attention and moral intensity is, on sober observation, evidence of public failure. The failure has causes. They must be combated as urgently as persistently. For rational, pragmatic and moral reasons. Hiroshima is a topic of the future.


I want to substantiate this thesis, which sounds like provocation, but is reality management.


The atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with their approximately 100,000 dead immediately after dropping off and another 130,000 people who died miserably by the end of 1945, it was common sense, were terrible, but necessary to end World War II. An American invasion of Japan would have cost the lives of up to 1 million US soldiers and countless Japanese soldiers and civilians because the Japanese had fought with sticks and stones to the bitter end, as the kamikaze proved. It was only the shock of the use of nuclear weapons that led the Japanese leadership to capitulate. Since then, the cruel nuclear weapons have been regarded as peace guarantors, their existence prevented a nuclear war so far.


These arguments form the Hiroshima myth. They are invariably wrong.


The academic world has long been debating whether the Japanese would have surrendered without nuclear weapons deployments and whether the nuclear weapons missions were the cause of capitulation. Like no other topic, comparable to the slavery and murder of the Native Americans, this discussion is “patriotic” in the USA. It’s about more than history, it’s about the self-image of the United States.

The US historians Gar Alperovitz and Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, who has Japanese roots and speaks Japanese, Russian and English and can read all the essential documents in the original, have made substantial contributions. Gar Alperovitz has shown that the need for nuclear bombs has been called into question, especially by US military forces.

There are a lot of quotes,who prove this:

General Dwight D. Eisenhower, later US President: “..the Japanese were ready to surrender and there was no need to throw these dreadful things on them.”

Admiral William D. Leahy, chief of staff under the two US war presidents Roosevelt and Truman:

“I believe that the use of these barbaric weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki has not made any significant contribution to our warfare against Japan. The Japanese were already beaten and ready to surrender because of the effective naval blockade and successful bombing of conventional weapons. “-” My feeling is that by being the first to use such a thing, we have become the ethical standard of the barbarians. ”

Norman Cousins ​​on General McArthur:

“A dark age had taken over. I have not been taught to wage war in this way, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

“He replied that he saw no military justification for launching the atomic bomb. The war could have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as they later did anyway, that the institution of the Tenno would be maintained.

Paul Nitze Vice-Chairman of the Commission on the Evaluation of the Strategic Bomb War:

“Based on a detailed investigation of all facts and supported by the testimony of the Japanese leadership, the evaluation commission came to the conclusion that Japan would surely have surrendered before December 31, 1945 and, most likely, before November 1, 1945, even if the atomic bombs would not have been discarded, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated”.

Gar Alperovitz also stated that the atomic destruction of the two cities was directed primarily as a demonstration of power to the Soviet Union was, the future power competitor, with whom the US in Potsdam at the negotiated about the post-war order. It was not about ending the war with Japan. And the invasion of Japan would have killed 40,000 Americans, not a million, according to US military calculations. However, why should the US president have sacrificed even one soldier if the atom bombs could end the war?

Tsuyoshi Hasegawa proved that atomic bombs were not the key factor in Japan’s capitulation. The Japanese leaders, especially the military, were somewhat indifferent to the civilian dead, interested only in the operational capability of the strike forces. The bombing of Tokyo in 1945 had killed more people than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, about 100,000 inhabitants of a city full of wooden houses. The US Air Force burned the Japanese by the hundreds of thousands, that was the daily routine of the war. The atomic bombs were not out of the ordinary for the Japanese military. They were just a new kind of mass killing. The Japanese leadership clung to the hope of mediation by the Soviet Union, which had not declared war on Japan until August 8, 1945; the Soviet Union was neutral to Japan. When US bomber crews crashed into Vladivostok after attacks on Japan, they were interned like Germans or Britons in Switzerland. Only when Soviet Union declared war on Japan and the Soviet forces in Manchuria like a hot knife through butter, only slowed down by the supply of gasoline, only when the two-front war made all hopes for a negotiated capitulation nullified, the Japanese leadership gave up.

Alperovitz and Hasegawa are now in the US under constant attack from a patriotic-revisionist Historical Guild, which tries to discredit their work and described as unscientific, much as Daniele Ganser does with his research on Gladio.

