Archive for Juli 18th, 2018

18. Juli 2018

Das war der Gipfel. Trump und Putin sprachen Klartext – Von Friedhelm Klinkhammer und Volker Bräutigam

US-Präsident Trump hat der politischen Klasse der Transatlantiker und deren Lautsprechern in den gleichgeschalteten Massenmedien die vitalen Illusionen bzw. Propagandatitel geraubt: Die Imperialmacht USA ist nicht konkurrenzlos. Die USA sind nicht die „Schutzmacht“ des Westens, sie waren es nie. Ihre NATO ist kein „Verteidigungsbündnis“, sondern nur das militärische, wichtigste Herrschaftsinstrument, allein dem Zweck „America first“ gewidmet. Russland ist politischer Gegner und geoökonomischer Konkurrent der USA, darf jetzt aber nicht länger als Feind behandelt werden. Es arbeitet zunehmend mit der VR China zusammen, beide schert die Sanktionspolitik der USA einen feuchten Dreck, sie entwickeln wirtschaftliche Überlegenheit. Das verursacht der herrschenden Klasse in den USA Fracksausen. Es musste selbst ihren als „chaotisch“ verunglimpften Geostrategen Trump nach langem Zögern zu dem Versuch bewegen, die amerikanisch-russischen Beziehungen wieder zu verbessern – und zu versuchen, damit einen Keil in die Beziehungen Moskaus zu Peking zu treiben.

weiterlesen

https://publikumskonferenz.de/blog/2018/07/17/das-war-der-gipfel/

 

18. Juli 2018

Das israelische Parlament entzieht Ministerpräsident Netanjahu die Vollmacht für Kriegserklärung ohne Zustimmung des Kabinetts

Das israelische Parlament hat die dem Ministerpräsidenten Netanyahu Ende April erteilte Vollmacht für eine Kriegserklärung ohne Zustimmung des Kabinetts, wieder entzogen.

Das Gesetz wurde am Dienstag mit 77 Ja-Stimmen gegen 16 Nein-Stimmen verabschiedet, demzufolge ist eine Kriegserklärung durch Benjamin Netanyahu nur mit Zustimmung des Kabinetts möglich, berichtet die Times of Israel.

Die Knesset hat die Vollmacht für Netanyahu zur Kriegserklärung aufgehoben, wegen der Besorgnis vieler Abgeordneter über die jüngsten Spannungen im Gazastreifen und auf den besetzten Golanhöhen.

Trotz Einwänden der Fachausschüsse erteilte das  Parlament  Netanyahu  im April 2018  eine Vollmacht zur Kriegserklärung gegen Gaza in Notsituationen auch ohne die Zustimmung des Kabinetts.

Die jüngsten Luftangriffe der israelischen Armee auf Ziele im Gazastreifen gelten als die heftigsten Luftangriffe seit dem Gaza-Krieg 2014.

18. Juli 2018

Russlands Botschafter hält US-Invasion in Venezuela für möglich

Der russische Botschafter in Venezuela, Wladimir Sajemski, hält ein militärisches Eingreifen der USA in Venezuela für möglich. „Dieses Szenario ist leider real“, sagte Sajemski gegenüber russischen Nachrichtenagenturen.

„Sie haben bestimmt die Meldungen gesehen, die vor ein paar Wochen erschienen sind, als eine ausländische Nachrichtenagentur Informationen veröffentlicht hatte, wonach US-Präsident Donald Trump im Mai des vergangenen Jahres mit seinen Beratern ernsthaft eine Militäroperation als Reaktion auf die Lage in Venezuela erörtert hatte“, fügte er hinzu

Das Weiße Haus habe diese Informationen später aber bestritten und gesagt, diese Option sei nicht in erster Linie in Betracht gezogen worden. „Leider ist es immer Teil der US-Position, dass alle Szenarios auf der Tagesordnung bleiben, auch ein Gewalt-Szenario.“
Auch die Gefahr, dass die venezolanische Opposition eine „Farbrevolution“ versuche, bleibe weiterhin hoch.

https://de.sputniknews.com/politik/20180718321613926-russland-venezuela-usa-invasion/

18. Juli 2018

Einen blitzschnellen Hitlergruß ultra-nationalistischer ukrainischer Soldaten kann man auch schon mal als Begrüßung oder Heranwinken missverstehen

Ein für eine medizinische Behandlung nach Deutschland überstellter ukrainischer Soldat zeigt am Flughafen den Hitlergruß.

https://de.sputniknews.com/politik/20180718321612452-deutsche-welle-nazigruss-sacharowa/

https://www.noz.de/deutschland-welt/politik/artikel/1396791/aufregung-um-video-hitlergruss-vom-krankenlager

Denis Mikerin von der Russischen Botschaft in Deutschland schreibt bei Facebook:

/  ·

Peter Limbourg, Intendant der #DeutscheWelle, im Interview dem Tagesspiegel:
„Die Objektivität liegt natürlich immer auch im Auge des Betrachters. Es ist immer ein Bemühen um die Wahrheit, im ukrainischen wie im russischen Dienst. Wir haben eine enorm hohe Glaubwürdigkeit bei unseren Nutzern. 96 Prozent unserer Nutzer halten die DW für glaubwürdig oder sehr glaubwürdig…“

Angesichts dessen, was sollen dann die 96 Prozent der Nutzer von diesem Video auf DW halten?

Das Thema Nationalismus in der #Ukraine ist besonders sensibel, aber auch noch sehr aktuell. Die Tragödie in Odessa vom 2.Mai 2014, wobei 42 Menschen in dem von Nationalisten in Brand gesetzten Gewerkschaftshaus ums Leben kamen, zeigt deutlich, was passiert, wenn dieser wilde Hass gegen eigene Landsleute ausbricht.

Natürlich wird man es nie gestehen, dass ein Nazi-Gruß im Video gezeigt wird. Das ändert aber nichts an der Tatsache, dass mehrere freiwillige Kampfeinheiten, die sich 2014 beim Aufbruch des Konflikts in der Ostukraine etabliert hatten und ihre ultra-nationalistischen Stimmungen nicht verheimlichen, jetzt den regulären ukrainischen Streitkräften zugeordnet sind.

Ob so ein Verhalten der auf dem Deutschen Boden behandelten ukrainischen Soldaten, mit der Deutschen Gesetzgebung im Einklang steht, ist äußerst fragwürdig. Im Hinblick auf die jüngsten Debatten hier über die Notwendigkeit der dringenden Massnahmen gegen Rechtsextremismus hätte man sich auch dazu äußern können, zwar auf verschiedensten Ebenen.

18. Juli 2018

Pressekonferenz über die Resolution 922, Amtsenthebung für US-Präsidenten bei Kriegserklärung ohne Zustimmung des US-Kongresses – US-Abgeordneten Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) und Walter Jones (North Carolina)

Die US-Kongressabgeordneten Tulsi Gabbard und Walter Jones haben zusammen mit Captain Matthew Hoh, dem Verfassungsrechtler Bruce Fein, und Vertretern von Veterans for Peace und Peace Action am Mittwoch eine Pressekonferenz abhalten über eine parteiübergreifende Resolution, um das konstitutionelle Recht des US-Kongresses einzufordern für das Recht einen Krieg zu erklären. Die Resolution H.Res. 922 würde Präsidentschaftskriege in Zukunft als „Kapitalverbrechen und schwere Amtsvergehen“definieren, falls sie nicht vom US-Kongress erklärt werden.

Mittwoch, 18. Juli 2018

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02)
Rep. Walter Jones (NC-03)
US-Marinekapitän Matthew Hoh
Bruce Fein, Verfassungsrechtler
Michael Marceau, Veterans for Peace
Paul Kawika Martin, Mitglied von Peace Action

 

Ein verfassungswidriger Krieg ist bereits ein Verbrechen, das zur Amtsenthebung führen kann. Aber die Jones-Gabbard-Resolution würde ausdrücklich zum Ausdruck bringen, dass ein verfassungswidriger Krieg ein solches Verbrechen darstellt, was die Aussichten verbessert, die Frage über einen verfassungswidrigen Krieg in der Zukunft zu stellen.

Das Gesetz stellt ausdrücklich fest, dass unerlaubte gemeinschaftliche Kriegsführung in einem Krieg, wie die fortwährende, unautorisierte gemeinschaftliche Kriegsführung der USA zusammen mit Saudi-Arabien gegen den Jemen, verboten ist. In dem Gesetzentwurf heißt es ausdrücklich, dass die USA zu einem Krieg führenden Staat werden, wenn sie einer anderen Krieg-führenden Nation „systematisch oder wichtiges Kriegsmaterial liefern“.

