The Historical Review Press

We are the world's leading publisher of revisionist and hard-to-find political material -- serving the truth and fearing no-one! Visit our home website here!

Search This Blog

Wednesday, 28 December 2011

The March to War: Iran and the Strategic Encirclement of Syria and Lebanon

The March to War: Iran and the Strategic Encirclement of Syria and Lebanon By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya Global Research, December 24, 2011 Strategic Culture Foundation - 2011-12-02 The encirclement of Syria and Lebanon has long been in the works. Since 2001, Washington and NATO have started the process of cordoning off Lebanon and Syria. The permanent NATO presence in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Syrian Accountability Act are part of this initiative. It appears that this roadmap is based on a 1996 Israeli document aimed at controlling Syria. The document’s name is A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. The 1996 Israeli document, which included prominent U.S. policy figures as authors, calls for “rolling back Syria” in 2000 or afterward. The roadmap outlines pushing the Syrians out of Lebanon, diverting the attention of Damascus by using an anti-Syrian opposition in Lebanon, and then destabilizing Syria with the help of both Jordan and Turkey. This has all respectively occurred from 2005 to 2011. This is also why the anti-Syrian March 14 Alliance and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) were created in Lebanon. As a first step towards all this the 1996 document even calls for the removal of President Saddam Hussein from power in Baghdad and even alludes to the balkanization of Iraq and forging a strategic regional alliance against Damascus that includes a Sunni Muslim Arab “Central Iraq.” The sectarian nature of this project is very obvious as are its ties to opposing a so-called “Shiite Crescent.” The roadmap seeks to foment sectarian divisions as a means of conquering Syria and creating a Shiite-Sunni rift that will oppose Iran and keep the Arab monarchs in power. The U.S. has now initiated a naval build-up off the Syrian and Lebanese coasts. This is part of Washington’s standard scare tactics that it has used as a form of intimidation and psychological warfare against Iran, Syria, and the Resistance Bloc. While Washington is engaged in its naval build-up, the mainstream media networks controlled by the Saudis and Arab clients of the U.S. are focusing on the deployment of Russian naval vessels to Syria, which can be seen as a counter-move to NATO. Al-Ramtha in Jordan is being used to launch attacks into Daraa and Syrian territory. The Jordanian Minister of State for Media Affairs and Communications, Rakan Al-Majali, has even publicly admitted this and dismissed it as weapons smuggling. For years, Jordanian forces have successfully prevented weapons from reaching the Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank from Jordanian territory. In reality, Amman is sending weapons into Syria and working to destabilize Syria. Jordanian forces work as a frontline to protect Israel and the Jordanian intelligence services are an extension of the C.I.A. and Mossad. According to the Turkish media, France has sent its military trainers into Turkey and Lebanon to prepare conscripts against Syria. The Lebanese media also suggests the same. The so-called Free Syrian Army and other NATO-GCC front organizations are also using Turkish and Jordanian territory to stage raids into Syria. Lebanon is also being used to smuggle weapon shipments into Syria. Many of these weapons were actually arms that the Pentagon had secretly re-directed into Lebanon from Anglo-American occupied Iraq during the George W. Bush Jr. presidency. The French Foreign Minister, Alain Juppé, has promised the Syrian National Council, that a so-called “humanitarian corridor” will be imposed on Syria. Once again, the Syrian National Council is not an independent entity and therefore Juppé did not really make a promise; he really made a declaration. While foreign companies like Suncor Energy were forced to leave Libya, they have not left Syria. The reason that these companies have stayed has been presented as being humanitarian, because they provide domestic local services in Syria. For example, Suncor Energy helped produce oil for export from Libya, but in Syria produces energy for local consumption. In reality, hostile governments are letting these companies stay, because they siphon money out of Syria. They want to prevent any money from going in, while they want to also drain the local economy as a catalyst to internal implosion in Syria. Along with the U.S. and its NATO allies, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is imposing sanctions that include an end to all flights to Syria. The GCC states and Turkey have joined the foreign ministries of NATO states in asking their citizens to leave Syria. Since the U.N. Security Council is no longer a viable route against Syria, the GCC may also try to impose a no-fly zone over Syria through the Arab League. Turkey: NATO’s Trojan Horse and Gateway into the Middle East Turkey was present at the Arab League meeting in Morocco, which demanded regime change in Damascus. Ankara has been playing a dirty game. Initially, during the start of NATO’s war against Libya, Ankara pretended to be neutral while it was helping the Transitional Council in Benghazi. The Turkish government does not care about the Syrian population. On the contrary, the demands that Turkish officials have made to the Syrians spell out that realpolitik is at play. In tune with the GCC, Turkey has demanded that Damascus re-orient its foreign policy and submit to Washington’s demands as a new satellite. Through a NATO initiative, the Turks have also been responsible for recruiting fighters against the Libyan and Syrian governments. For several years Ankara has been silently trying to de-link Syria from Iran and to displace Iranian influence in the Middle East. Turkey has been working to promote itself and its image amongst the Arabs, but all along it has been a key component of the plans of Washington and NATO. At the same time, it has been upgrading its military capabilities in the Black Sea and on its borders with Iran and Syria. Its military research and development body, TUBITAK-SAGE, has also announced that Ankara will also start mass-production of cruise-missiles in 2012 that will be fitted for its navy and forthcoming deliveries of U.S. military jets that could be used in future regional wars. Turkey and NATO have also agreed to upgrade Turkish bases for NATO troops. In September 2011, Ankara joined Washington’s missile shield