The reason is the same in both cases. It is about the moral claim of the USA, the self-insurance, not only to be the only superpower, but also the only good superpower. No Machiavellian empire that dominates world politics with lies and deceit, with coups and political murders. World War II is called “The Good War” in the US, it was the war against evil. The conclusion of the war was the use of nuclear weapons, a story from a Hollywood script, the “extraordinary” (exceptional) nation had at the last minute the super-weapon available, it saves the heroes, the super-weapon ends the war, and serves for all Future as foundation and guarantor of supremacy. The real story of the atomic bomb but looks different from the Hiroshima myth, darker. The atomic bomb was designed with the help of emigrated scientists, the one fear worldwide Nazi rule. What if Hitler would build the bomb first? This threat even led Albert Einstein to speak out for an American nuclear bomb program – which he later regretted. When the Manhattan Project began, it was not clear whether it would become the most expensive scientific failure of all time, or in the end a new superweapon. It was the most gigantic secret weapons program that existed until then. 150,000 employees and the sum of about 2 billion US dollars sounding in the 1940s after Fantastillionen were used. And when the bomb is finally finished, the program is a success, the war against Germany won. At the end of the bomb there is – almost – not enough war left to try it out. Of course you wanted to try them after this mammoth effort. The ultimate power tool, the superweapon that will change everything, should also explode. About Menschen.Genauer said, two bombs are supposed to explode. Because there is a uranium bomb falling on Hiroshima and a plutonium bomb that will destroy Nagasaki. They are based on two different design principles. While relying on the primitive gun principle of the Hiroshima bomb, scientists are not so sure of the Nagasaki Bomb’s complex implosion principle. This bomb type is tested in the desert of New Mexico in July 1945. Successful. The message is leaked to President Truman in Potsdam, where he informs Stalin that the US has a super-weapon. Truman is astonished to find that Stalin reacts with equanimity. What Truman does not know: Stalin is informed by his intelligence services about the nuclear project of the US.Now it’s about which target the bomb is to be dropped. Japan has been largely razed, but a few cities have spared US strategists, including Hiroshima. It was not bombed because it was not a military target, unimportant. But geography is the ideal destination for the largest field experiment in history. The city is intact, one will be able to observe the before-and-after effect very well after the atomic explosion. Some scholars argue for dropping the bomb over a naval port, or conducting a spectacular demonstration, e.g. over a forest of huge trees, which would then be mapped like mile after mile as a pattern and burn spectacularly in the center – a graphic presentation that would kill only a few civilians. But the politicians want to see the thing explode, demonstrating over a functioning city and impact. So Hiroshima is burned, with a population consisting mostly of women and children. Prof Erlinghagen estimated that 90% of the burned women and children were. The bomb was equivalent to 13,000 tons of explosives. That is not much. By today’s standards, a tactical battlefield weapon. Today’s nuclear weapons are in the megaton range, which is a difference between hand grenade and air mine. After the explosion of the atomic bomb over the city, people move as living corpses sunken over debris under which their relatives plead for help. If they shake hands, you can peel off the burnt, contaminated skin like a glove. Black, radioactive rain is falling. The devourers develop wild flesh, begging to be killed. Infants sit crying next to their dying mothers. The military chief of the atomic bomb program General Lesley Groves claims in the US: “Nuclear death is a beautiful death.” The news of an unusual bomb has just reached the Japanese government, which cares little for its attention to the Soviet Union the second bomb falls, of which she knows nothing yet. The Japanese leadership does not have time to surrender, but that’s not the point. The second bomb is dropped because you want to try both bomb types. It should fall on Kokura, but there are poor visibility conditions. That’s how Nagasaki finds it. But did not the atomic bombs somehow end the war? Are not they justified, despite all the cruelty? The argument is therefore that the end justifies the means. Is that correct? If the concentration camps had ended the war, would we discuss whether it would justify it? This, too, is an example of how we got used to strange reasons we would consider obscene in other cases. Had Stalin been the first Nuclear weapons used against the civilian population, then that would probably be cited as evidence of the incomparable brutality and inhumanity of communism. But why are we so lenient with the US In the US it is argued that the atomic bombs at the end of the war on both sides many Msaved lives of the US because they made US invasion superfluous. But neither the military strategists of the Japanese nor the Americans were interested in the lives of the other side. This is a fairy-tale lie intended to legitimize the use of weapons of mass destruction against civilians, mostly women and children. BOMB chief Curtis LeMay said, “There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you fight a people, you do not even try to fight against armed forces. So I do not care so much that I kill so-called innocent bystanders. “When the war is over, US cameramen and doctors are sent to Hiroshima. It is creating an organization that will record the effects of radioactivity on the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, which is medically monitoring the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and will record the suffering and deaths of people meticulously. Doctors do not treat their patients, they just watch, they collect data. The population is a herd of laboratory rats, which is scientifically examined in a gigantic field experiment. What you have to understand: Atomic bombs are not weapons. They do not serve to purposefully prevent other soldiers from killing. They are weapons of mass destruction directed at the population of a country. Governments threaten to destroy men, women, children and animals. With the total annihilation of a country and its population. With the destruction of civilization. In the US nuclear war planning of the 1960s, Moscow was to be razed to the ground with more than 160 nuclear weapons. The data for Russian warheads against New York and Washington differ only gradually. The purpose of using nuclear weapons is to destroy the population. The definition of terrorism is: threat or execution of acts of violence to achieve a political goal. That means nuclear weapons of mass destruction State terrorism. During the Second World War, the belligerent powers began to bomb cities. The beginning of the crime was the bombing of Guernica, Warsaw and London by the Nazis, but the destruction of the population was perfected in Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo. It was scientifically tested how explosive bombs were used to create flammable material, destroy the firefighter’s water supply, and then set fires that grow into firestorms and kill as many civilians as possible. The atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a multiplication of one already for everyday use torn crime. Today, these crimes are being planned inconceivably. It is curious that nuclear weapons have a different status to chemistry and biological weapons. Chemical weapons and biological weapons were ostracized soon after the First World War. They are considered brutal and barbaric. Meanwhile, chemical weapons are even prohibited. The alleged use of “barbaric” chemical weapons now serves as an occasion for military strikes by powers that are outraged when dozens of people die but whose planners expect nuclear weapons to be mega-dead. Nuclear weapons are even more cruel and barbaric than chemical weapons. If you do not believe it, you should listen to the descriptions from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nuclear weapons also harm future generations as well as the living space. They are despicable, but not outlawed. Anyone preparing their mission is despicable. If we take it exactly, we would have to arrest and detain the foreign ministers of the nuclear powers at the airport because of state terrorism. But because atomic weapons of mass destruction are the power base of the world’s most important states, their image is carefully cultivated. In the case of chemical weapons, the audience is often shown the effect in the form of twitching, dying children with foam over their mouths. We know nuclear weapons as shapely metal objects, cleanly painted and neatly tidied up. From time to time we also get to see a scary beautiful golden explosion mushroom. But never the effect of the bomb. We plebeians should not be fooled by this disinformation. We should be aware that governments are ready to sacrifice their entire population for power. Nazi Germany and Japan are examples of this. All superpowers calculate the extermination of their population. It is in the power of governments to plan wars, but not our interest in being ruled to be released for destruction. When the machinery starts, it can not be stopped. Our goal must therefore be the abolition of nuclear weapons before they can be used. But that will not be the goal of governments. The ruled will have to impose this goal on governments. If we let things go, what has happened so far happens. Atomic weapons of mass destruction are beautifully talked about as immutable, as a necessary evil stationed, although they have already brought us several times to the brink of disaster. The last boss of the now abolished strategic US bomber command, Four Stars General George Lee Butler said after his retirement, ” We survived the Cold War without a nuclear holocaust through a combination of skill, luck, and divine intervention, with divine intervention arguably the most important. “He is now committed to the elimination of all nuclear weapons. And what about Hiroshima and Auschwitz? The argument of Prof. Erlinghagen reads: “There were two crimes against humanity during World War II. The industrial genocide of the Jews and the first use of nuclear weapons of mass destruction against the civilian population. Auspicious is recognized evil. Even the neo-Nazis do not say that Auschwitz was somehow good and right, they deny it. Everyone knows. The atomic weapons of mass destruction, however, are not recognized as evil. They are not outlawed. Even if the dimension of Auschwitz was greater, what threatens us more in the present and in the future, what has the bigger dimension now? We should by no means forget Auschwitz, but would it not be right and important that we deal with the atomic threat much more mentally and in discussions? ”

Translate by alfonso



China’s elite troops head to Russia for massive Vostok 2018 war games as trade tariff conflict grows with US

PLA troops will put their combat-readiness to the test in Moscow’s biggest military exercises since the Soviet era

The Chinese military will send about 3,200 troops to take part in Russia’s biggest war games in more than 35 years, putting their combat-readiness to the test after a massive overhaul of the People’s Liberation Army. The troops, equipped with an array of weaponry including 30 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, will participate in the Vostok 2018 exercises in the Tsugol training range in Russia’s Far East Trans-Baikal region later this month, China’s defense ministry said. The ministry said the involvement was meant strengthen cooperation between the two armed forces and improve their ability to deal jointly with security threats. Military personnel from Mongolia were also invited to take part, Russian news agency Sputnik said. Hong Kong-based military expert Song Zhongping said the Chinese troops were elite forces from the Northern Theatre Command and would be exposed to a range of conditions.

“The Vostok 2018 training will expand from … areas such as counterterrorism, anti-piracy and disaster relief missions, to more real combat training and counter-attack drills,” Song said.

China to send strategic bombers, fighter jets for war games in Russia

It is unclear how many Russian forces will be involved in the exercises, but Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said this week that the war games would be the biggest drills since 1981 when up to 150,000 Soviet Army troops were mobilised for exercises.

Beijing-based military observer Zhou Chenming said the PLA was keen for more exchanges with Russia’s experienced armed forces because Chinese troops had not been in combat since the country’s last war with Vietnam in the late 1970s.

“China also wants to show its support for Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is facing various diplomatic challenges, especially criticism from the US Secretary of State [Mike Pompeo] over Moscow’s annexation of Crimea,” Zhou said.

He said the site chosen for the war games was deliberate.

“Putin wants to use the Russian military’s war games with the PLA to show its military muscle, but he doesn’t want to irritate the United States too much and raise the possibility of a misjudgment by the Trump administration, so he chose the less sensitive Trans-Baikal region in the Far East, far from US allies in Europe,” Zhou said.

Chinese military set for capability boost with delivery of Russian Su-35 fighter jets

The Chinese defense ministry said the PLA’s participation in Vostok 2018 was not aimed at a third party.

However, Song said that the war games “will definitely put pressure on the US”, which is stepping up its trade war against China.

“But it doesn’t mean China and Russia have a military alliance. Beijing will still stick to its rule of being a non-aligned country,” Song said.

“The war games just indicate that both Beijing and Moscow feel the need to improve military relations to cope with foreign provocations in the current critical moment.”