In dem Gesetzentwurf heißt es: „Diese Resolution soll so ausgelegt werden, dass sie dem Präsidenten verbietet, die Vereinigten Staaten in einem andauernden Krieg zu einem Mitstreiter zu machen, und zwar ohne eine Erklärung des US-Kongresses unter der deklarierten Kriegsklausel. Insbesondere werden die Vereinigten Staaten zu einer Krieg führenden Nation, wenn sie systematisch oder im Wesentlichen einem anderen Krieg führenden Partner Kriegsmaterial, militärische Truppen, Ausbilder oder Berater, militärische Geheimdienste, finanzielle Unterstützung bereitstellen oder entsprechende Leistungen in Verbindung mit Zusammenarbeit, oder Unterstützung bereitstellen. “

Die Jones-Gabbard-Gesetzesvorlage würde die Fähigkeit der US-Abgeordneten verbessern, bei verfassungswidrigen Kriegen wie unautorisierter gemeinsamer Kriegsführung der Vereinigten Staaten wie dem saudi-arabischen Krieg im Jemen Zwangsentscheidungen zu erzwingen.

Quellen:

https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/07/17/reps-gabbard-and-jones-to-hold-bipartisan-press-conference-on-resolution-to-end-presidential-wars/

https://www.change.org/p/u-s-house-of-representatives-define-unconstitutional-yemen-war-as-impeachable-offense#

https://actionnetwork.org/letters/email-your-congress-member-to-sign-onto-h-res-922

18. Juli 2018

Die Mueller-Anklagen und der Trump-Putin-Gipfel: Triumph des tiefen Staates? – von Ron Paul

http://www.antikrieg.eu/aktuell/2018_07_17_diemueller.htm

Der Begriff „tiefer Staat“ wurde in den letzten Jahren so überstrapaziert, dass er vielleicht bedeutungslos erscheinen könnte. Es ist gängige Praxis geworden, seine politischen Gegner als Vertreter des „tiefen Staates“ zu bezeichnen, um die Verteidigung der eigenen Positionen zu vermeiden. Präsident Trump hat oft den „tiefen Staat“ für seine politischen Probleme verantwortlich gemacht. Trump-Anhänger haben große Verschwörungen mit dem „tiefen Staat“ geschaffen, um zu erklären, warum der Präsident Neokonservative in Schlüsselpositionen platziert oder seine Wahlversprechen nicht erfüllt.

Aber der „tiefe Staat“ ist keine unermessliche und geheime Verschwörungstheorie. Der tiefe Staat ist real, er funktioniert in der Öffentlichkeit, und er ist alles andere als monolithisch. Der tiefe Staat ist einfach die permanente, nicht gewählte Regierung, die ihre Macht weiter ausbaut, unabhängig davon, wie die Amerikaner wählen.

Es gibt Fraktionen des tiefen Staates, die über Präsident Trumps Politik erfreut sind, und in der Tat könnten wir sagen, dass Präsident Trump einige Fraktionen des tiefen Staates vertritt.

Andere Fraktionen des tiefen Staates sind entschlossen, alle Handlungen Präsident Trumps zu untergraben, die sie als bedrohlich empfinden. Jeder Schritt in Richtung Frieden mit Russland ist sicherlich etwas, das sie für bedrohlich halten. Es gibt Hunderte von Milliarden von Gründen – auch bekannt als Dollar – warum der militärisch-industrielle Komplex des Regierungsbezirks Angst vor dem Ausbruch des Friedens mit Russland hat und alles tun wird, um das zu verhindern.

Das ist der Grund, warum die Anklage des stellvertretenden Generalstaatsanwalts Rod Rosenstein am Freitag gegen 12 russische Geheimdienstler wegen angeblicher Einmischung in die US-Präsidentschaftswahl 2016 sofort einige sehr ernste Fragen aufwerfen sollte.

Zuerst das Offensichtliche: warum diese Bombe einer Behauptung nach mehr als einem Jahr der Untersuchungen, die öffentlich keine Kollusion zwischen der Trump-Kampagne und Russland aufgedeckt haben, am Ende der Nachrichten am letzten Arbeitstag vor dem historischen Trump/Putin-Treffen in Helsinki fallen lassen? Die Anklage hätte nicht vor einem Monat oder in zwei Wochen bekannt gegeben werden können? Ist es nicht verdächtig, dass jetzt niemand von einem Abbau der Spannungen mit Russland spricht, sondern plötzlich – dank des Sonderberaters Robert Müller – von steigenden Spannungen?

Leider scheinen die meisten Amerikaner nicht zu verstehen, dass Anklagen keine Beweise sind. Tatsächlich sind sie oft beweisfrei, so wie auch diese Anklage.

Hat die russische Regierung versucht, sich in die US-Präsidentschaftswahlen 2016 einzumischen? Es ist sicherlich möglich, aber wir wissen es nicht. Keine der Behauptungen des Justizministeriums wurde von einem Gericht geprüft, wie es unser Rechtssystem zum Glück verlangt. Es reicht nicht aus, eine Behauptung aufzustellen, wie es Mueller getan hat. Du musst es beweisen.

Deshalb sollten wir diesen neuen Anklagen sehr misstrauisch gegenüberstehen. Mueller weiß, dass er seine Behauptungen nie vor Gericht verteidigen muss, so dass er jede Anschuldigung vorbringen kann, die er will.

Es ist interessant, dass eine der russischen Firmen, die von Mueller Anfang des Jahres angeklagt wurden, die Welt überraschte, indem sie tatsächlich auf „nicht schuldig“ plädierte und forderte, Mueller’s Beweise zu sehen. Der Sonderberater stellte mehrere Anträge, um die Übergabe seiner Beweise zu verzögern. Was hat Mueller zu verbergen?

Warum spricht unterdessen niemand über die geschätzten 100 Wahlen, in die sich die Regierung der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg eingemischt hat? Vielleicht müssen wir unser eigenes Haus in Ordnung bringen?

von Ron Paul (Institute for Peace and Prosperity)

18. Juli 2018

US-Kriegspartei heult auf – Beitrag von Oskar Lafontaine

Das Treffen des US-Präsidenten Trump mit dem russischen Präsidenten Putin in Helsinki hat die globalen Machtstrukturen offengelegt. Da der irrlichternde Trump nicht in die US-Kriegspartei von Hillary Clinton bis John McCain, von Barack Obama bis Paul Ryan, dem Führer der Republikaner im US-Repräsentantenhaus, eingebunden zu sein scheint, schlagen sie von allen Seiten auf ihn ein – obwohl er den Militäretat in schwindelerregende Höhen treibt (auf 716 Milliarden Dollar im nächsten Jahr) und den US-Millionären und -Milliardären große Steuergeschenke gemacht hat.

Statt Putin im Einklang mit der US-Kriegspartei und ihrer Propaganda wegen seiner „Aggressionspolitik“ in der Ukraine, in Syrien und in Europa zu tadeln und die Spannungen weiter zu verschärfen, gab er sich beim Treffen mit Putin moderat, machte aber den „Fehler“, den US-Geheimdiensten, die weltweit Verbrechen begehen, nicht sein „vollstes Vertrauen“ auszusprechen. Die gleichgeschaltete Resonanz in der „westlichen Wertegemeinschaft“ auf dieses Treffen zeigt, welchen Einfluss die US-Kriegspartei mittlerweile hat und wie sehr sich ihre Lügen-Propaganda in vielen Ländern durchsetzt. Auch die Reaktionen in den deutschen Medien beweisen jetzt, wie sehr auch diese in die US-Propaganda eingebunden sind, was die verdienstvollen NachDenkSeiten gestern und heute umfangreich belegen.

Die globale US-Kriegsmaschinerie wird auf eindrucksvolle Weise von dem ehemaligen Stabschef des US-Außenministers Collin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson, im folgenden Video geschildert. (https://youtu.be/-LPCauj9LJw ) Nehmt Euch die Zeit, dieses Video anzugucken, das Pflichtprogram jedes deutschen Journalisten werden müsste, weil es die Tag für Tag die Weltmeinung vergiftenden Propaganda-Lügen des US- Imperialismus entlarvt.