project, which upset both Moscow and Tehran. The Kremlin has reserved the right to attack NATO’s missile shield facilities in Eastern Europe, while Tehran has reserved the right to attack NATO’s missile shield facilities in Turkey or in the case of a regional war. There have also been discussions about the Kremlin deploying Iskander missiles to Syria. Since June 2011, Ankara has been talking about invading Syria. It has presented the invasion plans as a humanitarian mission to establish a “buffer zone” and “humanitarian corridor” under R2P, while it has also claimed that the protests in Syria are a regional issue and not a domestic issue. In July 2011, despite the close Irano-Turkish economic ties, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard made it clear that Tehran would support the Syrians and choose Damascus over Ankara. In August 2011, Ankara started deploying retired soldiers and its military reserve units to the Turkish-Syrian border. It is in this context, that the Russian military presence has also been beefing up in the port of Tartus. From Damascus to Tehran It is also no mere coincidence that Senator Joseph Lieberman started demanding at the start of 2011 that the Pentagon and NATO attack Syria and Iran. Nor is it a coincidence that Tehran has been included in the recent Obama Administration sanctions imposed against Damascus. Damascus is being targeted as a means of targeting Iran and, in broader terms, weakening Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing in the struggle for control over the Eurasian landmass. The U.S. and its remaining allies are about to reduce their forces in Iraq, but they do not want to leave the region or allow Iran to create a bridge between itself and the Eastern Mediterranean using Iraq. Once the U.S. leaves Iraq, there will be a direct corridor between Lebanon and Syria with Iran. This will be a nightmare for Washington and Tel Aviv. It will entrench Iranian regional dominance and cement the Resistance Bloc, which will pin Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinians together. Israel and the U.S. will both be struck with major strategic blows. The pressure on Syria is directly tied to this American withdrawal from Iraq and Washington’s efforts to block Tehran from making any further geo-political gains. By removing Damascus from the equation, Washington and its allies are hoping to create a geo-strategic setback for Iran. Everything that Washington is doing is in preparation for the new geo-political reality and an attempt to preserve its regional standing. U.S. military forces from Iraq will actually be redeployed to the GCC countries in the Persian Gulf. Kuwait will host new combat units that have been designated to re-enter Iraq should security collapse, such as in the case of a regional war, or to confront Iran and its allies in a future conflict. The U.S. is now activating the so-called “Coalition of the Moderate” that it created under George W. Bush Jr. and directing it against Iran, Syria, and their regional allies. On November 23, 2011 the Turks signed a military agreement with Britain to establish a strategic partnership and closer Anglo-Turkish military ties. During an important state visit by Abdullah Gül to London, the agreement was signed by Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond and the Deputy Chief of the Turkish General Staff, Hulusi Akar. The Anglo-Turkish agreement comes into play within the framework of the meetings that the British Chief of Defence Staff, General David Richards, and Liam Fox, the former scandal-ridden British defence minister, had with Israeli officials in Tel Aviv. After the visit of General Richards to Israel, Ehud Barak would visit Britain and later Canada for talks concerning Syria and its strategic ally Iran. Within this timeframe the British and Canadian governments would declare that they were prepared for war with both Syria and Iran. London has announced that military plans were also drawn for war with Syria and Iran. On the other side of the Atlantic, Canada’s Defence Minister, Peter MacKay, created shockwaves in Canada when he made belligerent announcements about war with Syria and Iran. He also announced that Canada was buying a new series of military jets through a major arms purchase. Days later, both Canada and Britain would also cut their banking and financial ties with Iran. In reality, these steps have largely been symbolic, because Tehran was deliberately curbing it ties with Britain and Canada. For months the Iranians have also openly been evaluating cutting their ties with Britain and several other E.U. members. The events surrounding Syria have much more to do with the geo-politics of the Middle East than just Syria alone. In the Israeli Knesset, the events in Syria were naturally tied to reducing Iranian power in the Middle East. Tel Aviv has been preparing itself for a major conflict for several years. This includes its long distance military flights to Greece that simulated an attack on Iran and its deployment of nuclear-armed submarines to the Persian Gulf. It has also conducted the “Turning Point” exercises, which seek to insure the continuation of the Israeli government through the evacuation and relocation of the Israeli cabinet and officials, including the Israeli finance ministry, to secret bunkers in the case of a war. For half a decade Washington has been directing a military arms build-up in the Middle East aimed at Iran and the Resistance Bloc. It has sent massive arms shipments to Saudi Arabia. It has sent deliveries of bunker busters to the U.A.E. and Israel, amongst others, while it has upgraded its own deadly arsenal. U.S. officials have also started to openly discuss murdering Iranian leaders and military officials through covert operations. What the world is facing is a pathway towards possible military escalation that could go far beyond the boundaries of the Middle East and suck in Russia, China, and their allies. The Revolutionary Guard have also made it clear that if conflict is ignited with Iran that Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinians would all be drawn in as Iranian allies. Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and award-winning author based in Ottawa. He is a Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. He was a witness to the "Arab Spring" in action in North Africa. While on the ground in Libya during the NATO bombing campaign, he reported out of Tripoli for several media outlets. He was Special Correspondent for Global Research and Pacifica's investigative program Flashpoints, broadcast out of Berkeley, California. His writings have been published in more than ten languages.