However, Macau-based military analyst Antony Wong Dong said the Vostock 2018 exercises were a “legacy of a cold war mentality” and the PLA’s participation might stir up more hostility between Beijing and Washington.

by alfonso



The Absolute Futility of ‘Global Dominance’ in the 21st Century

It seems certain that the foolish chest-pounders now in charge of our nation have found a time machine to transport them back to 19th century where they have decided to mimic the slogan of faded English imperialism that “the sun never sets on the British Empire.” How else to explain their recent proclamations that the United States must have “global energy dominance” and “American dominance in space”? Calling for global dominance in the 21st century, with 7 billion humans on the planet and only 325 million Americans — about 4 percent — is not only inane, it’s dangerous and absolutely futile.

Leading the pack on the call for “global energy dominance” is none other than former Montanan Ryan Zinke, now secretary of the Interior in the Trump administration. Of course Zinke has yet to explain why we should drill, frack, mine and export every possible source of fossil fuel in our nation. Nor has he detailed any benefits that will accrue to the populace from such a policy.

What we do know is that Trump and Zinke are willing to destroy existing national monuments, wildlife refuges, seashores and endangered species to achieve their bizarre fantasy of global energy dominance.

One might well wonder why any nation would want to exhaust its own reserves of fossil fuels as quickly as possible knowing they are non-renewable. One might also wonder why selling off those resources to our global economic competitors makes any sense whatsoever. And finally, one might question why a man who rode his “America First” slogan to the White House wouldn’t take care of America first — instead of leaving us with the inevitable land, water and air pollution as well as the associated illnesses and deaths from massive fossil fuel energy production.

Of course the Republican elephants loudly proclaiming the need for this disastrous energy policy never bother to mention the real elephant in the room — global warming. Forward-thinking nations are increasingly turning toward renewable energy sources such as sun, wind and tides. But we are sliding backward in an enormous cloud of carbon dioxide, dooming not only our nation, but the entire globe to an uninhabitable world of extreme temperatures and drought that are already producing record wildfires, storms, floods and rising sea levels.

Upping the ante beyond destruction of Earth’s land, seas and atmosphere by fossil fuels is Trump’s newly announced “Space Force,” which is rooted in the concept that the entire planet and its surrounding space is one giant battlefield. But just for a moment, consider what it means to militarize space.

The idea that one nation can or should control space is on its face farcical. It’s too late for that, although it seems Trump and his “best people” are strangers to that truth. The reality, however, is that our orbital space is already filled with junk. Thousands of satellites from national and private sources are already sharing space with chunks and pieces of delivery rockets, defunct satellites and debris.

Perhaps someone should let our “very stable genius” of a president know that the Chinese have already successfully destroyed one of their own defunct satellites with a missile — and have upgraded their capabilities since then. Or explain how a crashing satellite containing plutonium could devastate our nation for generations.

On the other hand, it might be easier to take Trump up on his plan and make him the first commander-in-chief to be launched into space — permanently. It would be even better if Zinke went, too, and became the first secretary of the Exterior.

More articles by:

George Ochenski is a columnist for the Missoulian, where this essay originally appeared.


Why China will hit back at Donald Trump in trade row, but not too hard

Government sources say the country’s leaders want to contain the fallout from the tariffs tit-for-tat to ensure the process of reform and opening up continues

President Xi Jinping has told Chinese officials that the country must pick its battles carefully amid the increasing trade tensions to ensure that nothing derails the country’s process of reform and opening up, government sources have said.

Xi has repeatedly reminded aides that while Donald Trump’s provocations mean Beijing must retaliate, they must try to contain the damage to prevent the stand-off from compromising its chosen path, a government source told the South China Morning Post.

“The message from the top is that ‘nothing can stop China from opening up’,” the official, who was briefed on the president’s instructions, said.“It is particularly important for 2018 when China is celebrating the 40th anniversary of its ‘reform and opening up’ policy.” Although Beijing was frustrated by Washington’s rejection of its offer to buy more US goods as a way of easing tensions last month, its response has been measured so far. In the three weeks since Trump indicated he would push ahead with his plan to impose tariffs, Xi has met multinational executives to tell them that China’s doors will only open wider in future and the government said it would increase the number of sectors that foreign businesses can invest in.

US ‘so scared’ of China’s progress? Party mouthpiece doesn’t think so

Beijing has also tried to manage the news to avoid provoking American ire. State media has been told to keep quiet about Made in China 2025 – a state-backed plan to promote the hi-tech sector which Trump’s administration has frequently criticised – and the customs agency released figures that showed Chinese exports to America weakening ahead of schedule. Despite speculation that China would pre-empt the US 25 per cent tariffs – due to come into force on US$34 billion worth of products Friday – by announcing a similar set of countermeasures first, the Ministry of Finance insisted on Wednesday that China wouldn’t “fire the first shot”. These olive branches are part of a broad strategy decided by the top leadership that the trade row with the US, which could alter the trajectory of China’s economic development, must not be allowed to distract it from the policy of reform and opening up. In 1978 the former paramount leader Deng Xiaoping decided to embrace market reforms and integrate China into the global capitalist economy, unleashing a nearly uninterrupted four-decade boom that transformed China from an economic backwater to the world’s second biggest economy. It is a legacy that Xi is trying to continue and he has highlighted the significance of the anniversary on a number of occasions this year.

Although Beijing has introduced tit-for-tat tariffs on some US products, ranging from cars to soybeans, it has refrained from releasing specific and qualitative countermeasures. Instead, it has tried to emphasis its free trade stance. At a press conference on Thursday, Ministry of Commerce spokesman Gao Feng, when asked about whether Beijing would target US firms in China, replied that the government would protect the “legitimate interests of all foreign businesses in China” and help firms relieve the possible impact from any trade war.

Will Chinese President Xi Jinping promote boycotts of US brands like Coca-Cola and McDonald’s?

Trump has threatened punitive tariffs of up to US$450 billion worth of Chinese products, which could prove a major drag on the country’s exports and growth. This threat has fanned speculation as to whether Beijing would shelve its drive to curb risky lending – one of Xi’s flagship policies – and embrace fiscal stimulus and monetary easing instead. The decision by the People’s Bank of China to unleash US$100 billion funds into the banking system, effective from Thursday, has only served to amplify such speculation. But Vice-Premier Liu He, Xi’s right-hand man, this week made it clear that any easing would be tactical and the policy of curbing debt would continue. He told the first meeting of the Financial Stability and Development Committee, that China had “favourable conditions to win big risk control battles and cope with external risks” and its debt reduction efforts would continue “as planned”. It would not be in Xi’s interests to rush into a full-blown trade war with the US as it could cause unwanted disruption to its economy and the president’s “Chinese dream” of transforming society and increasing prosperity, according to Henry Chan Hing Lee, an adjunct researcher with the East Asian Institute at the National University of Singapore. “There is no doubt that China must chart its own path of development when it is moving towards the goal of the Chinese dream and challenging the US on global leadership,” said Chan. The “collision between America First and the Chinese dream will take years if not decades to resolve”, he warned.

Time for a reality check for China’s wishful US trade war thinkers, Chinese professor warns

Although it is relatively easy for China to open its domestic markets further or promise to import more, analysts say it will be harder to move away from its state-led growth model and claw back the government’s omnipresence in the economy. The US increasingly views Chinese state-owned enterprises with suspicion. Earlier this week a US government agency recommended that the state-owned operator China Mobile should be barred from the US market as national security threat. But Xi views these companies as the backbone of the economy and the foundation of China’s future economic might, Ding Shuang, chief Greater China economist of Standard Chartered Bank, said. The Communist Party’s fondness for state-owned enterprises is “unlikely to change under Xi although it’s possible Beijing will introduce more market competition,” Ding said.