18. Juli 2018

Putin erklärte während der Pressekonferenz in Helsinki, US-Geheimdienste hätten dabei geholfen 400 Millionen Dollar illegal erwirtschafteter Gewinne aus Russland an die Clinton-Kampagne zu transferieren.

Wladimir Putin hat während der gemeinsamen Pressekonferenz mit Präsident Trump in Helsinki, Finnland, eine explosives Statement gemacht gemacht, als er sagte, dass 400 Millionen Dollar illegal erwirtschafteter Profite an die Clinton-Kampagne geflossen seien, und zwar von Mitarbeitern des in den USA geborenen britischen Finanziers Bill Browder. Dieser wiederum war zuvor einer der größten ausländischen Portfolio-Investoren in Russland gewesen. An dem Plan beteiligt waren laut Putin Mitglieder der US-Geheimdienste, die „diese Transaktionen begleiteten und abwickelten“.

Browder machte in den neunziger Jahren Milliarden in Russland. Im Dezember verurteilte ein Moskauer Gericht Browder in Abwesenheit wegen Steuerhinterziehung zu neun Jahren Haft, während er in einem separaten Fall bereits im Jahr 2013 ebenfalls der Steuerhinterziehung für schuldig befunden worden war. Putin beschuldigte Browders Mitarbeiter, illegal mehr als 1,5 Milliarden Dollar zu verdient zu haben, ohne Steuern in Russland zu zahlen, bevor er 400 Millionen Dollar an die Clinton-Wahlkampagne sandte.

Nachdem er angeboten hatte, Robert Müllers Team angeboten hatte einen Sonderberater für ihre Untersuchung nach Russland zu entsenden – vorausgesetzt, dass es eine gegenseitige Absprache mit dem russischen Geheimdienst geben könnte, in den USA nachzuforschen.

Weiter sagte Putin:

„Zum Beispiel können wir in diesem speziellen Fall die Affäre um Mr. Browder erwähnen. Geschäftsfreunde von Mr. Browder haben in Russland über 1,5 Milliarden Dollar verdient und sie haben weder in Russland noch in den USA Steuern bezahlt, und trotzdem hat das Geld das Land verlassen. Die Summe wurde in die Vereinigten Staaten transferiert. Sie schickten eine riesige Menge Geld, 400.000.000 Dollar, als Beitrag zur Kampagne von Hillary Clinton. Nun, das ist ihr persönlicher Fall.“

Der Beitrag selbst wäre legal gewesen, aber die Art, wie das Geld verdient wurde, war illegal. Wir haben guten Grund zu der Annahme, dass einige US-Geheimdienstbeamte diese Transaktionen begleitet und geleitet haben. Wir haben also ein Interesse daran, sie zu hinterfragen.

18. Juli 2018

Syrien: Hunderte Terroristen verlassen Provinz Daraa (Sputniknews)

Die mit der Aussöhnung nicht einverstandenen Kämpfer haben nach Vereinbarung mit der syrischen Regierung die Provinz Deraa verlassen. Dies gab der Chef des russischen Zentrums für Versöhnung der Konfliktparteien in Syrien, Generalmajor Alexej Zygankow, bekannt.

Die syrische Regierung und die Milizen einigten sich unter Vermittlung Russlands auf die Evakuierung von den Kämpfern und ihren Verwandten in den Norden des Landes. Zu diesem Zweck sind 15 Busse zu Verfügung gestellt worden.

„Vor ein paar Tagen gab es mehrere tausend Menschen, die die Stadt verlassen wollten, und heute sind es nur noch ein paar Hundert. Nur wenige Stunden vor dem Anfang des Rückzugs weigerten sich mehr als einhundert Militante, zu gehen, und sind in der Stadt geblieben“, so Zygankow.

Nach Angaben der Vertreter der syrischen Armee durften die abreisenden Kämpfer ein automatisches Gewehr pro Person und drei Patronenmagazine mitnehmen. Radiogeräte und Scharfschützengewehre sollten sie jedoch zurücklassen.

Zuvor hatte Zygankow mitgeteilt, dass die Extremisten allein in zwei Wochen 26 Panzer und Hunderte Stück Schusswaffen freiwillig an die Behörden übergegeben hätten.

Nach ihrer Prüfung durch Sprengstoffexperten sollen die Waffen in den Bestand der syrischen Armee aufgenommen werden.

https://de.sputniknews.com/politik/20180717321587465-extremisten-verlassen-deraa/

18. Juli 2018

Militärische Kooperation USA und Russland (Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten)

Im Zusammenhang mit der militärischen Kooperation zwischen den USA und Russland, die vor allem den Syrien-Konflikt betrifft, hat der US-Kongress vorgeschlagen, den National Defense Authorization Bill um ein weiteres Jahr, also bis Ende 2019, zu verlängern. Dieser Vorschlag wurde im Juni im „Committee on Armed Services”, ein Ausschuss des US-Senats, eingebracht. Vorsitzender des Ausschusses ist der US-Republikaner John McCain.
Der National Defense Authorization Bill umfasst unter anderem: „Verbot militärischer Zusammenarbeit mit Russland (…) Verbot der Anerkennung der Aufnahme der Krim in die Russische Föderation (…) Zurückhaltung der Finanzierung für Flugzeuge und Sensoren des Open-Skies-Vertrags, bis Russland erneut den Vertrag einhält und andere Schritte unternimmt, einschließlich der Auslieferung russischer Staatsangehöriger, die während der Wahlen 2016 wegen ihrer Handlungen gegen die Vereinigten Staaten angeklagt wurden.”
Dem Gesetz zufolge, das nach wie vor gilt, ist eine militärische Kooperation zwischen Russland und den USA verboten. Trotzdem haben beide Regierungen „militärische Kommunikationskanäle” eingerichtet, um Zusammenstöße im Luftraum Syriens zu verhindern.
(Aus: https://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2018/07/17/syrien-zieht-schwere-waffen-von-grenze-zu-israel-ab/ )

18. Juli 2018

Erstmals seit drei Jahren: Pentagon-Chef zu Verhandlungen mit Schoigu bereit (sputniknews)

https://de.sputniknews.com/politik/20180718321601196-russland-usa-verteidigungsminister-verhandlungen/ 18.07.2018

US-Verteidigungsminister James Mattis hat sich bereit erklärt, sich mit seinem russischen Amtskollegen Sergej Schoigu zu Verhandlungen zu treffen. Dies werden erste Kontakte auf dieser Ebene seit drei Jahren sein. Das berichtete die Agentur Reuters am Mittwoch unter Verweis auf eigene Quellen.
Dabei präzisierten die Quellen nicht, ob es sich um ein Treffen oder um Telefongespräche handeln soll. Laut der Agentur war es nach dem Putin-Trump-Gipfel vom 16. Juli in Helsinki möglich, darüber zu sprechen.
Zugleich gab das Pentagon der Agentur Sputnik keine Kommentare dazu ab.
„Momentan können wir nichts Konkretes sagen. Wenn sich aber etwas ändern wird, setzen wir Sie in Kenntnis“, sagte ein Pentagon-Sprecher in Beantwortung einer entsprechenden Anfrage von Sputnik.
Das Verteidigungsministerium in Moskau hat sich laut seinem Sprecher Igor Konaschenkow bereit gezeigt, mit der Umsetzung der jüngsten Vereinbarungen zwischen dem Präsidenten Wladimir Putin und seinem US-Amtskollegen Donald Trump im Sicherheitsbereich zu beginnen. Es sollen unter anderem über die Generalstäbe der beiden Länder die Kontakte mit den US-Kollegen aktiviert werden.
Zuletzt waren die Verteidigungsminister Russlands und der USA vor drei Jahre zusammengekommen. Im September 2015 hatten Schoigu und der damalige Pentagon-Chef Ashton Carter die Situation in Syrien telefonisch besprochen. Zugleich werden regelmäßig Kontakte zwischen den Generalstabschefs der beiden Länder unterhalten.

18. Juli 2018

Syrien zieht schwere Waffen von Grenze zu Israel – einen Tag nach dem Helsinki-Gipfel (Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten)

Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten 18.07.18

Am Dienstag führte die syrische Armee (SAA) in der nordwestlichen Landschaft von Daraa eine Offensive gegen Stellungen von internationalen Söldnern durch. Dabei konnte das Dorf al-Mal, einschließlich der Anhöhe bei al-Mal, eingenommen werden. Die syrische staatliche Nachrichtenagentur SANA meldet, dass die Kontrolle über al-Mal der SAA die Feuerkontrolle über die umliegenden Dörfer und Städte verschafft habe. Zudem habe die SAA die Stadt Daraa komplett unter Kontrolle bekommen.