Tuesday, 27 December 2011

UK war on free speech

Iranian 'Press TV' to be banned in Britain. Only pro-Zionist 'news' bulletins are to be allowed for the goyim: UK war on free speech Mon Dec 26, 2011 3:36PM GMT Britain's government-controlled broadcast regulatory body, Ofcom, has decided to ban Press TV's broadcast in an effort to silence the alternative voice in the UK. The move comes a year after a leaked US Embassy cable highlighted for the first time London and Washington's concerted effort to block Press TV in Britain. Many observers have noted that the British government's campaign against Press TV has its roots in the channel's extensive coverage of the multiple crises created by London's domestic and foreign policies. Press TV covered the 2011 Royal Wedding from a critical angle, which highlighted its extravagant costs while many Britons were suffering from great economic hardship. The channel also provided in-depth coverage of the widespread protests and the ensuing unrest that gripped Britain following the police killing of a black man in August. Press TV also interviewed many critics of the stance adopted by the British government vis-à-vis the revolutions in the Muslim world. London clearly sided with dictators and monarchs and even invited the king of Bahrain for official visits and provided his regime with military assistance. This, as Bahrain's Saudi-backed forces were torturing and killing peaceful protesters. Britain also signed a scandalous military deal with Saudi Arabia back in 2006 to sell state-of-the-art military equipment to one of the world's biggest dictatorships. The British government with its Royal establishment has a long history of wars of aggression and support of monarchies and autocratic rulers all over the world. In the Middle East, London together with Washington orchestrated Iran's 1953 coup to bring the western-backed Shah of Iran back to power. Decades later the monarch was overthrown by the Islamic Revolution. In Iraq, Britain joined the US invasion and occupation of the country that led to the killing of a million people. Britain also followed the US into Afghanistan in 2001-a war that has yet to end despite strong opposition from the British public. A senior Afghan official recently told Press TV that the British military also played a significant role in the production and trafficking of narcotics in Afghanistan. In Africa, Britain is still remembered as the brutal colonial power that crushed many local communities under the boots of its soldiers for decades. And today it is mulling direct military intervention in Somalia where people are already under intense pressure from natural disasters and U-S drone strikes. In Asia, the Royal establishment killed as many people as it needed to set up its power base in the Indian Subcontinent among other regions. Thousands of miles away in Latin America, London is still engaged in a potential military confrontation with Argentina over the Malvinas Islands three decades after fighting a deadly war with Buenos Aires over the UK-occupied archipelago. The centuries of medieval-age aggression by British rulers have earned London global infamy. The latest in a string of such UK practices is the Royal establishment's war on free speech. London has spared no effort in its two-year-long battle against Press TV. Its media tool, Ofcom, is now about to revoke the channel's broadcast license, hoping this desperate measure will silence criticism. But what the British government fails to grasp is that the truth cannot be concealed from the public, and those in the UK that want to hear Press TV's alternative voice will inevitably find a way to watch the channel of their choice.

Saturday, 24 December 2011

On the Avoidability of World War One

On the Avoidability of World War One Nicholas Kollerstrom On August 1, 1914, as dreadful war was breaking out in Europe, the German ambassador Prince Lichnowsky paid a visit to Britain’s Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey. Dr Rudolf Steiner commented as follows upon this meeting – in a 1916 lecture which he gave in Switzerland: ‘A single sentence and the war in the West would not have taken place.’ At that meeting, he averred that, with just one sentence, ‘this war could have been averted.’1 To examine that outrageous-sounding claim, we delve into what is a bit of a mystery, that of the first conflict between Germany and Britain for a thousand years: two nations bound by the same royal family, with every statesman in Europe loudly proclaiming that peace is desired, that war must at all costs be avoided; and then the bloodbath takes place, terminating the great hopes for European civilization and extinguishing its bright optimism, as what were set up as defensive alliances mysteriously flipped over and became offensive war-plans. The ghastly ‘Schlieffen plan’ became activated, as the master-plan of Germany’s self-defense, which as it were contained the need for the dreadful speed with which catastrophe was precipitated. France and Russia had formed a mutual defense agreement (everyone claimed their military alliances were defensive). While Bismarck the wise statesman who founded Germany had lived, this was avoided, such an alliance being his darkest nightmare. But Kaiser Wilhelm did not manage to avoid this, and so Germany’s neighbors to East and West formed a mutual military alliance. The Schlieffen plan was based on the premise that Germany could not fight a war on two fronts but might be able to beat France quickly; so in the event of war looming against Russia in the East, its troops had to move westwards, crashing though Belgium as a route into France. It all had to happen quickly because Germany’s army was smaller than that of Russia. The timing over those crucial days shows its awful speed: Russia mobilized its army on July 29th, in response to hostilities breaking out between Austro-Hungary and Serbia; two desperate cables were sent by the Kaiser to the Tsar on the 29th and 31st, imploring him not to proceed with full mobilisation of his army because that meant war; the French government ‘irreversibly decided’ to support Russia in the war on the evening of 31st, cabling this decision to the Russian foreign minister at 1 am on August 1st 2; then, on the afternoon of that same day Germany proceeded to mobilise and declared war on Russia, and two days later went into Belgium. Britain’s House of Commons voted unanimously for war on 5th August, viewing Germany as the belligerent warmonger. Kaiser Wilhelm’s Nemesis The Kaiser had enjoyed the reputation of a peacemaker: Now ... he is acclaimed everywhere as the greatest factor for peace that our time can show. It was he, we hear, who again and again threw the weight of his dominating personality, backed by the greatest military organisation in the world – an organisation built up by himself – into the balance for peace wherever war clouds gathered over Europe. ‘(‘William II, King of Prussia and German Emperor, Kaiser 25 years a ruler, hailed as chief peacemaker,’ New York Times, 8 June, 1913. 3) A former US President, William Howard Taft, said of him: ‘The truth of history requires the verdict that, considering the critically important part which has been his among the nations, he has been, for the last quarter of a century, the single greatest force in the practical maintenance of peace in the world.’ (4,5). That is some tribute! In 1960 a BBC centenary tribute to the Kaiser was permitted to say: ‘Emphasis was placed on his love of England and his deep attachment to Queen Victoria,’ his grandmother. A lover of peace .... skilled diplomat ... deep attachment to Queen Victoria .. so remind me what the Great War was for, that took nine million lives? Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany Kaiser Wilhelm II enjoyed a reputation as a peace maker. Shown in a photo from 1890. Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-R28302 / CC-BY-SA [CC-BY-SA-3.0-de (], via Wikimedia Commons Might the war have been averted if the Kaiser had, perhaps, focussed a bit more on the art of war – how to refrain from marching into Belgium? There was no ‘plan B’! In later days the Kaiser used to say, he had been swept away by the military timetable. Who wanted the war which locked Europe into such dreadful conflict? Did a mere sequence of interlocking treaties bring it on? On the night of 30-31st of July, feeling entrapped by a seemingly inevitable march of events, Kaiser Wilhelm mused to himself doomily: Frivolity and weakness are going to plunge the world into the most frightful war of which the ultimate object is the overthrow of Germany. For I no longer have any doubt that England, Russia and France have agreed among themselves – knowing that our treaty obligations compel us to support Austria – to use the Austro-Serb conflict as a pretext for waging a war of annihilation against us... In this way the stupidity and clumsiness of our ally [Austria] is turned into a noose. So the celebrated encirclement of Germany has finally become an accepted fact... The net has suddenly been closed over our heads, and the purely anti-German policy which England has been scornfully pursuing all over the world has won the most spectacular victory which we have proved ourselves powerless to prevent while they, having got us despite our struggles all alone into the net through our loyalty to Austria, proceed to throttle our political and economic existence. A magnificent achievement, which even those for whom it means disaster are bound to admire.’ 