#they were commited by a communist government under the name of communism | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

tenderwenders · 2 years

Text

Why Koreans are upset over BP Jisoo and Jung Hae-In’s new drama, Snowdrop

Right! So you’ve probably heard that there’s been some controversy about BlackPink Jisoo and actor Jung Hae-In’s new drama, Snowdrop. You may have heard that Koreans are accusing the producers of distorting history, and have shrugged it off as K-netz being super trigger-happy and oversensitive again. After all, the drama hasn’t even aired yet!

Well, before you write us off just like that I’d like to explain the anger and frustration surrounding the summary of the drama.

First, Snowdrop takes place in 1987. Some of you may already know this, but 1987 was a crucial time in modern Korean history as it was at the year of the Democracy Movement, a mass movement protesting the then-authoritarian government and attempting to force it to hold fair elections. You may have watched the Korean movie 1987, which did a very nice job of portraying the sheer brutality of the government under Chun Doo-Hwan. (Who, in fact, only passed away a few days prior on 11/23/2021! Good riddance, but he died without ever apologizing for the crimes committed on his orders, and he died after living a long life in luxury. Bastard.) As is common in protests, college students were key figures in the 1987 movement: they recruited activists, wrote articles criticizing Chun’s dictatorship, and helped mobilize communities to protest on the streets. Naturally, the government didn’t take kindly to this and took to kidnapping and torturing many of these college students, under the justification that these students were accused of being Communist spies. As you may imagine, many of these students (and countless other activists) were forced to confess to being spies under immense physical duress, when all they’d ever fought for was to return Korea to democracy.

So! What does this have to do with Snowdrop?

Jung Hae-In’s character, from the little blurb the producers published, is said to appear on Youngro(Jisoo)’s doorstep one day, bloodied and unconscious. Here’s the synopsis, copied from Wikipedia:

Im Soo-ho (Jung Hae-in) plays a graduate student who, after participating in a pro-democracy protest, is discovered covered in blood by Eun Young-ro (Jisoo), a female university student. The girl hides him from the government in her dorm room at her women's university. However, it is revealed that Soo-ho is not who he appears to be. Against the backdrop of political upheaval, the pair's story unfolds and the two develop a romantic relationship.

The English synopsis is vague on what Soo-ho’s real identity is, but right off the bat we understand that a) he looks like one of the many college activists fighting for democracy and b) like many of his peers, he’s presumably been brutalized by the police for his actions.

The Korean synopsis is more detailed: parts of the synopsis and character profiles that circulated online state that Soo-ho is actually a North Korean spy who’s infiltrated South Korea as a college student -- specifically, a college activist. That’s already problematic, because it suggests to viewers that the authoritarian government may have been justified in their murder and torture of innocents because look, Soo-ho really is a communist spy! That means dragging people off the streets and fortified prisons literally designed for torture was rational! (Or so Chun’s administration would have loved for you to think.)

The secondary problem is Jisoo’s character, Youngro. There were concerns raised about her name, which was originally Youngcho before it was changed after uproar about potentially distorting an actual historical figure. There’s a famous book called Youngcho Unnie (not sure about the exact English translation of the title, maybe Sister Youngcho would be better?), and the titular Chun Youngcho was an activist in the 70s who fought for democracy. (The tyranny she was fighting against was the government under military dictator Park Junghee, who instigated a military coup and drafted the Yushin Constitution, a highly authoritarian document that paved the way for Chun Doo-Hwan years later.) Chun Youngcho married fellow democratic activist Jung Moon-hwa, who was framed as a communist spy and sentenced to life imprisonment, where he died of malnourishment. Naturally the producers have denied that she was named after Chun Youngcho, but seeing as it’s really not a common name and that they changed the name of the character after the backlash is... hmm.

So you have a college girl named Youngro (formerly Youngcho) who presumably falls in love with the North Korean spy masquerating as a democratic activist. You have a girl strongly suspected of being named after a real, historical figure (who’s possibly still alive, even if she was struggling with her ailing health as of 2017) falling in love with a faux-activist, really-a-communist-spy. In 1987, when actual college activists were being torn off the streets or seized from their homes to be tortured, with all inhumane acts justified as “hunting down communist spies.” You have that girl falling for a real communist spy when her (strongly suspected) namesake’s husband was unfairly imprisoned for the same accusation, and died in prison.

Yeah. Wonder why people would be upset.

If you think, That’s just conjecture!, here’s a third point: the sub-male interest, Lee Kang-moo (actor Jang Seung-jo), is the motherfucking leader of the Agency for National Security Planning's Team One who “always follows the rules.” Do you know what the ANSP is? Originally it was called the Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA) under Park Junghee, the first military dictator, and it was “extensively used by President Park's government to suppress and disrupt anti-government or pro–North Korean or other pro-communist movements, including the widespread student protests on university campuses and the activities of overseas Koreans.” In other words, the KCIA was used to silence critics and potential opponents of Park’s reign with liberal use of violence. People died a lot, and they often died in pain.

Then Chun Doo-Hwan takes over, and renames it the ANSP. Does its function change? Not really! In fact, this was the arm of the government that framed protestors and other innocents as communist spies and tortured them. And this character, this sub-romantic interest, “always follows the rules”!!! He works for the military regime that actively commits crimes against humanity on its own people!! Since he’s a sub-lead, it’s not much of a stretch to assume that he’ll be presented in a positive or, at the very least, a sympathetic light. The producers did come out and say Kang-moo is a righteous man who turns his back on the corrupt government to do what’s right, but still. Why have him be a member of the ANSP in the first place? Why give that organization and dictators like Chun Doo-hwan even the slightest chance of looking even remotely understandable? And it’ll presumably take some time for him to betray the ANSP to do the right thing: what crimes will he have committed until then? ...We’re supposed to like this guy, right?

To sum it all up, you have 1) actual communist spy masquerading as a college activist in a time when actual activists were being tortured and killed after being falsely accused of being spies; 2) a heroine strongly believed to have been named after a 70s democratic activist, falling in love with a North Korean spy, when her namesake’s husband was framed as such and killed for it; and 3) a secondary romantic lead who actively works for the government that brutalizes its own people, even if we’re told he turns his back on them later. (Why’d you join them in the first place son)

...And you still want to accuse Koreans of being too sensitive? You still want to claim we’re all senseless haters who want to drag Jisoo and the other actors down for no reason?

If you do, I’m genuinely astonished by your lack of empathy. The people who lived through Chun Doo-Hwan’s regime, the ones who witnessed people being shot and beaten and killed like dogs on the street, the people who lost loved ones to such violence and the people who survived such horrors, many of them are still alive.

Think twice before you disregard a nation’s outrage. Just because you’re too ignorant to see cause for upset doesn’t mean you have the right to dismiss their fear and anger.

Most of us have nothing against the actors themselves. We’re against the whole drama itself, and many of us are concerned about the negative impact it may have on the cast. Our criticisms aren’t motivated by “BlackPink hate” or a desire to ruin the girls’ careers -- we want to make sure JTBC and all other TV channels and media platforms think twice before making such controversial content that betrays or dismisses the sacrifice of the previous generations in ushering forth a democratic South Korea.

Sometimes, things really are much bigger and more important than your K-pop faves, my friends.

#snowdrop #kdrama #snowdrop kdrama #blackpink jisoo #jisoo #jung hae in #jang seung jo #korean dramas #kpop #blackpink #설강화 #drama #history #south korean #jtbc

291 notes · View notes

catdotjpeg · 3 years

Photo

[Image ID: A rally in Ottawa Ontario in front of the the embassy of the Philippines on September 18th. Many people are holding placards with slogans such as “Activism is not a crime” and “Oust Duterte now”. On the far right, two people are holding a light green flag with the organization name “Migrante Canada” on it. To their right are two other people holding the Philippine flag. End ID.]

We commemorate the declaration of martial law across the Philippines on the 21st of September in 1972 by President Ferdinand Marcos. His martial rule lasted fourteen years and was responsible for thousands of killings and human rights violations. For many of these cases, no justice has been served.

Contrary to the popular narrative since the end of Marcos’ rule in 1986, human rights violations have continued in the Philippines. Killings of activists by military state forces never stopped, and the Filipino people continue to suffer.

Under the US-Duterte regime, martial law was declared in Mindanao four years ago. Hundreds of thousands of Moro people were displaced and turned into refugees by the wanton bombing and destruction of Marawi City at the hands of the Philippine Army. Indigenous people’s schools have been destroyed, and their communities remain under attack and occupation by the Philippine Army.

Under the US-Duterte regime, peasants in Negros and Panay islands are being arrested and massacred as they defend their right to till their ancestral domain.

Under the US-Duterte regime, the onslaught against the poor through Duterte’s “war on drugs,” which has now claimed more than 27,000 lives, including children.

Under the US-Duterte regime, the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict had been used as a tool to vilify activists and human rights defenders. They are tagged as “terrorists”, while Duterte’s military has been on a killing spree. The Philippines is now one of the most dangerous places in the world for human rights defenders.

[Image ID: Organizers in Ottawa march from the US embassy to the Philippines embassy on September 18th. The people holding the Migrante and the Philippine flags are marching in the front. Behind them, someone raises a large placard with the words “Activism is not terrorism” on it. End ID.]

The International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines along with our partners stand with the Filipino people in quest for justice as we participate in InvestigatePH, an independent international investigation of the human rights situation in the Philippines conducted by people’s organizations and civil society from all over the world.

The three reports of InvestigatePH explore in depth the crimes of the US-Duterte regime. These reports include recommendations to multiple global actors, which reflect the demand of the Filipino people for justice. The International Coalition of Human Rights in the Philippines calls on Canada to demonstrate its commitment to human rights by following the recommendations of the report.

We call on Canada to immediately suspend the sale of arms to the Philippine government; to vocally support the peace talks; to call on its ally, the United States, to pass the Philippine Human Rights Act in Congress; and to participate in multilateral global efforts to investigate and condemn the extrajudicial killings and other abuses identified in the series of reports! Canada must call on the Government of the Republic of the Philippines to end its de-facto martial law and end attacks on human rights defenders! Martial law is not only a matter of history for the Philippines. We say “never forget” but also to “never allow” the same breed of murderers and criminals to hold power.

Support the calls of InvestigatePH and the Filipino people’s call for justice! Long live international solidarity!

-- ICHRP CANADA COMMEMORATES MARTIAL LAW: PAST AND PRESENT, 22 Sep 2021

#canada #ottawa #philippines #martial law #antifascism

131 notes · View notes

tanadrin · 3 years

Text

The major narrative around Communist collective farming I tend to encounter is “agricultural collectivization triggered famines, because farmers had no incentive to work hard to maintain themselves and their families, and, e.g., decollectivization in China under Deng, by letting individuals own land privately again, was instrumental in improving agricultural outputs.” See for instance this post on Reddit, which is what has me thinking about the subject.

I am very confused by this, because no matter how I approach it, it feels like a deeply unsatisfying explanation.

“Capitalism/private property makes people work hard, collectivism doesn’t” not only seems like a nuance-free just so story, it also seems plainly untrue. If collectivization and a rural command economy harmed agricultural output only in that it disincentivized farmers to work hard, well, I would think the threat of starvation would be a major incentive that would effectively counterbalance that! We can point to plenty of examples where the profitability of individual labor is divorced from the overall profitability of the enterprise that don’t necessarily result in people being super lazy--unless you own your own business, you probably don’t have a major stake in how profitable it is, as long as you get paid anyway. Now, you can be fired, and presumably job security in socialist collective farming enterprises was very good, but even so that doesn’t mean there aren’t social feedback mechanisms or formal mechanisms of reprimand that might incentivize people to do their jobs well (besides pride in their work, which a lot of people seem to have anyway). And there seem to be at least some examples of communist collectivization that were not unmitigated disasters; or which can even be regarded to be successes; these exceptions apparently disprove the original hypothesis.

Moreover, collective farming outside of modern communist theory has a long history. It exists on a spectrum from the individual family farm to communal schemes of land ownership, and the command economy of the Inca might also provide an interesting corollary example. The key difference between these systems of collective agricultural production and the experiments of the USSR or China is that they’re firmly embedded in preexisting social structures and local institutions; they weren’t something somebody tried to create ex nihilo in a couple of decades by top-down order. Cf. also modern voluntary collective farming arrangements like the kibbutzim, or Anabaptist communities in North America.

But “collectivist farming can work if it’s managed democratically and in a grassroots fashion, rather than being imposed dictatorially from an administrative center remote from where the actual production is occurring” is a much less flattering narrative if your central ideological opposition is between authoritarian socialism and authoritarian capitalism. Because the organization of production by private enterprise--which is not democratically organized (though it could be; we can imagine companies where workers elect their managers and even their C-suite executives from among themselves, and are the sole shareholders)--tends to operate in the same fashion. In this case, the bureaucratic center is less remote, because it’s not a central government trying to run an entire country’s political apparatus and micromanage its economic apparatus, but it suggests that the present arrangement is at best a messy compromise, and that there are major gains to be made by reducing the power and influence of a small number of company owners who capture an outsize proportion of the company profits.

“Lack of incentive to work hard reduces output; and precarity is an important incentive to work hard” is, as a naive argument, pretty persuasive! I tended not to question it when I was younger and teachers and older relatives were explaining history to me. But it seems to me that we keep encountering more and more data that, in fact, precarity reduces worker output; that better pay, better working conditions, and better job security improves the time and attention workers have for their jobs, and that moving to shorter hours and improving guarantees around things like healthcare and housing improves output, not worsens it, which seems to stand in contradiction to the original argument. And if as a society we prize values like democracy, freedom, and equality between individuals, it seems weird that we not only tolerate but encourage within the heart of our economy these large-scale structures of production that are unapologetically authoritarian in their organization, that occasionally trend totalitarian when they think they can get away with it (i.e., companies trying to restrict their workers’ private lives), and we treat many of the proposed alternatives to this structure as evidence of a sensibility (”communism”) associated with some of the most notorious dictatorships in world history. Yes, mandating some degree of worker ownership or control of industry would be to sharply curtail private property rights--but so was the abolition of slavery, or the recognition of the right of unions to organize, or the liberation of the serfs, or the end of feudalism. Some formulations of the idea of private property are incompatible with a democratic society! We should not feel beholden to them.

I’m not ideologically committed to the idea of collective farming; it seems like an aesthetic fetish of the Stalinists, not something necessary for prosperity and democracy in developed countries where something like 90% of the population lives in urban areas. In any case, the small, privately-held family farm is one of those social institutions projected backward in time to justify its current stranglehold on the culture: Sarah Taber talks quite cogently about how it’s not really an accurate model for most of the history of preindustrial Europe, just for the process of settlement of the frontier during colonial expansion, and that modern farming, even when nominally in the hands of a “family” (as the owners of a privately held company), is overwhelmingly dominated by something closer to big agribusiness; small farms generally just can’t compete with the economies of scale of large ones, except in certain small niches. This is pretty much collectivization by another name, facilitated by wage labor; the only change I would make if I had a magic wand was to give the workers more influence over how these businesses are run. But agricultural labor, especially in its seasonal and migratory dimensions, is a very complex topic with a lot of unique pathologies, compared to industrial labor.