Die zuständigen Behörden fanden am Dienstag in der Stadt Aqrab in der südlichen Provinz Hama ein Waffendepot internationaler Söldner vor, so SANA. Es seien Bomben israelischen Fabrikats, Militärgewehre, PKC-Maschinengewehre, Pistolen, drahtlose Kommunikationsgeräte, Munition, Mörsergranaten und Scharfschützengewehre gefunden worden. Es seien technische Einheiten in die Stadt Aqrab vorgerückt, um Minenräumungen vorzunehmen.

Die türkische Zeitung Şalom berichtet, dass sich die Regierung in Syrien dazu bereit erklärt habe, ihre schweren Waffen gemäß des Waffenstillstandsabkommen von 1974 aus der Nähe der Golan-Höhen abzuziehen. Dem Blatt zufolge sei es auffällig, dass dieser Schritt Syriens kurz nach dem Helsinki-Gipfel zwischen Trump und Putin unternommen wird. Die libanesische Zeitung Al-Akhbar bestätigt den Rückzug und meldet, dass dies das „beste Szenario” für Israel sei, obwohl das Land in den vergangenen Jahren selbst versucht habe, das Waffenstillstandsabkommen von 1974 zu annullieren. „Durch die Überprüfung der Chronologie der Ereignisse im Grenzgebiet wird der wiederholte israelische Versuch deutlich, das Abkommen zu brechen, um eine neue Realität aufrechtzuerhalten, die das Abkommen vollständig außer Kraft setzt”, so das Blatt.

Währenddessen berichtet der Middle East Monitor: „Die syrische Armee und ihre Verbündeten haben die Kontrolle über einen strategischen Hügel mit Blick auf die von den Israelis besetzten Golanhöhen zurückerobert, während sie mit einer Offensive weitermachen, um die restlichen Teile des Südwestens von den Rebellen zurück zu erobern, erklärten das syrische Staatsfernsehen und Rebellen am Montag.”

Dem syrischen Staatsfernsehen zufolge handelt es sich dabei um den Hügel al-Haara, der wichtig sei, um die letzten Gebiete in der Provinz Quneitra zurückzuerobern. Der Hügel, der eine große Flak-Radarbasis beherbergte, und der höchste Punkt in der Provinz Daraa ist, fiel im Oktober 2014 unter die Kontrolle von Söldnern.  (…)

18. Juli 2018

Russiagate is not Pearl Harbor, 9/11 was not Pearl Harbor, and Pearl Harbor was not Pearl Harbor – By David Swanson

http://davidswanson.org/russiagate-is-not-pearl-harbor-9-11-was-not-pearl-harbor-and-pearl-harbor-was-not-pearl-harbor/

The unproven allegation that the Russian government helped us find out how the DNC was screwing Bernie Sanders with his pants on is not actually a moral, legal, or practical reason to launch a spree of mass-killing of innocents, which is what every war since WWII has been.

The terrorist acts of 9/11/2001 were crimes to be prosecuted, but not a moral, legal, or practical reason to launch a spree of mass-killing of innocents, even if dark-skinned Muslim innocents were chosen over any of the “white” places that the criminals plotted their crimes.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was also not what you have been told.

Pearl Harbor Day today is like Columbus Day 50 years ago. That is to say: most people still believe the hype. The myths are still maintained in their blissful unquestioned state. “New Pearl Harbors” are longed for by war makers, claimed, and exploited. Yet the original Pearl Harbor remains the most popular U.S. argument for all things military, including the long-delayed remilitarization of Japan — not to mention the WWII internment of Japanese Americans as a model for targeting other groups today. Believers in Pearl Harbor imagine for their mythical event, in contrast to today, a greater U.S. innocence, a purer victimhood, a higher contrast of good and evil, and a total necessity of defensive war making.

The facts do not support the mythology. The United States government did not need to makeJapan a junior partner in imperialism, did not need to fuel an arms race, did not need to supportNazism and fascism (as some of the biggest U.S. corporations did right through the war), did not need to provoke Japan, did not need to join the war in Asia or Europe, and was not surprised by the attack on Pearl Harbor. For support of each of these statements, keep reading.

World War II stands unchallenged as the worst thing humanity in general and the U.S. government in particular (as well as numerous other governments) have ever done in any short period of time. Recent wars don’t come close. There’s even a parallel to the Downing Street Minutes.

On August 18, 1941, Prime Minister Winston Churchill met with his cabinet at 10 Downing Street. The meeting had some similarity to the July 23, 2002, meeting at the same address, the minutes of which became known as the Downing Street Minutes. Both meetings revealed secret U.S. intentions to go to war. In the 1941 meeting, Churchill told his cabinet, according to the minutes: “The President had said he would wage war but not declare it.” In addition, “Everything was to be done to force an incident.”

Indeed, everything was done to force an incident, and the incident was Pearl Harbor.

Unsurprising

Many Japanese are better able to recognize their government’s crimes, crimes before and after Pearl Harbor, as well as the crime of Pearl Harbor. The United States is almost entirely blind to its role. From the U.S. side, Pearl Harbor had roots in Germany.

Nazi Germany, we actually tend to overlook sometimes, could not have existed or waged war without the support for decades past and ongoing through the war of U.S. corporations like GM, Ford, IBM, and ITT. U.S. corporate interests preferred Nazi Germany to the communist Soviet Union, were happy to see those two nations’ peoples slaughter each other, and favored the United States entering the oh-so-good-and-necessary World War II on the side of England only once the U.S. government had made that very profitable. The U.S. delayed D-Day for years while Germany bled Russia dry, and within hours of Germany’s defeat, Churchill proposed a new war on Russia using German troops.

Churchill’s fervent hope for years before the U.S. entry into the war was that Japan would attack the United States. This would permit the United States (not legally, but politically) to fully enter World War II in Europe, as its president wanted to do, as opposed to merely providing weaponry and assisting in the targeting of submarines as it had been doing.

On December 7, 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt drew up a declaration of war on both Japan and Germany, but decided it wouldn’t work and went with Japan alone. Germany quickly declared war on the United States, possibly in hopes that Japan would declare war on the Soviet Union.

Getting into the war was not a new idea in the Roosevelt White House. FDR had tried lying to the U.S. public about U.S. ships including the Greer and the Kerny, which had been helping British planes track German submarines, but which Roosevelt pretended had been innocently attacked. Roosevelt also lied that he had in his possession a secret Nazi map planning the conquest of South America, as well as a secret Nazi plan for replacing all religions with Nazism. The map was of the quality of Karl Rove’s “proof” that Iraq was buying uranium in Niger.

And yet, the people of the United States didn’t buy the idea of going into another war until Pearl Harbor, by which point Roosevelt had already instituted the draft, activated the National Guard, created a huge Navy in two oceans, traded old destroyers to England in exchange for the lease of its bases in the Caribbean and Bermuda, and — just 11 days before the “unexpected” attack, and five days before FDR expected it — he had secretly ordered the creation (by Henry Field) of a list of every Japanese and Japanese-American person in the United States.

On April 28, 1941, Churchill wrote a secret directive to his war cabinet:

“It may be taken as almost certain that the entry of Japan into the war would be followed by the immediate entry of the United States on our side.”

On May 11, 1941, Robert Menzies, the prime minister of Australia, met with Roosevelt and found him “a little jealous” of Churchill’s place in the center of the war. While Roosevelt’s cabinet all wanted the United States to enter the war, Menzies found that Roosevelt,

” . . . trained under Woodrow Wilson in the last war, waits for an incident, which would in one blow get the USA into war and get R. out of his foolish election pledges that ‘I will keep you out of war.’”

On August 18, 1941, Churchill held that meeting with his cabinet at 10 Downing Street.

An incident was forced.

Japan was certainly not averse to attacking others and had been busy creating an Asian empire. And the United States and Japan were certainly not living in harmonious friendship. But what could bring the Japanese to attack?

When President Franklin Roosevelt visited Pearl Harbor on July 28, 1934, seven years before the Japanese attack, the Japanese military expressed apprehension. General Kunishiga Tanaka wrote in the Japan Advertiser, objecting to the build-up of the American fleet and the creation of additional bases in Alaska and the Aleutian Islands:

“Such insolent behavior makes us most suspicious. It makes us think a major disturbance is purposely being encouraged in the Pacific. This is greatly regretted.”

