China should be punished – NATO chief

Jens Stoltenberg has argued that Beijing must pay a price for helping Russia amid the Ukraine crisis

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said China must pay a price for allegedly propping up Russia’s military campaign in Ukraine, saying Beijing is “fueling” the conflict by supplying microelectronics and other key components to Moscow.

“The reality is that China is fueling the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War II,” Stoltenberg said on Monday in a speech at the Wilson Center in Washington. “At the same time, it wants to maintain good relations with the West. Well, Beijing cannot have it both ways. At some point, unless China changes course, allies need to impose a cost.”

Stoltenberg has repeatedly attacked China since the Ukraine crisis began in February 2022, arguing that Beijing was enabling Russia to fight against Kiev, a “European friend” of NATO. He has made such comments even as NATO states prolonged the conflict by providing hundreds of billions of dollars in economic and military aid to Ukraine.

Monday’s rebuke marked some of his most pointed criticism yet, suggesting that NATO may ramp up sanctions against China. He also called out North Korea and Iran for being supportive of Russia’s defense-industrial complex.

READ MORE: NATO chief saber-rattling with nuclear weapons – Kremlin

Stoltenberg reiterated an assertion that NATO – a military bloc originally formed against the Soviet Union – needs to get more involved in the Indo-Pacific to counter the “growing alignment between Russia and its authoritarian friends in Asia.” He noted that he invited the leaders of Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand to next month’s NATO summit in Washington to work together on upholding the “international rules-based order.”

China is providing Russia with semiconductors and other key technologies with military applications, including parts needed to make missiles and tanks, Stoltenberg said. He added that Beijing also has supplied Russia with improved satellite and imaging capabilities. “All of this enables Moscow to inflict more death and destruction on Ukraine, bolster Russia’s defense-industrial base, and evade the impact of sanctions and export controls.”

READ MORE: NATO responsible for Ukraine crisis – China

The NATO chief also spoke of his China concerns in an interview with the BBC on Monday. Asked about what the Western military bloc might do about the issue, he said there was an “ongoing conversation” about possible sanctions. “At some stage, we should consider some kind of economic cost if China doesn’t change their behavior,” he said.

Beijing has repeatedly defied demands from the US and other NATO nations to join in sanctioning and isolating Russia. Chinese leaders have pushed a peace plan to end the fighting and have pointed out that Russia’s legitimate security concerns cannot be ignored.

Earlier this year, the Chinese Foreign Ministry denounced NATO as a “walking war machine that causes chaos wherever it goes.” Beijing has accused NATO of meddling in Asian affairs, saying the bloc is a “terrible monster” and has extended a “black hand” toward the region.

Swiss Ukraine Summit Disaster, Leaders Stay Away, Reject Statement; Zelensky Wants Attack; Russian Advances (video – analysis)

By Alexander Mercouris

ALEXANDER MERCOURIS

Source: https://theduran.com/swiss-ukr-summit-disaster-leaders-stay-away-reject-statement-zelensky-wants-attack-rus-advances/

Macrons Spiel mit dem Feuer – Wer gewinnt die „Neuwahlen“ in Frankreich?

Ein Artikel von Sebastian Chwala

Die Europawahlen brachten am 9. Juni 2024 den sich seit langem abzeichnenden deutlichen Sieg der ultrarechten Partei „Rassemblement National“ (RN). So gut wie niemand hatte erwartet, dass Staatspräsident Emmanuel Macron, dessen Partei „Renaissance“ eine derbe Wahlniederlage einstecken musste, dieses Wahlergebnis dazu nutzen würde, die Nationalversammlung aufzulösen und innerhalb von drei Wochen Neuwahlen anzusetzen. Noch niemals zuvor hatte eine Europawahl in Frankreich schwerwiegende innenpolitische Auswirkungen zur Folge. Zahlreiche französische Medien zweifelten in der Folge an der Richtigkeit der Entscheidung und warfen Macron vor, durch die Aufwertung dieser innenpolitisch nicht direkt wichtigen „Zwischenwahl“ die Französische Republik an den RN auszuliefern. Von Sebastian Chwala.

Auf der Linken deutete man Macrons Versuch folgerichtig so, eine „Cohabitation“ herbeiführen zu wollen. Damit ist gemeint, dass eine RN-geführte Regierung mit Staatspräsident Macron koexistieren müsste. Da sämtliche Machtmittel der Exekutive, wie die Erlassung von Gesetzen per Dekret (Verfassungsartikel 49.3), nur der Regierung zustehen, blieben Macron wenige Machtmittel, die Agenda des RN zu stoppen. Höchstens der „Conseil Constitutionel“ (Verfassungsrat) könnte einschreiten. Dieser hatte allerdings Anfang dieses Jahres Teile eines neuen Zuwanderungsgesetzes stoppen müssen, die soziale Leistungen wie das Kindergeld explizit an die Staatsbürgerschaft binden wollten. Diese Reform wurde aber in der Nationalversammlung mit den Stimmen eines Großteils der „macronitischen“ Abgeordneten verabschiedet. Dass die „Préference national“ („Nationale Präferenz“), die immer Kernbestandteil der Programmatik des RN war, nun auch vom „Macronismus“ mitgetragen wurde, zeigte einmal mehr auf, wie sehr sich Macron auf ganzer Linie von seinem „sozialliberalen“ Image verabschiedet hatte, mit dem er seine erste Wahlkampagne 2017 geführt hatte.

Macron sucht nach einem neuen „Regierungsblock“

Doch die Überlegungen von Staatspräsident Macron, der laut Verfassung über die Möglichkeit verfügt, einmal im Jahr die Nationalversammlung aufzulösen, waren anderer Natur. Viel eher wollte Macron durch die Anordnung plötzlicher Neuwahlen Nutzen aus dem Zerfall des Linksbündnisses NUPES (La Nouvelle Union populaire), bestehend aus „La France insoumise“ (LFI), dem grünen Wahlbündnis „Pôle écologiste“, der Parti communiste français (PCF) und der Parti socaliste (PS), ziehen. Dieses Bündnis war am Umgang mit dem Einmarsch und dem folgenden Krieg Israels im Gazastreifen schon im Oktober 2023 zerbrochen. Vor allen Dingen LFI profilierte sich in der Folge als scharfer Kritiker dieses Krieges und forderte scharfe Sanktionen gegen die israelische Regierung.

Diese Strategie von LFI war die Folge einer seit Jahren anhaltenden wachsenden Verankerung in den sozialen Brennpunkten an den Stadträndern, insbesondere in der Pariser Region, die stark muslimisch geprägt sind. Dagegen hielten sich die PCF, aber auch Grüne, die beide auch antiimperalistische Strömungen in ihren Reihen haben, zurück, sich klar zu den Rechten der Palästinenser zu bekennen. Dies ist auch Ausdruck der starken antimuslimischen Strömungen in der französischen Gesellschaft, welche die Kommunistische Partei besonders bei jenen Wählern verbreitet sieht, die man politisch vertreten will. Die PS positionierte sich in der Vergangenheit ohnehin traditionell „pro-israelischer“ als der Rest der Linken. Eine zersplitterte Linke kann im französischen Mehrheitswahlsystem aber keinerlei politische Wirkungsmacht mehr entwickeln.

Zudem war sich Macron bewusst, dass nach dem Wahlsieg des RN die rechtskonservativen „Republikaner“, die nur noch lose in der Tradition des „Gaullismus“ stehen, aufgerieben werden würden zwischen jenen Fraktionen, die ein offenes Rechtsbündnis mit dem RN für Parlamentswahlen eingehen würde, jenen, die für eine autonome Kandidatur plädieren, und jenen Kräften, die sich dem „Macronismus“ annähern würden. Bei den „Republikanern“ kam es auch, wie erwartet, zum Bruch zwischen der Partei und ihrem Parteichef Eric Ciotti, der ohne Absprache mit den Gremien ein Wahlbündnis mit dem RN verkündete. Als dieser sich vor dem Parteivorstand rechtfertigen sollte, schloss er sich in der Parteizentrale ein und versuchte so, eine Sitzung zu verhindern, die seinen Ausschluss beschließen wollte. Vergeblich, denn der Vorstand beschloss in den folgenden Tagen zweimal den Parteiausschluss. Ciotti konnte diesen aber bisher juristisch abwenden.

Macrons Kalkül bestand darin, den Überraschungseffekt seiner Ankündigung dazu zu nutzen, in der allgemeinen Verunsicherung über den Vormarsch des RN „Renaissance“ als zentrale Partei re-etablieren zu können, die erneut flankiert würde von „liberalen“ Vertretern aus dem Spektrum der Sozialdemokratie und dem rechtsbürgerlichen Lager. Auf diese Weise könnte die bei den Parlamentswahlen 2022 verlorene politische Mehrheit, die den „Macronismus“ seitdem zwang, oftmals mit Dekreten am Parlament vorbeizuregieren, wieder zurückgewonnen werden.

Die „Neue Volksfront“ als Ergebnis des zivilgesellschaftlichen Drucks

Doch im Angesicht der Gefahr von rechts war der Druck aus der gesellschaftlichen Linken auf die politische Linke, die drohende Regierungsübernahme der Ultrarechten zu verhindern, groß – besonders die beiden großen Gewerkschaftsdachverbände, die linke, klassenkämpferische CGT-Gewerkschaft und die sozialdemokratische CFDT, rufen zu Großdemonstrationen auf, um dem gesellschaftlichen Widerstand gegen RN ein Gesicht zu geben. Am letzten Samstag demonstrierten mehrere hunderttausend Menschen in vielen Städten Frankreichs gegen den RN.

Innerhalb weniger Tage konnte auch eine politische Übereinkunft – sowohl personeller als auch programmatischer Natur – zwischen den Parteien erreicht werden, die noch während des Europawahlkampfes unmöglich schien. Die „Neue Volksfront“ (NPS) war geboren. Damit spielt die Linke ganz direkt auf die historische „Volksfront“ an, die 1934 im Angesicht der faschistischen Bedrohung entstand und 1936 die Parlamentswahlen gewinnen konnte. In der Folge wurden, begleitet durch wochenlange Massenstreiks, grundlegende Arbeiterrechte beschlossen. So wurde ein gesetzlicher Anspruch auf Urlaub durchgesetzt, die Arbeitszeiten deutlich reduziert und die Gewerkschaften in den industriellen Großbetrieben legalisiert.