6 ‘Those dreadful fields of senseless carnage’ Did hundreds of thousands of young men, the flower of England, want to go out to muddy fields, to fight and die? Shells, bayonets, gas, machine guns - what was the point? In no way were they defending their country or its Empire – for no-one was threatening it. No European nation benefitted: it spelt ruin for all of them. Do we need to fear the imbecility of the poet’s words: If I should die, think only this of me There is some corner of a foreign field That is forever England’? (Rupert Brooke) A leading British pacifist, E.D. Morel, was widely vilified for the views expressed in his book Truth and the War (1916), and had his health wrecked (as Bertrand Russell described) by being put into Pentonville jail. In haunting words of insight, his book described how: ‘Those dreadful fields of senseless carnage’ had been brought about by ‘futile and wicked Statecraft’ - by ‘an autocratic and secret foreign policy’ carried out by those ‘who by secret plots and counter-plots ... hound the peoples to mutual destruction.’ Of the war’s outbreak, Morel wrote: ‘It came therefore to this. While negative assurances had been given to the House of Commons, positive acts diametrically opposed to these assurances had been concerted by the War Office and the Admiralty with the authority of the Foreign Office. All the obligations of an alliance had been incurred, but incurred by the most dangerous and subtle methods; incurred in such a way as to leave the Cabinet free to deny the existence of any formal parchment recording them, and free to represent its policy at home and abroad as one of contractual detachment from the rival Continental groups.’ 7 A total analogy exists here with Blair taking Britain into the Iraq war, making a deal with Bush while continually denying back home that any such deal existed. Two Cabinet members resigned in August 1914, once the central importance of this concealed contract became evident: Viscount Morley and John Burns. A more orthodox, deterministic view was given by Winston Churchill: ‘the invasion of Belgium brought the British Empire united to the field. Nothing in human power could break the fatal chain, once it had begun to unroll. A situation had been created where hundreds of officials had only to do their prescribed duty to their respective countries to wreck the world. They did their duty’. 8 That necessary chain leading to ruin began only after the crucial discussion alluded to by Dr Steiner, we observe. Considering that Germany went into Belgium on the 3rd of August, whereas Churchill and Mountbatten, the First and Second Sea Lords, had ordered the mobilising of the British fleet over July 26 -30th, so that by days before the 3rd much of the world’s biggest navy was up north of Scotland all ready to pounce on Germany – his words may appear as some kind of extreme limit of hypocrisy. The mobilising of the British fleet was a massive event which greatly pre-empted political discussion, a week before Britain declared war. 9, 10 A Secret Alliance Britain was obliged by no necessity to enter a European war, having no alliance with France that the people of Britain or its parliament knew about, and having a long indeed normal policy of avoiding embroilment in European conflicts. However, ministers especially Grey the Foreign Minister had covertly made a deal with France. To quote from Bertrand Russell’s autobiography: ‘I had noticed during previous years how carefully Sir Edward Grey lied in order to prevent the public from knowing the methods by which he was committing us to the support of France in the event of war.’ 11 Would Britain be dragged into a European war on the coat-tails of France – for centuries, its traditional enemy - given that France had signed a treaty obligation to enter war in consequence of a German-Russian conflict? France was keen to avenge past grievances over the French-German border, aware of the superiority of troops which it and Russia combined had against Germany – and convinced that it could drag Britain into the fray. On 24 March 1913, the Prime Minister had been asked about the circumstances under which British troops might land on the Continent. He replied, ‘As has been repeatedly stated, this country is not under any obligation not public and known to parliament which compels it to take part in any war’ - a double negative which concealed a hidden but then-existing accord! Last Hope of Peace We turn now to the question