Whether it was actually regretted or not is a separate question from whether this was a typical and predictable response to military expansionism, even when done in the name of “defense.” The great unembedded (as we would today call him) journalist George Seldes was suspicious as well. In October 1934 he wrote in Harper’s Magazine: “It is an axiom that nations do not arm for war but for a war.” Seldes asked an official at the Navy League:

“Do you accept the naval axiom that you prepare to fight a specific navy?”

The man replied “Yes.”

“Do you contemplate a fight with the British navy?”

“Absolutely, no.”

“Do you contemplate war with Japan?”

“Yes.”

In 1935 the most decorated U.S. Marine in history at the time, Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler, published to enormous success a short book called War Is a Racket. He saw perfectly well what was coming and warned the nation:

“At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals don’t shout that ‘We need lots of battleships to war on this nation or that nation.’ Oh, no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate our 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only. Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.

“The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline in the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

“The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon’s shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern, through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.”

In March 1935, Roosevelt bestowed Wake Island on the U.S. Navy and gave Pan Am Airways a permit to build runways on Wake Island, Midway Island, and Guam. Japanese military commanders announced that they were disturbed and viewed these runways as a threat. So did peace activists in the United States. By the next month, Roosevelt had planned war games and maneuvers near the Aleutian Islands and Midway Island. By the following month, peace activists were marching in New York advocating friendship with Japan. Norman Thomas wrote in 1935:

“The Man from Mars who saw how men suffered in the last war and how frantically they are preparing for the next war, which they know will be worse, would come to the conclusion that he was looking at the denizens of a lunatic asylum.”

The U.S. believed a Japanese attack on Hawaii would begin with conquering the island of Ni’ihau, from which flights would take off to assault the other islands. U.S. Army Air Corp. Lt. Col. Gerald Brant approached the Robinson family, which owned Ni’ihau and still does. He asked them to plow furrows across the island in a grid, to render it useless for airplanes. Between 1933 and 1937, three Ni’ihau men cut the furrows with plows pulled by mules or draft horses. As it turned out, the Japanese had no plans to use Ni’ihau, but when a Japanese plane that had just been part of the attack on Pearl Harbor had to make an emergency landing, it landed on Ni’ihau despite all the efforts of the mules and horses.

The U.S. Navy spent years working up plans for war with Japan, the March 8, 1939, version of which described “an offensive war of long duration” that would destroy the military and disrupt the economic life of Japan. In January 1941, eleven months before the attack, the Japan Advertiser expressed its outrage over Pearl Harbor in an editorial, and the U.S. ambassador to Japan wrote in his diary:

“There is a lot of talk around town to the effect that the Japanese, in case of a break with the United States, are planning to go all out in a surprise mass attack on Pearl Harbor. Of course I informed my government.”

On February 5, 1941, Rear Admiral Richmond Kelly Turner wrote to Secretary of War Henry Stimson to warn of the possibility of a surprise attack at Pearl Harbor.

As early as 1932 the United States had been talking with China about providing airplanes, pilots, and training for its war with Japan. In November 1940, Roosevelt loaned China one hundred million dollars for war with Japan, and after consulting with the British, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau made plans to send the Chinese bombers with U.S. crews to use in bombing Tokyo and other Japanese cities. On December 21, 1940, two weeks shy of a year before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, China’s Minister of Finance T.V. Soong and Colonel Claire Chennault, a retired U.S. Army flier who was working for the Chinese and had been urging them to use American pilots to bomb Tokyo since at least 1937, met in Henry Morgenthau’s dining room to plan the firebombing of Japan. Morgenthau said he could get men released from duty in the U.S. Army Air Corps if the Chinese could pay them $1,000 per month. Soong agreed.

On May 24, 1941, the New York Times reported on U.S. training of the Chinese air force, and the provision of “numerous fighting and bombing planes” to China by the United States. “Bombing of Japanese Cities is Expected” read the subheadline. By July, the Joint Army-Navy Board had approved a plan called JB 355 to firebomb Japan. A front corporation would buy American planes to be flown by American volunteers trained by Chennault and paid by another front group. Roosevelt approved, and his China expert Lauchlin Currie, in the words of Nicholson Baker, “wired Madame Chaing Kai-Shek and Claire Chennault a letter that fairly begged for interception by Japanese spies.” Whether or not that was the entire point, this was the letter:

“I am very happy to be able to report today the President directed that sixty-six bombers be made available to China this year with twenty-four to be delivered immediately. He also approved a Chinese pilot training program here. Details through normal channels. Warm regards.”

The U.S. ambassador had said “in case of a break with the United States” the Japanese would bomb Pearl Harbor. I wonder if this qualified!

The 1st American Volunteer Group (AVG) of the Chinese Air Force, also known as the Flying Tigers, moved ahead with recruitment and training immediately, were provided to China prior to Pearl Harbor, and first saw combat on December 20, 1941, twelve days (local time) after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

On May 31, 1941, at the Keep America Out of War Congress, William Henry Chamberlin gave a dire warning: “A total economic boycott of Japan, the stoppage of oil shipments for instance, would push Japan into the arms of the Axis. Economic war would be a prelude to naval and military war.” The worst thing about peace advocates is how many times they turn out to be right.

On July 24, 1941, President Roosevelt remarked, “If we cut the oil off , [the Japanese] probably would have gone down to the Dutch East Indies a year ago, and you would have had a war. It was very essential from our own selfish point of view of defense to prevent a war from starting in the South Pacific. So our foreign policy was trying to stop a war from breaking out there.”

Reporters noticed that Roosevelt said “was” rather than “is.” The next day, Roosevelt issued an executive order freezing Japanese assets. The United States and Britain cut off oil and scrap metal to Japan. Radhabinod Pal, an Indian jurist who served on the war crimes tribunal after the war, called the embargoes a “clear and potent threat to Japan’s very existence,” and concluded the United States had provoked Japan.

On August 7th, four months before the attack, the Japan Times Advertiser wrote: “First there was the creation of a superbase at Singapore, heavily reinforced by British and Empire troops. From this hub a great wheel was built up and linked with American bases to form a great ring sweeping in a great area southwards and westwards from the Philippines through Malaya and Burma, with the link broken only in the Thailand peninsula. Now it is proposed to include the narrows in the encirclement, which proceeds to Rangoon.”

One cannot help being reminded here of Hillary Clinton’s comments to Goldman Sachs bankers. Clinton claimed to have told the Chinese that the United States could claim ownership of the entire Pacific as a result of having “liberated it.” She went on to claim to have told them that “We discovered Japan for heaven’s sake.” And: “We have proof of having bought [Hawaii].”

By September 1941 the Japanese press was outraged that the United States had begun shipping oil right past Japan to reach Russia. Japan, its newspapers said, was dying a slow death from “economic war.”

What might the United States have been hoping to gain by shipping oil past a nation in desperate need of it?

In late October, U.S. spy Edgar Mower was doing work for Colonel William Donovan who spied for Roosevelt. Mower spoke with a man in Manila named Ernest Johnson, a member of the Maritime Commission, who said he expected “The Japs will take Manila before I can get out.” When Mower expressed surprise, Johnson replied “Didn’t you know the Jap fleet has moved eastward, presumably to attack our fleet at Pearl Harbor?”

On November 3, 1941, the U.S. ambassador tried again to get something through his government’s thick skull, sending a lengthy telegram to the State Department warning that the economic sanctions might force Japan to commit “national hara-kiri.” He wrote: “An armed conflict with the United States may come with dangerous and dramatic suddenness.”

Why do I keep recalling the headline of the memo given to President George W. Bush prior to the September 11, 2001, attacks? “Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S.” Apparently nobody in Washington wanted to hear it in 1941 either.

On November 15th, Army Chief of Staff George Marshall briefed the media on something we do not remember as “the Marshall Plan.” In fact we don’t remember it at all. “We are preparing an offensive war against Japan,” Marshall said, asking the journalists to keep it a secret, which as far as I know they dutifully did.