Additional reporting by Zhou Xin

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: China will hit back at Trump tariffs … but not too hardChina will hit back at Trump, but not enough to disrupt reform process

China’s President Xi Jinping to US Defense Secretary James Mattis:

China’s President Xi Jinping to US Defense Secretary James Mattis: “We are not colonialists and cause no chaos” Chinese President Xi Jinping received US Defense Secretary James Mattis in Beijing on Wednesday. We will not go the way of expansionism and colonialism and cause no chaos in the world, “Xi assured the US minister. The vast Pacific may house China, the United States and other countries. China and the United States should promote the development of bilateral relations according to the principle of mutual respect and win-win cooperation. Xi Jinping said at the meeting that the Chinese people want to build a large, modern socialist country. The People’s Republic will undeterred tread the path of peaceful development. The good development of China-US relations serves both peoples and the peoples of other countries as well as peace, stability and prosperity in the world and in the region. Both countries have common interests in many areas. There is more common ground on both sides than there are differences of opinion. Both sides should promote bilateral relations according to the principle of mutual respect and the cooperative win-win situation. Regarding the question of Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity, China’s position was resolute and clear: any land left by the ancestors should not be abandoned. We will not go the way of expansionism and colonialism and cause no chaos in the world, “Xi assured the US minister. “The vast Pacific can host China, the United States and other countries. China and the United States should promote the development of bilateral relations according to the principle of mutual respect and win-win cooperation. ” Xi also said that the relationship between the two armies was an important part of the bilateral relations between the two countries. Both sides should strengthen contacts at all levels and build mechanisms. In addition, both sides should strengthen mutual trust, deepen cooperation and promote relations between the two armies, China’s president continued. Mattis said the US attached great importance to relations between both armies and both countries. Washington wants to strengthen strategic exchanges with Beijing, increase mutually beneficial cooperation and avoid conflict and confrontation.

transl. from. german to english by alfonso

China dominates the world

The unipolar world of US hegemony is over.Not all have noticed.So, before we discuss what the rise of China means, we should quickly take off the blinders and look at the world as it looks when viewed from a global perspective, not the provincial gaze of a West that continues to be the navel of the WestWorld holds.Those days are over.

Is the rapprochement of North Korea and South Korea a diplomatic coup by Donald Trump?Does this show the power of the USA?No.This shows only the total lack of understanding of Western observers for the balance of power between China and the United States.
Instead, the essence of the development is a rapprochement of South Korea to China, a liberation of South Korea from the status of an anti-Chinese front-line state of the United States.And this development has been apparent for some time.There is a process of diplomatic approach.On the sidelines of the ASEAN summit in Da Nang, Vietnam, the two heads of state Xi Jinping and Moon Jae-in declared their common intention “to normalize exchange and cooperation in all areas as quickly as possible.” [1]

USA loses, China wins: This was preceded by a violent conflict between the two states after South Korea decided to install a US-made missile defense system called THAAD. China relinquished this relapse into old front-line behavior with the use of its strongest weapon: the power of the Chinese economy.   Even a Chinese boycott of tourism cost South Korea between 6.8 and 8.5 billion dollars within a year. Tourists from China make up half of 17 million South Korean travelers annually. In the wake of the THAAD conflict, the state tourism authority ordered Chinese travel agents to stop offering group travel to South Korea. As a result, the number of Chinese tourists fell by 60 percent.   In addition, China attacked the South Korean economic conglomerate Lotte. The Group was penalized for its advertising practices. A large number of Lotte supermarkets in China have closed due to fire safety regulations. [2]

Since then, South Korea is rowing back. It is a difficult tightrope walk for the country to keep its balance between ever-expanding China and its traditional ally USA. The trend, however, is clear. For many years there have been conflicts over US military bases in South Korea. At the same time, the South Korean’s most important trading partner by far is China.  South Korea exported $ 124 billion worth of goods to China in 2016.

At the same time, South Korea imports twice as much from China ($ 93.7 bn) than it does from the United States ($ 42.3 bn). [3]   The export nation South Korea thus achieved one third of its foreign trade surplus from trade with China.  To misunderstand the reunification overtures between North and South Korea as Donald Trump’s demonstration of power is, in this context, a first-class analytical donkey.  In the case of a unification of Korea, China would gain a powerful ally, and the US would lose its usual strategic position in an allied state.

Asia booming! All of Asia is forming a gigantic economic area: Indonesia’s most important export destinations (265 million inhabitants) were in this order in 2016: China, USA, Japan, Singapore, India. In terms of imports, the United States then completely smeared off: China, Singapore, Japan, Malaysia and South Korea delivered the most goods to the gigantic Indonesian market. [4]   In almost all of the other 48 nation-states of Asia with its 4.5 million inhabitants, the most important trading partner is China, with a rapidly rising trend. An exception in the wider area of ​​China is only India, with 1.3 billion people and its robust economic growth. But even this situation is about to change dramatically: In 2017, the Indian-Chinese trade volume reached a historic high, but still fairly clear $ 84.44 billion. However, exports from India to China increased by a whopping 40% within a year, [5]   The third economic elephant in Asia besides China and India (still far behind) is still Japan. And this country is firmly on the side of the Western alliance. With China threatens war rather than cooperation.

Oh yes?As so often, this general knowledge is outdated and wrong.Japan is working hard to improve its relations with the People’s Republic.[6]
There is talk of a restart of relations [7].Again, one main reason for the rapprochement is the rapidly increasing trading volume with China.Although Japan’s largest export market in 2016 was still the US ($ 130 billion).But China ($ 113 billion) is catching up to overtake, while the Chinese economy already exports twice as much to Japan as the US.[8th]

In fact, China has outstripped the USA in industrial production.In 2011, the 111-year dominance of the United States ended, and China took the lead in global output.(Martin Jacques: “When China Rules the World.”, P. 186)

China is building fiscal institutions.  The irrevocable shift of world economic weights from west to east is the most significant fact of contemporary history. The pace of modernization in Asia is breathtaking – and no one should believe that the consequences are purely economic.  So far, we are talking about a world built according to the will of the West. With the partial

exception of the UN, which pays that special status with the greatest incapacity to act, all the major institutions of the world are created and dominated by the West.   It is simply silly to believe that this institutional dominance will persist as China ascends to giants. And the big chairs have already begun. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank AIIB [9] is a China-initiated response to the IMF and the World Bank. The list of “regional” member countries participating in the AIIB is already impressive [10], although the “region” of the AIIB appears to be very broad.  Also, Israel and Australia are listed there. Russia is of course, but also Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Oman. Sensational is the list of” superregionals” member countries. Austria, Canada, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, Holland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Poland, Norway, Malta, Luxembourg, Ireland, Iceland, Hungary, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland …

Great Britain is also there. The British were sensationally the first to get in, although Obama had expressly forbidden it.  On the waiting list for a recording are currently Kuwait, Bahrain, Brazil, Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Kenya, South Africa, Sudan, Greece, Romania, Armenia and many other countries. And so only the USA is missing today in this Who’s Who of the global economy.  Even without the United States, the AIIB is” of America” ​​- many American nations are already member countries! – suddenly became more important than the World Bank and IMF. It is also equipped with more capital. The show runs without the Americans, who are once more offended in the corner. Another strategic feat of Barack Obama. Chinese sunflower seeds for Tehran We should finally begin to grasp the following: No region and no land of the earth will remain unaffected by the rise of China – and even now the Chinese factor is far more powerful than we realize. Take Iran. The US and Israel are massively pressuring a war with Iran. Europe is slowing down. What is China doing? Nothing? Because it does not speak in this conflict situation? Because it does not exclude any sanctions against anyone? Because China is not shifting troops or raising drones or fighter planes?   China could do all that. It would have considerable military potential. But that China does not do that does not mean that China is inactive in the conflict over Iran. China’s answer once again was infrastructure and trade. A few days after Donald Trump abandoned the nuclear agreement with Iran, China announced the opening of a new railroad and was the first to ship a freight train carrying 1,350 tons of sunflower seed. The runs from the city of Banyannur in north China’s Inner Mongolia via Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan 8,352 kilometers to Tehran. [11]   The trade distance from China to Iran is being shortened by 20 days compared to container ship transport as a result of this massive new infrastructure project. And while the US is putting pressure on its allies and many companies to stop working with Iran, and it is already clear that the Europeans will grumble, but once again follow Big Brother, China is doing just the opposite. Beijing sends an unequivocal message to Washington: We will continue to maintain normal trade relations with Iran.

In the past, Chinese companies and Russia have also been very effective in undermining Western sanctions.And the reluctance to submit to the US sanction dictates is increasing internationally.The Washington Post fears that China might even act as an intermediary for the Europeans this time to help them avoid US sanctions, and warns, “Trump’s Iran decision could weaken US sanctions threats in the long term.” The former US diplomatCarlos Pascual fears trouble-free oil sales of the Iranians via China and Russia in the whole world.[12]

Of course, a war in which the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia attack Iran together could also affect rail traffic to China and other trade.However, Chinese policymakers could also undermine the ever-waning wartime fortunes of US-led alliances …

China dominates that Internet Apart from that, the total fixation of the USA on its military trump card is no longer a sign of strength. The Americans are trying to make up for the fact that they are increasingly falling behind financially. But on the Internet, the US is the world’s number one powerhouse? That just looks like if you do not know anything about the world because you live in the West. Does Alibaba tell you something? [13]   The Chinese Internet giant is one of the ten most powerful companies in the world and had a market value of $ 527 billion in January 2018. Its online sales and profits in 2015 already exceeded the combined (!) Result of Walmart, Amazon, eBay and all other US competitors, In the media sector, Alibaba has recorded growth rates in the three-digit percentage range for years. Alibaba’s cloud operation is bigger than Google, Amazon or Microsoft. [14]   Recently, Alibaba also went on a shopping spree in Germany and got two big, fat companies from Rocket Internet’s portfolio. [15]   Meanwhile, we only discuss censorship in Germany when it comes to China and the Internet. This is a fundamentally legitimate, but of course completely hypocritical debate, which should distract from the increasing online censorship in our home. But most of all, we miss the actual story once again: The Internet is not purely “American”, it is increasingly an Asian event globally.

China dominates High-tech China will also technologically storm to the top. In the field of Artificial Intelligence, the Wall Street Journal warns Google and Intel of the impending Chinese dominance just a few days ago. [16]   While the west is slowly dawning that the old pole position could soon come under pressure, the train has long since left.   Forty percent of Huawei’s 170,000 employees work in research and development.   In the province of Guizhoe, there is now a 500-meter-wide radio telescope for the search for extraterrestrial life. The Sunway Taihu Light supercomputer is by far the fastest in the world. Similar sensational reports, which of course do not reach us in the German valley of the unsuspecting, exist in stem cell research or in the development of new batteries.   And the tech giants of the West are just beginning to come under pressure. China is currently attacking the drone market in the USA. The drone Mavic Pro, produced in China, flies faster and twice as high as the comparable product GoPro Karma, weighs 25 percent less, can fly 30 percent longer and costs $ 50 less. [17]   Trump now reacts with punitive tariffs and a trade war. For example, there has recently been a 25 percent penalty on Chinese robots.

At the same time, the Chinese robot industry is just starting to make a difference. The government plans to produce 150,000 industrial robots per year by 2020, from 260,000 to 2035, and it does not seem unrealistic to talk about 400,000 robots a year by 2030. [18]   In the context of these efforts, the Chinese Midea Group has bought for 4.5 billion euros 95% of the shares of Kuka, the German pride in robotics. [19]   Will Kuka from Augsburg now be punished with US punitive duties? Trump’s trade war is a miserable reaction to an unstoppable Chinese dynamic. The US will crash the war.

World power China: Good or bad? Is the rise of China good news or bad news? What does this shift mean for the world?   Well, before we talk about the consequences, we should recognize the fact:   The unipolar world of US hegemony is over. Not all have noticed.   So, before we discuss what the rise of China means, we should quickly take off the blinders and look at the world as it looks when viewed from a global perspective, not the provincial gaze of a West that continues to be the navel of the West World holds. Those days are over.   If we understand that, we can go on a hard journey to understand China. A country with 5000 years of history. Lao-Tse and Kung-Tse (Confucius) continue to shape Chinese governance today. They lived 2500 years ago. We are dealing here with an independent civilization, with an incredibly rich cultural heritage. I therefore recommend that you first read a few books about China, its history, its culture and philosophy.

And in everything that is behind the Chinese development model, one can still rightly criticize:   In itself, a democratization boost is unparalleled if the billion-dollar mass of Asians finally gains the weight in the world that the 200-year-old dictatorship of the West has deprived them of.


[1] THE DIPLOMAT: South Korea and China Make Amends. What Now? <Https://>

[2] QUARTZ: China inflicted a world of pain on South Korea in 2017, < on-tourism />

[3] OEC (The Observatory of Economic Complexity), Visualizations, South Korea, <;

[4] OEC (The Observatory of Economic Complexity), Visualizations, Indonesia, <;

[5] THE HINDU: India-China trade hits a record $ 84.4 billion, <;

[6] South China Morning Post: How a long-awaited hotline could pave the way for calmer China-Japan relations, < long-awaited hotline-Could-pave-way calmer china>

[7] THE DIPLOMAT: China-Japan Reset Continues With High-Level Economic Talks, <;

[8] OEC (The Observatory of Economic Complexity), Visualizations, Japan, <;

[9] The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB): Home, <;

[10] The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB): Members and Prospective Members of the Bank, <;

[11] XINHUANET: New freight train links Inner Mongolia and Iran, <;

[12] The Washington Post: China’s New Train Line to Iran Sends Message to Trump Well Keep Trading Anyway ?, < train-line-to-iran-sends-message-to-trump-well-keep-trading anyway /? noredirect = on & utm_term = .074af95153e8

[13] Alibaba, Home, <;

[14] wikipedia, Alibaba Group, <;

[15] FOUNDERS: Another Rocket startup sold to Alibaba, <;

[16] THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Google and Intel Beware: China Is Gunning for Dominance in AI Chips, < -dominance-in-ai-chips-1515060224> [17] South China Morning Post: Be afraid: China is on the path to global technology dominance, < global-technology-dominance>

[18] Internet of Business: China’s plan for global robotics dominance gather pace, <;

[19] Augsburger Allgemeine: That’s why the Chinese have bought Kuka, <;   This text was first published on 05/05/2018 on under the URL < damammt>. (License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

Article was published in Free21, written by Florian Ernst Kirner.

Translated from German by alfonso.



Skripal, poison gas, hacking, doping – strategies of tension and the great silence afterward.

(Nachdenkseiten) May 15, 2018

In many recent affairs, medial repetition has produced a non-evidence-based version of the events. Once the desired image had been installed, reporting – without considering new developments – was abruptly stopped and the generated message “parked” in the collective memory. There, the campaigns can be reactivated whenever needed. By Tobias Riegel.