Der Europawahlkampf war allerdings noch stark geprägt gewesen vom Gegensatz der PS-Liste „Place publique“ und LFI. Während „Place publique“ voll auf die Person Raphaël Glucksmann setzte, stellte LFI weiterhin den Krieg im Gazastreifen in den Mittelpunkt und nominierte mit Rima Hassan eine in Frankreich bekannte Aktivistin für die Rechte der Palästinenser für einen aussichtsreichen Listenplatz. In der Folge versuchten Akteure aus dem Spektrum der französischen Rechten, „Macroniten“, aber auch jüdische Interessenverbände Vorträge in öffentlichen Einrichtungen, besonders Universitäten, verbieten zu lassen, waren damit aber nur teilweise erfolgreich.

Glucksmann dagegen, Sohn des antikommunistischen „Neuen Philosophen“ André Glucksmann, betätigte sich in rechtsliberalen, pro-amerikanischen Kreisen und stieg dann Mitte der 2000er Jahre zum führenden Berater des georgischen „Farbrevolutionärs“ Micheil Saakaschwili auf. Hier war er führend am wirtschaftsliberalen Umbau des Landes beteiligt. Anschließend unterstützte er die Politik des rechtskonservativen französischen Staatspräsidenten Nicolas Sarkozy, bevor er sich der Sozialdemokratie zuwendete und die Partei „Place publique“ mitgründete. Glucksmann, der bereits seit 2019 Mitglied des Europaparlaments ist, stimmte dort, obwohl auf dem Papier Sozialdemokrat, in der Regel mit den Rechtsliberalen. Der „Atlantiker“ Glucksmann bekannte sich bedingungslos zum Ukrainekrieg und lehnte eine konsequente Verurteilung des Vorgehens der israelischen Armee in Gaza ab. Viele Medien hoben ihn auch deshalb als „moderate“ Alternative zu den „radikalen“ Aktiven von LFI auf ihr Schild. „Place publique“ (13,83 Prozent) und LFI (9,89 Prozent) erzielten in der Folge die stärksten Ergebnisse im linken Lager, während die Grünen auf 5,5 Prozent zurückfielen und damit die 5-Prozent-Hürde, deren Überschreitung bei den französischen Europawahlen notwendig ist, um Mandate zur erhalten, nur knapp überschritten. Die PCF erreichte gerade einmal 2,36 Prozent.

Gegen Glucksmanns Widerstand – der hatte sich als absoluter politischer Antipode zu LFI präsentiert – und zur Überraschung der „Macroniten“ nahmen alle Linksparteien schon am Montag nach den Europawahlen Gespräche zur Bildung eines Wahlbündnisses auf. Ziel war in erster Linie die Aufstellung von Einheitskandidaten in allen Wahlkreisen sowie die Ausarbeitung eines Sofortprogramms mit Maßnahmen, die bereits in der ersten Woche nach dem Wahlsieg des Linksbündnisses in Kraft gesetzt werden sollen. Da alle potenziellen Partner mit eingebunden werden sollten, kam man Glucksmanns Partei entgegen und beschloss, dass auch eine Linksregierung die Ukraine mit Waffenlieferungen unterstützen wird. Gleichzeitig soll aber ebenso eine Anerkennung eines palästinensischen Staates sowie ein Waffenembargo erfolgen. Alle Partner fordern gemeinsam einen Waffenstillstand.

Diese Fragen standen bei den viertägigen Verhandlungen aber nicht im Mittelpunkt, viel eher ging es den Partnern der „Neuen Volksfront“ darum, ein Aktionsprogramm vorzustellen, das mit dem harten angebotsorientierten Kurs des „Macronismus“ bricht. Deshalb will man die im letzten Jahr per Dekret durchgesetzte Rentenerhöhung wieder zurücknehmen. Außerdem plant das NPS Preise für Grundnahrungsmittel und Energie einzufrieren, außerdem sollen die Mindestlöhne deutlich steigen. Zudem sollen die Mieten eingefroren werden. Zur Gegenfinanzierung sollen die Steuern auf Vermögen steigen.

Zwar gelang es durch den Druck der Straße, die Linke zu einem Vernunftbündnis zu drängen. Doch die Widersprüche bleiben gewaltig. Auf der einen Seite steht die von jungen Aktivisten getragene Bewegung und Partei „LFI“, die im Schatten des keine Funktion mehr bekleidenden Jean-Luc Mélenchon aufgrund ihrer Bewegungsorientierung viele junge Menschen anzieht, die sich politisch engagieren wollen. Ideen der antikapitalistischen Linken sind in der Bewegung weitverbreitet und der „Bruch mit dem bestehenden“ Wirtschaftssystem wird auch in der internen Bildungsarbeit hervorgehoben. Die kaum existenten Mitbestimmungsebenen bei LFI sorgen dafür, dass sich die Bewegung von der Spitze her immer wieder schnell neu erfinden kann. So wurden für diese Wahlen viele „nicht-weiße“ zivilgesellschaftliche Aktivisten für Kandidaturen nominiert. Auch Vertreter aus dem französischen Antifa-Spektrum wurden aufgestellt.

Demgegenüber stehen die etablierten „Mitte-Links“-Parteien PS, Grüne und PCF, die versuchen, politische Konstellationen zu schaffen und zu nutzen, die die LFI schwächen oder sogar spalten sollen, um die alten Machtverhältnisse in der Linken wieder herzustellen. So unterstützen die drei Parteien bei der kommenden Wahl offen drei nicht mehr nominierte Ex-Abgeordnete gegen die offiziell nominierten Kandidaten, die sich schon vor längerer Zeit in Dissidenz zur LFI-Spitze begeben haben, weil sie die Bewegung politisch in Richtung Mitte verschieben wollen. Ein Affront gegen LFI, die wiederum die Dominanz der „alten Seilschaften“ insbesondere bei der PS beklagen, die tatsächlich François Hollande, dessen politisches Ziehkind Macron ist, wieder ins Rennen schickt. Spannungen innerhalb der NPS sind also allgegenwärtig und vermitteln den Wählern den Eindruck, dass ein wirkliches gemeinsames Regierungshandeln nur schwer möglich sein könnte.

Das „Rassemblement National“ muss jetzt politisch Farbe bekennen

Allerdings zwingt der Waffenstillstand innerhalb der Linken auch den RN, politisch Farbe zu bekennen. Die Partei war in der Vergangenheit immer demagogisch gegen den Staat, Steuern und die Einschränkung der individuellen Freiheit unterwegs und punktet mit ihrer offenen Fremdenfeindlichkeit gerade in der unteren Mittelschicht und bei durchschnittlich gut verdienenden Arbeiterhaushalten. Denn durch den zu gutmütigen Sozialstaat werden, so der RN, nur Arbeitsverweigerer und Migranten alimentiert. Der Abbau des Sozialstaates und des öffentlichen Dienstes könne so umverteilt werden in die Lohntüten der Arbeiter. In Zeiten der unsicheren wirtschaftlichen Verhältnisse greifen diese Neiddebatten bei zahlreichen weißen Lohnarbeitern gut. Freilich kümmert sich der RN wenig um die „kleinen Leute“.

Tatsächlich gehen Le Pen und der Rest der Kader bei den großen Wirtschaftsverbänden ein und aus. Keine Partei trägt derart viele Forderungen von deren Lobbyverbänden ins Parlament. Es ist gerade der RN, der seit seinem Einzug mit 89 Abgeordneten in die Nationalversammlung jeden Antrag ablehnte, der die wirtschaftliche Besserstellung der breiten Bevölkerung zum Ziel hatte. So lehnte der RN die Erhöhung des Mindestlohnes oder die Wiedereinführung der Vermögenssteuer ab. Ebenso verhielt sich die Partei bei Abstimmungen über Rentenerhöhungen oder der Forderung nach bezahlbaren Mieten. Gleichzeitig stimmten die Vertreter des RN auch allen Freihandelsabkommen im EU-Parlament zu. Zwar vertritt man verbal gerne die kleinen bäuerlichen Betriebe, politisch ist man aber mit den exportorientierten französischen agrarischen Großbetrieben verbunden.

Seit dem Wahlsieg am 9. Juni und der Bekanntgabe der kommenden Parlamentswahlen am 30. Juni und 7. Juli stolpert der RN daher von einer Peinlichkeit zur nächsten. So kündigte Spitzenkandidat Bardella im Falle eines Wahlsieges an, die Rentenreform des Jahres 2023 aufgrund des geringen haushaltspolitischen Spielraums nicht zurückzunehmen. Dann hieß es, auch eine versprochene Senkung der Mehrwertsteuer werde verschoben. Inzwischen sind die wirtschaftspolitischen Vorstellungen des RN für die Zeit nach den Wahlen aus dem Netz verschwunden. Erstmal wolle man an die Macht kommen und dann könne man die richtigen politischen Weichen stellen, heißt es beim RN. Der antisoziale Kern der Programmatik wird jedoch durch die „Agitationsarbeit“ der Gewerkschaften klarer. Dies dürfte ein Grund sein, warum die Umfragewerte für die Partei sinken. Schon jetzt deuten außerdem zahlreiche Indikatoren an, dass die Wahlbeteiligung Ende Juni deutlich steigen wird. Dies ist kein gutes Zeichen für den RN, da dies ein Ausdruck der Aktionen gegen die Partei auf den Straßen Frankreichs ist. Eine eigene Mehrheit für den RN in der französischen Nationalversammlung scheint so unwahrscheinlicher denn je.

Titelbild: PX Media/shutterstock.com

Der digitale Euro kommt – und macht Ihr Geld programmierbar!

Kettner Edelmetalle

...

Es ist offiziell: Am 1. November 2025 wird der digitale Euro in Europa eingeführt. Was wie ein technischer Fortschritt klingt, ist in Wahrheit der Beginn einer neuen Ära der totalen Kontrolle und Enteignung durch Zentralbanken und Regierungen. Denn mit dem digitalen Euro wird unser Geld vollständig programmierbar:

• Ersparnisse können jederzeit eingefroren und enteignet werden
• Ihr Gehalt bekommt ein Verfallsdatum und muss zeitnah ausgegeben werden
• Jede Transaktion wird überwacht und kontrolliert
• Negativzinsen können direkt von Ihrem Konto abgebucht werden
• Ihr Konsumverhalten wird gelenkt und gesteuert

Willkommen in der schönen neuen Welt des digitalen Euros!

Der Weg in die Unfreiheit

Die Einführung des digitalen Euros ist ein schleichender Prozess, der bereits seit Jahren vorbereitet wird. Unter dem Deckmantel der Digitalisierung und Modernisierung arbeiten Zentralbanken und Regierungen an der Abschaffung des Bargelds und der Etablierung eines vollständig kontrollierbaren Geldsystems.

Doch was sind die wahren Absichten hinter diesem Projekt? Geht es wirklich darum, Zahlungen zu vereinfachen und Kriminalität zu bekämpfen, wie uns die Befürworter glauben machen wollen? Oder steckt nicht vielmehr der Wunsch nach totaler Macht und Kontrolle dahinter?

Renommierte Experten wie der Finanzanalyst Ernst Wolff warnen schon lange vor den Gefahren des Digitalen Zentralbankgelds. In seinem Buch „Weltmacht IWF“ schreibt er:
„Es ist der feuchte Traum aller Zentralbanker und Finanzminister: Ein Geldsystem, in dem jede Transaktion überwacht, jede Bewegung verfolgt und jeder Cent kontrolliert werden kann. Und genau das wird der digitale Euro ermöglichen.“

Dominik Kettner & Ernst Wolff

Bargeld war gestern – Freiheit und Privatsphäre ade

Mit der Einführung des digitalen Euros verabschieden wir uns nicht nur vom Bargeld, sondern auch von finanzieller Freiheit und Privatsphäre. Denn jede Transaktion wird künftig digital erfasst, überwacht und kontrolliert.

Zentralbanken und Regierungen erhalten so die totale Macht über unser Geld. Sie können jederzeit bestimmen, wofür wir unser Geld ausgeben dürfen – und wofür nicht. Und sie können nach Belieben Konten einfrieren und Guthaben enteignen. Der digitale Euro macht’s möglich.

Doch damit nicht genug: Auch unser gesamtes Konsumverhalten wird gläsern und steuerbar. Wer zu viel Fleisch kauft, Alkohol trinkt oder mit dem Auto fährt, dem könnten weitere Käufe einfach untersagt werden. Der Fantasie der Politiker sind keine Grenzen gesetzt, wenn es darum geht, unser Verhalten zu lenken und zu kontrollieren.

Enteignung als Dauerzustand

Parallel zum digitalen Euro rollt auch eine nie dagewesene Enteignungswelle auf uns zu. Unter Vorwänden wie Klimaschutz, Pandemiebekämpfung oder Krieg werden immer neue Gesetze und Verordnungen erlassen, die uns noch mehr Geld aus der Tasche ziehen.

Ob Vermögenssteuern, Zwangsabgaben, „Sonderopfer“ oder Negativzinsen – der Kreativität der Politiker sind keine Grenzen gesetzt, wenn es darum geht, die Bürger zu schröpfen. Und der digitale Euro ist das perfekte Instrument, um diese Maßnahmen direkt und unmittelbar umzusetzen.

Enteignungen durch den Staat sind dabei nichts Neues, wie ein Blick in die Geschichte zeigt:

• In der Hyperinflation der 1920er Jahre wurden die Sparguthaben der Bürger durch die Geldentwertung faktisch enteignet.
• Nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg wurde der Lastenausgleich eingeführt, um die Kriegskosten zu finanzieren. Vermögende mussten 50% ihres Besitzes in Raten über 30 Jahre an den Staat abgeben.
• In Zypern wurden 2013 im Zuge der Finanzkrise sämtliche Bankguthaben kurzerhand mit einer Sonderabgabe belegt.

Doch was früher die Ausnahme war, wird mit dem digitalen Euro zum Dauerzustand. Die totale Kontrolle über unser Geld ermöglicht den Regierungen den direkten Zugriff auf unser Vermögen – wann immer sie es für nötig halten.

Der gläserne Bürger ist Realität

In Ländern wie China ist die totale Überwachung und Kontrolle durch digitales Zentralbankgeld längst Realität. Dort entscheidet die Regierung, wer wie viel von seinem eigenen Geld und wofür ausgeben darf. Und wer sich nicht systemkonform verhält, wird gnadenlos abgestraft.

Im Rahmen des Social Credit Systems werden alle Aktivitäten der Bürger überwacht und bewertet. Wer zu viele Minuspunkte sammelt, verliert nicht nur sein Gesicht, sondern auch seine finanziellen Freiheiten. Konten werden gesperrt, Kredite verweigert, Reisen untersagt.

Was in China bereits Alltag ist, könnte mit dem digitalen Euro schon bald auch bei uns Wirklichkeit werden. Denn die Versuchung für Regierungen und Zentralbanken, ihre neu gewonnene Macht zu missbrauchen, ist einfach zu groß.

Der gläserne Bürger, dessen Finanzen bis ins kleinste Detail überwacht und gesteuert werden, ist keine Dystopie mehr, sondern bittere Realität. Und der digitale Euro ebnet den Weg in eine Welt, in der es keine finanziellen Geheimnisse mehr gibt.

Bereiten Sie sich jetzt auf den digitalen Euro vor!

Angesichts dieser düsteren Aussichten stellt sich die Frage: Wie können wir uns vor dem digitalen Euro und weiteren Enteignungen schützen? Die Antwort darauf gibt der renommierte Finanzexperte Ernst Wolff in einem spannenden Live-Webinar mit Edelmetall-Experte Dominik Kettner am 25. Juni um 19 Uhr.

In diesem kostenlosen Online-Seminar erfahren Sie:

• Welche Gefahren der digitale Euro für Ihr Vermögen birgt
• Mit welchen perfiden Methoden Regierungen die Bürger enteignen
• Wie Sie Ihr Geld vor dem Zugriff des Staates schützen
• Welche Alternativen es zum digitalen Euro gibt
• Warum physisches Gold und Silber jetzt wichtiger sind denn je

Seien Sie dabei, wenn Ernst Wolff die Hintergründe und Zusammenhänge schonungslos offenlegt. Erfahren Sie, wie Sie rechtzeitig Vorkehrungen treffen, um Ihr hart erarbeitetes Vermögen sowie auch Ihre Freiheiten und Rechte zu schützen. Und lernen Sie, wie Sie sich und Ihre Familie auf das vorbereiten, was kommt.

Denn eines ist sicher: Der digitale Euro wird kommen – ob wir wollen oder nicht. Doch wir müssen ihm nicht hilflos ausgeliefert sein. Mit dem richtigen Wissen und den richtigen Strategien können wir uns gegen die Enteignung wehren und unsere finanzielle Freiheit verteidigen.

Lassen Sie sich dieses hochbrisante Webinar nicht entgehen! Die Teilnehmerzahl ist begrenzt. Melden Sie sich jetzt an und sichern Sie sich einen der letzten Plätze. Es könnte die wichtigste Entscheidung Ihres Lebens sein!

» Zur Anmeldung geht es hier «

Link: Webinar von Kettner Edelmetalle


Die Verantwortung für die Inhalte gesponserter Artikel wie diesem obliegt allein den Werbepartnern und nicht der Apollo News-Redaktion.

100 Recent Cases of Sudden and Unexpected Death. The Silent Epidemic No One Wants to Talk About

By Dr. William Makis

Apr. 26, 2024 – Harrisburg, PA – 16 year old Justin Johnson, 10th grade student at Central Dauphin High School, suffered cardiac arrest and died.

Apr. 19, 2024 – 19 year old Anna Oyler was diagnosed with an autoimmune disease and Acute Myeloid Leukemia in July 2023.

Apr. 18, 2024 – Spain – 17 year old Gymnast Maria Herranz Gomez – Spanish World Champion Gymnast died within 24 hours due to Meningitis.

Apr. 7, 2024 – Turkey – 18 year old Zumra Dalkilic, a young actress died suddenly of a cardiac arrest.

Image

Apr. 3, 2024 – Penn State – 19 year old Vivian Cristine Spendley died suddenly on April 3, 2024 from a ruptured brain aneurysm. She was a 1st year Penn State student inspeech language pathology.

Mar. 30, 2024 – Canada – 18 year old Harrison Gilks was diagnosed with rhabdomyosarcoma in 2020, was in remission in 2022 but it returned in June 2022.

Mar. 30, 2024 – 19 year old Antonia Burstein died suddenly.

Mar. 29, 2024 – Clarksville, TN – 17 year old Cameryn “Cam” Ward, Rossvie High School senior basketball player was playing basketball with friends and teammates when he had a medical emergency and died suddenly on March 29, 2024.

Mar. 19, 2024 – 16 year old Ethan Moshaugen, hockey player and golf player, died from spontaneous aortic dissection.

Mar. 16, 2024 – UK 17 year old Raphael Pryor died suddenly on sports pitch while playing an old version of soccer.

Click here to read all cases.

My Take…

First important thing to note is that the number of sudden and unexpected deaths of children increases as you go higher in age. Why?

The older you go, the more compliance there was. And University & College vaccine mandates.

There are almost double the sudden deaths of children ages 16 to 19, compared to children 12 to 15. That is worth noting.

Here are some characteristics of these recent 100 deaths in children ages 16-19.

37 were athletes:

  • 9 soccer players
  • 4 football players
  • 4 athletes unspecified
  • 3 basketball players
  • 3 gymnasts
  • 3 runners
  • 3 swimmers (including 1 lifeguard)
  • 2 hockey players
  • 2 volleyball
  • 1 tennis
  • 1 MMA
  • 1 ballet
  • 1 Army Cadet

7 were going to University and 4 were studying a healthcare program

Causes of death:

  • 18 cardiac arrests
  • 12 died from cancer
  • 7 died from infection
  • 3 died from aneurysm
  • 3 died from blood clots
  • 2 died from seizures
  • 2 had transplant complications
  • 2 died in their sleep
  • 1 died from dissection

Activities when sudden death occurred

  • 8 died at home
  • 3 died playing basketball
  • 2 died playing soccer
  • 2 died running
  • 2 died in their sleep
  • 1 died in fishing competition
  • 1 died doing MMA
  • 1 died at school
  • 1 died playing tennis
  • 1 died swimming

Cancer deaths are in 2nd place. This is worse than ages 12-15. 

Infection deaths are in 3rd place. Far too many and worse than ages 12-15. 

Almost 40% of sudden deaths in ages 16-19 are athletes.

Soccer is the deadliest sport in this age group, then football, basketball and running.

Notice the 2 deaths from transplant complications.

Conclusion: Children ages 16-19 are dying from destroyed immune systems => leads to infection deaths and cancer deaths. Both are far too high in this age group than expected, and will get worse over time.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.  

Featured image is from COVID Intel


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

Reviews

This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon

In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia

In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig 

Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac

A reading of  Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late.  You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Remain the Deadliest of All Childhood Vaccines

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

You may also access the online version of the e-Book by clicking here.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

The original source of this article is COVID Intel

Copyright © Dr. William MakisCOVID Intel, 2024

https://www.globalresearch.ca/100-recent-cases-sudden-unexpected-death/5859592

The American Amnesia — US War Policy

By Chaitanya Davé

In 1953, at British Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s urging, the Eisenhower administration carried out a coup overthrowing a democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh and replaced him with a puppet named Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. In 1979, the people of Iran overthrew him. Ever since then, Iran has become our arch enemy. Was the coup a wise policy? 

The Korean War lasted for three years from July 1950 till July 1953. In its wake, a staggering number of military men and civilians lost their lives. American casualties were 142,091 with 33,629 killed.

The casualties also included more than a million Chinese, and hundreds of thousands of North and South Koreans. South Korea was shattered while the North Korean countryside was laid waste. Millions of South Koreans were made fugitive and hundreds of thousands fled to North Korea. Half of Korea’s industry was destroyed while hundreds of thousands of its homes were demolished. 

The war ended in a stalemate. 

So, were the enormous costs in men and materials worth the price? Perhaps that question should be asked to the American, Chinese and Korean families of dead and injured. 

Our great Five Star General, General Omar Bradley best described this war thus,

“Frankly, a great military disaster, the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong enemy.”

If he were alive today, he would perhaps have said the same thing about our past wars with Iraq and Afghanistan. 

The Vietnam War was one of the greatest blunders of American Foreign Policy. It spanned five presidencies. More than 58,000 young Americans lost their lives. Major parts of Vietnam were laid waste. 

In this horrible war, millions of Vietnamese civilians and military personnel were killed and injured. Four million Vietnamese were terribly sickened by Agent Orange that we had sprayed. As a result, 500,000 babies were born with birth defects. 

Learning Nothing from the Iraq War

By the time the massive bombing of Cambodia stopped, hundreds of thousands of Cambodians were killed and injured.

Hundreds of thousands were sickened by Agent Orange. Four to six million land mines were dropped.

Today, there are about 40,000 plus people who are amputees as a result of land mines exploding on them. The polite people of Cambodia had done no harm to us. 

In our war with Iraq in 1991, as per International Commission of Inquiry, 150,000 civilians were killed including 100,000 post war deaths. As per UN reports, 500,000 children died due to the brutal sanctions that we had insisted upon. It was also a major environmental disaster. The Bush (Sr.) administration had rejected every negotiation or compromise that were offered. It was a war that the United States badly wanted. Iraq’s infrastructure and major civilian facilities were destroyed. Unbearable death and destruction was brought on the country. What harm had Iraqi people done to us? What crime had they committed? 

The Second Iraq War of 2003 was waged on the basis of ‘false’ information. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or al-Qaeda. It was nothing short of a catastrophe. We lost more than 4,000 of our young men and women. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people were killed.

Some reports put the figure at more than 1.5 million civilians killed. Millions were made refugees. The whole country was laid waste by our horrible bombing. Why did we bring such terrible death and destruction on Iraqi people who had done us no harm? Is it fair that hundreds of thousands of civilians including our own young men die in order to quench our thirst to dominate other countries’ resources and people? 

According to Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, the true cost of the Iraq war will ultimately cost our country some $3 trillion.

Our children and grandchildren will be paying for it. This immoral war was totally funded by borrowing. Our national debt at that time soared from $6.4 trillion in March 2003 to $10 trillion in 2008 (before the financial crisis); as per Stiglitz, at least a quarter of that increase was directly attributable to the war. 

As seen from above, our gains from this war were none except some lucrative contracts for our already rich oil companies. 

The US-Afghanistan War lasted just short of 20 years.

This foolish war was financed by borrowed money! As per Los Angeles times (August 17, 2021), the number of American service members killed in this war were 2,448. While U.S. contractors killed numbered 3,846. Afghan national military and police killed were 66,000.

Allied NATO soldiers killed were 1,144. Afghan civilians killed were 47,245 while Taliban and opposition fighters killed numbered 51,191 and aid workers killed were 444 and journalists killed were 72. All this carnage happened due to foolish policies of George Bush Jr., Dick Cheney and their cronies. How much suffering hundreds of thousands of relatives of the dead must have suffered while George Bush Jr. and Dick Cheney are playing golf in America, unpunished and unperturbed. The great irony is that all American presidents especially since World War-II commit crimes against humanity with impunity and get away with it!

As per Brown University (Sept. 1, 2021), America’s criminal and foolish war on terror that lasted 20 years post 9/11, cost the U.S. an estimated $8 trillion and 900,000 innocent lives. 

In 1839, the British invaded Afghanistan with 20,000 British and Indian troops, toppled the Afghan leader and installed Shah Shuja who was driven from power decades earlier.

Within three years, their situation became hopeless. They desperately managed to negotiate a treaty to withdraw. On January 6, 1842, 4,500 British troops and 12,000 civilians–who had followed the British Army to Kabul–began their withdrawal from Kabul to Jalalabad. Many died in brutally cold weather. The remaining thousands were attacked at the mountain pass by the Afghans. The retreat became a massacre. One week later, just one man, a British army surgeon, bloody and exhausted, riding a wretched pony, managed his escape to Jalalabad and survived to tell the gruesome story. Ultimately, the British withdrew from Afghanistan altogether in disgrace. The Soviets too were badly bruised there a few years after their 1979 invasion. But learning nothing from history, we invaded Afghanistan in 2001. 

It is obvious that our elected leaders in Washington seem to learn nothing from history that coups, invasions and wars are not a good policy. It is not only uncivilized but is criminal. On the long run, they work against our own national interests. Wars bring unbearable suffering as thousands of our young men lose their lives or are badly injured inflicting agonizing misery on them and their families. At the same time, the victim countries’ civilian populations are decimated. Besides this enormous human suffering, these wars cost staggering amounts of capital and resources. When are we going to heed the lessons of history, one wonders. 

When some 37.9 million Americans (11.5%) live below the poverty line and when our national debt has surpassed $34 trillion (apnews.com-Jan. 2, 2024), how can we afford such wars? Trillions of dollars that are squandered in these unnecessary wars can be so well spent in helping our fellow Americans who are desperate for help. But do our corrupt politicians care for American people? No. They only care for their re-election and power. 

If humanity is to survive, it should be recognized that the greatness of a nation is measured neither by its military might nor by its ‘victories’ in its immoral wars waged on weaker nations but by its compassion and care for its own poor masses and by its benevolence to the destitute people of the world.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Chaitanya Davé is an engineer and a businessman. He has authored three books: CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: A Shocking Record of US Crimes since 1776-2007, COLLAPSE: Civilization on the Brink-2010, CAPITALISM’S MARCH OF DESTRUCTION: Replacing it with People and Nature-Friendly Economy. Author of many articles on politics, history, and the environment. Founder/President of a non-profit charity foundation helping the poor villagers of India, Nepal, Haiti, USA-homeless and other poor countries. He can be contacted at cahumanity@gmail.com

Featured image is from the author

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Chaitanya Davé, Global Research, 2024

https://www.globalresearch.ca/american-amnesia-us-war-policy/5859605

The United States Is the Main Obstacle to Peace in Palestine

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies

On June 13, Hamas responded to persistent needling by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken over the U.S. proposal for a pause in the Israeli massacre in Gaza. The group said it has “dealt positively… with the latest proposal and all proposals to reach a cease-fire agreement.” Hamas added, by contrast, that, “while Blinken continues to talk about ‘Israel’s approval of the latest proposal, we have not heard any Israeli official voicing approval.”

The full details of the U.S. proposal have yet to be made public, but the pause in Israeli attacks and release of hostages in the first phase would reportedly lead to further negotiations for a more lasting cease-fire and the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in the second phase. But there is no guarantee that the second round of negotiations would succeed.

As former Israeli Labor Party prime minister Ehud Barak told Israel Radio on June 3rd,

“How do you think [Gaza military commander] Sinwar will react when he is told: but be quick, because we still have to kill you, after you return all the hostages?”

Meanwhile, as Hamas pointed out, Israel has not publicly accepted the terms of the latest U.S. cease-fire proposal, so it has only the word of U.S. officials that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has privately agreed to it. In public, Netanyahu still insists that he is committed to the complete destruction of Hamas and its governing authority in Gaza, and has actually stepped up Israel’s vicious attacks in central and southern Gaza.

The basic disagreement that President Joe Biden and Secretary Blinken’s smoke and mirrors cannot hide is that Hamas, like every Palestinian, wants a real end to the genocide, while the Israeli and U.S. governments do not.

Biden or Netanyahu could end the slaughter very quickly if they wanted to—Netanyahu by agreeing to a permanent cease-fire, or Biden by ending or suspending U.S. weapons deliveries to Israel. Israel could not carry out this war without U.S. military and diplomatic support. But Biden refuses to use his leverage, even though he has admitted in an interview that it was “reasonable” to conclude that Netanyahu is prolonging the war for his own political benefit.

The U.S. is still sending weapons to Israel to continue the massacre in violation of a cease-fire order by the International Court of Justice. Bipartisan U.S. leaders have invited Netanyahu to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress on July 24, even as the International Criminal Court reviews a request by its chief prosecutor for an arrest warrant for Netanyahu for war crimes, crimes against humanity and murder.

US Stands Isolated in Backing Gaza Massacre

The United States seems determined to share Israel’s self-inflicted isolation from voices calling for peace from all over the world, including large majorities of countries in the UN General Assembly and Security Council.

But perhaps this is appropriate, as the United States bears a great deal of responsibility for that isolation. By its decades of unconditional support for Israel, and by using its UN Security Council veto dozens of times to shield Israel from international accountability, the United States has enabled successive Israeli governments to pursue flagrantly criminal policies and to thumb their noses at the growing outrage of people and countries across the world.

This pattern of U.S. support for Israel goes all the way back to its founding, when Zionist leaders in Palestine unleashed a well-planned operation to seize much more territory than the UN allocated to their new state in its partition plan, which the Palestinians and neighboring countries already firmly opposed.

The massacres, the bulldozed villages and the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 to a million people in the Nakba have been meticulously documented, despite an extraordinary propaganda campaign to persuade two generations of Israelis, Americans and Europeans that they never happened.

The U.S. was the first country to grant Israel de facto recognition on May 14, 1948, and played a leading role in the 1949 UN votes to recognize the new state of Israel within its illegally seized borders. President Eisenhower had the wisdom to oppose Britain, France and Israel in their war to capture the Suez Canal in 1956, but Israel’s seizure of the Occupied Palestinian Territories in 1967 persuaded U.S. leaders that it could be a valuable military ally in the Middle East.

Unconditional U.S. support for Israel’s illegal occupation and annexation of more and more territory over the past 57 years has corrupted Israeli politics and encouraged increasingly extreme and racist Israeli governments to keep expanding their genocidal territorial ambitions. Netanyahu’s Likud party and government now fully embrace their Greater Israel plan to annex all of occupied Palestine and parts of other countries, wherever and whenever new opportunities for expansion present themselves.

Israel’s de facto expansion has been facilitated by the United States’ monopoly over mediation between Israel and Palestine, which it has aggressively staked out and defended against the UN and other countries. The irreconcilable contradiction between the U.S.’s conflicting roles as Israel’s most powerful military ally and the principal mediator between Israel and Palestine is obvious to the whole world.

But as we see even in the midst of the genocide in Gaza, the rest of the world and the UN have failed to break this U.S. monopoly and establish legitimate, impartial mediation by the UN or neutral countries that respect the lives of Palestinians and their human and civil rights.

Qatar mediated a temporary cease-fire between Israel and Hamas in November 2023, but it has since been upstaged by U.S. moves to prolong the massacre through deceptive proposals, cynical posturing and Security Council vetoes. The U.S. consistently vetoes all but its own proposals on Israel and Palestine in the UN Security Council, even when its own proposals are deliberately meaningless, ineffective or counterproductive.

The UN General Assembly is united in support of Palestine, voting almost unanimously year after year to demand an end to the Israeli occupation. A hundred and forty-four countries have recognized Palestine as a country, and only the U.S. veto denies it full UN membership. The Israeli genocide in Gaza has even shamed the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) into suspending their ingrained pro-Western bias and pursuing cases against Israel.

One way that the nations of the world could come together to apply greater pressure on Israel to end its assault on Gaza would be a “Uniting for Peace” resolution in the UN General Assembly. This is a measure the General Assembly can take when the Security Council is prevented from acting to restore peace and security by the veto of a permanent member.

Israel has demonstrated that it is prepared to ignore cease-fire resolutions by the General Assembly and the Security Council, and an order by the ICJ, but a Uniting for Peace resolution could impose penalties on Israel for its actions, such as an arms embargo or an economic boycott. If the United States still insists on continuing its complicity in Israel’s international crimes, the General Assembly could take action against the U.S. too.

A General Assembly resolution would change the terms of the international debate and shift the focus back from Biden and Blinken’s diversionary tactics to the urgency of enforcing the lasting cease-fire that the whole world is calling for.

It is time for the United Nations and neutral countries to push Israel’s U.S. partner in genocide to the side, and for legitimate international authorities and mediators to take responsibility for enforcing international law, ending the Israeli occupation of Palestine and bringing peace to the Middle East.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher for CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies are the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, published by OR Books in November 2022. They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image: U.S. Marines and IDF soldiers in joint maneuver Intrepid Maven, Feb. 28, 2023. Photo: US Marines

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, Global Research, 2024

https://www.globalresearch.ca/united-states-obstacle-peace-palestine/5859715

Is a New Cuban Missile Crisis Brewing Over Ukraine? Dangers of Nuclear War. John J. Mearsheimer

By Steven Sahiounie

Will the U.S. be involved with negotiating with the Russians to bring peace to Ukraine, as did Kennedy in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis?

On June 12, three Russian ships and a nuclear-powered submarine arrived in Havana, Cuba. Having crossed the Atlantic, the ships performed maneuvers designed to enhance military capability, and have remained in Cuba through June 17.

Recently, President Vladimir Putin made a threat to supply unspecified countries with weapons capable of striking Kiev’s Western allies.

The Kazan nuclear-powered submarine is capable of firing Kalibr cruise missiles, which have a range of up to 2,500 kilometers and can be equipped with nuclear warheads. Along for the ride are the Frigate Admiral Gorshkov, which is carrying new hypersonic Zircon missiles that are nuclear-capable, the Akademik Pashin refueling tanker, and Nikolay Chiker tugboat.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has portrayed Zircon as a potent weapon capable of penetrating any existing antimissile defenses by flying nine times faster than the speed of sound at a range of more than 1,000km (more than 620 miles).
While the visit to Cuba is not seen as a military threat to the U.S., and none of the vessels carry a nuclear war-head, it has brought back memories of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis involving the U.S. and Russia in Cuba.

Cuba is Russia’s most important partner in the Western Hemisphere from a geopolitical point of view, and both are critical of the U.S. sanctions imposed on each other, and the enlargement of NATO. Havana also backed Russia’s right to “self-defense” against NATO following its 2022 military operation in Ukraine.

In 1959, an uprising called the “26th of July Movement” led to the communist rule under the leadership of Fidel Castro in Cuba.
In April 1961, a group of 1,500 Cuban exiles opposed to Castro invaded Cuba supported by artillery, mortars, tanks aircrafts and naval ships, all of which was provided and financed by the U.S.. This was one of a series of ‘regime change’ operations carried out by the U.S. which failed, such as the 2011 U.S.-NATO attack on Syria.

This incident came to be known as the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Early 1961 saw the American Jupiter missiles being deployed in Turkey and mid-April saw the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. This had the USSR worried as it saw the U.S. planning something big.

Nikita Khrushchev of the USSR and Castro held a clandestine meeting in July 1962, and Khrushchev agreed to deploy nuclear missiles in Cuba.

U.S. President John F. Kennedy was informed of the plans, and was advised to carry out an airstrike and invasion of Cuba, but he disregarded that advice and instead negotiated a deal which saw the USSR shelving its plans to deploy nuclear missiles in Cuba in exchange for an American assurance that Cuba would not be invaded.

The U.S. policy of increased NATO membership from 1992 onwards has brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. In 1990, the U.S. gave assurances to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand, but U.S. President Bill Clinton broke that promise, and we are faced with the realization that it was the U.S. which provoked Putin to the February 2022 military operation in Ukraine in response to the threat of imminent NATO membership.

It took the negotiating skills of Kennedy to avert war in 1962, but today the U.S. is led by President Joe Biden who is against ceasefire negotiations in both Ukraine and in Gaza. Biden is a war-time President, who directly participates in both battlefields with funds, weapons, intelligence and the propaganda cranked out in Washington, which invented a narrative that Putin wants to conquer Ukraine and recreate a Soviet Empire.

In 2014, John J. Mearsheimer, a University of Chicago professor and one of the leading proponents of restraint in American foreign policy, explained why the Ukraine crisis is the west’s fault, and how it has provoked Putin.

On March 1, 2022 Mearsheimer was interviewed and said he still blames the U.S. for the crisis in Ukraine.

“He is not going to conquer all of Ukraine,” Mearsheimer said, of Putin.

Mearsheimer has argued that the U.S., in pushing to expand NATO eastward, has increased the likelihood of a nuclear war, and prompted Putin’s aggression toward Ukraine. Mearsheimer maintains his position that the U.S. is at fault for provoking him.

“I think all the trouble in this case really started in April, 2008, at the NATO Summit in Bucharest, where afterward NATO issued a statement that said Ukraine and Georgia would become part of NATO. The Russians made it unequivocally clear at the time that they viewed this as an existential threat,” said Mearsheimer.

The three-prong U.S. strategy in Washington includes EU expansion, NATO expansion, and turning Ukraine into a pro-American liberal democracy.

“When you’re a country like Ukraine and you live next door to a great power like Russia, you have to pay careful attention to what the Russians think, because if you take a stick and you poke them in the eye, they’re going to retaliate. States in the Western hemisphere understand this full well with regard to the United States,” said Mearsheimer.

Mearsheimer correctly projected that Russia did not seek to occupy Kiev, but would take Donbass.

“This is great-power politics, and what the Russians want is a regime in Kiev that is attuned to Russian interests. It may be ultimately that the Russians would be willing to live with a neutral Ukraine, and that it won’t be necessary for Moscow to have any meaningful control over the government in Kiev. It may be that they just want a regime that is neutral and not pro-American,” said Mearsheimer.

“The Ukrainians have a vested interest in paying serious attention to what the Russians want from them. They run a grave risk if they alienate the Russians in a fundamental way. If Russia thinks that Ukraine presents an existential threat to Russia because it is aligning with the United States and its West European allies, this is going to cause an enormous amount of damage to Ukraine. That of course is exactly what’s happening now. So my argument is: the strategically wise strategy for Ukraine is to break off its close relations with the West, especially with the United States, and try to accommodate the Russians. If there had been no decision to move NATO eastward to include Ukraine, Crimea and the Donbass would be part of Ukraine today, and there would be no war in Ukraine,” said Mearsheimer.

In March 2024, Mearsheimer was interviewed and said he considers “ridiculous” the idea that Ukraine will be able to take the offensive in 2024 or 2025.

“The real danger is that the Ukrainians are going to be defeated by the Russians over the course of this year and next year. That, I think, is the more likely outcome—that the Russians will just roll back the Ukrainians. The idea that Ukraine is going to launch some offensive in 2025 and turn the tide is delusional,” said Mearsheimer.

What if the war goes badly for Ukraine, and it faces being a dysfunctional state?

Mearsheimer fears the U.S. and NATO will be so humiliated they will attempt to intervene to rescue Ukraine, and this could lead to a nuclear exchange.

Mearsheimer predicts that the Russians will conquer more territory, perhaps “the four oblasts west of the four oblasts they control now or have annexed so far. And they may even take a bit more. And I think there would be nothing we could do to prevent that.”

In the end, the U.S. will be involved with negotiating with the Russians to bring peace to Ukraine, as did Kennedy in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy would not allow Soviet missiles on the U.S. border off Florida, and Putin will not allow NATO missiles on the Russian border in Ukraine.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a two time award winning Journalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from MD

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Steven Sahiounie, Global Research, 2024

https://www.globalresearch.ca/new-cuban-missile-crisis-ukraine/5860406

Fractious Arenas: Netanyahu Dissolves the War Cabinet

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark

You could almost sense the smacking of lips, accompanied by the rubbing of hands.  The departure of Benny Gantz from the Israeli war cabinet, which had served as a checking forum against the conventional security cabinet, presented a perfect opportunity for those who felt his presence stifling.  In these febrile times, Gantz, the leader of the opposition National Unity party, passes as a moderate centrist and had been one of its three voting members, alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.

The resignation was prompted by Netanyahu’s tardy attitude towards formulating a plan to end the war in Gaza.  Gantz had given him till June 8 to come up with something satisfactory, “a plan of action” that would include the normalisation of relations with Saudi Arabia and creating “an international civilian governance mechanism in Gaza”. 

“Unfortunately,” stated Gantz, “Netanyahu is preventing us from achieving real victory. So we are leaving the unity government.  With a heavy but full heart.”

According to Gantz, he joined the emergency coalition “because we knew it was a bad government.  The people of Israel, the fighters, the commanders, the families of the murdered, the casualties and the hostages needed unity and support like they needed air to breathe.”

In his resignation letter, Gantz musters praise for his own role and that of his party. 

“After the October 7 disaster, we set up together the emergency government.  Our joining was not under question at that difficult time… Our entrance contributed several achievements to the government… national unity and conveying a clear message to the international community as well as to our enemies.”

If the message had been one of a savage campaign littered with Palestinian corpses, the infliction of conditions of famine, the crushing of the Gaza strip, not to mention ignoring  political realities, then it was certainly conveyed.  If any moderate influence had been exerted on the part of Gantz and his colleagues, it was a statue yet to escape its marble confines.  Much of what he has proposed are distinctions without much difference.  He envisages the return of Israeli hostages still held by Hamas, the destruction and substitution of the organisation in Gaza, the return of residents of the north displaced from their homes and fortifying the US-led effort against Iran.

What Gantz’s Exit Reveals About Israel’s Failed Gaza Strategy

undefined

Secretary Antony J. Blinken meets with Israel’s War Cabinet in Tel Aviv, Israel, January 9, 2024. (Official State Department photo by Chuck Kennedy/Public Domain)

Fellow National Unity minister Gadi Eisenkot, who also resigned, explained that the cabinet led by Netanyahu was prevented from “making key decisions, which were needed to realize the war’s goals and improve Israel’s strategic position.”

Israel watchers speculated on the significance of the move.  The Gantz gambit could well stimulate an early conclusion to the conflict.  On the other hand, his bluff could be called, enabling the hard right of the coalition to entrench themselves.

Shalom Lipner, non-resident senior fellow for Middle East Programs at the Atlantic Council, suggested that the resignation placed the PM “at the complete mercy of his right-wing and religious fellow travellers who – in the absence of Gantz’s fig leaf – will steer policy in a direction that is anathema to the Biden administration and puts Israel’s essential ties with the United States at risk.”   A bitter Israel Harel, writing in Haaretz, wondered what improvements might be made by Gantz’s departure.  Would it, for instance, encourage Netanyahu to behave more responsibly in the face of pressure from the likes of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir?  Or weaken Hezbollah’s will?  Or “frighten Yahya Sinwar into giving up the life insurance the hostages are providing him?”

At first instance, Netanyahu urged Gantz to reconsider.

“Israel is in an existential war on multiple fronts,” the Israeli PM wrote on X.  “Benny, this is not the time to abandon the campaign – this is the time to join forces.”

On June 16, Netanyahu confirmed that the ship had sailed.  The six-member war cabinet, described by opposition leader Yair Lapid as a “shameful arena for settling scores, fighting and discussions that lead nowhere”, had outlived its fractious usefulness. 

“The cabinet was in the coalition agreement with Gantz at his request,” the PM is said to have told the Security Cabinet.  “As soon as Gantz left – there was no need for a cabinet anymore.” 

In its place, stated a spokesperson from the prime minister’s office, the security cabinet will simply meet with greater regularity, with Netanyahu holding ad hoc “security consultations” when needed.

Abolishing the war cabinet does serve one purpose. It prevents such nationalist demagogues as Ben-Gvir of Otzma Yehudit and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich of the Religious Zionist Party from adding their troubling names to the outfit.  Ben-Gvir had insisted on his addition, arguing that it was time to bring in ministers who “warned in real-time against the conception and viewpoint that everyone today accepts was wrong.”  He also argued against the secrecy of the war as prosecuted.

Both men, who have urged on even greater slaughter in Gaza and the eviction of Palestinians living there, remain members of the broader security cabinet.  And they have made no secret about their mixture of delight and loathing at Gantz’s departure.  “There is no less stately act than resigning from a government in time of war,” Smotrich haughtily declared.

For the moment, the scene is set for a war to go even more badly than it already has.  As Gaza starves and continues to be levelled, Israel’s politicians will be circling in anticipation of an election date.  Netanyahu’s primary goal till then, as it has been for some years: survive.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Email: bkampmark@gmail.com 

Featured image: US Secretary of State Antony Blinken with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli war cabinet in Tel Aviv, Israel, 22 March 2024 (From the Public Domain)

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Dr. Binoy Kampmark, Global Research, 2024

https://www.globalresearch.ca/netanyahu-dissolves-war-cabinet/5860373

‘D-day’ and WWII Examples of the Fake Reality Offered Up by U.S. Corporate TV News Programming

By Jay Janson

On March 1st, 2024, Elon Musk tweeted on his social media platform ‘X’ referring to an ABC TV news report,

“People, who get their news from legacy TV, live in a fake alternate reality.” (‘legacy’ = the long-lasting impact of particular events, actions, etc. that took place in the past)

People who get their news from legacy TV live in a fake alternate reality.

Those so-called “toughest reforms” would have made invasion-level migration permanent.

That diabolical “Border Bill” deserved to die and shame on those who supported it. https://t.co/Ow2kCeAJJF

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 1, 2024

For much of the past week, Western TV News has featured a Second World War anniversary ‘Glorious D-day’ celebration hailing the U.S., British Commonwealth and Canadian amphibious invasion of France on June 6, 1944 as leading to the defeat of Nazi Germany.Political leaders praised the veterans still alive as having successfully fought for ‘freedom!’ Estimated Allied Forces D-day casualties were about 10,000, with 4,000 confirmed dead. [1]

It is agonisingly sad to imagine those, who got killed on D-day following orders to wade forward into the firing line of German gun emplacements, but living in true reality would mean knowing that the Russians, (who were not invited to the D-day celebrations), had, at great human cost, already defeated Germany the year before D-day, during the cataclysmic battles of Stalingrad [2] and Kursk [3] in February and August of 1943, and were by D-day 1944 pushing toward Berlin liberating Nazi concentration camps on the way. [4]

In Western Legacy TV News Fake Alternate Reality:

Americans, with British Help, Defeated
Hitler’s Nazi German Armed Forces

In Reality, The Red Army won World War II.

The Red Army won World War II.  The cost to the Soviets was between 9 million and 11 million military deaths.  Adding in the Russian civilian deaths, the Soviet Union won the war at the cost of between 25 million and 27 million Soviet lives. By contrast total American military deaths in all of WWII were approximately 219,723 (2,715 in North Africa,183,588 in Europe, and 108,504 in Asia) [5]

On December 5, two days before, the United States entered World War Two, the Red Army had begun it’s successful enormous winter counter-offensive ending the Nazi siege of Moscow.  As early as June 1942 the Soviet Union had urged its American and British allies to open a second front in Western Europe. It would take the US and UK another two years to finally launch the invasion of France. Meanwhile, the Red Army took the brunt of German military might and millions died in the genocidal race war waged by the Nazis on the Eastern Front.[6]

Stalingrad

From 23 August 1942 to 2 February 1943, Germany and its allies fought the Soviet Union for control of the city of Stalingrad (now Volgograd) in Southern Russia. With fierce close-quarters combat and heavy air raids, it was one of the bloodiest battles in the history of warfare, with an estimated 2 million total casualties. 

Soviet forces are estimated to have suffered 1,100,000 casualties, 478,000 to 478,741 killed and approximately 40,000 civilians died. [7]

The German defeat at Stalingrad was the turning point of the war on the Eastern Front, in the war against Nazi Germany overall, and of the entire Second World War. [8]

German and Axis casualties were enormous: 68 German, 19 Romanian, 10 Hungarian and 10 Italian divisions were mauled or destroyed. That represented 43% of Axis forces in the east. After Stalingrad, the Red Army had the initiative, and the Wehrmacht was in retreat. Germany’s Sixth Army had ceased to exist, and the armed forces of Germany’s European allies, except Finland, had been shattered. In a speech on 9 November 1944, Hitler himself blamed Stalingrad for Germany’s impending doom. The destruction of an entire army, the largest killed, captured, wounded figures for Axis soldiers, during the war, and the foiling of Germany’s grand strategy gave the battle at Stalingrad global significance.[9]

Kursk

On 4 July 1943, Germany attacked Soviet forces around the city of Kursk, which became the site of the largest tank battle in history involving some 6,000 tanks, 2,000,000 troops, and 4,000 aircraft. German forces  exhausted themselves against the Soviets’ deeply echeloned and well-constructed defenses and then faced the Soviet counterattackThe Battle of Kursk marked the end of German offensive capability on the Eastern Front [10]

While at Kursk in Russia, 6,000 tanks and more than 2,000,000 men battled, on July 9, 1943, an American seaborne assault by the U.S. 7th Army, involving only 150,000 troops, 3,000 ships and 4,000 aircraft landed on the southern coast of Sicily.[11]

A Very Belated ‘D-Day’ (Operation Overlord) at Normandy June 6, 1944

A fleet of some 6,900 vessels landed the assault forces of slightly more than 156,000 men, Americans, British and Canadians on five beaches,

By the time the Allies did open this Western front in Normandy in June of 1944, the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany had already been established by the Red Army victories at Stalingrad (August 1942-February 1943) and Kursk (July-August 1943) the year before. At Stalingrad Germany had lost its Sixth Army and four allied armies of over 400,000 men. Meanwhile, at Kursk Germany  had lost thirty divisions (over 500,000 men) including seven Panzer divisions equipped with the new Panther and Tiger tanks, 1,500 tanks, 3,000 guns and 3,500 warplanes. (Thus, while the war was being won and whole German armies destroyed at great human cost to the Soviet Red Army during the month of July at Kursk, the Americans, British and Canadians in the same month had been invading a weakly defended Sicily.

Throughout most of World War II, the U.S. and the British faced 10 German divisions combined. The Soviets were facing more than 200 German divisions. The Germans lost approximately 1 million men on the Western front. They lost 6 million on the Eastern front. There is reason why Churchill said the Red Army tore the guts out of the German war machine. However, that’s not what Americans learn.[12]

The success of the Allies after Normandy was largely due to the Germans having been already weakened badly because of the pummeling they had taken from the Russian Army, and were at the time of the D Day landing in retreat across Europe ahead of the vast Red Army, which was then liberating the concentration camps. Majdanek on July 22–23, later that summer the Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka killing centers.

By the time Allied troops came ashore on June 6, 1944 the Russians had already fought three years of devastating war on the Eastern Front, taking and inflicting appalling casualties. The enormous and pivotal battles of Stalingrad and Kursk had been fought and won.

In addition, the greatest Soviet campaign began 17 days after D-Day.

Following the defeat of Nazi Operation Zitadelle, the Soviets launched counter-offensives employing six million men along a 2,400-kilometre (1,500 mi) front as they drove the Germans westwards.

Operation Bagration, the Red Army offensive into Byelorussia from June 23 to August 19, 1944, resulted in the destruction of 28 of 34 divisions of the German Third Panzer, Fourth, and Ninth Armies of Army Group Center. The gutting of German forces in the East liberated the last parts of the Soviet Union and positioned the Red Army on the Vistula River, just across from Warsaw and within striking distance of Berlin. [13]Operation Bagration Was a Colossal Victory for the Red Army

– the Soviet destruction of German Army Group Centre – was, arguably, the single most successful military action of the entire war. This vital Soviet offensive was launched just after Allied troops had landed in Normandy, and it is symptomatic of the lack of public knowledge about the war in the East that whilst almost everyone has heard of D-Day, few people other than specialist historians know much about the Soviet Operation Bagration. Yet the sheer size of Bagration dwarfs that of D-Day. [14] Despite the recent Allied landing at Normandy, the German army retained over 235 divisions in the East, in comparison with roughly 85 in the West.[15]

On January 27, Soviet troops liberated Auschwitz.

February 13-14, the U.S. continuously bombed Dresden killing 160,000 German civilians. RAF and USAF air raids devastated Dresden, By this period, Soviet forces had crossed the Oder River and were closing in on Berlin. [14]

Examples of Western Press Admissions of the Falsification of History

Newsweek, June 6, 2019

‘NORMANDY LANDING DID NOT HAVE A DECISIVE IMPACT ON THE OUTCOME OF WORLD WAR II’ BY DAVID BRENNAN [16] .]

Source

An Overview of the Fighting One Year into the Nazi-Soviet War, Eight Decades Ago

Business Insider, 6/5/2019

Russia says D-Day memorials are part of a ‘false’ history of World War II meant to airbrush out the Soviet Union by Bill Bostock, Jun 5, 2019 [17

Source

Peoples World, 6/6/2019

“Let’s not leave the Soviet Union out of our D-Day history – On the 75th Anniversary of D-Day today, but who bore the brunt of the battles to defeat fascism in World War II? … Still another Soviet battle that surpassed D-Day happened after D-Day itself: Operation Bagration.” [18]

Source

Why Did The Second World War Happen?

In Reality

In reality it was America’s great corporations investing in, and joint venturing with, Hitler’s poor and totally disarmed Nazi Germany that made World War Two, Hitler’s invasion of Russia and the multi-nation Holocaust possible. [See Anthony Sutton’s ‘Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler,’ 1976, available to read at https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/ ] [18A]

The true source of the Second World War was American industrial might empowering a rabid Adolf Hitler and his Nazi thugs in what had been a disarmed Germany. Hitler’s strident call for Germany to expand into the revolutionary communist Soviet Union was silently or tacitly approved as was much of Hitler’s rabid condemnation of Jews by America’s wealthy  investing in and joint venturing with Nazi Germany. [19]

Reality in 1929

A Colonial Powers Exploited World Mismanaged Into the Deeper Suffering of the Great Depression

The World Controlling Capitalist Colonial Powers Found Themselves In Dreadful Circumstances   

With the world of the plundering Colonial Powers deep in the chaos of the Great Depression, a disastrous failure of rule by the banks of the capitalist countries, the United States internally threatened by local organisations of socialists, communists, anarchists, unionists and unpaid veterans, Nazi Germany was to be made into a loaded gun pointed, to be eventually fired, at the intolerably economically successful [20] socialist Soviet Union, which had become a beacon of light for those calling for the overthrow of failed capitalism and plundering colonialism.

Hitler’s uncompromisingly lethal condemnation of communism and his threatening the very existence of Wall Street’s archenemy, socialist Soviet Union, would have to have impressed many of the US and European wealthy, whose racist capitalist colonial rule of most of the world was threatened by socialist fervour and riots at home for its failure to have prevented the ongoing Great Depression with tens of millions suffering even from lack of food. Newsreels of massive and violent riots in many US cities can be seen on YouTube at ‘Riots Across America – The Great Depression.’  This author was really struck by the massive violence seen in these newsreels of that time.

The rearming of Germany made possible Hitler’s invasions of twenty-two countries and brought world war to Asia, for Japan would not have dared to attack and declare war on the United States of America without it being able to count on an alliance with an awesomely powerful rearmed Nazi Germany, plus Italy, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania and Finland, which all declared war on the USA immediately after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor.

The Target of the Western Sponsors of the Nazi War Machine

The real target for the Western sponsors of the Nazi war machine was an attack on the Soviet Union in order to destroy, in their view, the source of international revolutionary socialism. In the 1930s, the very existence of capitalism was teetering on the edge amid the Great Depression, massive poverty and seething popular discontent in the US, Britain and other Western countries. The entire Western capitalist order was under imminent threat from its own masses. This is the historical context for the Western-backed rise of European fascism. [Quoted from ‘World War II Continues… Against Russia,’ Finian Cunningham PressTV, 5/10/2014]

The Second World War and the Holocaust, which made the rich speculators of Wall Street owned America the sole world superpower, is estimated to have taken the lives of 70 to 85 million men, women and children. Within this total were the 25 to 27 million citizens of the Soviet Union, which had been the obvious target in the rearming of Germany of a consensus among the wealthiest American and European capitalists. A further plus for Wall Street was the outcome that left half the cities of Wall Street’s designated archenemy, socialist model USSR, lying in ruins.

The beyond imagination great multi-nation genocide that included the Holocaust must be laid at the feet of wealthy profit scheming speculative investors in war headquartered mostly in lower Manhattan, New York City.

When we recall films and photos of skies filled with warplanes, of seas filled with warships and of thousands of tanks engaged in deadly conflict on land bringing death, destruction and misery to hundreds of innocent millions, we best remember that a lot of upper class people in business suits were elatedly counting their enormous blood-soaked profits from investments in the manufacture of weapons, munitions, uniforms, and coffins.

All War Crimes Committed Made Possible by the Rearming of Germany

All the monstrous beyond description inhuman Nazi German crimes, the crimes that have been attributed to Stalin and those committed by the US and Britain in fire bombing civilians in German and Japanese cities, happened during the world war that was made possible by the enthusiastic rearming of an insanely dangerous Nazi Germany.

This was done to protect and continue invested capital rule over most of humanity by the unjustly wealthy in the Western colonial empires then threatened by the economic calamity of the Great Depression that had been created by their own financial malfeasance.

Soldiers Fought and Died Gm. Ford, Itt. Ge. Made $

Both at the Allied Normandy landing and three years earlier during the Nazi invasion of Russia, many, or often nearly most, disabled Nazi tanks were found to have GM motors. When American GIs invaded Europe in June 1944, they did so in jeeps, trucks and tanks manufactured by the Big Three motor companies in one of the largest crash militarisation programs ever undertaken. It came as an unpleasant surprise to discover that the enemy was also driving trucks manufactured by Ford and Opel — a 100 percent GM-owned subsidiary — and flying Opel-built warplanes. [See “Ford and GM Scrutinized for Alleged Nazi Collaboration,” Washington Post, Michael Dobbs, 11/30/1998.]

The following is excerpted from a report printed by the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary in 1974:

“The activities of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler prior to and during World War II…are instructive. At that time, these three firms dominated motor vehicle production in both the United States and Germany. Due to its mass production capabilities, automobile manufacturing is one of the most crucial industries with respect to national defense. As a result, these firms retained the economic and political power to affect the shape of governmental relations both within and between these nations in a manner which maximised corporate global profits. In short, they were private governments unaccountable to the citizens of any country yet possessing tremendous influence over the course of war and peace in the world. The substantial contribution of these firms to the American war effort in terms of tanks, aircraft components, and other military equipment is widely acknowledged.” Less well known are the simultaneous contributions of their foreign subsidiaries to the Axis Powers. In sum, they maximised profits by supplying both sides with the materiel needed to conduct the war.