Ten days later Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary that he’d met in the Oval Office with Marshall, President Roosevelt, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox, Admiral Harold Stark, and Secretary of State Cordell Hull. Roosevelt had told them the Japanese were likely to attack soon, possibly next Monday. It has been well documented that the United States had broken the Japanese’ codes and that Roosevelt had access to them. It was through intercept of a so-called Purple code message that Roosevelt had discovered Germany’s plans to invade Russia. It was Hull who leaked a Japanese intercept to the press, resulting in the November 30, 1941, headline “Japanese May Strike Over Weekend.”

That next Monday would have been December 1st, six days before the attack actually came. “The question,” Stimson wrote, “was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves. It was a difficult proposition.” Was it? One obvious answer was to keep the fleet in Pearl Harbor and keep the sailors stationed there in the dark while fretting about them from comfortable offices in Washington, D.C. In fact, that was the solution our suit-and-tied heroes went with.

The day after the attack, Congress voted for war. Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin (R., Mont.), the first woman ever elected to Congress, and who had voted against World War I, stood alone in opposing World War II (just as Congresswoman Barbara Lee [D., Calif.] would stand alone against attacking Afghanistan 60 years later).

One year after the vote, on December 8, 1942, Rankin put extended remarks into the Congressional Record explaining her opposition. She cited the work of a British propagandist who had argued in 1938 for using Japan to bring the United States into the war. She cited Henry Luce’s reference in Life magazine on July 20, 1942, to “the Chinese for whom the U.S. had delivered the ultimatum that brought on Pearl Harbor.” She introduced evidence that at the Atlantic Conference on August 12, 1941, Roosevelt had assured Churchill that the United States would bring economic pressure to bear on Japan. “I cited,” Rankin later wrote, ” the State Department Bulletin of December 20, 1941, which revealed that on September 3 a communication had been sent to Japan demanding that it accept the principle of ‘nondisturbance of the status quo in the Pacific,’ which amounted to demanding guarantees of the inviolateness of the white empires in the Orient.”

Rankin found that the Economic Defense Board had gotten economic sanctions under way less than a week after the Atlantic Conference. On December 2, 1941, the New York Times had reported, in fact, that Japan had been “cut off from about 75 percent of her normal trade by the Allied blockade.” Rankin also cited the statement of Lieutenant Clarence E. Dickinson, U.S.N., in the Saturday Evening Post of October 10, 1942, that on November 28, 1941, nine days before the attack, Vice Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., (he of the catchy slogan “Kill Japs! Kill Japs!” ) had given instructions to him and others to “shoot down anything we saw in the sky and to bomb anything we saw on the sea.”

General George Marshall admitted as much to Congress in 1945: that the codes had been broken, that the United States had initiated Anglo-Dutch-American agreements for unified action against Japan and put them into effect before Pearl Harbor, and that the United States had provided officers of its military to China for combat duty before Pearl Harbor. It is hardly a secret that it takes two war powers to wage a war (unlike when one war power attacks an unarmed state) or that this case was no exception to that rule.

An October 1940 memorandum by Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum was acted on by President Roosevelt and his chief subordinates. It called for eight actions that McCollum predicted would lead the Japanese to attack, including arranging for the use of British bases in Singapore and for the use of Dutch bases in what is now Indonesia, aiding the Chinese government, sending a division of long-range heavy cruisers to the Philippines or Singapore, sending two divisions of submarines to “the Orient,” keeping the main strength of the fleet in Hawaii, insisting that the Dutch refuse the Japanese oil, and embargoing all trade with Japan in collaboration with the British Empire.

The day after McCollum’s memo, the State Department told Americans to evacuate far eastern nations, and Roosevelt ordered the fleet kept in Hawaii over the strenuous objection of Admiral James O. Richardson who quoted the President as saying “Sooner or later the Japanese would commit an overt act against the United States and the nation would be willing to enter the war.” The message that Admiral Harold Stark sent to Admiral Husband Kimmel on November 28, 1941, read, “IF HOSTILITIES CANNOT REPEAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED THE UNITED STATES DESIRES THAT JAPAN COMMIT THE FIRST OVERT ACT.” Joseph Rochefort, cofounder of the Navy’s communication intelligence section, who was instrumental in failing to communicate to Pearl Harbor what was coming, would later comment: “It was a pretty cheap price to pay for unifying the country.”

The night after the attack, President Roosevelt had CBS News’s Edward R. Murrow and Roosevelt’s Coordinator of Information William Donovan over for dinner at the White House, and all the President wanted to know was whether the American people would now accept war. Donovan and Murrow assured him the people would indeed accept war now. Donovan later told his assistant that Roosevelt’s surprise was not that of others around him, and that he, Roosevelt, welcomed the attack. Murrow was unable to sleep that night and was plagued for the rest of his life by what he called “the biggest story of my life” which he never told, but which he did not need to. The next day, the President spoke of a day of infamy, the United States Congress declared the last Constitutional war in the history of the republic, and the President of the Federal Council of Churches, Dr. George A. Buttrick, became a member of the Fellowship of Reconciliation committing to resist the war.

Why does it matter? Because the legend of Pearl Harbor, re-used on 9-11, is responsible not for the destructive pro-war policies of the 1920s and the 1930s that brought World War II into being, but responsible for the permanent war mentality of the past 75 years, as well as for how World War II was escalated, prolonged, and completed.

Spreading the Myth

The United States is indisputably the world’s most frequent and extensive wager of aggressive war, largest occupier of foreign lands, and biggest weapons dealer to the world. But when the United States peeps out from under the blankets where it lies shivering with fear, it sees itself as an innocent victim. It has no holiday to keep any victorious battle in everyone’s mind. It has a holiday to remember the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor — and now also one, perhaps holier still, to recall, not the “shock and awe” destruction of Baghdad, but the crimes of September 11, 2001, the “new Pearl Harbor.” Will there soon be a Russian Hacking Day on U.S. calendars too?

Similar to Israel, but with a variation, the United States is deeply obsessed with World War II, overlaid of course on a Southern obsession with the U.S. Civil War. The Southern U.S. love for the Civil War is love for a war lost, but also for victimhood and the righteousness of the vengeance wreaked on the world year after year by the U.S. military.

The U.S. love for World War II is also, fundamentally, love for a war lost. That may seem odd to say, because it is simultaneously very much love for a war won. World War II remains the U.S. model for potentially some day winning a war again, as it’s been losing them all over the world for the 73 years since World War II. But the U.S. view of WWII is also strangely similar to the Russian view.

Russia was brutally attacked by the Nazis, but persevered and won the war. The United States believes itself to have been “imminently” attacked by the Nazis. That, after all, was the propaganda that took the United States to war. There was not one word about rescuing Jews or anything half that noble.

Hollywood has made relatively few movies and television shows about all other wars combined, in comparison with dramas about World War II, which may in fact be its most popular topic ever. We’re really not drowning in movies glorifying the theft of northern Mexico or the occupation of the Philippines. The Korean War gets little play. Even the Vietnam War and all the more recent wars fail to inspire U.S. storytellers like World War II, and some 90% of those stories relate to the war in Europe, not Asia.

The European story is much preferred because of the particular evils of the German enemy. That the U.S. prevented a peace without victor in World War I by crushing Germany, and then punished it viciously, and then aided the Nazis — all of that is far more easily forgotten than the nuclear bombs that the United States dropped on Japan. But it is the Japanese attack of December 7, 1941, together with the fantasized Nazi invasion, that persuades the U.S. public that waging war in Europe was defensive. So the history of the United States training Japan in imperialism and then antagonizing and provoking Japan must be forgotten as well.

Amazon.com, a corporation with a huge CIA contract, and whose owner also owns the Washington Post, created a television series called the Man in the High Castle. The story is set in the 1960s with the Nazis occupying three-quarters of the United States and the Japanese the rest. In this alternative universe, the ultimate redemption is found in Germany being the nation to have dropped nuclear bombs.

The Axis victors, and their aging leaders, have created and maintained an old-fashioned empire — not like U.S. bases in proxy states, but a full-blown occupation, like the United States in Iraq. It doesn’t really matter how implausible this sounds. It is the most plausible scenario that can embody the U.S. fantasy of someone else doing to it what it does to others. Thus U.S. crimes here in the real 2000s become “defensive,” as it is doing unto others before they can do unto it.

Nonviolent resistance does not exist in Season One Episode One of Amazon’s soothing victim adventure, and apparently hasn’t for years at that point in the tale. But how could it? A force stoppable through nonviolence — even an imaginary one — cannot serve to justify the violence of the actual U.S. military. The German and Japanese occupiers have to be confrontable only through violence, even anachronistically in an age in which nonviolent techniques were known, in which the civil rights movement was resisting U.S. fascism to great effect.