#i remain perplexed about the problems of agricultural collectivization #i have yet to run across a satisfying analysis of either its failures or successes #suggestions on this point are welcome

221 notes · View notes

96thdayofrage · 3 years

Text

September 11, 2001: Questions to Ask if You Still Believe the Official Narrative

The attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11) left nearly 3,000 dead in NYC, Washington D.C. and over Pennsylvania. The attacks transformed America into a deepening police state at home and a nation perpetually at war abroad.

The official narrative claims that 19 hijackers representing Al Qaeda took over 4 commercial aircraft to carry out attacks on New York City’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington D.C.

The event served as impetus for the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan which continues to present day. It also led directly to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Attempts to cite the attack to precipitate a war with Iran and other members of the so-called “Axis of Evil” (Libya, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba) have also been made.

And if this is the version of reality one subscribes to, several questions remain worth asking.

1. Can the similarities between 9/11 and plans drawn up by the US Department of Defense (DoD) and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) in 1962 under the code name “Operation Northwoods” be easily dismissed?

The US DoD and JCS wrote a detailed plan almost identical to the 9/11 attacks as early as 1962 called “Operation Northwoods” where the US proposed hijacking commercial airliners, committing terrorist attacks, and blaming Cuba to justify a US military intervention.

Far from a fringe conspiracy theory, mainstream media outlets including ABC News would cover the document in articles like, “U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba,” which would report:

In the early 1960s, America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba’s then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

A full PDF copy of the document is available via George Washington University’s archives and states specifically regarding the hijacking of commercial aircraft:

An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

The document also cites the USS Maine in describing the sort of event the DoD-JCS sought to stage, a US warship whose destruction was used to maliciously provoke the Spanish-American War. It should be noted, that unlike the DoD-JCS document’s suggestion that airliner-related casualties be staged, the USS Maine explosion killed 260 sailors. It is likely that DoD and JCS would not risk engineering a provocation that leads to major war but allow low-level operators left alive with the knowledge of what they had participated in.

Considering that the US sought to deceive the public in order to provoke an unjustifiable war that would undoubtedly kill thousands or tens of thousands of innocent people, and that other proposals did include killing innocent people, it is worth considering that US policymakers would also be just as willing to extinguish innocent lives when staging the hijacking of aircraft to provoke such a war.

2. Why did US policymakers draw up extensive plans to reassert US global hegemony – including regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen – without any conceivable pretext until 9/11 conveniently unfolded?

In 2000, US policymakers from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) sought a sweeping plan to reassert America as a global hegemon. In a 90-page document titled, “Rebuilding America’s Defense: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century” (PDF), a strategy for maintaining what it called “American military preeminence” would be laid out in detail.

It involved global moves the United States – in 2000 – could never justify, including placing US troops in Southeast Asia, building a global missile defense network prohibited by treaties signed during the Cold War, and the containment of developing nations that would eventually end up rolling back US global hegemony in the near future, including Iran, Iraq, China, North Korea, Libya, and Syria.

The report noted the difficulties of proposing and executing the transformations necessary to achieve the objectives laid out in the document. It would be explicitly stated that:

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

In fact, the entire body of the document is an uncanny description of the post-9/11 “international order,” an order unimaginable had the events of 9/11 not transpired.

It should also be remembered that wars predicated on 9/11 like the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, were admittedly planned before 9/11 took place.

The Guardian in its 2004 article, “Bush team ‘agreed plan to attack the Taliban the day before September 11’,” would report:

The day before the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration agreed on a plan to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by force if it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, according to a report by a bipartisan commission of inquiry. The report pointed out that agreement on the plan, which involved a steady escalation of pressure over three years, had been repeatedly put off by the Clinton and Bush administrations, despite the repeated failure of attempts to use diplomatic and economic pressure.

While it seems inconceivable that the American or global public would tolerate the multi-trillion dollar 16 year war that the invasion of Afghanistan has become without the attacks on 9/11, such a war was admittedly in the making – in fact – years before 9/11 unfolded.

Similarly, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was strongly linked to the aftermath of 9/11, but was likewise decided upon long before 9/11 unfolded.

CNN in its article, “O’Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11,” would report:

The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill told CBS News’ 60 Minutes.

This echos similar statements made by US Army General Wesley Clark who repeatedly warned that the US sought global-spanning war post-Cold War to assert its hegemony over the planet, and fully sought to use 9/11 as a pretext to do it.

General Clark would list seven nations slated for regime change post 9/11, including Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen – all nations now either at war or facing war with the United States and its proxies – or in the case of Libya – entirely divided and destroyed in the wake of US military operations.

3. If primarily Saudi hijackers with Saudi money and Saudi organization perpetrated the attacks of 9/11, why has the United States waged war or threatened war with every nation in the Middle East except Saudi Arabia and its allies?

Not only has the United States made no moves against Saudi Arabia for its apparent role in the 9/11 attacks – spanning the administrations of US President George Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump – the United States has sold Saudi Arabia billions in arms, provided military support and protection to Saudi Arabia’s military and government, partnered with Saudi Arabia in its ongoing conflict with Yemen – all while US government documents and leaked e-mails between US politicians reveal Saudi Arabia is still a state sponsor of Al Qaeda – the organization officially blamed for the 9/11 attacks.

Indeed, a 2012 US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report would explicitly admit:

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

The DIA memo then explains exactly who this “Salafist principality’s” supporters are:

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

This “Salafist principality” is now known as the “Islamic State,” an affiliate of Al Qaeda still operating with significant state sponsorship everywhere from Syria, Iraq, and Libya, to the Philippines and beyond.

Coincidentally, Saudi-armed and funded terrorists in the Philippines has served as a pretext for US military assets to begin expanding their presence in Southeast Asia, just as the aforementioned 2000 PNAC document had sought.

Additionally, in a 2014 e-mail between US Counselor to the President John Podesta and former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it would be admitted that two of America’s closest regional allies – Saudi Arabia and Qatar – were providing financial and logistical support to the Islamic State.

The e-mail, leaked to the public through Wikileaks, stated:

…we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to [the Islamic State] and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

While the e-mail portrays the US in a fight against the very “Salafist” (Islamic) “principality” (State) it sought to create and use as a strategic asset in 2012, the fact that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are both acknowledged as state sponsors of the terrorist organization – and are both still enjoying immense military, economic, and political support from the United States and its European allies – indicates just how disingenuous America’s “war on terror” really is. If the US truly believed Al Qaeda carried out the deadly attacks of 9/11, why does it count among its closest allies two of Al Qaeda’s largest and most prolific state sponsors?

Together – by honestly answering these three questions – we are left considering the very real possibility that 9/11 was not a terrorist attack carried out by foreign terrorists, but rather an attack engineered by special interests within the United States itself.

If we reject that conclusion, we must ask ourselves why the US DoD and JCS would take the time to draft plans for false flag attacks if they did not believe they were viable options US policymakers might seriously consider. At the very least we must ask why those at the DoD and JCS could be caught signing and dating a conspiracy to commit unspeakable terrorism to justify an unjust war and not only avoid criminal charges, but remain employed within the US government.

We must also ask ourselves why US policymakers would draft long-term plans for reasserting American global hegemony without any conceivable pretext to justify such plans. Even in the wake of 9/11, the US government found it difficult to sell the invasion of Iraq to the American public and its allies. Without 9/11, such salesmanship would have been impossible. In Syria – with 9/11 disappearing into the distant past – US regime change efforts have all but stalled.

Finally, we must find adequate explanations as to why those sponsoring the supposed perpetrators of 9/11 have remained recipients of unwavering American support, weapon sales, and both political and military protection. We must attempt to answer why militants fighting in Syria under the banner of Al Qaeda have been able to openly operate out of NATO-member Turkey’s territory for the past 6 years, side-by-side US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) personnel who are admittedly fueling the conflict with weapons, money, and training “accidentally” ending up in Al Qaeda’s hands.

It is clear – that at the very least – the official narrative in no shape, form, or way adds up. If the official narrative doesn’t add up, what does?

35 notes · View notes

otnesse · 3 years

Text

Commentary on Peace Walker’s lionization of Che Guevara

Well, guys, as I promised earlier, I’m going to do coverage on a particularly infamous aspect of Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker, and quite frankly if you ask me, one of its worst elements. Sorry for the delay, didn’t realize that Peace Walker was actually released on April 29 in Japan and not the 30th. I’m basically going to cover the game’s lionization of Che Guevara in the various briefing files, and in particular Big Boss and Kazuhira Miller’s lionizing of that monster. For a bit of background, Peace Walker was the second canon PSP entry into the Metal Gear series, after Portable Ops (yes, Portable Ops is in fact canon, and if you ask me was a superior game to Peace Walker in terms of story and characterizations at least, but I digress…). The game has some controversial elements, namely it being very overtly anti-American even by its usual standards, not to mention pushing left-wing values to a far greater degree. One of these values is in the blatant promotion of Che Guevara in the briefing files (in the main story itself, ie, strictly going by the actual missions you undergo, the Che love was at least limited to the Sandinistas and to Vladimir Zadornov, with it being left ambiguous as to whether Snake and Miller actually were fond of him, and while you could argue that the Sandinistas’ sympathetic portrayal could point toward a promotion, Zadornov’s promotion was definitely meant to be a negative since he was planning on having Big Boss reenact Che’s well deserved execution after successfully changing Peace Walker’s target to Cuba in a disinformation op. The Briefing Files, however, aside from obviously Amanda and Chico, members of the Sandinistas, they also had Big Boss and Miller singing praises for that jerk.).

youtube

My commentary is on how Big Boss and Miller’s promotion of the guy was a complete and total betrayal of their characters, and also a betrayal of the explicit themes of the game, and also how it’s just one sign of Kojima just being a hack writer, not to mention was extremely poorly done even if we were to assume Kojima intended for Big Boss and Miller to be seen as the villains.

Out of character

For the first part, I’ll cover how the gushing for Che Guevara was completely out of character for Big Boss, and especially for Kazuhira Miller, aka, Master Miller from MG2 and MGS, not just going by past entries, but even when taking into account Peace Walker itself and any supplementary materials. I’ll give separate sections for the two of them, since it’s going to be lengthy.

Big Boss

For Big Boss, I’ll acknowledge that he was meant to be the main villain in the MSX2 games, or at least the main antagonist. However, his singing praises for Che Guevara even knowing that tidbit still didn’t make any sense at all, for a variety of reasons. First off, the games, namely Metal Gear Solid 2, strongly implied that Big Boss adhered to a more, for lack of a better term, right wing outlook. For starters, the New York Mirror review for Nastasha Romanenko’s book gave brief coverage on the official reports of what went down on Shadow Moses. In particular, as you can see with the screencaps down below, they specifically called the Sons of Big Boss a “radical right-wing group”, and the group itself for all intents and purposes, was modeled after Big Boss (even Liquid, despite hating his father, nevertheless was influenced by his ideology).

And then we get into the character Solidus, who unlike Liquid, or even Solid Snake, practically idolized his “father” (I put it in quotes since Solidus is a clone of Big Boss, as are Liquid and Solid), to the extent that he was practically ecstatic that Raiden shot out his eye and made him look even MORE like his dad. Aside from that, as you can see below with these screencaps, he was also depicted as a proto-Tea Party type, heck, a proto-MAGA type even, basically wanting America to return to the way the Founding Fathers envisioned it. There’s definitely no way Solidus would have been the type to sing praises for a scumbag like Che Guevara, knowing that, and considering his idolization of Big Boss, it’s also unlikely Big Boss would have sang praises for that creep either.

youtube

There’s also the fact that in MGS3, he wasn’t fond of Communism at all, and had already interacted with a guy similar to Che in many respects (well, other than maybe in terms of sexuality), Colonel Yevgeny Borisovitch Volgin, as both were renowned sadists, and even directly attempted to cause nuclear war. In fact, even before the torture, Big Boss, more accurately Naked Snake at that time, learned a bit about Volgin’s past, in particular his involvement in Katyn, and presumably Bykivnia and Kurapaty as well due to EVA’s references to similar massacres occurring in Western Belarus and the Ukraine, as you can see below:

youtube

His reaction in that conversation with EVA, in particular Volgin’s personal role in executing those guys, had him downright horrified. Bear in mind that Che Guevara actually DID do several of those things himself, shot innocent and unarmed people, and if anything, unlike Volgin who at least allowed Snake to have weapons on hand to fight him, Che outright dithers when confronted with people using guns, even if they’re his own allies based on his interaction with Jorges Sotus, and to a lesser extent Jesus Carreras. It says a lot when even someone like Volgin, a psychopathic mutant, had more honor than Che Guevara. Plus, in Peace Walker, Big Boss when recalling the Cuban Missile Crisis implied that he blamed that event for his ultimately having to kill The Boss (with Miller even noting it was uncharacteristic of him to get into hypotheticals), as you can see in these screencaps below.

The reason that ties in to Che Guevara is because, believe it or not, Che is the reason why the CMC nearly caused the Cold War to become hot. He and Castro even attempted to launch nukes at the United States, and it actually spooked Khrushchev enough that he had to muzzle Che and agree to end the standoff with the United States via the Turkey Deal (or retrieving Sokolov). Knowing that bit, it’s extremely unlikely Big Boss would have been particularly fond of the guy who essentially set the ground for Operation Snake Eater and his having to kill The Boss. And that’s not even getting into how he tried to stop a nuke being launched not just once in the game, but TWICE, and the second time was a perfect opportunity for him to emulate Che Guevara and succeed where Che failed. When Paz hijacked ZEKE, she revealed that she intended to nuke the Eastern Seaboard and pin the blame on MSF under Cipher’s orders, and yet Big Boss fought her in an attempt to stop her. That definitely wouldn’t have been something Che Guevara would have done, and if anything, he bragged to the London Daily Worker that he WOULD have launched the nukes at America preemptively had they been allowed to remain.

Heck, in Portable Ops and even Peace Walker, or at least the backstory for those games, Big Boss specifically served western interests after Operation Snake Eater. In the former, Big Boss was revealed to have participated in the Mozambique War of Independence, and a comment made by Null, aka, Gray Fox, aka, Frank Jaegar, after being bested the second time around, implied that Big Boss had fought alongside the Portugese during that time (Jaegar at that time was siding with FRELIMO), as you can see from the following screencaps:

And in the tape detailing how he and Miller met (not to mention the extended version included in the Peace and Harmony Blues drama tape that was later included in the Japanese version of Ground Zeroes, specifically chapters 1 and 2), it was mentioned that Kazuhira Miller at the time was a mercenary operating with an implied communist rebel group in Colombia, while Big Boss was clearly siding with the Western-backed government.

youtube

I think the events proper for Peace Walker was the first time Big Boss explicitly sided with Communists (not counting Portable Ops, since it’s implied the Russian soldiers renounced their Communism after being abandoned by the Soviet government), and even there, he did it more out of his own personal motives of getting closure regarding The Boss’s true motives after learning she may have somehow survived Snake Eater than out of any liking of Mena/Zadornov’s objectives.