After the cessation of hostilities, GM and Ford demanded reparations from the U.S. Government for wartime damages sustained by their Axis facilities as a result of Allied bombing… Ford received a little less than $1 million, primarily as a result of damages sustained by its military truck complex at Cologne. “General Motors… was paid $32 million by the U.S. government for damages sustained to its German plants.”

During the post-WW II war era, the mega immense profits deriving from Wall Street’s dominance of the world’s crippled industry and commerce continued unabated for decades, while its military and clandestine CIA operations tore through innumerable unfortunate populations of non-Caucasian majority humanity in former colonies in maintenance of unjust predatory investments under the guise of anti-communism.

Through America’s formidable grip over international media, CIA overseen monopolised Western mainstream media[21]have inculcated such a heroism for America’s role in the defeat of Hitler (whose war Americans facilitated in the first place), that the world seems to have accepted all the US led post war neo-colonial genocide as somehow more or less forgivable, widely accepting capitalist media misrepresentation of communism as evil.

The media implanted deception that it was American soldiers, helped by the British, who defeated Hitler has so dramatically portrayed Americans as ‘good guys,’ that the neocolonial Western genocide they have led throughout the Third World has been somehow excusable, as if the mass murder taking the lives of many millions of innocent men, women and children was carried off with good intentions. US world reach propaganda has hailed the millions of American soldiers, who invaded Korea and the French colonies of Indochina and dozens of Third World nations, which had been colonies occupied by European or US military, as anti-communist heroes. ‘Better dead than red’ was a slogan repeated with bravado to counter demonstrations against these undeclared wars.

Best not to lose sight of the reason behind the arming of Hitler’s Nazi Wehrmacht having been anti-communism or anti Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in protection of colonial capitalism’s hegemony during its brutal wholesale systematic economic misadventure, the Great Depression.

In today’s world of instant global communication and the wide distribution of cell phone and social networking, The former militarily occupied colonies, recently still referred to as the ‘3rd World’ or ‘Developing Nations,’ previously as the ‘Underdeveloped World,’ and earlier as the ‘Undeveloped World,’ now show signs of slowly unifying themselves as a ‘Global South’ and ‘Majority Humanity.’*

A Global South Awakening Awareness of Reality?

Today’s hegemonic Western Colonial Powers had their powerful satellite powered U.S. monopolised media televise an effusive show of celebrating their second gigantic war between themselves, which had deadly involved, as had their first gigantic war between themselves, most all ‘their’ militarily colonised nations world-wide.

The former militarily occupied colonies, recently still referred to as the ‘3rd World’ or ‘Developing Nations,’ previously as the ‘Underdeveloped World,’ and earlier as the ‘Undeveloped World,’ now show signs of slowly unifying themselves as a ‘Global South’ and ‘Majority Humanity.’ *

Citizens of the nations of the Global South watch Western TV without forgetting the crimes against humanity suffered under the military of these European empires and their off shore descendent empires. * The media of their former colonial masters’ constantly remind viewers, listeners and readers, that the governments of most Europeans, of Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and Israelis still appear to demand hegemony to go on exploiting peoples of Majority Humanity politically and economically when not militarily. *

This Global South must easily see through much of the racist West praising itself for having fought for freedom,* a freedom that excluded colonially enslaved and plundered peoples of Majority Humanity.*

***

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Jay Janson is an archival research peoples historian activist, musician and writer; has lived and worked on all continents; articles on media published in China, Italy, UK, India, in Germany & Sweden Einartysken,and in the US by Greanville Post, Dissident Voice; Global Research; Information Clearing House; Counter Currents; Minority Perspective, UK,and others; now resides in NYC; First effort was a series of articles on deadly cultural pollution endangering seven areas of life emanating from Western corporate owned commercial media published in Hong Kong’s Window Magazine 1993; Howard Zinn lent his name to various projects of his; Weekly column, South China Morning Post, 1986-87; reviews for Ta Kung Bao; article China Daily, 1989. Is coordinator of the Howard Zinn co-founded King Condemned US Wars International Awareness Campaign, and website historian of the Ramsey Clark co-founded Prosecute US Crimes Against Humanity Now Campaign, https://prosecuteuscrimesagainsthumanitynow.blogspot.com/which contains a history of US crimes in 19 nations from 1945 thru 2012.

Notes

[*] only a well traveled author’s observation

[1] Estimates of Soviet Russian military casualties at Stalingrad: 478,741 killled, 650,878 for a total of 1.13 million casualties and tens of thousands of Russian civilians were killed.

[2] AP News, June 6, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/dday-wwii-france-invasion-military-b02d03fa11f66767a521a3b01357a89a      3. Approximate casualties at Kursk: Soviets 785,584; Germans between 50,000 and 200,000. Total Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns Lost : Russian 6,064, German 1,500; aircraft lost both sides total: 3,000. Post-war analyses by historians such as Karl-Heinz Frieser, The Eastern Front 1943-1944.

[3] Approximate casualties at Kursk: Soviets 785,584; Germans between 50,000 and 200,000. Total Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns Lost : Russian 6,064, German 1,500; aircraft lost both sides total: 3,000. Post-war analyses by historians such as Karl-Heinz Frieser, The Eastern Front 1943-1944.

[4] Germany and the Second World War: Volume VIII: The Eastern Front 1943-1944: The War in the East and on the Neighbouring Fronts: Volume VIII: May 16, 2017 · by Karl-Heinz Frieser (Editor) 4.8 8 ratings. https://www.amazon.com/Germany-Second-World-War-Neighbouring/dp/0198723466

[5] U.S. Department of Defence Records

Website: National WWII Museum

Encyclopaedia Britannica:

Website: Britannica on Soviet Casualties

The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union, 1941-45: A Documentary Reader by Alexander Hill: Routledge, June 13, 2008

[6] The Eastern Front during World War II was the site of immense brutality and loss of life. The conflict between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union resulted in millions of deaths, both military and civilian. The Nazis waged a genocidal campaign, targeting not only Soviet soldiers but also civilians, including Jews, Roma, and others deemed undesirable by the Nazi regime.

The Second World War on the Eastern Front – 1st Edition – Lee Baker – http://www.routledge.com

[7] “Battle-of-Stalingrad,” (brittanica.com)

[8] P.M.H. Bell, Twelve Turning Points of the Second World War,(Yale University Press, New Haven and London), 2011, p 104;

[9] Beevor, Antony (1998). Stalingrad. {London: Viking). ISBN 978-0-14-103240-5.

[10] David M. Glantz, (1986). “Soviet Defensive Tactics at Kursk, July 1943”. Combined Arms Research Library. CSI Report No. 11. Command and General Staff College, pp.149-59. OCLC 278029256. Archived from the original on 6 March 2008. Retrieved 15 July 2013.

[11] “Invasionof Sicily”history.com, updated :August 21, 20original Nov. 18, 2009

[12] Peter Kuznick, “Mythology of America as Liberator,” The Real News Network, 6/9/2019)

[13] (“Operation Bagration And The Destruction Of The Army Group Center,” by Peter R. Mansoor, Hoover Institution) 

[14] Peter Kuznick, D DAY: MYTHOLOGY OF AMERICA AS LIBERATOR FEEDS TRUMP’S MILITARISM, The Real News Network, June 9, 2019, (Peter Kuznick is Professor of History and Director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington, DC. He and Oliver Stone co-authored The Untold History of the United States.)]

[15] Peter R. Mansoor Operation Bagration And The Destruction Of The Army Group Center (Hoover Institution) June 24, 2019 – Peter Mansoor, colonel, US Army (retired), is the General Raymond E. Mason, Jr. Chair of Military History at Ohio State University https://www.hoover.org/research/operation-bagration-and-destruction-army-group-center

[16] ”Russia Trolls West on D-Day: ‘Normandy Landing Did Not Have a Decisive Impact on the Outcome of World War II” BY DAVID BRENNAN 6/6/19 https://www.newsweek.com/russia-d-day-troll-normandy-anniversary-75-nazi-allies-victory-1442493

[17] https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-claims-d-day-memorials-effort-to-pretend-ussr-didnt-win-wwii-

[18] June 6, 2019 10:06 Am Cst  BY JOHN WOJCIK https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/lets-not-leave-the-soviet-union-out-of-our-d-day-history/

Anthony Sutton was a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution from 1968 to 1973.) and an economics professor at California State University, Los Angeles.

[19] Nazi Party leader Adolph Hitler in his 1925 published autobiographical manifesto Mein Kampf had emphasized Germany’s need for ‘Lebensraum’ (‘living space’), insisting that Germany’s 19th century motto ‘Drang Nach Osten’ (‘push to the East,’ a slogan designating German expansion into Slavic lands), must become a reality.

This was strikingly proclaimed by Hitler in his book Mein Kampf, which by 1939 had sold 5.2 million copies in eleven languages. [3]

“The National-Socialist movement must attempt to remove the  disproportion between the number of our population and the size of  our territory to secure for the German people the soil that is due to them  on this earth. And this action is the only one that can justify a sacrifice  of blood before God and our German posterity. . . . “

[20] The prospering revolutionary Soviet Union had become an inspiration and model for revolutionary organizing against capitalism and colonialism across the world.  Actually, though by 1928, the Soviet Union had made an amazingly rapid recovery from the ravages of the First World War and from a horrible civil war promoted by invasions of twelve capitalist nations, its agricultural production had not recovered from war’s devastation and there were still terrible famines throughout the 1930s.

[21] “Worldwide Propaganda Network Built by the C.I.A,” December 26, 1977, New York Time

Featured image is from Countercurrents

The original source of this article is Countercurrents

Copyright © Jay JansonCountercurrents, 2024

https://www.globalresearch.ca/d-day-wwii-examples-fake-reality/5860276

Создайте подобный сайт на WordPress.com
Начало работы