It was only a few weeks ago that it seemed that no topic on the international scene was more significant than a suspected poison attack on UK-based Russian double agent Sergei Skripal. Building on the Skripal media campaign, economic sanctions and military aggression against the alleged perpetrator could be demanded of Russia and a worldwide atmosphere of tension – and distraction – created for weeks.

And then? No sooner had the prejudice of Russia been reinstated by the repetition of unjustified accusations and the misinterpretation of investigative reports, a sudden silence remained, which continues today. That’s why German media consumers do not learn that British intelligence agencies, for example, have recently admitted they cannot name a single suspect in the Skripal case.

Although the German media had spread the opposite, they did not say anything about the admission of British National Security Advisor Sir Mark Sedwill. Emotions replace insights – facts are not handed down It was similar with the sniper shots on the Kiev Maidan Square in 2014, the shooting down of the MH17 passenger aircraft over the Ukraine in the same year and, to a large extent, in the campaigns for Russian doping and computer hacking medial repetition generates a largely not evidence-based, but emotions-based version of the events. Once the desired message was installed, reporting was abruptly stopped and the generated image “parked” in the collective memory. If there are findings that contradict months later a media campaign, they are often not communicated. And such findings – in addition to the above-mentioned admission to the case Skripal – there were some in the recent past, without that they would have received a proper appreciation in the major German media: So were new developments to the Maidan massacre of the main media largely concealed, a press conference of Russia on the alleged poison gas attacks in the Syrian Duma not reported, but maliciously distorted, it was the embryonic (non-Russian) origin of the “telecom hacker” largely suppressed and a recent judgment of the International Sporting Court in Lausanne (CAS).

The statements of the Russian doping leniency Grigory Rodchenkov strongly relativized, largely hushed up. Media consumers are cheated out of their own opinions. The fact that an event is embezzled medially does not mean that it has proven something. For example, the Russian press conference on the Duma should not be presented here either as propaganda or as an example of the brilliant truth. But if media consumers do not even learn about the existence of a new development – even if it is doubtful – they are cheated out of the opportunity to form their own image. The issue of doping will develop strong media momentum in the coming weeks in view of the approaching World Cup in Russia.

In addition, ARD and its doping correspondent Hajo Seppelt have arrogantly ventured on the subject of “Russian state doping” in comparison to the international media landscape.

Now, the CAS has determined that the statements of the anti-Russian leniency Rodchenkov would be largely based on hearsay, so are largely worthless in court. In the ARD and other large German media one does not learn of it. Courts threaten the emotional basis of media campaigns. The example of the CAS ruling on doping makes it clear why the German mainstream media does not insist on legal approaches, why ordinary court rulings are not awaited and also not demanded by the media: Firstly, no court is needed for medial convictions, only pure power is enough range and repetition. On the other hand – as the CAS judgment shows – legal “subtleties” and meticulous investigations of the processes in the construction of an enemy structure are disturbing. Judgments made in the dry rational atmosphere of a court run the risk of dragging the ground under the feet of media-based media campaigns. The lawsuits inherent

Courts threaten the emotional basis of media campaigns

The example of the CAS ruling on doping makes it clear why the German mainstream media does not insist on legal approaches, why ordinary court rulings are not awaited and also not demanded by the media:

Firstly, no court is needed for medial convictions, only pure power is enough range and repetition. On the other hand – as the CAS judgment shows – legal “subtleties” and meticulous investigations of the processes in the construction of an enemy structure are disturbing. Judgments made in the dry rational atmosphere of a court run the risk of dragging the ground under the feet of media-based media campaigns. Accuracy inherent in court proceedings threatens the sphere of what is created and loved by the editors. As soon as this accuracy threatens to break into the vague, the emergency brake can be pulled, and the topic can be buried medially – but only for the time being. When needed (when the citizens only vaguely remember), it can be introduced as an additional “argument”, sometimes in the clenched form of numerous combined allegations, to make the confusion complete. If necessary, campaigns are reheated Green MEP Rebecca Harms has recently used this tactic to perfection in order to drum up a boycott of the World Cup in Russia: “The poison gas attack in Salisbury is just the latest chapter in Vladimir Putin’s mockery of our European values: arbitrary bombing of schools, hospitals and residential areas in Syria; the brutal military invasion of Ukraine; systematic hacker attacks; Disinformation campaigns; Optional interference; Attempts to weaken and destabilize the EU – all this is not on the calling card of a good World Cup host. ” None of the allegations stacked here can be described as proven by proper standards. Harms can, however, aim at the remains of the former media campaigns stored in the minds of the citizens. The strategy of intense emotional media campaigning, which stops at the moment facts threaten its self-generated version, thus fulfills two criteria: it creates a state of shock during which unpopular decisions or revelations can be concealed. And she leaves the emotionally charged and unenlightened processes in the background to warm them up in the near future. However, there are signs that this type of indoctrination is losing its effect.


By alfonso


The Russian V-Day Story (or the History of World War II not often Heard in the West)

by  Michael Jabara Carley

How many of you have not seen some Hollywood film in which the Normandy landings are the great turning point of the war? “What if the landings had failed,” one often hears? “Oh…, nothing much,” is the appropriate reply. The war would have gone on longer, and the Red Army would have planted its flags on the Normandy beaches coming from the east.

Every May 9th the Russian Federation celebrates its most important national holiday, Victory Day, den’ pobedy. On that day in 1945 Marshal Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov, commander of the 1st Belorussian Front, which had stormed Berlin, received the German unconditional surrender. The Great Patriotic War had gone on for 1418 days of unimaginable violence, brutality and destruction. From Stalingrad and the northern Caucasus and from the northwestern outskirts of Moscow to the western frontiers of the Soviet Union to Sevastopol in the south and Leningrad and the borders with Finland, in the north, the country had been laid waste. An estimated 17 million civilians, men, women and children, had perished, although no one will ever know the exact figure. Villages and towns were destroyed; families were wiped out without anyone to remember them or mourn their deaths.

Ten million or more Soviet soldiers died in the struggle to expel the monstrous Nazi invader and finally to occupy Berlin at the end of April 1945. Red Army dead were left unburied in a thousand places along the routes to the west or in unmarked mass graves, there having been no time for proper identification and burial. Most Soviet citizens lost family members during the war. No one was left unaffected.

The Great Patriotic War began at 3:30am on 22 June 1941, when the Nazi Wehrmacht invaded the Soviet Union along a front stretching from the Baltic to the Black Seas with 3.2 million German soldiers, organized in 150 divisions, supported by 3,350 tanks, 7,184 artillery pieces, 600,000 trucks, 2,000 warplanes. Finnish, Italian, Romanian, Hungarian, Spanish, Slovakian forces, amongst others, eventually joined the attack. The German high command reckoned that Operation Barbarossa would take only 4 to 6 weeks to finish off the Soviet Union. In the west, US and British military intelligence agreed. Besides, what force had ever beaten the Wehrmacht? Nazi Germany was the invincible colossus. Poland had been crushed in a few days. The Anglo-French attempt to defend Norway was a fiasco. When the Wehrmacht attacked in the west, Belgium hurried to quit the fight. France collapsed in a few weeks. The British army was driven out of Dunkirk, naked, without guns or Lorries. In the spring of 1941, Yugoslavia and Greece disappeared in a matter of weeks at little cost to German invaders.

Wherever the Wehrmacht advanced in Europe, it was a walkover… until that day German soldiers stepped across Soviet frontiers. The Red Army was caught flatfooted, in halfway measures of mobilization, because Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin did not believe his own intelligence reports warning of danger, or want to provoke Hitlerite Germany. The result was a catastrophe. But unlike Poland and unlike France, the USSR did not quit the fight after the expected 4 to 6 weeks. The Red Army’s losses were unimaginable, two million soldiers lost in the first three and a half months of the war. The Baltic provinces were lost. Smolensk fell and then Kiev, in the worst defeat of the war. Leningrad was encircled. An old man asked some soldiers, “Where are you retreating from?” There were calamities everywhere too numerous to mention. But at places like the fortress of Brest and in hundreds of unnamed fields and woods, road junctions and villages and towns, Red Army units fought on often to the last soldier. They fought out of encirclements to rejoin their own lines or to disappear into the forests and swamps of Belorussia and the northwestern Ukraine to organize the first partisan units to attack the German rear. By the end of 1941, three million Soviet soldiers were lost (the largest number being POWs who died at German hands); 177 divisions were struck from the Soviet order of battle. Still, the Red Army fought on, even forcing back the Germans at Yelnya, east southeast of Smolensk, at the end of August. The Wehrmacht felt the bite of the battered but not beaten Red Army. German forces were taking 7,000 casualties a day, a new experience for them.

As the Wehrmacht advanced, Einsatzgruppen, SS death squads, followed, killing Jews, Gypsies, communists, Soviet POWs, or anyone who got in their way. Baltic and Ukrainian Nazi collaborators assisted in the mass murders. Soviet women and children were stripped naked and forced to queue, waiting for execution. When winter came freezing German soldiers shot villagers or forced them out of their homes, dressed in rags like beggars, robbing them of hearth, winter clothing and food.

In the west those who predicted a speedy Soviet collapse, the usual western Sovietophobes, looked stupid and had to eat their forecasts. Public opinion understood that Hitlerite Germany had walked into a quagmire, not another campaign in France. While the British everyman cheered on Soviet resistance, the British government did relatively little to help. Some Cabinet ministers were even reluctant to call the Soviet Union an ally. Churchill refused to let BBC play the Soviet national anthem, the International, on Sunday evenings along with those of other allies.

The Red Army still retreated, but kept fighting desperately. This was no ordinary war, but a struggle of unparalleled violence against a murderous invader for home, family, country, for life itself. In November the Red Army dropped a pamphlet on German lines, quoting Carl von Clausewitz, the Prussian military theorist: “It’s impossible either to hold or conquer Russia” That was real bravado in the circumstances, but also true. Finally, in front of Moscow, in December 1941, the Red Army, under Zhukov’s command, threw back the spent forces of the Wehrmacht, in the south by as much as three hundred kilometer. The image of Nazi invincibility was shattered. Barbarossa was too ambitious, the blitzkrieg had failed, and the Wehrmacht suffered its first strategic defeat. In London Churchill agreed, grudgingly, to let BBC play the Soviet national anthem.

In 1942 the Red Army continued to suffer defeats and heavy losses, as it fought on nearly alone. In November of that year at Stalingrad on the Volga, however, the Red Army launched a counteroffensive, which led to a remarkable victory and the retreat of the Wehrmacht back to its start lines in the spring of 1942… except for the German Sixth Army, caught in the Stalingrad kotel or cauldron. There, 22 German divisions, some of Hitler’s best, were destroyed. Stalingrad was the Verdun of the Second World War. “It’s hell,” a soldier said. “No… this is ten times worse than hell,” someone else corrected. At the end of the winter fighting in 1943, Axis losses were staggering: 100 German, Italian, Romanian, Hungarian divisions were destroyed, or mauled. The president of the United States, Franklin Roosevelt, reckoned that the tide of battle had turned: Hitlerite Germany was doomed.

It was February 1943. In that month there was not a single British, American, or Canadian division fighting in Europe against the Wehrmacht. Not one. It was sixteen months before the Normandy landings. The British and Americans were then fighting two or three German divisions in North Africa, a sideshow compared to the Soviet front. Western public opinion knew who was carrying the burden of the war against the Wehrmacht. In 1942, 80% of Axis divisions were arrayed against the Red Army. At the beginning of 1943 there were 207 German divisions on the Eastern Front. The Germans tried one last hurrah, one last offensive against the Kursk bulge in July 1943. That operation failed. The Red Army then launched a counteroffensive across the Ukraine which led to liberation of Kiev in November. Further north, Smolensk had been freed the month before.

The spirit of the Soviet people and their Red Army was formidable. War correspondent Vasilii Semenovich Grossman captured its essence in his personal journals. “Night, Snowstorm,” he wrote in early 1942, “Vehicles, Artillery. They are moving in silence. Suddenly a hoarse voice is heard. ‘Hey, which is the road to Berlin?’ A roar of laughter.”

Soldiers were not always brave. Sometimes they fled. “A battalion commissar armed with two revolvers began shouting, ‘Where are you running you sons of whores, where? Go forward, for our Motherland, for Jesus Christ, motherfuckers! For Stalin, you whores!’…” They went back to their positions. Those fellows were lucky; the commissar could have shot them all. Sometimes he did. A soldier volunteered to execute a deserter. “Did you feel any pity for him?” Grossman asked. “How can one speak of pity,” the soldier replied. At Stalingrad seven Uzbeks were found guilty of self-inflicted wounds. They were all shot. Grossman read a letter found in the pocket of a dead Soviet soldier. “I miss you very much. Please come and visit… I am writing this, and tears are pouring. Daddy, please come home and visit.”

Women fought alongside the men as snipers, gunners, tankists, pilots, nurses partisans. They also kept the home front going. “Villages have become the kingdom of women,” wrote Grossman, “They drive tractors, guard warehouses and stables… Women are carrying on their shoulders the great burden of work. They dominate… send bread, aircraft, weapons and ammunition to the front.” When the war was being fought on the Volga, they did not reproach their men for having given up so much ground. “Women look and say nothing,” wrote Grossman, “… not a bitter word.” But in the villages near the front, sometimes they did.

In the meantime, the western allies attacked Italy. Stalin had long demanded a second front in France, which Churchill resisted. He wanted to attack the Axis “soft underbelly”, not to help the Red Army, but to hinder its advance into the Balkans. The idea was to advance quickly north up the Italian boot, then wheel eastward into the Balkans to keep out the Red Army. The way to Berlin however was north northeast. Churchill’s plan was a failure; the western allies did not get to Rome until June 1944. There were approximately 20 German divisions in Italy fighting against larger allied forces. In the East, there were still more than two hundred Axis divisions, or ten times those in Italy. On 6 June 1944 when Operation Overlord began in Normandy, the Red Army stood on Polish and Romanian frontiers. A fortnight after the Normandy landings, the Red Army launched Operation Bagration, a huge offensive which stove in the center of the German eastern front and led to an advance of 500 kilometer to the west, while the western allies were still held up on the Normandy Cotentin peninsula. The Red Army had become an unstoppable juggernaut. It was just a matter of time before the destruction of Nazi Germany. When the war was over in May 1945, the Red Army had accounted for 80% of the losses of the Wehrmacht, and that percentage would have been far higher before the Normandy invasion. “Those who never experienced all the bitterness of the summer of 1941,” wrote Vasily Grossman, “will never be able fully to appreciate the joy of our victory.” There were many war hymns sung by the troops and the people to keep up morale. Sviashchennaia voina, “Sacred War” was one of the most popular. Russians still stand when they hear it.