Besides, Big Boss is former CIA, and grunt or not, he'd still need to have at least some degree of knowledge about Che, namely stuff like how Che tried to commit to the Cuban Missile Crisis and make it a hot war, among other things like his instituting gulags in Cuba. And let's not forget, when Gene in Portable Ops tried to pull a similar stunt, Big Boss was genuinely horrified by what he was planning to do.

Kazuhira Miller

Now we get to Kazuhira Miller, aka, Master McDonnell Benedict Miller. Unlike Big Boss, Miller was consistently up to that point depicted as a good guy (probably the closest he got to engaging in villainy was in MGS1 regarding manipulating Snake into arming REX, and even there, he was dead three days before the events of the game, and that had been Liquid who did so). He was also shown to be a huge Che fanboy, and if anything he was depicted as being an even bigger fanboy than Big Boss himself in that game. And Peace Walker also retconned his origins by revealing he was in fact born in Japan with bi-racial ancestry (Japanese and American Caucasian), as he originally was third-generation Japanese American. He was made clear to have more love for America than his own home country of Japan, and only recognized the meaning of peace when talking to his hospitalized mom. He also was mentioned to have been influenced to get into the mercenary business by Yukio Mishima’s suicide, though he does imply that he wasn’t on the same political spectrum as him. Him singing praises for Che Guevara doesn’t work well at all, especially considering that he repeatedly stressed that they not allow another Cuban Missile Crisis to happen, and going by his comments in these screencaps below (in the same briefing file as Big Boss’s uncharacteristically going into hypotheticals, and if anything happened immediately before then), he was fully aware about how Japan itself was almost nuked again thanks to that event (with the only difference being that the Soviets were more likely to nuke them), as you can see with the following screencaps.

Having him sing praises for Che Guevara, whom as I pointed out earlier actually attempted to launch nukes and jumpstart World War III, comes across as ESPECIALLY distasteful knowing that bit, since it comes across as him basically cheering for the guy who tried to wipe out his fellow Japanese, to say little about the Americans, whom back then, he idolized. It would be the same thing as a Holocaust survivor singing praises for Adolf Hitler after narrowly surviving being killed by him. It also doesn’t match up at all with his characterization in MG2 or even MGS1 (and believe me, Liquid posing as Miller or not, his statements to Snake would have been what Miller himself would have said since Snake didn’t seem suspicious at all about him.), the latter regarding the bit about Meryl after she was captured. Even his not being fond of Japan doesn’t cut it, especially when, ignoring that he put that to the side after his mom was hospitalized, the character Sokolov ALSO wasn’t fond of the Soviet Union at all, risked crossing the iron curtain alongside his family to get away from it, and would have been free as a bird had the CMC not happened, and almost got away again until The Boss interfered. Even THERE, however, he still retained at least some degree of love for Russia itself, as when Gene decided to try to nuke Russia (or at least, that’s what Gene led everyone to believe at the time), he secretly went against Gene and adopted the alias of Ghost to aid Big Boss specifically to prevent a nuke from being launched there, being THAT against harming Russia despite hating the Soviet policies. I would have expected Miller to not be fond of Che Guevara at all for that reason.

Overall

The whole thing also didn’t work since if they were meant to be seen as heroes, it ticks off a whole lot of players who are fully aware of some of the crap Che Guevara caused and know his true nature, and regarding painting them as a villain, the problem is that the story DOESN’T depict them as villains for that. Heck, they don’t even STATE any bad things Che did other than maybe dying, and if anything, the way everyone was talking, you’d think he’d walk on water. If Kojima wanted to depict Big Boss and Miller as villains by having him sing praises for Che, the very least he could have done was make sure to specifically reference Che Guevara’s role in nearly causing the Cold War to go Hot by the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis and his being upset at the nukes being removed.

Apparently, if Kojima’s secretary is of any indication, the reason the Che love was in the game was because Kojima himself tried to force in his socio-political views into the game in blatant disregard for the narrative and characterizations therein, as you can see below with links (screencaps will have to be in an addendum post since, unfortunately, I've hit my limit regarding screencap postings):

https://twitter.com/Kaizerkunkun/status/900937994143649792

https://twitter.com/Kaizerkunkun/status/1179860611297153038

https://twitter.com/Kaizerkunkun/status/1190763430497542144

Themes

The Che praise doesn’t work too well with the themes either, since he was not a peaceful man, even called himself the opposite of Christ, and tried to start a nuclear war. It definitely goes against the stated themes of the game, which was peace, not to mention the anti-nuke themes of the overall franchise. Heck, if anything, specifically referencing Che’s attempt at nuking the US and causing Nuclear War, and by extension outright condemning him for it would have worked much better with the themes of anti-nukes, especially considering that they made sure to reference Vasily Arkhipov’s actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis at one point, not to mention referenced both Katyn and the fact that the Turkey silos were already rendered obsolete even before the Turkey Deal made removing them required due to the advent of nuclear subs in Snake Eater earlier. And without the references to that, or any other bad stuff, you’re literally left thinking that he must be a good guy. I’d know because I fell for that myself, especially after getting the game (I didn’t follow the briefing files, but I did follow the cutscenes on YouTube back when it was still in Japan, and I also was baffled as to how people were talking about Big Boss and Miller were Che fanboys since the cutscenes never even pointed in either direction, and if anything, Big Boss nearly being killed by Zadornov would probably point to him NOT liking Che afterwards due to nearly being forced into Che’s fate).

The only thing it did was just have Kojima force in his political and social views, and I’ll be blunt, that kind of crap is something I have distaste in, I hate having propaganda pushed onto me. Ironically, Kojima or at least the Benson books for MGS1 and MGS2, instilled that view onto me. So my anger at Kojima doing that, after learning what Che was truly like in one of the Politically Incorrect Books (either Vietnam War or the 1960s one), is very much personal as well as political and social.

Aftermath

Well, as I said, I did buy into the narrative around the time Peace Walker was released, but then I learned I was being tricked by Kojima after reading the PIG books. I’d argue that event definitely was a watershed event for me. Not only did it have me lose any respect I might have had for Kojima, it also influenced my outlook on life, left me becoming distrustful the second I started picking up how they’re trying to push an agenda instead of, say, actually teaching the material in college. It also may have influenced my later views on Star Wars and Disney’s Beauty and the Beast (specifically, George Luca’s open admission to basing the Ewoks/Rebels on the Vietcong, and especially modeling the Galactic Empire after American soldiers; and Linda Woolverton admitting that she was trying to push a radical feminist agenda in Beauty and the Beast, the same one she tried to push in that awful Maleficent movie. Though I also was becoming disturbed with Belle for reasons other than that bit due to researching the French Revolution, though I will acknowledge Big Boss and Kazuhira Miller’s fanboying of Che Guevara, and in particular their reference to Sartre and his infamously singing praises for Che as “the most complete human being of the century”, certainly worsened my views on Belle, thinking that she may turn out like Sartre and throw her lot with the Jacobins and other groups.). It also left me distrusting of whatever Metal Gear had to say, may have also led to my not liking Chris Redfield after Resident Evil 5, or heck, some of the more anti-American commentary in 5 and other games, and also Dead Rising. It also influenced my decision to become a Dead or Alive fan (especially when before, I wasn’t particularly fond of the game due to the fanservice stuff), and in particular a Tina and Bass fan. May have also influenced my later distaste of Greg Berlanti’s writing of Arrowverse shows, in particular Supergirl starting with Season 2 (though that also had Heroes Redemption as a factor, which predated Peace Walker, thanks to how it changed Claire Bennet).

#peace walker #Anti-Che Guevara #Anti-Peace Walker #Anti-Hideo Kojima #Metal Gear Solid Peace Walker #Youtube

79 notes · View notes

bring-it-all-down · 3 years

Text

I am begging people to familiarize themselves with US efforts to overthrow the Cuban government in order to reinstate private corporations.

Prior to the 1959 revolution, American businesses owned the vast majority of the country’s sugar production as well as roughly 70% of the country’s land. This land was organized into a plantation system consisting of latifundia––large privately-owned pieces of land worked by slaves. This ownership was aided by America’s support (and installation) of the brutal dictator, Fulgencio Batista, who received monetary and military support in violently silencing the poor Cubans who opposed his suspension of civil liberties, including the right to strike. During the Cuban revolution, many of these landowners and business owners escaped to America rather than cooperating with the revolution and allowing their property to be nationally controlled. JFK in 1963 admitted that Batista’s regime was the fault of the US.

After the nationalization of Cuba’s industries, like sugar plantations, oil refineries, and banks, the U.S. authorized the CIA to begin attempts to overthrow the government and re-establish American private corporations on the island.

The first such attempt was the Bay of Pigs invasion in April of 1961. The invasion was carried out by a combination of CIA-funded Cuban exiles (named the Democratic Revolutionary Front) and members of the US military. The 1,400 invaders where defeated after only three days, however, after Castro took over leadership of the Cuban troops.

Following this embarrassment, JFK announced a full trade embargo on Cuba, beginning in February 1962. This trade embargo is still in place and has denied Cuba roughly $130 billion over the past 6 decades, according to both Cuban and United Nations estimates.

In November of 1961, the US government created another project to overthrow the Cuban government, titled Operation Mongoose. This project was more secretive and sinister than the Bay of Pigs invasion, involving political, psychological, military, intelligence, and assassination components meant to destabilize the entire Castro regime and bring the island back under American control. This operation distributed anti-Castro propaganda in Cuba, the US, and worldwide; funded militias in Cuba; established guerilla bases throughout the country; carried out attacks on power plants, oil refineries, sugar mills, and other manufacturing sites; and attempted multiple times to assassinate Castro and other Communist Party members (the CIA planned at least 500 assassination attempts against Castro in his lifetime). The Operation was scaled back in late 1962 due to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In conjunction with Operation Mongoose, the US considered implementing Operation Bounty––distributing leaflets around Cuba offering significant monetary rewards for the murder of Castro and a handful of other party members––and Operation Northwoods––committing acts of terrorism against US military and civilians in the US and Cuba and blaming them on Cuba. These projects were both allegedly ultimately rejected.

From 1960 to 1962, the US facilitated Operation Peter Pan, in which Catholic “charities” and the US government sent 14,000 unaccompanied children (mainly of upperclass families) to the US so they wouldn’t be enrolled in the government’s literacy campaign. While many children were eventually reunited with their families, others were placed in foster families as far away as Illinois and New York. They were all made to learn English and speak only in English in the orphanages in which they all lived for at least 6 months. The result was an alienation from their Cuban culture and an indoctrination into US propaganda.

On October 6, 1976, CIA-assisted Cuban exiles planted bombs on Cubana de Aviación Flight 455, departing from Barbados and heading toward Jamaica. The bombs detonated, exploding the plane and killing all 73 passengers, including the entire Cuban Olympic fencing team. Two of the terrorists, Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles eventually moved to the US, and Bosch was pardoned by George H.W. Bush in 1990.

In 2010, United States Agency for International Development (USAID) created ZunZuneo, named “Cuban Twitter.” This social media platform, designed to undermine the communist Cuban government, spammed its users with propaganda and collected private data to assist them in fomenting a revolution among Cuban youths.

These are just the very basics of the US’s efforts to overthrow the Castro government and reinstitute Cuba as a resource for American capitalism and imperialism. If you want to talk about whatever protests may or may not be happening in Cuba right now, you cannot do so outside of this context. You cannot talk about the poverty of Cuba without placing the blame on American embargoes.

If you want to discuss America’s understanding of Cuban humanitarian need, you cannot do so without reckoning with America’s use of Guantanamo Bay on the same island which we are supposed to believe they want to liberate.

Just last week, the President submitted a budget to Congress, asking for $20,000,000 to fund support for private businesses in Cuba and $13,000,000 to find Office of Cuba Broadcasting, which transmits American propaganda in Spanish to Cuba. This office was created in the 1980s for the explicit purpose of undermining communism in Cuba.

This is not to say that every single Cuban is happy with the Cuban government at all times, but rather that the US has a vested interest in overthrowing the government and establishing a capitalist, US-friendly one in its place. Any international protest crowd that is full of American flags should be a GIANT tip-off that the CIA/US government might just be involved! Just imagine what the CIA is hiding when all of the information comes from declassified files!!!!!

#Cuba #CIA #America does not remotely care about legitimate humanitarian abuses #It cares about making it seem like communist countries are committing such abuses to give it pretext to meddle and commit acts of terrorism #Anti-capitalism #Anti-imperialism

20 notes · View notes

greatworldwar2 · 3 years

Text

• Jean Moulin

Jean Pierre Moulin was a French civil servant who served as the first President of the National Council of the Resistance during World War II.

Jean Moulin was born at 6 Rue d'Alsace in Béziers, Hérault on June 20th, 1899, son of Antoine-Émile Moulin and Blanche Élisabeth Pègue. He was the grandson of an insurgent of 1851. His father was a lay teacher at the Université Populaire and a Freemason at the lodge Action Sociale. Jean Pierre Moulin was baptised on August 6th, 1899 in the church of Saint-Vincentin in Saint-Andiol (Bouches-du-Rhône), the village his parents came from. He spent an uneventful childhood in the company of his sister, Laure, and his brother Joseph. Joseph died after an illness in 1907. At Lycée Henri IV in Béziers, Jean was an average student. In 1917, he enrolled at the Faculty of Law of Montpellier, where he was not a brilliant student. However, thanks to the influence of his father, he was appointed as attaché to the cabinet of the prefect of Hérault. Moulin was mobilised in April 1918 as part of the age class of 1919, the last class to be mobilised in France. He was assigned to the 2nd Engineer Regiment of Montpellier. At the beginning of September, after an accelerated training, he headed with his regiment to the front in the Vosges, where he was posted in the village of Socourt. His regiment was preparing to go to the front lines as part of the attack planned by Foch for November 13th, but the Armistice was signed on November 11th.

Although Moulin did not fight directly on the front lines, he nevertheless was in a position to observe the horrors of war. He saw its aftermath on the battle fields, the devastation of villages and the state of prisoners of war. He helped to bury the war dead in the area around Metz. While still enlisted after the War, he was posted successively to Seine-et-Oise, Verdun and Chalon-sur-Saône. He worked as a carpenter, a digger and later a telephonist for the 7th and 9th Engineer Regiments. He was de-mobilised in November and, on November 4th, 1919, immediately resumed his post as attache at the prefecture of Hérault. After World War I, Moulin resumed his studies of law. His position as attache allowed him to finance his university studies as well as providing a useful apprenticeship in politics and government. He obtained his law degree in July 1921, He then entered the prefectural administration as chief of staff to the deputy of Savoie in 1922 and then sous-préfet of Albertville from 1925 to 1930. After his proposal of marriage was rejected by Jeanette Auran, Moulin, aged 27, married a 19-year-old professional singer, Marguerite Cerruti, in the town of Betton-Bettonet in September 1926. The marriage did not last long. Cerruti quickly became bored with the marriage, and Moulin responded by offering her further singing lessons in Paris, where she disappeared for two days. Moulin was appointed sous-préfet of Châteaulin, Brittany in 1930, but he also drew political cartoons for the newspaper Le Rire under the pseudonym Romanin. In 1932, Pierre Cot, a Radical Socialist politician, named Moulin his second in command or chef adjoint when he was serving as Foreign Minister under Paul Doumer's presidency. In 1933, Moulin was appointed sous-préfet of Thonon-les-Bains, parallel to his function of head of Cot's cabinet of in the Air Ministry under President Albert Lebrun. In 1936, he was once more named chief of cabinet of Cot's Air Ministry of the Popular Front. In that capacity, Moulin was involved in Cot's efforts to assist the Second Spanish Republic by sending it planes and pilots.

He became France's youngest préfet in the Aveyron département, based in the commune of Rodez, in January 1937. It has been claimed that during the Spanish Civil War, Moulin assisted with the shipment of arms from the Soviet Union to Spain. A more commonly-accepted version of events is that he used his position in the French air ministry to deliver planes to the Spanish Republican forces. In January 1939, Moulin was appointed prefect of the Eure-et-Loir department. He was based in Chartres. After war against Germany was declared, he asked multiple times to be demoted because " his place is not at the rear, at the head of a rural departement". Against the opinion of the Minister of the Interior, he asked to be transferred to the military school of Issy-Les-Moulineaux, near Paris. The minister forced him to return to Chartres, where he had trouble ensuring the safety of the population. When the Germans got close to Chartres, he wrote to his parents, "If the Germans who are able to do anything make me say dishonorable words, you already know, it is not the truth". He was arrested by the Germans on June 17th, 1940, as he refused to sign a false declaration that three Senegalese tirailleurs had committed atrocities, killing civilians in La Taye. In fact, those civilians had been killed by German bombings. Beaten and imprisoned because he refused to comply, Moulin attempted suicide by cutting his throat with a piece of broken glass. That left him with a scar he would often hide with a scarf, which is the image of Jean Moulin remembered today. He was found by a guard and taken to hospital for treatment. Because he was a Radical, he was dismissed by the Vichy regime, led by Marshal Philippe Pétain on November 2nd, 1940, along with all other left-wing préfets. He then began writing his diary, First Battle, in which he relates his resistance against the Nazis in Chartres, which was later published at the Liberation and prefaced by de Gaulle.

Having decided not to collaborate, Moulin left Chartres for Saint-Andiol, Bouches-du-Rhône, to study and join the French Resistance, and he decided to negotiate with Free France. He started to use the name Joseph Jean Mercier and went to Marseille, where he met other resistants, including Henri Frenay and Antoine Sachs. Moulin reached London in September 1941 after travelling through Spain and Portugal, and he was received in October by De Gaulle, who wrote about Moulin, "A great man. Great in every way". Moulin summarised the state of the French Resistance to de Gaulle. Part of the Resistance considered him too ambitious, but de Gaulle had confidence in his network and skills. He gave Moulin the assignment of co-ordinating and unifying the various Resistance groups, a hard mission that would take time and effort to accomplish. On January 1st, 1942, Moulin parachuted into the Alpilles and met with the leaders of the resistance groups, under the codenames Rex and Max. He succeeded to the extent that the first three of these resistance leaders and their groups came together to form the United Resistance Movement ( Mouvements Unis de la Résistance, MUR) in January 1943. The next month, Moulin returned to London, accompanied by Charles Delestraint, who led the new Armée secrète, which grouped the MUR's military wings together. Moulin left London on March 21st, 1943, with orders to form the Conseil national de la Résistance (CNR), a difficult task since the five resistance movements involved, besides the three already in the MUR, wanted to retain their independence. The first meeting of the CNR took place in Paris on May 27th, 1943. Some historians consider Moulin one of the most important figures in the French Resistance because of his actions in unifying and organizing the various resistance groups, which had previously been operating in an independent and uncoordinated manner. He was also instrumental in obtaining the cooperation of the Communist resistance groups, who had been reluctant to accept De Gaulle as their leader, because Moulin was known as a left-wing republican.

On June 21st, 1943, he was arrested at a meeting with fellow Resistance leaders in the home of Frédéric Dugoujon in Caluire-et-Cuire, a suburb of Lyon. He was, along with the other Resistance leaders, sent to Montluc Prison in Lyon in which he was detained until the beginning of July. Tortured daily in Lyon by Klaus Barbie, the head of the Gestapo there, and later more briefly in Paris, Moulin never revealed anything to his captors. According to witnesses, Moulin and his men had their fingernails removed using hot needles as spatulas. In addition, his fingers were placed on the door frames and the doors were closed again and again until his knuckles were broken. They then tightened the handcuffs until they penetrated his skin and broke the bones in his wrists. Because he still refused to speak, they beat him until his face was unrecognizable and he fell into a coma. Afterwards, Barbie ordered Moulin to be placed in an office and to be shown to all members of the Resistance not to collaborate with the Nazis. The last time he was seen alive, he was still in a coma and his head was yellow, swollen and wrapped in bandages, according to the description given by Christian Pineau, fellow prisoner and another member of the Resistance. He is believed to have died near Metz on a train headed for Germany. He was reported to have died on July 8th, 1943 at the age of 44. There has been much research, speculation, judicial scrutiny and media coverage of who betrayed Jean Moulin and the circumstances of his death. Klaus Barbie alleged that suicide was the cause, and Moulin biographer Patrick Marnham supports that explanation. René Hardy was caught and released by the Gestapo, who had followed him to the meeting at the doctor's house. There have been many suppositions in the postwar years that Moulin was Communist. No hard evidence has ever backed up that claim.

Ashes that were presumed to be those of Jean Moulin were buried in Le Père Lachaise Cemetery in Paris and later transferred to the Pantheon on December 19th, 1964. France's French education curriculum commemorates Moulin as a symbol of the French resistance and a model of civic virtue, moral rectitude and patriotism. As of 2015, Jean Moulin was the fifth most popular name for a French school, and as of 2016 his is the third most popular French street name of which 98 percent are male. In 1967, the Centre national Jean-Moulin de Bordeaux was created in Bordeaux. Its archives contain documents on the Second World War and the Resistance. The Centre provides pedagogical supports and research material on the involvement of Jean Moulin in the Resistance. In 1993, commemorative French 2, 100 and 500 franc coins were issued, showing a partial image of Moulin against the Croix de Lorraine and using a fedora-and-scarf photograph, which is well recognised in France.

#second world war #world war ii #world war 2 #wwii #military history #history #french resistance #french history #french icons #resistance movements #unsung hero #biography #short post

31 notes · View notes

chiseler · 3 years

Text

Downward Christian Soldiers

Father Charles Coughlin, 1930s

On January 14 1940, the FBI arrested 18 men in New York City accused of plotting the overthrow of the U.S. government. Fourteen were snatched up in their homes in Brooklyn, the others in The Bronx and Queens. Searches yielded more than a dozen Springfield rifles, a shotgun, some handguns, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and the materials for homemade bombs. J. Edgar Hoover said they were plotting a terrorist campaign targeting transportation, power, and communications facilities; their goal was to rouse the military into staging a coup, placing a strong dictator like Hitler or Mussolini in power, and cleansing the country of Jews.

The men were mostly of German or Irish descent, and ranged in age from 18 to 38. If employed (a few weren’t), they held low-end jobs, including an elevator mechanic, a telephone lineman, a chauffeur, a couple of salesmen, a couple of office clerks. The 18-year-old was a student. Most troubling was the fact that six of them were National Guardsmen.

They were all followers of a Father Coughlin-inspired movement called the Christian Front. In his mid-1930s heyday, Coughlin was arguably the most powerful pro-Fascist voice in America. An Irish Catholic originally from Canada, he had first turned to radio in the 1920s simply as a way to expand his ministry beyond his tiny congregation in Royal Oaks. He had a strong radio voice, and when CBS started syndicating his weekly sermons in 1929 it was an instant success. The crash and start of the Depression politicized him. His condemnations of Wall Street and President Hoover brought him tens of thousands of fan letters a week, and his high praises for Hoover’s opponent FDR surely had an impact on the 1932 elections. Then, when the invitation he craved to sit among President Roosevelt’s circle of advisors didn’t come, he turned bitter as a jilted lover. He began denouncing Roosevelt, his New Deal, his Jew York advisors, and his friends in the labor movement as all facets of an international Jewish-Communist conspiracy to destroy Christianity and democracy. He also praised Franco, Mussolini, and Hitler for defending their people against this spreading evil.

Coughlin’s call for a “Christian Front” to combat the Communists’ mid-1930s Popular Front coalition with other groups on the left resonated with the Depression-driven anger and paranoia of many Americans, especially in cities like Boston and New York with large communities of lower- and lower-middle class Irish Catholics, who tended to be shut out of other right-wing movements precisely because they were Irish and Catholic. At his peak, Coughlin had tens of millions of listeners to his Sunday radio sermons, a million readers of his weekly magazine Social Justice, and received millions of dollars in small donations.

By 1938, rabid anti-Semitism had become the centerpiece of Coughlin’s message. That year, at a Christian Front rally in The Bronx, he allegedly gave the Nazi salute and declared, “When we get through with the Jews in America, they’ll think the treatment they received in Germany was nothing.” In Social Justice he reprinted the anti-Semitic hoax The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which also topped Henry Ford’s list of favorite reading. In the autumn of 1938, when Coughlin said the Jews had brought Kristallnacht on themselves, radio stations, including WMCA in New York, dropped him. Several thousand Fronters “picketed the station, its advertisers, and Jewish-owned stores throughout the city,” historian Robert A. Rosenbaum writes. “The pickets returned every Sunday afternoon for many months. In the meantime, gangs of Christian Fronters roamed the streets and subways, peddling copies of Social Justice, distributing anti-Semitic leaflets, and orating on street corners, while harassing and assaulting people they took to be Jewish.” The city’s police force, which was nearly two-thirds Irish, turned a blind eye; some number of them were Christian Frontiers themselves.

The Front thrived in parishes in all of New York City’s boroughs. Some of the first Front meetings took place in a church hall near Columbus Circle, and some of the most frequent and well-attended were in The Bronx. In Brooklyn, Father Francis Joseph Healy, the pastor of the St. Joseph’s parish in Prospect Heights, was also the editor of the Brooklyn diocese’s weekly paper, The Tablet, which he made a platform for extremely anti-Communist, pro-Fascist, and pro-Coughlin thought. After Father Healy’s death in 1940, his managing editor Patrick Scanlan continued the paper’s reactionary slant. Scanlan ran Coughlin’s rants on the front page. Healy’s successor at St. Joseph’s, Father Edward Curran, was also a major supporter of Father Coughlin and other pro-Fascist and isolationist groups. During the war in Spain Father Curran wrote dozens of pro-Franco columns for arch-conservative publications around the country.

By 1939 small cells of Fronters in Manhattan and Brooklyn were calling themselves “sports clubs,” though the only sport they practiced was target shooting at rifle ranges. The Guardsmen in the group evidently pilfered the rifles and ammo from their posts, and trained other Frontiers in how to use them.  

Along with the cops and Guardsmen, the Front cells were also peppered with spies. The FBI had informants keeping tabs on them. Two independent investigators would write very successful books in which they claimed to have infiltrated the Front as well, and dozens of other underground hate groups. Richard Rollins’ I Find Treason would be published by William Morrow in 1941; John Roy Carlson’s similar Under Cover would be a runaway bestseller for E. P. Dutton two years later, galloping through 16 printings in its first six months. Both writers used pseudonyms. Carlson was actually Arthur Derounian, an Armenian immigrant. Rollins was apparently Isidore Rothberg, an investigator for Congressman Samuel Dickstein of the House Special Committee on Un-American Activities. Partly because the writers used pseudonyms while naming scores of individuals they claimed were pro-Hitler and pro-Fascist, both books were widely denounced on the right as fabrications and smear campaigns. 

Derounian wrote that he was riding the subway one day in 1938 when he picked up a leaflet of “bitterly anti-Semitic quotations” published by something called the Nationalist Press Association on East 116th Street in Italian East Harlem. He decided to research, and found himself exploring a vast underground world of wannabe Hitlers and Mussolinis, society matron super-patriots, racists, Anglophobes, White Russians, and assorted conspiracy theorists and kooks.  Born in 1909, Derounian had grown up in another world of hate. After struggling to stay alive as Armenians in Greece at a time of chaos and slaughter in the Balkans, his family fled to New York in 1921. Arthur learned English and earned a degree in journalism at NYU in 1926. In 1933 he learned that the turmoil in the Balkans had followed him across the ocean, when the archbishop of New York’s Armenian Orthodox Catholics, while serving Christmas Mass in his Washington Heights church, was stabbed to death by radical Armenian nationalists opposed to his politics.

So when Derounian read that hate sheet on the subway in 1938, he was primed to follow up. The 116th Street address was an old tenement with a barber shop on the ground floor. The Nationalist Press “office” was a dingy back room stacked to the stained ceiling with right-wing books, newspapers and pamphlets. Poking around in the gloom were a few Italian men and Peter Stahrenberg, a tall blond Aryan type “with blunt features and a coarse-lipped, brutal mouth,” who wore a khaki shirt and a black tie with a pearl-studded swastika tie tack. Stahrenberg was the publisher of the National American, a pro-Hitler newspaper whose striking logo was an American Indian giving the Nazi salute before a large swastika. He was also the head of the American National-Socialist Party. Derounian, calling himself George Pagnanelli and expressing interest in the “patriotic movement,” wormed his way into Stahrenberg’s confidence.

As he explored Stahrenberg’s twilight world, Derounian claimed, he found pro-Nazis and pro-Fascists all over New York City, holding meetings and rallies in every borough. It was a topsy-turvy world where street thugs from the city’s poorest neighborhoods mingled with wealthy Park Avenue crackpots, and Irish Catholic Fronters convinced that Communism was an international Jewish plot sat in the same meetings with Protestant zealots convinced that the Vatican was a Jewish front. He met rabidly anti-Communist D.A.R. socialites, and retired military officers who were certain that FDR and the Jew Dealers were leading the nation to ruin. He met the prominent conservative organizer Catherine Curtis, introducing himself as George Pagnanelli; she kept calling him Mr. Pagliacci. He even found black pro-Nazis in Harlem. Some were attracted by Hitler’s anti-Semitism; others simply cheered the idea of a white man making trouble for other whites.

When the Christian Front clique was arraigned in Brooklyn’s federal courthouse in February, they all pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy and theft of government property. The lawyer for 12 of them was Leo Healy – Father Healy’s brother. A crowd jeered and booed as they were perp-walked into the courthouse. Winchell and La Guardia both derided them as “bums,” La Guardia adding that if they were the best the enemies of democracy could muster, no one need lose any sleep. But the defendants also had their sympathizers. Father Curran was the keynote speaker at a large rally in Prospect Hall to express support for them.

Fourteen defendants were left when the trial began in April; one of the original 18 had committed suicide, and charges against three others were dropped. As the trial sputtered along through May, it began to appear that the FBI and prosecutors hadn’t built a very strong case. When the proceedings stumbled to a close on Monday June 24, the jury acquitted nine of the defendants and pronounced themselves hung on the other five. 

It was a major embarrassment for Hoover. The Front and their supporters cheered it as a great victory, and would continue to spread hate and violence well into the war years. Through 1942 and 1943 there would be numerous reports in the press of roving gangs of young men, mostly identified as Irish and affiliated with the Front, beating and sometimes even knifing Jews in neighborhoods like Flatbush, Washington Heights and the South Bronx, where Irish and Jewish communities abutted. Many shops, synagogues and cemeteries were vandalized. Jewish leaders pleaded with Mayor La Guardia and Police Commissioner Valentine, but they took little action.

Coughlin would rant on into 1942, when the federal government shut down Social Justice as a seditious publication, and the Archbishop of Detroit finally ordered him to stop all political activity. Father Curran, however, continued undeterred, making anti-Semitic, anti-war speeches to Frontiers and others through the entire war.

by John Strausbaugh

9 notes · View notes

southeastasianhistories · 3 years

Text

It was May, 2012. Inside a gloomy, oak panelled courtroom in the Royal Courts of Justice in London, a group of bewigged British and Malaysian lawyers confronted a legal team from the British Foreign and Commonwealth office in front of a panel of judges. Led by John Halford of the Bindmans law firm and Dato Quek Ngee Meng, the legal team was in court to argue the case for a public enquiry into what they called “a grotesque, on-going injustice” committed decades earlier in British Malaya. This was the period of the ‘Emergency’: a war without a name fought in the Malayan jungles against communist insurgents who wanted an immediate end to British rule.

On the other side of the court sat lawyers for the defendants, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In that rather claustrophobic courtroom, British justice was being asked to make a judgement about history and moral responsibility.

For me as an historian and journalist, it was a highly charged moment. As they spoke, the words of the lawyers seemed to evoke the restless spirits of 24 Chinese workers shot dead in December, 1948 by British soldiers on a plantation close to the Malayan village of Batang Kali.

Just one man was left alive. His name was Chong Hong and he was in his 20s at the time. He had fainted in terror and the British soldiers left him for dead. By 2012, Chong Hong was long dead. But a handful of eye-witnesses remained alive. Loh Ah Choy, just seven when the soldiers rampaged through the plantation; Tham Yong, aged 17. In Court 3 that day in 2012, three of the villagers – now in their late 60s and 70s, who had long ago watched the slaughter of their menfolk – sat apprehensive and rather frail beside their lawyers. I talked briefly to Loh Ah Choy during a break in court proceedings. After so many years, there was still pain in her eyes as she talked about the men who had died.

The ‘Batang Kali massacre’ has sometimes – and not entirely accurately – been called ‘Britain’s My Lai’: referring to a Vietnam War atrocity when ‘Charlie Company’, led by Lt. William Calley, murdered hundreds of unarmed civilians on March 16th, 1968.

Since the killings, successive British governments refused to hold a public enquiry into what had taken place and why the men were killed. At the time, it was claimed that the victims were ‘bandits’. This was baseless. No apology was, it seems, considered by the British. For decades, the relatives of the dead men like Tham Yong and Loh Ah Choy kept their silence. They had been left destitute after the killings – and survival had more meaning to them than a search for justice.

In the end, the legal case failed. The lawyers’ arguments were rejected by the UK Supreme Court in 2015 – but for the British establishment, the Court’s judgement made uncomfortable reading. For Lord Kerr, one of the court’s justices said the “overwhelming preponderance of currently available evidence” showed “wholly innocent men were mercilessly murdered and the failure of the authorities of this state to conduct an effective inquiry into their deaths.” The problem for the Court was time. The killings may have been unlawful, Lord Neuberger concluded, but they occurred more than 10 years before the critical date when the right of petition to the Strasbourg court of human rights was recognised by the UK and created a duty to investigate.

The lawyers generated a great deal of new historically valuable information – not only about what happened in Batang Kali, but about how and why a ‘very British cover up’ was maintained for so long.It was thanks to the efforts of the legal teams that we now know what happened on that day in British Malaya. There is now no dispute that on December 11th, 1948 a 14-man patrol from the 7th Platoon, G Company, 2nd Battalion Scots Guards, led by two lance-sergeants, Charles Douglas and Thomas Hughes, entered Batang Kali where they encountered 50 or so unarmed villagers.

The tiny settlement was part of the Sungei Remok rubber estate in the state of Selangor, which at the time was a British protectorate. By the time the platoon left the village the following day, 24 men had been shot dead. The first report of the killings in the Singapore-based Straits Times sounded a shrill note of triumph: ‘Police, Bandits kill 28 [sic] bandits in day … Biggest Success for Forces since Emergency Started’. It would not take long for the official story to unravel. ‘Good news’ like the Batang Kali operation was in short supply at the end of the first year of the Emergency. The roots of the conflict go back to the Japanese occupation of Malaya and Singapore, which began in February 1942. The traumatic loss of Singapore to a grossly underrated Asian foe shamed and humiliated the British and led many Asians to reassess their former masters.

In the first months of the occupation the Japanese slaughtered many thousands of Chinese civilians in Singapore and across Malaya. Japan had been waging a brutal war in mainland China since 1937 and alleged that the Chinese in Malaya were a security risk. Many young Chinese fled into the dense Malayan jungle, where they began to organise guerrilla units to fight back against the Japanese. The Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA) was dominated by the Malayan Communist Party (MCP) and by the end of the war was backed by the British ‘Force 136’, a branch of the Special Operations Executive. After the Japanese surrender in 1945 the British honoured the MPAJA , awarding its future leader Chin Peng an OBE.

As India moved towards independence the chronically indebted postwar British government clung onto Malaya, with its valuable tin and rubber resources. Although the returning colonial power signalled that independence was on the agenda, it seemed to both a new generation of Malay nationalists and the Communists that it was ‘colonial business as usual’.

This was intolerable. The MPAJA now became the vanguard of anti-British resistance, as the Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA), turning their British-supplied guns on the returned colonial authorities. The MNLA was backed by a secret army of supporters known as the Min Yuen (People’s Movement). MNLA fighters depended on the Min Yuen and Chinese villagers, willing or unwilling, for essential supplies. This was the background to the events that unfolded in December 1948. It explains why, to begin with, the British could claim that shooting Chinese civilians on a rubber plantation was a ‘success’: in the eyes of British troops, any Chinese-Malayan villager might be a ‘bandit’ – and so ‘fair game’.

The ‘successful operation’ story crumbled rapidly. A few of the surviving villagers told their story to Li Chen, the Chinese consul-general, who held a press conference on December 21st. The following day the British owner of the Sungei Remok Estate, Thomas Menzies, who had serious clout in the British estate-owners’ community and was dismayed by the loss of 24 workers, publicly stated that his men had a long record of good conduct. By December 24th the Straits Times was calling for a public enquiry.

At the end of January the British Communist MP Philip Piratin demanded that Arthur Creech-Jones, the colonial secretary, explain the actions of the Scots Guards. Creech-Jones replied that an “enquiry by the civil authorities” had concluded that “had the security forces not opened fire, the suspect Chinese would have made good an escape, which had obviously been pre-arranged”. Creech-Jones’ ‘enquiry’ into a “necessary but nasty operation” quashed the debate about the killing.

But then there was an unexpected turn of events. In December 1969, a former National Serviceman called William Cootes confessed his role in the killings to a journalist from the People, then a British Sunday newspaper. Cootes said he was motivated by the furore unleashed by US journalist Seymour Hersh’s revelations about the My Lai massacre the previous year. The scandal provoked a debate about whether British troops would have been capable of committing such an atrocity. Public opinion resisted such slurs, but Cootes knew better. He had been one of the 14 Scots Guardsmen who had entered Batang Kali.

Cootes claimed that his commanding officer, George Ramsay, had briefed his men that they were going to a village and would “wipe out anybody they found there.” Other former members of the platoon also came forward and backed up Cootes’ allegations. Alan Tuppen testified that: “He [Ramsay] said we were to go out on patrol and that our objective would be to wipe out a particular village and everyone in it because, he said, they were either terrorists themselves or were helping terrorists in that area.”

Tuppen provided shocking new detail about the killings: “Instinctively, we started firing … at the villagers in front of us. The villagers began to fall. One man with bullets in him kept crawling … He was finally killed when a bullet went through his head.” Yet another former guardsman, Victor Remedios, testified that after the platoon returned to base “we were told by a sergeant that if anyone said anything we could get 14 or 15 years in prison.” No one had been shot trying to escape.

In the aftermath of the People story and the media storm that had followed on February 13th, 1970 Denis Healey, the secretary of state for defence, referred the matter to the director of public prosecutions (DPP). At the end of the month, DPP lawyers recommended further enquiries to be conducted by the Metropolitan Police – much to the dismay, as we learnt in court, of the Foreign Office.

All the former members of the Scots Guards platoon who had testified to the People were interviewed again under caution. Plans were made for the British police team to fly to Kuala Lumpur to continue with their enquiries. Then on June 18th, 1970 the Labour government was ousted by the Conservatives – and just weeks later the Batang Kali enquiry was stopped with a view “to uphold the good name of the army.”

The long battle for a public enquiry after determined efforts by the survivors’ legal team collapsed. This legal battle is unlikely to be joined again. Nevertheless, the UK Supreme Court was minded that the killings were unlawful and that “wholly innocent men were mercilessly murdered”. There was another disappointment for historians. When the UK National Archives announced a release of secret colonial papers in 2012, many of us rushed to Kew hoping that some of the reports made just after the killings had survived. There was bad news: it turned out that when the British pulled out of Malaya in 1957, any incriminating evidence about the events of December, 1948 had been destroyed.

For historians of the British Empire and the traumatic process of decolonisation that followed the Second World War, the discovery of new information about the tragedy that unfolded in Batang Kali casts new light on the longest war fought by British troops in the 20th Century, the Malayan Emergency – and the counter- insurgency techniques developed in Southeast Asia that influenced American strategy in Vietnam and impact bitterly contested campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan today.

#british colonisation #malaysia #malaya #batang kali massacre #malayan emergency #1940s

16 notes · View notes

tinyshe · 3 years

Text

Interview with Alexander Dugin – ‘Welcome all newcomers!’

Prof. Alexander Dugin, philosopher and geopolitical expert from Russia, sees the world changing: the old liberalism is being replaced by a new, aggressive, globalist mutation. Manuel Ochsenreiter's interview with Dugin gives a fascinating insight into the globalist future.

Published: June 18, 2021, 11:42 am

Prof. Dugin, in your latest essay you wrote about “Liberalism 2.0”. Is liberalism changing?

Dugin: Of course! Every ideology is a subject to constant change, including liberalism. Right now we are witnessing a dramatic shift in liberalism. It is now becoming even more dangerous, even more destructive.

How do you even recognize such a change?

Dugin: We can observe a certain “rite of passage”. As such, I interpret the situation in which Donald Trump’s presidency culminated, namely in his fall by hand of the globalist elite, represented by Joe Biden. This is nothing more than a “rite of passage” – embodied by gay parades, BLM uprisings, imperialist LGBT + attacks, the worldwide uprising of extreme feminism and the spectacular arrival of post-humanism and extreme technocracy. There are profound intellectual and philosophical processes going on behind all of this. And these processes have an impact on culture and politics.

You write that liberalism has become “lonely”…

Dugin: Modern liberalism seems to have lost its enemies after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is fatal for this ideology, as it is primarily defined by its demarcation. In my “Fourth Political Theory”, liberalism is defined as the first theory to fight the two “main enemies” – communism (second theory) and fascism (third theory). Both had challenged liberalism: for liberalism claims to be the most modern and progressive theory. But both communism and fascism made the same claim. In 1990 communism and fascism were considered defeated.

This is usually called the “unipolar moment” (Charles Krauthammer) and it was prematurely, as we now know – even raised by Francis Fukuyama to the “end of history”. In the 1990s, however, it seemed that liberalism no longer had any opponents. Smaller burgeoning anti-liberal right, left, and “national Bolshevik” alliances were no real challenge. The absence of its “enemies” for liberalism also meant that it had lost its self-affirmation. Here we see very clearly the “loneliness”, which of course I don’t mean in a melancholy sense. Therefore, the transition to Liberalism 2.0 with a “new impetus” was almost inevitable.

How would you describe that?

Dugin: An opponent had to come back. But actually only the weak, illiberal alliances that can be described as “national Bolsheviks” were offered – even if the so-called movements themselves do not see it that way. Perhaps it is more understandable if one divides the new political camps into globalists (Liberalism 2.0) and anti-globalists. One must not forget: Liberalism 1.0 will not be “reformed”, it will also become the “enemy” of Liberalism 2.0. We can perhaps even speak of a “mutation”. Because there are also old-style liberals who are now more drawn to the camp of anti-globalists because they reject the limitless, hedonistic and total individualism of Liberalism 2.0.

So liberals against liberals?

Dugin: [laughs] Liberalism 2.0 can be seen as a kind of “fifth column” within liberalism. And the new liberalism is brutal and unyielding, it no longer discusses, it does not invite debate. It is a “cancel culture”, it stigmatizes its opponents, it excludes them. “Old” liberals also fall victim to this, as can be seen almost regularly in Europe today. Who are the victims of the “cancel culture”? Maybe fascists or communists? Most of the time it is artists, journalists and authors who have been completely in the mainstream waters – but who are now suddenly targeted. Liberalism 2.0 lets the hammer go round.

Your country, Russia, is seen today as a great opponent of globalism – especially under President Vladimir Putin…

Dugin: The resurgence of Putin’s Russia can be understood as a new mix of the Soviet-style strategy of anti-Western politics and traditional Russian nationalism. On the other hand, the Putin phenomenon remains a mystery – even to us Russians. Certainly, one can recognize “national Bolshevik” elements in his politics, but also a lot of liberal elements. Incidentally, this also applies to the Chinese phenomenon. Here we see again the special Chinese communism mixed with perceptible Chinese nationalism. The same can be said of the growth of European populism where the distance between the left and the right is increasingly disappearing to the point of the symbolic creation of the left-right alliance in the Italian government: I am talking about the agreement between the “Lega Nord” (right-wing populist) and the “5-star” movement (left-wing populist). We see the same phenomenon prefigured in the populist revolt of the “yellow vests” against President Emmanuel Macron in France, in which the supporters of Marine Le Pen fought together with the supporters of Jean-Luc Mélenchon against the liberal center.

The “left-right” alliances you mentioned only existed for a certain period of time, often they fought each other again more than the liberal center…

Dugin: That’s a key point. Since the anti-globalist, right-left alliances are the greatest opponents of Liberalism 2.0, it must constantly fight them, keep them small and also infiltrate them. If anti-globalist left and right in Europe fight each other more than the center, then liberalism 2.0 is the laughing third party. What is more: there is even a certain tendency on the part of the fringes to make pacts with the center in the fight against the other fringe. I think you can see such a situation in all European countries. Thus, Globalism fragments the camp of its opponents and prevents a possibly powerful alliance.

What could such a “powerful alliance” look like?

Dugin: If Putin from Russia, Xi Jinping from China, the European populists and the anti-Western movements in Islam, the anti-capitalist currents in Latin America and Africa had been aware that they are opposing liberal globalism from a somewhat united ideological position and would have adopted left/right and integral populism as their basis, this would have increased their resistance considerably and even multiplied its potential. So in order not to let this happen, the globalists have left no stone unturned to prevent any ideological movement in this direction.