“Before the war … every man was free,” says one of the attractive young white people who constitute all the heroes and some of the villains in this drama. Instead of race riots, McCarthyism, Vietnam, and the sterilizing and experimenting on the powerless that actually happened, this alternative United States includes the burning of Jews, the disabled, and the terminally ill. The contrast to the imagined pre-Nazi past in which “every man [but not woman?] was free” is stark. One almost wishes to make America great again.

Amazon also shows us Nazis behaving much like the actual United States behaves: torturing and murdering enemies. Rikers Island is a brutal prison in this TV show and in reality. In this fantasy, the symbols of U.S. and Nazi patriotism have been merged seamlessly. In reality, the U.S. military incorporated much Nazi thinking along with the many Nazis it recruited through Operation Paperclip — another way in which the U.S. actually lost WWII if we imagine victory as democracy defeating the sort of society in which someone like Donald Trump could thrive.

The United States today manages to view refugees from the wars it wages in distant lands as dangerous enemies, as new Nazis, just as leading U.S. politicians refer to foreign leaders as new Hitlers. With U.S. citizens shooting up public places on an almost daily basis, when one such killing is alleged to have been done by a Muslim, especially a Muslim with any sympathy for foreign fighters, well, then that’s not just a shooting. That means that the United States has been invaded. And that means that anything it does is “defensive.”

Does Venezuela elect leaders the U.S. disapproves of? That’s a threat to “national security” — a somewhat magical threat to invade and occupy the United States and compel it to torture and kill wearing a different flag. This paranoia doesn’t come from nowhere. It comes from programs like The Man in the High Castle.

Pearl Harbor mythologizing is not just a field for entertainment. Here’s a newspaper article:

“Pearl Harbor and World War II brought us together as a nation. We believed we could not be beaten. And we prevailed. But why is Congress now so intent on destroying our feelings of patriotism and decimating our national defense? Many Congress members want to cut our national defense spending in an effort to compensate for their ineptness, for not fulfilling their responsibilities as our representatives and for catering to other groups and politicians for the sake of their pet (pork) projects and the next election. They forget (or don’t know) that their No. 1 priority is the defense of our country, and related to that, the protection of our veterans’ benefits. . . .

“Could the fact that America forgot about what happened at Pearl Harbor and let down its guard have helped allow the attacks of 9/11 to happen? And will this forgetfulness and ignorance stoke terrorists’ ambitions to expand their attacks? Because Congress’ ‘supercommittee’ failed to meet its deadline last month to identify $1.2 trillion in savings, spending cut triggers are now set to take effect in 2013, including $600 billion for defense. If Congress is allowed to cut the military budget, another attack becomes more likely.

“We must call the president, our congressional leaders, our two state senators and our representatives in the House to tell them to stop their foolishness, renew the military and Veterans Affairs budgets, and even increase them so that we may both strengthen our programs for research and development in order to remain the largest and best-equipped military in the world and to respect and honor our past veteran heroes.

“If we allow them to make defense cuts all in the name of getting out of Iraq, and eventually Afghanistan (which is probably a mistake, but that discussion will be for another day), there will be no more research funds to remain No. 1, no upgrades, no new tanks, planes, ships and drones, neither more nor better body armor and vehicles.”

Regardless of whether you believe the legend of Pearl Harbor, it is very difficult to deny that this is a different world. The United States does not just have the most expensive military in the world, but one the size of the rest of the world’s put together. The United States has bases or troops in most of the world’s other countries. The United States dominates the oceans and outerspace. The United States has sliced the planet up into command zones. Congress is dumping over half of discretionary spending into the military. While they’ve roughly doubled this spending, both in real dollars and as a percentage of the federal budget since 9-11, the fact is that the nuclear arsenal and the empire of bases and all the endless spending had nothing to do with 9-11 other than serving to provoke it. Your newspaper is asking you to live in a dream world, and to destroy this one in the process.

No new tanks? No new planes? $600 billion sounds big, but over 10 years it’s $60 billion out of an annual “security” budget of a trillion — meaning 6%. All that’s required to turn that into an increase instead of a cut is to take it out of a “projected” budget that increases by more than 6%. If any actual cutting happens, you can rest assured our misrepresentatives will do everything in their power to take the money out of non-military areas, or at least to cut troop benefits rather than the sacred and profitable tanks and planes etc., almost none of which has anything to do with “defense.”

Countering the Myth

As we read Ulysses on Bloomsday every June 16th (or we should if we don’t) I think that every December 7th should not only commemorate the Great Law of 1682 that banned war in Pennsylvania but also mark Pearl Harbor, not by celebrating the state of permawar that has existed for 75 years, but by reading The Golden Age by Gore Vidal and marking with a certain Joycean irony the golden age of anti-isolationist imperial mass-killing that has encompassed the lives of every U.S. citizen under the age of 75.

Golden Age Day should include public readings of Vidal’s novel and the glowing endorsements of it by the Washington Post, New York Times Book Review, and every other corporate paper in the year 2000, also known as the year 1 BWT (before the war on terra). Not a single one of those newspapers has ever, to my knowledge, printed a serious straightforward analysis of how President Franklin D. Roosevelt maneuvered the United States into World War II. Yet Vidal’s novel — presented as fiction, yet resting entirely on documented facts — recounts the story with total honesty, and somehow the genre used or the author’s pedigree or his literary skill or the length of the book (too many pages for senior editors to be bothered with) grants him a license to tell the truth.

Sure, some people have read The Golden Age and protested its impropriety, but it remains a respectable high-brow volume. I may be hurting the cause by openly writing about its content. The trick, which I highly recommend to all, is to give or recommend the book to others withouttelling them what’s in it.

Despite a filmmaker being a main character in the book, it’s not been made into a film, as far as I know — but a widespread phenomenon of public readings could conceivably make that happen.

In The Golden Age, we follow along inside all the closed doors, as the British push for U.S. involvement in World War II, as President Roosevelt makes a commitment to Prime Minister Winston Churchill, as the warmongers manipulate the Republican convention to make sure that both parties nominate candidates in 1940 ready to campaign on peace while planning war, as FDR longs to run for an unprecedented third term as a wartime president but must content himself with beginning a draft and campaigning as a drafttime president in a time of supposed national danger, and as FDR works to provoke Japan into attacking on his desired schedule.

The echoes are eerie. Roosevelt campaigns on peace (“except in case of attack”), like Wilson, like Johnson, like Nixon, like Obama. Roosevelt, pre-election, puts in Henry Stimson as a war-eager Secretary of War not altogether unlike Donald Trump nominees.

World War Two Was Not a Just War

World War II is often called “the good war,” and has been since the U.S. war on Vietnam to which it was then contrasted. World War II so dominates U.S. and therefore Western entertainment and education, that “good” often comes to mean something more than “just.”

The winner of the 2016 “Miss Italy” beauty pageant got herself into a bit of a scandal by declaring that she would have liked to live through World War II. While she was mocked, she was clearly not alone. Certainly the editors of Politico are with her. Many would like to be part of something widely depicted as noble, heroic, and exciting. Should they actually find a time machine, I recommend they read the statements of some actual WWII veterans and survivors before they head back to join the fun.

No matter how many years one writes books, does interviews, publishes columns, and speaks at events, it remains virtually impossible to make it out the door of an event in the United States at which you’ve advocated abolishing war without somebody hitting you with the what-about-the-good-war question. This belief that there was a good war 75 years ago is a large part of what moves the U.S. public to tolerate dumping a trillion dollars a year into preparing in case there’s a good war next year, even in the face of so many dozens of wars during the past 73 years on which there’s general consensus that they were not good. Without rich, well-established myths about World War II, current propaganda about Russia or Syria or Iraq or China would sound as crazy to most people as it sounds to me. And of course the funding generated by the Good War legend leads to more bad wars, rather than preventing them. I’ve written on this topic at great length in many articles and books, especially War Is A Lie. But I’ll offer here a few key points that ought to at least place a few seeds of doubt in the minds of most U.S. supporters of WWII as a Just War.