Historians often debate about when the decisive turn of battle came in the European theatre. Some propose 22 June 1941, the day that the Wehrmacht crossed Soviet frontiers. Others point to the battles of Moscow, Stalingrad, or Kursk. During the war western public opinion seemed more supportive of the Red Army than some western leaders, Winston Churchill, for example. Roosevelt was better, a more pragmatic political leader, who easily recognized the preponderant Soviet role in the war against Nazi Germany. The Red Army, he said to one doubtful general in 1942, was killing more German soldiers and smashing more German tanks than all the other allies put together. Roosevelt knew that the Soviet Union was the linchpin of the great coalition against Nazi Germany. I call FDR the godfather of the “grand alliance”. Nevertheless, in the shadows lurked the usual haters of the Soviet Union, who were only biding their time before emerging again. The greater the certainty of victory over Nazi Germany, the more vocal and strident became the naysayers of the grand alliance.

Americans can be touchy about the memory of the Red Army playing the lead role in the destruction of the Wehrmacht. “What about Lend-Lease,” they say, “without our supplies, the Soviet Union could not have beaten the Germans.” In fact, most Lend-Lease supplies did not arrive in the USSR until after Stalingrad. Red Army soldiers facetiously called the Lend-Lease food tins the “second front” since the real one was late in coming. In 1942 Soviet industry was already out-producing Nazi Germany in major categories of armaments. Was the T-34 an American, or a Soviet tank? A polite Stalin always remembered to thank the US government for the jeeps and Studebaker trucks. They increased Red Army mobility. You contributed the aluminum, Russians famously replied, we contributed the blood… the rivers of blood.

No sooner was the war over than Britain and the United States started to think about another war, this time against the Soviet Union. In May 1945 the British high command produced Operation “Unthinkable”, a topsecret plan for an offensive, reinforced by German POWs, against the Red Army. What bastards, what ingrates. In September 1945, the Americans contemplated use of 204 atomic bombs to destroy the Soviet Union. The godfather, President Roosevelt, had died in April, and within weeks American Sovietophobes were reversing his policy. The grand alliance was only a truce in a Cold War which had begun after the Bolshevik seizure of power in November 1917, and which resumed in 1945.

In that year the US and British governments still had to contend with public opinion. The everyman in Europe and the United States knew very well who had carried the load against the Wehrmacht. You could not resume the old policy of hatred against the Soviet Union just like that without blotting out the memory of the Red Army’s role in the common victory over Hitlerite Germany. So memories of the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression in August 1939 were brought out of the closet, although the memories of prior Anglo-French opposition to Soviet proposals for collective security against Nazi Germany and especially of the betrayal of Czechoslovakia were omitted from the new western narrative. Like thieves in the night, Britain and the United States burgled the true account of the destruction of Nazi Germany.

Already in December 1939, the British planned to publish a white paper blaming Moscow for the failure of Anglo-Franco-Soviet alliance negotiations during the previous spring and summer. The French objected because the white paper was more likely to persuade public opinion that the Soviet side had been serious about resistance to Nazi Germany while the British and French were not. The white paper was shelved. In 1948 the US State Department issued a collection of documents attributing the blame for World War II to Hitler and Stalin. Moscow fired back with its own publication demonstrating western affinities with Nazism. The fight was on in the west to remember the Soviet Union for the non-aggression pact and to forget the Red Army’s preponderant role in smashing the Wehrmacht.

How many of you have not seen some Hollywood film in which the Normandy landings are the great turning point of the war? “What if the landings had failed,” one often hears? “Oh…, nothing much,” is the appropriate reply. The war would have gone on longer, and the Red Army would have planted its flags on the Normandy beaches coming from the east. Then there are the movies about the Allied bombing campaign against Germany, the “decisive” factor in winning the war. In Hollywood films about World War II, the Red Army is invisible. It is as if the Americans (and British) were claiming laurels they didn’t earn.

I like to ask students in my university course on the Second World War, who has heard of operation Overlord? Everyone raises a hand. Then I ask who has heard of Operation Bagration? Hardly anyone raises a hand. I ask facetiously who “won” the war against Nazi Germany and the answer is “America” of course. Only a few students—normally those who have had other courses with me—will answer the Soviet Union.

The truth is uphill work in a western world where “fake news” is the norm. The OSCE and European Parliament put the blame for World War II on the Soviet Union, read Russia and President Vladimir Putin, as the subliminal message. Hitler is almost forgotten in this tohu-bohu of evidence-free accusations. Behind the bogus historical narrative are the Baltic states, Poland, and the Ukraine, spewing out hatred of Russia. The Baltics and the Ukraine now remember Nazi collaborators as national heroes and celebrate their deeds. In Poland, for some people, this is hard to swallow; they remember the Ukrainian Nazi collaborators who murdered tens of thousands of Poles in Volhynia. Unfortunately, such memories have not stopped Polish hooligans from vandalizing monuments to Red Army war dead or desecrating Soviet war cemeteries. Polish “nationalists” cannot bear the memory of the Red Army freeing Poland from the Nazi invader.

In Russia, however, the west’s mendacious propaganda has no effect. The Soviet Union produced its own films, and the Russian Federation also, about World War II, most recently about the defence of the Brest fortress and of Sevastopol, and the battle of Stalingrad. On 9 May every year Russians remember the millions of soldiers who fought and died, and the millions of civilians who suffered and died at the hands of the Nazi invader. The veterans, fewer each year, come out wearing uniforms that often do not fit quite right or threadbare jackets covered with war medals and orders. “Treat them with tact and respect,” Zhukov wrote in his memoirs: “It is a small price after what they did for you in 1941-1945.” How did you manage, I wondered to myself observing them on Victory Day some years ago, how did you cope, living constantly with death and so much sorrow and hardship?

Now, each year on Victory Day the “immortal regiment”, the bessmertnyi polk, marches; Russians in cities and towns across the country and abroad, march together carrying large photographs of family members, men and women, who fought in the war. “We remember,” they want to say: “and we will never forget you.”

Michael Jabara Carley

Strategic Culture Foundation (Russia)

by alfonso


Is Israel playing a dangerous game in the Middle East?


Being at nuclear atomic power and traying to control the middle east, together with the American imperialists, Israel things it can play this game with the support of the US.

In this world nothing seems to mater any more, even if you agree to things through negotiations, nothing is sure that, even if all parties agree, that there would not be a little man that want to interfere in the agreement.

The US, EU, Russia and Iran sitting down in 2015, to negotiate a treaty where Iran agrees on not to develop nuclear missiles, and the US and the EU will at the same time stop the long lasing trade war against Iran. Now Israel who has been the dominant power in the region is not satisfied to play the second fiddle, and will do everything to destroy this agreement, even if they are using their own nuclear weapons to destroy the Iranians. Israel should not forget that the rest of the middle east is not in favor of the policy Israel is trying to put on the Iranians. Israel have to have the US behind its war mangling against the Iranians. At the same time the Iran has a lot of friends who will be prepared to assist the country in their development, which not includes nuclear or chemical weapons. It is so obvious that Israel would like to be the dominant power in the region. It has supported the war in Syria, in Yemen and in other Arab countries.

Israel is already mistrusted in the region, as being the aggressor against the Palestinians and its present government which has not even giving it a thought to negotiate for a two-state solution, with the Palestinians, in the occupied areas. That has sat back the peace process for a two-state solution to zero.

At the same time, with a leader as Netanyahu, which has only shown aggression against the Palestinian people, it will be very difficult to reach a peace agreement in the area. We can only hope for the future that the people of Israel are voting for a more moderate government in the next election, a Government which is prepared to negotiate with the Palestinians for a two-state solution.


By alfonso