In your essay you refer to Donald Trump as the “midwife of Liberalism 2.0”. What do you mean?

Dugin: I have already said: a political ideology cannot exist if the “friend-foe antagonism” is erased. It loses its identity. To have no more enemy is to commit ideological suicide. So an obscure and undefined external enemy was not enough to justify liberalism. By demonizing Putin’s Russia and Xi Jinping’s China, the liberals could no longer be convincing. More than that: the assumption of the existence of a formal, structured ideological enemy outside the liberal zone of influence (democracy, market economy, human rights, universal technology, total network, etc.) after the onset of the unipolar moment in the early 1990s on a global level would have been tantamount to acknowledging a serious mistake. Logically, an enemy from within had to appear. This was a theoretical necessity in the development of ideological processes during the 1990s.

This enemy from within appeared just in time, at the exact moment when it was needed most. And it had a name: Donald Trump. He embodied the boundary between Liberalism 1.0 and Liberalism 2.0. Initially, attempts were made to establish a connection between Trump and “red-brown Putin”. This seriously damaged Trump’s presidency, but was ideologically inconsistent. Not only because of the lack of real relations between Trump and Putin and Trump’s ideological opportunism, but also because Putin himself is, in fact, a very pragmatic realist.

Much like Trump, Putin is a poll populist, and like Trump, he’s most likely to be an opportunist with no real interest in a worldview. The alternate scenario portraying Trump as a “fascist” is just as ridiculous. Because it has been used by his political rivals too often, it has caused trouble for Trump, but it has also been inconsistent. Neither Trump himself nor his staff consisted of “fascists” or representatives of any right-wing extremist tendency which had long ago been marginalized in American society and only existed as a kind of extreme libertarian fringe or kitsch culture.

How can you then ultimately classify Trump?

Dugin: Trump was and is a representative of Liberalism 1.0. If we put aside all foreign regimes that oppose liberal ideology in their political practice, there will only be one real enemy of liberalism left – liberalism itself. So in order to move forward, liberalism had to carry out an “internal cleansing”. And it is precisely this old liberalism that has been identified with the symbolic figure of Donald Trump. He was the ultimate enemy in the election campaign of Joe Biden, who stands for the new liberalism 2.0. Biden spoke of the “return to normal”. Liberalism 1.0 – national, capitalist, pragmatic, individualistic and to a certain extent libertarian – was thus declared an “abnormality”.

Liberalism focuses on individualism, that is, the individual human being. Other ideologies speak in terms of collectives like the people or the class. What does Liberalism 2.0 do?

Dugin: Right. The figure of the individual plays the same role in the social physics of liberalism as the atom in scientific physics. Society consists of atoms/individuals, who are the only real and empirical basis for subsequent social, political and economic constructions. Everything can be reduced to the individual. That is the liberal law. So the struggle against all kinds of collective identity is the moral duty of liberals, and progress is measured by whether or not this struggle is successful.

A look at Western societies shows that the struggle was largely successful…

Dugin: At that point, when Liberals began to realize this scenario, despite all their victories, there was still something collective, some kind of forgotten collective identity that also needed to be destroyed. Welcome to gender politics! To be a man and a woman means to share a collective identity which dictates strong social and cultural practices. This is a new challenge for liberalism. The individual must be liberated from biological sex, since the latter is still viewed as something objective. Gender must be purely optional and seen as a consequence of a purely individual decision. Gender politics starts here and changes the very nature of the concept of the individual. The postmodernists were the first to show that the liberal individual is a masculine, rationalist construction. Simply equalizing social opportunities and functions for men and women, including the right to change gender at will, does not solve the problem. The “traditional” patriarchy still survives by defining rationality and norms. Hence, it has been concluded that the liberation of the individual is not enough. The next step consists in the liberation of the human being or rather the “living entity” from the individual.

Now the moment is approaching for the final replacement of the individual by the gender-optional entity, a kind of network identity. And the final step will eventually be to replace humanity with creepy beings – machines, chimeras, robots, artificial intelligence and other species of genetic engineering. The line between what is still human and what is already post-human is the main problem of the paradigm shift from Liberalism 1.0 to Liberalism 2.0. Trump was a human individualist who defended individualism in the old style of human context. Perhaps he was the last of his kind. Biden is a representative of the arriving post-humanity.

So far, it all sounds like a smooth march for the globalist elite. Can one counter that?

Dugin: One cannot avoid the realization that both old-fashioned nationalism and communism have been defeated by liberalism. Neither right-wing nor left-wing illiberal populism can win the victory over liberalism today. To be able to do this, we would have to integrate the illiberal left and the illiberal right. But the ruling liberals are very vigilant about this and always try to prevent any movement in this direction in advance.

The short-sightedness of the radical left and radical right politicians and groups only helps liberals to implement their agenda. At the same time, we must not ignore the growing chasm between Liberalism 1.0 and Liberalism 2.0. It seems as if the internal cleansing of modernity and postmodernism is now leading to brutal punishment and excommunication of new species of political beings �� this time the liberals themselves are being sacrificed.

Those of them who do not consider themselves as a part of the Great Reset strategy and the Biden-Soros axis, those who refuse to enjoy the final disappearance of good old mankind, good old individuals, good old freedom and the market economy. There will be no place for any of these in Liberalism 2.0.

It will become post-human, and anyone who questions such a new concept will be welcomed to the Unity of Enemies of the Open Society.

And then we, Russians, will be able to tell them: “We have been here for decades and we feel more or less at home here. So we welcome you to hell, newbies!” Every Trump supporter and ordinary Republican is now seen as a potentially dangerous person, just as we have been for a long time. So let Liberals 1.0 join our ranks! To do this, it is not necessary to become illiberal, philo-communist or ultra-nationalist. Nothing like that! Everyone can keep their good old prejudices for as long as they want. The “Fourth Political Theory” presents a unique position where true freedom is welcomed: the freedom to fight for social justice, to be a patriot, to defend the state, the church, the people, the family – and to remain a human.

Prof. Dugin, thank you very much for the interview.

7 notes · View notes

undefined5posts · 3 years

Text

Credit: Jordan J. Lloyd

I've been trying to dive deeper into politics, discover the genuine roots of our society, the origins of our beliefs, and the consequences of our economic system. It's a big, long, wide journey and through multiple sources such as articles, images, videos and multiple social media platforms, I've been trying to educate myself more on important subjects.

Communism, capitalism, libertarian, conservative, the left, the right, the history, the impact. It is scary to commit to everything because once you start, you simply cannot stop, once you start waking up your conscience about the horrible reality, the lies, the truths, you cannot put it back to sleep. You can't just ignore prejudice, especially when you're extremely conscious of it's omnipresence. I have continually tried to build my own opinions all while actively creating bullet point arguments in my mind because I just know that at some point I will have to defend my thinking, and I want to do it right.

Now, I am so far from being enlightened, I am a beginner and an amateur in all of those themes, but I am trying, which is the only way to start and grow.

So to tell you about my beliefs, I am a militant human rights activist, I believe in equal opportunities regardless of gender identity, sex, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race and disability. This is a fact, not a belief, but the system was obviously not built to protect all people, its wasn't created to serve everyone equally but to grant a privilege to some and harm others. The current state of the world is not a slip, an accident or a misfunction of our brilliant system but a testament of it operating remarkably well. I believe that equity leads to equality, and I believe that we cannot "fix" methodologies that were immorally created with absolutely no honor whatsoever. I believe in reproductive rights, in legal, safe abortions for anybody who needs one. I believe in the decriminalization of marijuana. I believe that the death penalty is a despicable punition that should be banned as soon as possible. I believe in defunding the police and the military. I believe that it is a shame that I even have to talk about police brutality, I don't want to have to say that it is one of the most horrible things our world has originated, I feel extremely dense when I do because it seems like the most obvious certitude and I refuse to believe that this is a controversial statement. I believe that everything I have just stated, along with many more, isn't anything grand but the bare minimum, the bar is low, and yet, we still have the fight for basic human decency.

Humanity has become an option. We have normalized supporting people that represent everything wrong in this world under the name of tolerance. The left has never claimed to be tolerant towards hateful beings, We have never accepted homophobia, transphobia, racism, ableism and sexism. We cannot, for exemple, accept nazis, as too much tolerance inevitably leads to intolerance. This picture explains it perfectly:

I consider myself a communist/ socialist. The two terms still confuse me a little, some say they are the same, some say they differ quite a bit. What I know is that socialism is the transitional period between capitalism and communism. At the end of the day, the final result and goal is a stateless, moneyless and clasless society that will provide to each his need.

Our capitalistic society has brainwashed us way more than you may think. It is the root of so many of our issues, the underground demon of our problems. Every idea, thought, belief, and misconception of ours were all affected by our current economic system. It has sold us the billionnaire dream which is one of the most toxic things capitalism has offered. We have looked up to billionaires for way too long, why are they so idolized? Most of them come from high upper class families that can easily afford to invest in their inventions and creations. After starting up their companies and occasionnaly stealing other's people ideas to ultimately get undeserved merit, they then can start to properly exploit their hardworking employees's labour. And for unlimited hours and a minimum wage which probably won't even suffice you to survive, you will have to either pick up more shifts or a second or even third job, especially if you have a family to support. All while the CEO barely does any of the work and gets all the praise and money. So no, they don't all come from really poor families and have built everything for nothing.

The worst thing is that we've been so gaslit and brainwashed that we're proud of our own exploitation, we are wired to think that to be successful we have to suffer, work 10 jobs we all hate, constantly pick up extra hours, have 2 hours of sleep, have no free time to do anything we love, waste our entire youth, be depressed our entire adulthood, to finally have a few pennies to spend when we're eighty. We so strongly believe that this is the only right way to be successful that I don't think many of us have dared to question it's authority, and even if we do, we quickly accept that this a truth, a fact we cannot change and this is just the way things are.

We have capitalized water, food, land, forests, oceans, space, and everything in betweeen. Money is social construct and we have deliberately let it take over our lives. To think about the wasted opportunities and the misery that we have to endure so others can enjoy life truly angers me.

Also, communism is not an ideology that has every actually taken place. Despite what they say, there was never actually a communist country. However, every nation that has attempted a socialist system, for exemple Burkina Faso, has thrived. But of course, once capitalist countries noticed that, they decided to murder it's leader. So in conclusion, the only reason socialism failed is because of capitalism and it's interventions.

"As President (1983-1987), Sankara initiated economic reforms that shifted his country away from dependence on foreign aid and reduced the privileges of government officials; he cut salaries, including his own, decreed that there would be no more flying in first class or driving Mercedes as standard issue vehicles for Ministers and other government workers. He led a modest lifestyle and did not personally amass material wealth. President Sankara encouraged self-sufficiency, including the use of local resources to build clinics, schools and other needed infrastructure. [...] President Sankara promoted land reform, childhood vaccination, tree planting, communal school building, and nation-wide literacy campaigns. He was committed to gender equity and women’s rights and was the first African leader to publicly recognize the AIDS pandemic as a threat to African countries. Although Sankara became somewhat more authoritarian during his Presidency, his ideas, and the possibility that they could spread, were viewed by many as posing the greatest threat. President Sankara was assassinated during a coup led by a French-backed politician, Blaise Compaoré, in October 1987. Compaoré served as the President of Burkina Faso from October 1987 through October 2014, when he himself was overthrown."

Via:https://africandevelopmentsuccesses.wordpress.com/2015/02/28/success-story-from-burkina-faso-thomas-sankaras-legacy/

I have been reading and watching some amazing human rights activists, notably Angela Davis, Malcolm X and James Baldwin. The people that were villainized, labeled as violent and radical, when every single word that came out of their mouhs were pure facts. They are probably some of the most eloquent people I have had the pleasure of hearing. Every sentence, every argument, every single detail made so much sense and opened my mind to so many new realizations. This is the perfect exemple of how the media tarnishes the reputation of wise black women and men. I would strongly advise you to research more about them.

"Socialism & communism are demonized in the west to the point of erasing influential individuals' socialist advocacy. Heres a short list of people you may not have known were socialists/ communists:

MLK

Albert Einstein

Nelson Mandela

Frida Kahlo

Tupac Shakur

Mark Twain

Malcom X

Oscar Wilde

Bertrand Russell

Hellen Keller

Pablo Picasso

George Orwell

Shia LaBeouf

John Lennon

Woody Guthrie

Socialism & communism are not dirty words. Some of the most brilliant minds of our history were socialists and communists. Embrace it." Via @sleepisocialist on twitter

So what else can I say, capitalism has ruined our society and the way we act and think. I know a lot of people refuse to support communism because they think it's too much of a perfect ideal utopian world for it to ever actually exist. And to that I say, first of all, so you agree, it is a wonderful theory, and second of all, a world without racism, sexism, homophobia or any kind or discrimination could also be perceived as "too ideal to actually exist", but does that mean I'm giving up on talking, educating myself and others, protesting and trying to build a better future? Absolutely not. This is the objective, it would be so dumb to think that we just couldn't achieve that so let's not even try.

I want to talk more in detail about communism, theory, human rights, etc... but I don't want to make this post any longer. I will however be posting more about it soon enough.

I know this is a little different than what I usually post, but I want to speak, tell you all my own opinions, I don't want to just repost activism related stuff. I'll continue to do that, but not exclusively. I know it won't get as many interactions as my other posts, but this is what I needed at some point in my life, and if I could make understanding some basic informations easier to some people, it'll already be a great accomplishment.

Thank you for reading.

31 notes · View notes

warsofasoiaf · 4 years

Text

Austria-Hungary and the European War - A Hearts of Iron IV AAR

Austria-Hungary today is one of the principal powers of Europe, a highly-industrialized, prosperous and modern country. The krone is considered a major reserve currency, the University of Vienna is held in similar esteem to Cambridge or Harvard, and the Two Crowns are as recognizable as the Union Jack or the 51-starred American flag. Tourists regularly flock to Venice, political summits are regularly held at Budapest, and Austro-Hungarian goods are sold across the world. Yet the meteoric rise of Austria-Hungary was mired in controversy particularly for its role in the Balkan Crisis and the short-lived Hungarian-Yugoslavian war of aggression, and it was only the struggle against the Axis powers that united the western and eastern halves of Europe into a single whole.

Refoundation

The Kingdom of Hungary was in a precarious position in 1936. Dismembered by the Treaty of Trianon after the Great War, Hungary had seen a succession of ministers promising to restore the prestige of the diminished state from the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic to the ardently pro-Nazi Gyula Gömbös. With the failures of both the fascist and communist movements on full display, the Regent Admiral Miklos Horthy elected to work with the monarchist parties, approving their motion for stricter budgetary controls and supporting their call for a restoration of the Hungarian monarchy, giving a famous speech on 8 October 1936 that “a regent is a steward, not a king.” The debate raged as to who would be invited to wear the crown of Saint Stephen, with Frederich Franz of Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Carl Wilhelm of Sondermanland both suggested as candidates. The former with the nationalist Unity Party and encouraged by pro-German elements along with Adolf Hitler, the latter was championed by the liberal parties in the hopes that he would introduce a monarchy modeled upon the Swedish constitutional system. However, the monarchist voices were the most powerful, and they selected as their candidate Otto von Habsburg, to restore the previous prestige that the country enjoyed under Habsburg leadership. At his coronation ceremony on 16 December, 1936, Otto von Habsburg swore to restore the kingdom to prominence, and return the provinces lost in the war. This caused an uproar within the European diplomatic community, with President Edvard Benes of Czechoslovakia and Prime Minister Leon Blum of France providing the strongest voice against the move. When pressed to reaffirm France’s eastern commitments established in the wake of the Great War, Blum was noncommittal, domestic commitments and the weakness of his Popular Front government in the wake of rising violence between the French Communist Party and the nationalist Leagues.

Yet despite the rhetoric, King Otto I took an unexpected policy direction. His first cabinet was dominated by industrial policy, looking to revitalize a decaying industrial structure by importing ideas from the more industrialized nations, particularly the United States, who benefitted from a large trade deal for U.S. Steel. Keenly aware of the limited natural resources, King Otto commissioned an institute to innovate synthetic materials, primarily Buna rubber and oil from coal liquefaction plants, bringing in ideas developed in Germany and the United Kingdom. Even more surprising, Otto convened the Danubian Railroad Summit, inviting Austria and Czechoslovakia to unite their railroad networks, which had suffered since the break-up of the old Austro-Hungarian empire. This move particularly impressed the Austrian people, which sparked pro-Hungarian demonstrations which sometimes descended into violence with pro-German groups who wanted to unite Austria with Germany into one Germanic nation. The pro-Hungarian movement owed much of its support to Otto von Habsburg himself, who had spent much of his time in exile writing on Austrian affairs and made a name for himself as a fierce critic of nationalist policies. While monarchist and Catholic voices were among the most loyal of his supporters, he also enjoyed the support of Austria’s Jewish population, largely concentrated within Vienna, as they had hoped that a government led by Otto could stand up to the Third Reich and a large majority of the middle classes who wanted similar industrial policies to help revitalize Austria’s economy. Even stranger, his fierce opposition to Nazi Germany earned him the support of anti-monarchist groups, most notable among them being the social democrats.

Upon learning of the pro-Hungarian demonstrations, Otto suggested to Kurt Schuschnigg to hold a referendum on reunification with Hungary and the restoration of the Dual Monarchy. With the threat of forcible German annexation on the horizon, Austria agreed to hold the referendum provided that Austria would be seen as an equal, and not merely a junior partner. The date of the vote was scheduled for 15 July 1937, a hot summer day. The referendum was fiercely protested by local communist groups, who boycotted the election and accused the Austrian government of manipulation by foreign powers. Otto encouraged participation by funding street parties for pro-Hungarian political groups, and the results were even better than Otto could have predicted: a landslide victory for unification. The Austrian government announced the results on 16 July, and formed itself into a provincial government under the overlordship of the Hungarian monarchy. Otto assumed the title of Emperor of Austria on 22 September, and proclaimed that the Austria-Hungary of old was reborn, and that he would not rest until all of the former Habsburg territories were brought under one banner.

The Balkans Aflame

Almost immediately, this brought a crisis to the Balkan region, with both Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia expressing concern about Austro-Hungarian ambitions in Eastern Europe, as both provinces were formed in the collapse of the previous Empire and King Otto’s rhetoric on reclaiming lost territory meant he might be thinking of annexing their territories. Indeed, King Otto embarked on lengthy negotiations with Edvard Benes, discussing the return of Czechoslovakia into the Austria-Hungary as the province of Bohemia. The young democracy had a long struggle with balancing the monarchist and republican voices within the country and the fear of Germany demanding the Sudetenland in its goal to establish a pan-German state. Surprisingly, Otto von Habsburg offered a surprising amount of compromise, promising to respect the Czech parliament as well as the language privileges enjoyed by the region during the time of the previous Austro-Hungarian Empire. Noting the political tension between Czechs and Slovaks, Otto offered to continue Benes’s plan of shared industrial growth in order to relax ethnic tensions, a prime example of Otto’s vision of an Austria-Hungary that was a cosmopolitan, poly-ethnic nation. On 1 December 1937, Benes accepted the offered terms of Austro-Hungarian overlordship, and Otto was acclaimed as King of Bohemia. His speech following his accession was careful, stating his respect for “the young parliament and its enthusaiastic supporters,” as an olive branch to the liberal, anti-monarchist factions who opposed the move. Yugoslavia lodged diplomatic protests, stating that the control of the Czechoslovakian army violated the 35,000 man limit on the Hungarian army as stipulated in the Treaty of Trianon. Otto disagreed, noting that the army was trained in Czechoslovakia before its annexation into Austria-Hungary. Benito Mussolini agreed with Hungary’s claims, and French and British did not comment directly, stating that their primary goal has always been the preservation of peace in the region.

With Bohemia within its borders, Austria-Hungary set its sights on the territories awarded to Romania in the aftermath of the Great War. Transylvania, or Siebenbürgen as the Hungarians named it had a large segment of ethnic Hungarians. Romania, ruled by King Carol II under royal dictatorship, refused the gesture out of hand; Hungarian aggression had caused the Great War and the territory was lawfully transferred to Romania as part of war reparations. Upon hearing his refusal, King Otto retaliated by stating that the treaty went against its stated objective of national self-determination and that the Romanians had violated the treaty due to its land confiscation and anti-Semitic policies. Both Otto and Carol moved their armies to the border, neither wishing to back down in a crisis. The news media of the day was alight with articles fearing another Great War that could start at any time, the Balkans lit aflame yet again.

Wishing to avoid a war, Otto suggested impartial mediation through diplomatic back-channels. With Germany hostile, and France already invested in the conflict with its post-war foreign policy guarantees but unwilling to enforce them, the United Kingdom and Italy were named as possible mediators. This move has been considered a foreign policy masterstroke by Austria-Hungary. By being the one to suggest mediation, it engendered goodwill toward France, Italy, and Great Britain. Neville Chamberlain, the United Kingdom Prime Minister, debated a compromise by returning North Transylvania to Hungary within his own Tory cabinet. Italy however, preferred a strong Hungary ever since coming to diplomatic blows with Germany regarding Austria, and recommended that the territory be ceded to Austria-Hungary. The Italian offer reached the Romanian government first, and believing that they would be facing the Italian and Austro-Hungarian armies combined, ceded the territories without a fight. Chamberlain, upon learning of the compromise, believed it to be a Romanian capitulation, and never sent his proposal.

Otto turned his attention to Yugoslavia, which had been struggling with rising separatist movements among the Croats, Macedonians, and Slovenes. Yugoslavia had vociferously protested Austro-Hungarian actions in the region, but found limited support from France and Britain, particularly after Yugoslavia announced claims on Bulgarian lands in the interests of establishing a “South Slav Union” and started quietly sacking officers who opposed German interest in the Balkans. Having already been disillusioned by the failure of the British and French to prevent the re-militarization of the Rhineland, Prince Paul believed that only alignment with Germany would save Yugoslavia from being annexed by Austria-Hungary. The Jewish populations in Macedonia, Thrace, and Dobrudja were particularly anxious about the direction that Yugoslavia was taking. Citing the need to protect Bulgarian lands from Yugoslavian aggression and the need to return the favor for their assistance in the Great War, Otto declared war on Yugoslavia. Thanks in large part to the highly modernized forces produced by the Czechs and the Skoda Works, the Austro-Hungarians were quickly able to penetrate the Yugoslavian defensive perimeter on their shared border. Austrian forces swept into Slovenia, encircling and destroying isolated units. Belgrade fell in less than thirty days, and the Yugoslavian government was forced to evacuate to Skopje. Even a last minute, desperate defense in the southern theater did little to stop the advancing Austro-Hungarian troops. In less than four months, the Yugoslavian government capitulated completely.

While there were several high-profile diplomatic protests from the League of Nations, most media at the time reported great relief that the conflict was a small, contained struggle that did not erupt into a global war. Sanctions were imposed on Austria-Hungary, but these were of limited effect, as the war had ended before major actions could be agreed upon. The United States, citing the Neutrality Act, traded with neither Austria-Hungary nor Yugoslavia, France had withdrawn its guarantee of independence, and Germany declined to help Yugoslavia, unwilling to help a Slavic power. On 24 February, 1939, King Otto, having secured the territory he had lost, proclaimed the restoration and reintegration of the Dual Monarchy, and the rebirth of Austria-Hungary.

The Sudeten Crisis

Elsewhere in Europe, the great powers were slowly aligning against one another. In 1936, an attempted coup by the Spanish Army had failed and had erupted into a massive civil war. Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler quickly sent support to the armies of Nationalist Spain, providing weapons, fuel, and volunteers to assist. Republican Spain had a much harder time finding international support, with only the Soviet Union sending material shipments, while French Prime Minister Leon Blum chaired a Non-Intervention Committee with the United Kingdom, the formation of which led to renewing the Great War-era alliance between the two countries. King Otto joined the Non-Intervention Committee, considering the Spanish Civil War to be a domestic Spanish matter and that the Habsburgs had not been in Spain for over two centuries. During the Civil War, an anarchist rift formed in the Republican faction, with the Regional Defense Council of Aragon refusing to obey Manuel Azaña and starting their own rebellion. The Nationalists, however, were unable to take advantage of this, as they suffered their own coalition fracture between Emilio Mola of the Spanish Directory and Manuel Fel Conde of the Carlist faction. The two factions were driven by irreconcilable divisions over the direction of post-war Spain. In desperation as 1938 began, Azaña accepted Stalin’s offer of expanded Soviet aid. Otto’s refusal to intervene caused a diplomatic rift between Austria-Hungary and Italy, who had expected support in exchange for mediating the Transylvania conflict in Otto’s favor. The Republicans eventually won the civil war on 12 November 1938, and Stalin installed Gabriel Acuna, a retired military officer and ardent Stalinist, as President of Spain, who immediately suspended elections and fired all non-Communist ministers, and instituted emergency laws to allow him to dissolve the Chamber of Deputies in favor of regional Soviets and establish a one-party state. Manuel Azaña, despondent over the death of Spanish democracy, never recovered, and died of illness shortly after the war’s conclusion in exile in France.

The loss of such a state to communism caused Germany and Italy to mend their diplomatic fences. In a famous speech, Mussolini declared: “France, Britain, and Austria-Hungary are unwilling to face the Bolshevik menace.” and signed the Pact of Steel, a treaty of cooperation with the German Reich. Shortly thereafter, the two announced a military alliance. Italy began to court Bulgaria as another possible member of this “Berlin-Rome axis,” Afterward, Italy demanded that Albania’s King Zog cede the country to be ruled in a personal union under Victor Emmanuel III, and Greece received a similar demand from Hitler in June 1939. King Zog of Albania submitted to Italian demands, stating that Albania did not have the manpower to resist Italian invasion and that he would not murder his citizens for pride. Greek Prime Minister Ioannis Metaxas defied the demands, and Germany declared war on 15 June 1939. The invasion of Greece was quickly condemned by United Kingdom Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who issued an ultimatum: leave Greece immediately or face war. When Hitler refused, the United Kingdom declared war, joined by France and the various Dominions. This was too late for Greece, which could not receive reinforcements and was forced to capitulate. The failure of the Allies to protect Greece led to a vote of no confidence in Neville Chamberlain, who was replaced by his deputy, Winston Churchill. At Stuttgart, Hitler made a grand show of turning over control of Greece to his alliance partner Mussolini. Diplomatic historians have theorized that this overture was directed at governments which were not part of the Allies, in the hopes of causing them to join the Axis powers and becoming a part of the new European order to receive similar boons of territory.

This development caused a crisis within the Austro-Hungarian cabinet. With Greece and Albania administered through Italian puppet governments, the south flank of the nation was exposed, and if Bulgaria joined the Axis powers, they would be almost completely surrounded. Austria-Hungary’s relationship with the United Kingdom had been frosty ever since the war in Yugoslavia. Several councilors suggested rapprochement with the Axis powers, or attempting to split Mussolini and Hitler to break up the Axis and align with Italy against Germany. The left suggested approaching Stalin for a defensive pact. In a defiant response to the Greek and Albanian submission, Austria-Hungary declared that the countries of eastern Europe were free and independent powers, offering independence guarantees to Romania and Poland to protect them from Axis expansionism, much to the surprise of King Carol II. Hitler began to fund pro-fascist political groups and parties within Austria-Hungary, using nationalist sentiment against the poly-ethnic nation and promoting rhetoric that Otto’s policies were causing ruination of the region, that he must be deposed and Admiral Horthy must be returned to shepherd the government, in the hopes that the 1940 elections would cause domestic unrest and Austro-Hungary distracted by concerns at home. Wehrmacht officers suggested that Hitler thought little of the Austro-Hungarian military, confident that it was full of “weak and backwards races that would crumble against German armor,” and that he wanted to maintain focus on his war with France and the United Kingdom. German groups in Austria were their prime target, but Hitler also targeted Slovaks in eastern Bohemia in an attempt to stir up the divisions that had been present in Czechoslovakia. This effort caused a rise in nativist parties in the north and south of Austria-Hungary. King Otto retaliated with a large-scale crackdown on fascist groups, typically under a flimsy excuse of violating public safety laws, but fascist sentiment grew.

Almost a year after the February Proclamation, Germany, citing the principle of ethnic self-determination and a German state for the German people, demanded that the Sudetenland be ceded to Germany. Konrad Heinlein, leader of the Sudeten German Party and a Great War combat veteran, campaigned publicly for the cession of the territory. King Otto proclaimed Konrad a traitor to the Empire, to which Heinlein responded “You lived in comfort for your nation, I lived in a prison. Which of us has given more?” Street violence followed between the Legitimist monarchist party and the Sudeten German Party, and the First Royal Army Group was positioned along the border from Tyrol to the eastern Sudeten, the Second on the border near South Tyrol, and the Third sent to Macedonia on the border with the Albania and Greece. As the deadline for the German ultimatum drew near, King Otto remained defiant, proclaiming to the emergency session of the joint National Assembly “The Germans may have their war if they dare..The Czech people gave me their trust, and I give it to every man on the border down to the lowliest private. I nor any of the citizens of this reborn nation shall sacrifice this great enterprise.” When the deadline expired, Germany issued a formal declaration of war with Italy following less than four hours later. Austria-Hungary was now at war.