12 Reasons the Good War Wasn’t

  1. World War II could not have happened without World War I, without the stupid manner of starting World War I and the even stupider manner of ending World War I which led numerous wise people to predict World War II on the spot, or without Wall Street’s funding of Nazi Germany for decades (as preferable to communists), or without the arms race and numerous bad decisions that do not need to be repeated in the future.
  2. The U.S. government was not hit with a surprise attack. President Franklin Roosevelt had quietly promised Churchill that the United States would work hard to provoke Japan into staging an attack. FDR knew the attack was coming, and initially drafted a declaration of war against both Germany and Japan on the evening of Pearl Harbor. Prior to Pearl Harbor, FDR had built up bases in the U.S. and multiple oceans, traded weapons to the Brits for bases, started the draft, created a list of every Japanese American person in the country, provided planes, trainers, and pilots to China, imposed harsh sanctions on Japan, and advised the U.S. military that a war with Japan was beginning. He told his top advisers he expected an attack on December 1st, which was six days off. Here’s an entry in Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s diary following a November 25, 1941, White House meeting: “The President said the Japanese were notorious for making an attack without warning and stated that we might be attacked, say next Monday, for example.”
  3. The war was not humanitarian and was not even marketed as such until after it was over. The United States led global conferences at which the decision was made not to accept Jewish refugees, and for explicitly racist reasons, and despite Hitler’s claim that he would send them anywhere on luxury cruise ships. There was no poster asking you to help Uncle Sam save the Jews. A ship of Jewish refugees from Germany was chased away from Miami by the Coast Guard. The U.S. and other nations refused to accept Jewish refugees, and the majority of the U.S. public supported that position. Peace groups that questioned Prime Minister Winston Churchill and his foreign secretary about shipping Jews out of Germany to save them were told that, while Hitler might very well agree to the plan, it would be too much trouble and require too many ships. The U.S. engaged in no diplomatic or military effort to save the victims in the Nazi concentration camps. Anne Frank was denied a U.S. visa. Although this point has nothing to do with a serious historian’s case for WWII as a Just War, it is so central to U.S. mythology that I’ll include here a key passage from Nicholson Baker: “Anthony Eden, Britain’s foreign secretary, who’d been tasked by Churchill with handling queries about refugees, dealt coldly with one of many important delegations, saying that any diplomatic effort to obtain the release of the Jews from Hitler was ‘fantastically impossible.’ On a trip to the United States, Eden candidly told Cordell Hull, the secretary of state, that the real difficulty with asking Hitler for the Jews was that ‘Hitler might well take us up on any such offer, and there simply are not enough ships and means of transportation in the world to handle them.’ Churchill agreed. ‘Even were we to obtain permission to withdraw all the Jews,’ he wrote in reply to one pleading letter, ‘transport alone presents a problem which will be difficult of solution.’ Not enough shipping and transport? Two years earlier, the British had evacuated nearly 340,000 men from the beaches of Dunkirk in just nine days. The U.S. Air Force had many thousands of new planes. During even a brief armistice, the Allies could have airlifted and transported refugees in very large numbers out of the German sphere.”[vii] Perhaps it does go to the question of “Right Intention” that the “good” side of the war simply did not give a damn about what would become the central example of the badness of the “bad” side of the war.
  4. The war was not defensive. FDR lied that he had a map of Nazi plans to carve up South America, that he had a Nazi plan to eliminate religion, that U.S. ships (covertly assisting British war planes) were innocently attacked by Nazis, that Germany was a threat to the United States.[viii] A case can be made that the U.S. needed to enter the war in Europe to defend other nations, which had entered to defend yet other nations, but a case could also be made that the U.S. escalated the targeting of civilians, extended the war, and inflicted more damage than might have occurred, had the U.S. done nothing, attempted diplomacy, or invested in nonviolence. To claim that a Nazi empire could have grown to someday include an occupation of the United States is wildly far fetched and not borne out by any earlier or later examples from other wars.
  5. We now know much more widely and with much more data that nonviolent resistance to occupation and injustice is more likely to succeed—and that success more likely to last—than violent resistance. With this knowledge, we can look back at the stunning successes of nonviolent actions against the Nazis that were not well organized or built on beyond their initial successes.[ix]
  6. The Good War was not good for the troops. Lacking intense modern training and psychological conditioning to prepare soldiers to engage in the unnatural act of murder, some 80 percent of U.S. and other troops in World War II did not fire their weapons at “the enemy.”[x] The fact that veterans of WWII were treated better after the war than other soldiers before or since, was the result of the pressure created by the Bonus Army after the previous war. That veterans were given free college, healthcare, and pensions was not due to the merits of the war or in some way a result of the war. Without the war, everyone could have been given free college for many years. If we provided free college to everyone today, it would then require much more than Hollywoodized World War II stories to get many people into military recruiting stations.
  7. Several times the number of people killed in German camps were killed outside of them in the war. The majority of those people were civilians. The scale of the killing, wounding, and destroying made WWII the single worst thing humanity has ever done to itself in a short space of time. We imagine the allies were somehow “opposed” to the far lesser killing in the camps. But that can’t justify the cure that was worse than the disease.
  8. Escalating the war to include the all-out destruction of civilians and cities, culminating in the completely indefensible nuking of cities took WWII out of the realm of defensible projects for many who had defended its initiation—and rightly so. Demanding unconditional surrender and seeking to maximize death and suffering did immense damage and left a grim and foreboding legacy.
  9. Killing huge numbers of people is supposedly defensible for the “good” side in a war, but not for the “bad” side. The distinction between the two is never as stark as fantasized. The United States had a long history as an apartheid state. U.S. traditions of oppressing African Americans, practicing genocide against Native Americans, and now interning Japanese Americans also gave rise to specific programs that inspired Germany’s Nazis—these included camps for Native Americans, and programs of eugenics and human experimentation that existed before, during, and after the war. One of these programs included giving syphilis to people in Guatemala at the same time the Nuremberg trials were taking place.[xi] The U.S. military hired hundreds of top Nazis at the end of the war; they fit right in.[xii] The U.S. aimed for a wider world empire, before the war, during it, and ever since. German neo-Nazis today, forbidden to wave the Nazi flag, sometimes wave the flag of the Confederate States of America instead.
  10. The “good” side of the “good war,” the party that did most of the killing and dying for the winning side, was the communist Soviet Union. That doesn’t make the war a triumph for communism, but it does tarnish Washington’s and Hollywood’s tales of triumph for “democracy.”[xiii]
  11. World War II still hasn’t ended. Ordinary people in the United States didn’t have their incomes taxed until World War II and that’s never stopped. It was supposed to be temporary.[xiv] WWII-era bases built around the world have never closed. U.S. troops have never left Germany or Japan.[xv] There are more than 100,000 U.S. and British bombs still in the ground in Germany, still killing.[xvi]
  12. Going back 75 years to a nuclear-free, colonial world of completely different structures, laws, and habits to justify what has been the greatest expense of the United States in each of the years since is a bizarre feat of self-deception that isn’t attempted in the justification of any lesser enterprise. Assume I’ve got numbers 1 through 11 totally wrong, and you’ve still got to explain how an event from the early 1940s justifies dumping a trillion 2018 dollars into war funding that could have been spent to feed, clothe, cure, and shelter millions of people, and to environmentally protect the earth.

##

[vii] War No More: Three Centuries of American Antiwar and Peace Writing, edited by Lawrence Rosendwald.

[viii] David Swanson, War Is A Lie, Second Edition (Charlottesville: Just World Books, 2016).

[ix] Book and Film: A Force More Powerful, http://aforcemorepowerful.org

[x] Dave Grossman, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society(Back Bay Books: 1996).

[xi] Donald G. McNeil Jr., The New York Times, “U.S. Apologizes for Syphilis Tests in Guatemala,” October 1, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/health/research/02infect.html

[xii] Annie Jacobsen, Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program that Brought Nazi Scientists to America (Little, Brown and Company, 2014).

[xiii] Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick, The Untold History of the United States (Gallery Books, 2013).

[xiv] Steven A. Bank, Kirk J. Stark, and Joseph J. Thorndike, War and Taxes (Urban Institute Press, 2008).

[xv] RootsAction.org, “Move Away from Nonstop War. Close the Ramstein Air Base,”http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=12254

[xvi] David Swanson, “The United States Just Bombed Germany,” http://davidswanson.org/node/5134

David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson’s books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio.He is a 2015, 2016, 2017 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee. Longer bio and photos and videos here. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook, and sign up for: Activist alertsArticles.David Swanson newsWorld Beyond War newsCharlottesville news.

%d Bloggern gefällt das: