Logo
Cover

Where would the West be without war?

80 Years after the beginning of the extermination campaign against the Soviet Union, it is not only in the interest of the peace and ecology movement to oppose the current disinformation of NATO and its supporters historical enlightenment. This is also because NATO propaganda has a successful access to parts of the once critical spectra in public.

The NATO summit with US President Biden comes eight days before June 22, the 80th anniversary of Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union. The orientation of the announcement text, which is directed against Russia, stands in a fatal line of tradition that goes back even further into history, beyond June 22. The dangerousness of this orientation was made clear by the later Federal President Gustav Heinemann in the early post-war period:

“Anti-communism has already led us to ruin, even to crime … In place of hereditary hostility to France, do not put hereditary or mortal hostility to the eastern neighbors.”

80 Years after the centennial crime of Nazi Germany’s raid on the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941, it is a requirement of peace policy to recall the fatal consequences of the wars against Russia and then against the Soviet Union in order to make clear where lies and violations of international law can lead. Today’s NATO propaganda against Russia is more eloquently formulated than the clumsy incitement before the two world wars; but it expresses how leaders in the West hold to a skewed image and double standards that were successfully used to manipulate the public in the pre - war and wartime atmosphere of the 20th century-with the well – known consequences from which humanity has not recovered in the atomic age to this day and whose dangerousness is existential for civilization. The 21st century is about averting the danger of the final inferno. The thrust of NATO is reminiscent of the motives with which the two world wars began.

The prehistory of the attack on the Soviet Union, which became the deadliest human crime in history under the term “Barbarossa enterprise”, includes the original catastrophe of the 20th century: This was the First World War, which began with Germany’s declaration of war against Russia and the lie of a Russian attack. Kaiser Wilhelm II declared on 1 August in Berlin:

“We have been invaded in the deepest peace in the word’s truest meaning. Through the envy of our enemy that surrounds us. For 25 years I have shielded and preserved peace. Now they put the sword in my hand. But I hope to be able to put it back in with honor. You will be subjected to enormous sacrifices of good and blood, but we will bear them. I know that. We will show the enemy what it means to irritate Germany in such a vile way … "

In Russia there had been a mobilization after the alliance partner Serbia had been threatened because of the assassination attempt on the Habsburg heir to the throne in Sarajevo, but with the claim that a Russian attack on Germany must be repulsed, the truth was the first victim of the war, which took almost 20 million lives in four years, in which tanks, submarines, aircraft, machine guns and gas were used for the first time.

The Second World War cost the lives of about 60 million people, half of whom were citizens of the Soviet Union, which the West has forgotten. The war did not end on May 8, 1945, but only after the US nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Had begun with the lie, you’ll shoot for 5: 45 and against Poland. But here, too, the attackers had a completely different state in their sights: on August 11, 1939, three weeks before the start of the war, Hitler declared:

“Everything I undertake is directed against Russia; if the West is too stupid and blind to grasp this, I’ll be forced to communicate with the Russians, beat the West and then after his defeat me with my gathered forces against the Soviet Union. I need Ukraine so that we can not be starved again as in the last war.”

Although the Soviet leadership had responded to Germany’s alliance offer in 1939, this was done because the Western powers had rejected Europe’s Soviet alliance offers and after they had left Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany and Poland in 1938, which opened the way for the SS state to move east. This was followed by long negotiations between the Soviet Union and the Western European powers on an alliance that could have reined in Nazi Germany’s course of aggression against its neighboring states. However, even after the Munich Agreement with Nazi Germany, the Western powers proved not to be interested in a corresponding alliance agreement with the Soviet Union. So wrote Lloyd George in the summer of 1939 in the French newspaper ‘Ce Soir’:

“As to the causes of the endless squabbles in which the negotiations of England and France with the Soviet Union were bogged down … there is only one answer: ‘Neville Chamberlain, Halifax and John Simon do not want an agreement with Russia.’ …”

After that, the Soviet Union agreed to the non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany. Critics say that two dictators have divided Poland and thus opened the war together. Others see the treaty as an attempt by the Soviet Union to gain time.

What followed was the greatest offensive in world history. It began without a declaration of war on 22 June 1941, over 3 million German soldiers were involved, they were accompanied by forces from Italy, Romania, Finland, Hungary, Slovakia and Croatia. It was a war of extermination unprecedented in history, leaving wide areas between the Soviet western border and the Urals on the principle of “scorched earth”. The Nazis wanted to wipe out the Soviet Union and with it a large part of the population in order to gain ‘living space in the East’ and to gain access to valuable resources.

Hitler had previously prepared the Reichstag for a relentless struggle against what he called “Jewish-international Moscow Bolshevism”, the “main enemy of the Aryan race in Europe”. His aim was to destroy communism and Judaism “for all time”. He disguised the raid as a” defensive war " that had preceded a Soviet raid. The chief of the General staff of the army, Colonel-General Franz Halders, gave the statement, “the ideological fight with fencing”. “Durchfechten” meant that entire settlements were razed to the ground, executions and mass executions took place without any procedure, butcheries of all kinds increasingly brutalized the soldiers and SS members involved, so that sources speak of “bloodlust”.