Opening Gambit - The Invasion at Zara, The Greek Campaign, and a War on Two Fronts

While the Wehrmacht had hoped to push into Austria-Hungary from the north, early attempts were repulsed by the extensive fortification network in the Sudetenland and the Austrian mountains. The heavy fortifications and powerful Austro-Hungarian artillery left the theater in a precarious stalemate, neither side able to break through enemy fixed positions. The initial moves from Austria-Hungary had better luck, with the Austro-Hungarian Fifth Army pushing south, deep into enemy territory in Italian-occupied Greece. Initial records from the battle had cited the brilliance of the commander, General Lajos Verees, but later analysis of the war had shown a lack of coordination between Hitler and Mussolini on the war plans for Austria-Hungary. Mussolini’s army had been organizing the annexation and administration of the new Greek holdings, the sudden increase in territory had forced Mussolini to assign many of his forces in that region to garrisons and coordination with the new puppet government while the majority of his trained forces were stationed on the French-Italian border. Several divisions had not even shown up, delayed in transit as Mussolini had to organize an Albanian and Greek regional government. The Italians that had been mobilized had made a valiant showing, but ultimately were forced to cede territory as garrison forces were scrambled at fallback positions and artillery was airlifted to provide firepower for the reeling army.

Hitler had originally intended to reinforce Italian holdings in Greece, but Admiral Karl Donitz suggested a bolder push, to reinforce Italian holdings at Zara and push into Austro-Hungarian territory, hoping to spark a panic. The Austro-Hungarian navy was barely functional, as the shipyards on the Dalmatian coast had only recently been acquired, and intelligence suggested that the Austro-Hungarian only had a few destroyers and submarines staffed with barely trained naval forces. Hitler gave his approval, and the Kriegsmarine launched Operation Blue Serpent. The results were astounding, the combined Italian and German naval force was able to overwhelm the patchwork Austro-Hungarian Navy and force a landing at Zara. From there, Axis forces overran Split and Rijeka in Dalmatia before a relief force under Austro-Hungarian general Fritz Lipfert was able to form a battle line in Bosnia. The loss of vital industrial facilities severely hampered Austro-Hungarian war production. President Franklin Roosevelt’s proposal to extend the Lend-Lease Act to Austria-Hungary met with resistance even from his own party, but an impassioned speech by Harry Hopkins was able to secure the passage of the bill, and Austria-Hungary was able to manage the supply shortfall. In public recognition of the material support, King Otto commissioned a statue of an American factory worker entitled: “The Hands of Freedom.”

In a surprising and stunning move, Romania elected to send volunteer detachments in support of Austria-Hungary, which constituted themselves under Lipfert’s command as the Foreign Corps. This was done at the behest of the new king Michael. Carol II, who had long irritated his government with his wild, hedonistic lifestyle, had been deposed in a bloodless coup by his son, and declaring the need to stand against Axis oppression, sent volunteer forces to fight with the Austro-Hungarians. The Foreign Corps and the Austro-Hungarian Sixth Army set up their headquarters in Ljubjlana. Michael I also offered to mediate dialogue between Otto von Habsburg and Winston Churchill. The Copenhagen Conference was productive, with Austria-Hungary and Romania both welcomed into the Allies.

Hitler was reportedly furious. Coordination between the Austro-Hungarians and the British meant that he was facing a war on two fronts. Historians speculate on Hitler’s expectations, whether he had anticipated a greater result from Konrad Heinlein, that Otto von Habsburg would cede the Sudetenland rather than risk being encircled by the Axis, that previous bad blood between Austria-Hungary and the United Kingdom regarding Yugoslavia, or that Austria-Hungary would sue for peace following the successful landings at Zara. There are no surviving written records of the strategic objectives, but military historians consider this to have been one of the greatest strategic mistakes of the 20th century.

The Push Through Italy

With Greece re-captured and under Austro-Hungarian control, the Allied War Council met in London to discuss war strategy. Of the two Axis Powers, Germany possessed the more accomplished and capable army. France wanted to push into Italy, removing the weaker power before bringing all forces to bear on Germany. Austria-Hungary, by contrast, wanted reinforcements in Eastern Europe, to liberate Dalmatia before striking at Germany to the north. Italy, Marshall Luza, leader of the Austro-Hungarian Second Army Group, believed that the Italians were contained, argued: “If we should break the German back, Mussolini will surrender and the war will be over before autumn.” The United Kingdom agreed with France, stating that if Northern Italy were cleared, France could reinforce the battle lines in Dalmatia, while the Royal Navy could keep the Adriatic clear and prevent any reinforcements to the Axis lines. With any luck, once the Axis expedition was cut off from supply shipments from the mainland, they would surrender en masse before starvation began to bite. As an acknowledgement that Austria-Hungary had some of its territory occupied, Great Britain and France agreed to detach several divisions to help hold the battle lines in Austria-Hungary, setting up an expeditionary corps headquartered in Banja Luka.

In March 1940, the Italian campaign was kicked off in earnest. Austria Hungary ordered a push from the Second Army Group toward Venice, while France ordered a major assault toward Genoa and Milan, while sending a destroyer group to secure the Corsica-Sardinia strait and support an amphibious assault on the small Italian island. The United Kingdom prepared a naval invasion from Egypt, hoping to strike Sicily once Mussolini had sent his forces northward. By April, French forces had taken Milan, but Genoa had been reinforced by a large number of infantry and armor divisions, Mussolini’s elite. Genoa was taken, but it was hard fought. Austria-Hungary had better luck, pushing through Venice and beginning the push along the Adriatic Coast. The Second Army Group experiencing a stunning breakthrough, with Italian forces falling back to Florence and establishing a fighting position in the hilly terrain outside the city. Austro-Hungarian and French troops, along with detached British divisions, met at Bologna, and theater commanders agreed to exploit the Austro-Hungarian breakthrough, bypassing the fortified Italian fighting positions in Florence. May saw further Italian retreats as the Allied forces pushed into Ancona and the successful launch of the British invasion of Sicily and the fall of Palermo, which became the main naval staging yard for further Mediterranean operations. The Royal Navy successfully contested the Mediterranean, and by the end of May Italian ships found it incredibly difficult to leave port either in the west or the east.

Operations continued into June, although hot weather slowed the tempo. Dogged resistance in the hills of Florence had failed to dislodge the Italian positions, and Allied war planners feared a stalemate that would permit the German army to redouble production efforts, push south from Germany, and possibly threaten the war effort. British efforts to push from Sicily to the Italian mainland had similarly stalled. Bohemian Marshal Luza of the Second Army Group, always an aggressive commander, suggested pushing toward Rome instead, charging Richard Tesařík with the task. Tesařík’s idea was called Operation Saber, better known as the Corneo Needle, where an infantry force would push southeast from Ancona while the spearhead of light tanks and motorized infantry would push through the center of the Italian peninsula. The Italian field officer took the bait, dispatching a relief force from Anzio to support the defense of the east. Followed closely by French infantry, Tesařík’s forces began shelling Rome to the surprise of the Italian defenders. On 28 June, 1940, Rome fell to the advancing Allies. Disheartened, the Italians pulled further south, but the isolated Florentine hill forces were unable to regroup, digging in. The dogged Italian defenders fought for two months, during which the famous war memoir “Colline Rossa” was written. As the Italian Army began to crumble, King Victor Emmanuel seized control of the Italian Parliament, arrested Mussolini, and sought an armistice. On 27 August 1940, Italy surrendered to a joint Allied delegation. Hardline Fascist holdouts persisted, moving their provisional government to Crete, but the British Navy bottled them on their island, and they played no part in the remainder of the war.

Hitler’s Gamble, the German Lemon Squeeze, and the Postwar Order

With Italy lost, Hitler faced a losing war. Strategists within the Nazi council debated, with many suggesting making a peace overture, but Hitler refused to consider it. Instead, he embarked upon a daring gamble, a westward push through the Low Countries, bypassing the Maginot Line and threatening Paris. The prevailing theory among military historians is that Hitler hoped a display of strength would force a general ceasefire before the Allied armies could march north from Italy to threaten Germany. A few days before the Italian Army surrendered, Hitler attacked Belgium and the Netherlands. However, British cryptologists at GCHQ led by Alan Turing had uncovered the plans. Belgian and Dutch defenders had fortified their positions, reinforced by the British Army, and had been able to repulse Hitler’s plan. Disgusted by the German actions, the United Mexican States, under President Lázaro Cárdenas, joined the Allies, and sent a small expeditionary force to supplement the Low Countries defense.

The Austro-Hungarian army, having secured Italy, began the slow march north to the central European mountains, spilling over the Austrian border and pushing slowly toward Munich. British and Dutch forces advanced from Frisia while French forces began to emerge from their Maginot defenses and attacked southwestern Germany. Hitler’s force, spread out, were significantly outnumbered, and began to take heavy losses.

The Allies developed their plan as a broad pincer movement, for an aggressive attack moving both north and east, not stopping until they had received an unconditional surrender. General Bernard Montgomery had caused a slight diplomatic row when he wagered with Austro-Hungarian general Géza Lakatos that the British could take Berlin before the Austro-Hungarian even got there, to which he was privately censured by Churchill for antagonizing his coalition partner.

As September came, Austria-Hungary took Munich, where the First and Second Army Groups split, with the First marching north while the Second marched west to press German divisions stationed between the French and Austro-Hungarian lines together. It was here that the combined Allied offensive received the nickname “Lemon Squeeze.” In discussion with French reporters, an unknown sergeant said “Of course we’re going until we see the French on the other side! When you squeeze a lemon, you do not stop until there is nothing left but the rind!” By November 30, the Austro-Hungarian army proved the unknown sergeant correct, as they had closed the fronts save for a holdout force of 20 German divisions near the Swiss border. At a joint session of air command, British bombers volunteered to begin all-out strategic bombing including hard-to-fly night bombing raids, where the smaller Austro-Hungarian bombers would cover tactical bombing and free up the larger British planes for more important missions.

The Belgian-British-Dutch-French breakout in the west accomplished the most success in the German theater, sweeping through northern Germany, while the Austro-Hungarian northward attack had only reached Leipzig. General Lakatos, angered that Montgomery might win his bet, ordered a redoubled effort, and detached line troops to march across the Belgian front to Magedburg, and then to march east to attack Berlin. Three days after Christmas, Austro-Hungarian forces radioed to the joint Allied command outside Berlin that they were joining the assault, much to Montgomery’s chagrin. With 43 divisions outside the gates and Hitler out of communication, the fall of the German Reich came swiftly. On the fourth of January, 1941, Hitler’s body was found within his improvised command bunker, dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, and the German Reich formally surrendered.

While the war was devastating, the casualty count was much smaller than the Great War, with slightly over 3 million military casualties total, although this was only an 11-month conflict. At the Peace of Konigsberg, the Allied Powers set out their aims for post-war Europe. Greece was liberated and founded as the Hellenic Republic of Greece. Occupied Lithuiana was similarly reorganized, with Memel being returned. Austria-Hungary wanted to reinstate Victor Emmanuel as King of Italy and the territorial concessions of Venice, Istra, and South Tyrol, while the United Kingdom favored Ferrucio Parri and re-established borders. A compromise was hastily made, permitting the territorial concessions, but establishing Italy as a constitutional monarchy, with Victor Emmanuel having little political power. Germany was reorganized as a republic, with Konrad Adenaur becoming the first Chancellor of a newly democratic Germany. Austria-Hungary returned Albania to King Zog with much fanfare, a victory procession into his country. In less than a year, the threat of fascism was lifted from Europe, though tensions still ran high. Joseph Stalin eyed Polish territories and Bessarabia with hungry eyes, and the United Kingdom has taken a firm stand against the brutal oppression happening in Spain. Japan continues to threaten China in the Pacific, and both the United States and the United Mexican States worry about Venezuelan aggression in South America. War may come again, and the world may not be so lucky next time.

The Dual Monarchy Today in 1941

The Austro-Hungarian military is a modern and sophisticated fighting force. While not as large as the French or Red Army, the Habsburg army is a well-funded and well-equipped force with modern infantry, artillery, and armor divisions. Austro-Hungarian warfare is dominated by firepower theory, stressing a mobile defense, artillery barrages called in by forward observation units from advanced firebases, and an integrated support structure. This last notion is particularly important, as Austria-Hungary is famous for its support corps, among the most highly trained individuals in the military profession today. Austria-Hungary developed an extensive military engineering corps capable of breaching obstacles and building field fortifications to both protect its own and bypass the defenses of the enemy. The Royal Patrol School develops skilled reconnaissance squads, with its infamous “High and Low” course on mountain and forest recon being internationally notorious for its difficulty. An early adopter of military radio, the Royal Signal Corps helped to pioneer backpack-sized signals equipment and field telephones. Armor corps have dedicated maintenance divisions to keep tanks in repair, as early conflicts with Yugoslavia were littered with broken-down tanks causing delays in military timetables. Most highly prized, however, are the logistics and hospital corps, when one British general said: “If I get hurt, please let me be picked up by the Habsburgs!” These two were of special interest to King Otto, and he invested a great deal of capital into developing field surgery equipment and a highly educated logistics staff, recalling the grueling conditions suffered by Austro-Hungarian troops during the Great War. Austro-Hungarian military thinkers have emphasized the need for dedicated supply in both men and materiel, with logistics study mandatory in all officer academies. These developments came as a result of an extensive motorization program, with Otto von Habsburg famously declaring: “A modern war is a truck war,” and permitting the motorized and mechanized infantry divisions to name themselves the Hussar Corps, distinct from the Royal Hussars, a primarily ceremonial unit present at most Austro-Hungarian state functions.

Austria-Hungary also fields a small special forces program. Of particular note are the Royal Mountain Corps, based off the Alpini program in Italy. The Corps, often nicknamed the Skyscrapers or the Hold-Your-Breath Squad, often provide training and consultation to other nations on developing and maintaining a trained mountain warfare program, and inter-Allied drills on mountain warfare are often conducted in Austro-Hungarian territory. The Danubian Marine Corps primarily trains in river and marsh warfare, specializing in high-speed bridging operations.

On the sea, the Austro-Hungarian navy is not a true blue water navy. As much of the earlier Austro-Hungarian navy was disbanded, Austria-Hungary had little in the way of development with its navy, and naval warfare was often seen as a distant third priority compared to land and air warfare, much to Austro-Hungarian chagrin when the Axis were able to land forces in Zara. His Majesty’s Navy primarily acts as a coastal and Mediterranean force, primarily destroyers and cruisers and a small but well-established submarine force. King Otto, however, is looking to modernize the navy with a focus on aircraft carriers with destroyers acting as escort and heavy cruisers providing firepower from naval guns.

In the air, Austria-Hungary boasts a well-trained and well-equipped air force. The Austro-Hungarian Air Force’s most famous planes are its RMI-8 X/V and it’s RMI-16. The former is a heavy fighter, primarily an air superiority and bomber escort, a large, twin-engine heavy fighter, while the latter is a streamlined medium bomber. The Austro-Hungarian Air Force is a relatively small service, with an operational doctrine toward flexibility. Bomber pilots are expected to be able to perform at both strategic bombing and close air support missions. Drop-out rates for its Bomb School are high due to the intense demands of the course, but the pilots who successfully complete them are among the most decorated and talented members of the Austro-Hungarian armed forces.

Imgur Links for Full-Size, images are in the same order that they are in the AAR

Austria Hungary country map

Otto Assumes the Hungarian Crown

Austria Agrees to Unite with Hungary

Restoration of Austria-Hungary

Before the War Begins

The Italian Push

The German Lemon Squeeze

The Battle of Berlin

War Score and Participation

-SLAL

#hearts of iron 4 #hearts of iron iv #creative

33 notes · View notes