After the liberation of Europe from fascism and war in May 1945, the main burden of which was borne by the Soviet Union, the anti-Soviet and then anti-communist orientation of Western policy towards the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics remained in a renewed form. With the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the then US President Truman pursued an anti-Soviet target: according to the Bernese ‘Bund’, the Truman grandson declared in 2012 at a meeting with Hiroshima survivors:

“The dropping of the bombs … at the time, the main purpose was to deter the Soviet Union.”

This information corresponds to the passages at the end of the war of the USA against Japan in August 1945, in the chapter “The Atomic Bomb and the Declaration of War by Russia on Japan” and “The Surrender of Japan” in H. S. Truman’s biography. There he describes the conflict with the USSR over " spoils of war “in connection with the events (p.436) and explains his motivation:” I was determined not to proceed again as in Germany with the occupation of Japan. … The Russians could not be given an opportunity, as in Germany … behave."(P. 447) " In the Pacific Ocean, Russian tactics should not bother us."(p. 422) All this culminates in this conclusion:

“The dropping of the atomic bomb had to force Russia to revise its position in the far East.'(p. 438)

Thus, the US nuclear attacks represent a war crime, which is associated with motives that were contrary to the officially issued goal of reducing the war and thereby reducing the number of victims. Hiroshima thus opened the Cold War against the war-allied Soviet Union.

This was followed by the escalation of East-West tensions with the Korean War, about which the NATO-related media spread the narrative that the West had fought off the aggression of the Soviet Union and China with the UN. We are the good, the others the axis of evil.

The composition of the UN Security Council was controversial after the Chinese Revolution and the secession from Taiwan, so that the Soviet Union also stayed away from the Security Council in the months of the decision between January and August out of solidarity with China. So the West was able to sell to the world public, to defend peace on the part of the UN. The Western forces subjected Korea to a war in which more bombs fell than in the entire World War II. Among the most perfidious crimes against the civilian population were the attacks on dams in North Korea, when little else could be destroyed there. Nevertheless, the narrative held in the NATO area that the West had defended itself only against the Communists supported by the Soviets.

The Korean War became the legitimation for the KPD ban, for the anti-communist hysteria in the USA after World War II and especially during the McCarthy era, during which the Nobel Prize winner for Literature Thomas Mann also described anti-communism as the basic folly of our era. He had previously criticized anti-Bolshevism in the same way.

It was also during this period that NATO was founded, which was declared a defense alliance against the danger posed by the Soviet Union. The facts belied this account: the Soviet Union was so weakened by the Nazi war of extermination in the course of the Barbarossa enterprise that everything was in the room, but not a Soviet attack on states in Western Europe or elsewhere.

“In the year of NATO’s founding, US anti-fascist fighters bombarded the anti-fascist liberation movement’s positions in Greece with napalm and equipped the monarchist military that had collaborated with the Nazis. Only in this way could the liberation movement be defeated in the alleged ‘civil’war. In 1952, when the United States had provided for a US-dependent government here as well as in neighboring Turkey, they brought the two states into NATO.”

The lies about self-legitimation never stopped. Since then, it has been explained to the Western public that the Soviet and now Russian danger and their armament efforts made the high-armament inevitable. Since the beginning, the military budgets of NATO countries have included a multiple of Soviet military spending. This preponderance has existed since the founding of NATO, even if the NATO-related reporting spreads the opposite impression like a prayer wheel.

The resulting dangerousness was revealed in the 1980s, when NATO deployed beheading strike nuclear missiles of the Pershing II type in Europe with the narrative that it was “retrofitting"against the Soviet Union. NATO created this impression, since it did not include the nuclear potential of the NATO states France and Great Britain, unlike the Soviet Union, which they threatened.

The currently most effective and at the same time obvious anti-Russian lie construct of this kind, in whose visual power the hungry Russian or even still Soviet bear is also used with racist hints, is the Ukraine/Crimea conflict.

In doing so, the West presents itself in the usual manner as a defender against the danger from the East. This is due to the fact that NATO intelligence management is again working with double standards and semi-information. The unconstitutional installation of a pro-Western government in Ukraine, which former ARD reporter Gabriele Krone-Schmalz, for example, calls a ‘coup’ and a ‘coup d’état’, is being ignored. Thus, the only illegally acting actor is the opposite side. This process is particularly dangerous, since there are 15 nuclear reactors in the territory of Ukraine, including the most powerful nuclear power plant in Europe. If it hits here, then the inferno does not need a nuclear war, it is already such a one. NATO advised the then illegal government of Ukraine in May 2014 on how to deal with nuclear facilities in the event of war. Even the nuclear armament justifies NATO with the Crimean crisis of 2014, although at that time it had already taken the corresponding decisions.

80 Years after the beginning of the campaign of destruction against the Soviet Union, it is not only in the interest of the peace and ecology movement to counter the disinformation of the NATO - affine forces, which work from the far right to the Party of the Greens and Social Democracy. Reconnaissance is also a contribution to the fight against the military threat to the future, which would mean a faster end than threatens humanity with the ecological – by no means “only” climate – related threats to the future.

This is especially relevant in today’s social situation, in which NATO propaganda has a successful access to parts of the once alternative spectra in the public and pretends to people that their “values alliance” stands for democracy and a rule-based world order, against which Russia and China stand. Thus, even ecologically arguing forces represent the high and nuclear armaments, which represent the opposite of security and ecology.

The Sources I have in a seperate file.