put, on August 1st by Germany’s ambassador to Britain’s Foreign Secretary, normally omitted from history books on the subject. If war and peace did indeed hinge upon it - as Dr Steiner averred - it may be worth quoting a few judgements about it. Here is Grey’s own letter, written that day: Grey’s letter to the British ambassador in Berlin: 1 August, concerning his meeting with Prince Lichnowsky : ‘He asked me whether, if Germany gave a promise not to violate Belgian neutrality we would engage to remain neutral. I replied that I could not say that: our hands were still free, and we were considering what our attitude should be....I did not think that we could give a promise on that condition alone. The ambassador pressed me as to whether I could formulate conditions on which we would remain neutral. He even suggested that the integrity of France and her colonies might be guaranteed. I said that I felt obliged to refuse definitely any promise to remain neutral on similar terms, and I could only say that we must keep our hands free.’ 12,13 Swiss author George Brandes summarised this meeting: 'Now Prince Lichnowsky, the German Ambassador in London, asked whether England would agree to remain neutral if Germany refrained from violating Belgium’s neutrality. Sir Edward Grey refused. Britain wanted to retain ‘a free hand’ (‘I did not think we could give a promise of neutrality on that condition alone’). Would he agree if Germany were to guarantee the integrity of both France and her colonies? No.’ 14 The US historian Harry Elmer Barnes: ‘The only way whereby Grey could have prevented war, if at all, in 1914 would have been by declaring that England would remain neutral if Germany did not invade Belgium...,’ but Grey ‘refused to do’ this: ‘After Grey had refused to promise the German Ambassador that England would remain neutral in the event of Germany’s agreeing not to invade Belgium, the German ambassador asked Grey to formulate the conditions according to which England would remain neutral, but Grey refused point-blank to do so, though he afterwards falsely informed the Commons that he had stated these conditions’. 15 Barnes commended the editorial of the Manchester Guardian July 30th - opposing the pro-war jingoism of The Times – which declared: ‘not only are we neutral now, but we are and ought to remain neutral throughout the whole course of the war.’ The British judge and lawyer Robert Reid was the Earl of Loreburn as well as the Lord Chancellor of England from 1905 to 1912, so he should know what was going on. His book ‘How the War Came’ described how it was the secret deal with France which wrecked everything: The final mistake was that when, on the actual crisis arising, a decision one way or the other might and, so far as can be judged, would have averted the Continental war altogether ... The mischief is that Sir Edward Grey slipped into a new policy, but without either Army, or treaty, or warrant of Parliamentary approval ... This country has a right to know its own obligations and prepare to meet them and to decide its own destinies. When the most momentous decision of our whole history had to be taken we were not free to decide. We entered a war to which we had been committed beforehand in the dark, and Parliament found itself at two hours’ notice unable, had it desired, to extricate us from this fearful predicament... If the government thought that either our honour or our safety did require us to intervene on behalf of France, then they ought to have said so unequivocally before the angry Powers on the Continent committed themselves to irrevocable steps in the belief that we should remain neutral. Instead of saying either, they kept on saying in the despatches that their hands were perfectly free, and told the Commons the same thing. The documents show conclusively that till after Germany declared war our Ministers had not made up their minds on either of the two questions, whether or not they would fight for France, and whether or not they would fight for Belgium. Of course Belgium was merely a corridor into France, and unless France was attacked Belgium was in no danger. 16 After it was over, US President Woodrow Wilson in March of 1919 summed up its avoidability: ‘We know for a certainty that if Germany had thought for a moment that Great Britain would go in with France and Russia, she would never have undertaken the enterprise.’ (p.18, Lorenburn). That was the sense in which Britain precipitated the dreadful conflict. Clear words of truth could have avoided it – had that been desired. We remind ourselves of Dr Steiner’s comparison: that the British Empire then covered one-quarter of the Earth’s land-surface; Russia one-seventh; France and her colonies one-thirteenth; and Germany, one thirty-third. (Karma, p.11) Upon receiving a telegram from Prince Lichnowsky earlier in the day of August 1, the Kaiser ordered a bottle of champagne to celebrate, as if there might be hope of reaching a deal with Britain. Even though he was just that afternoon signing the order for mobilisation of the German army, he could in some degree have recalled it ... but, it was a false hope, and a telegram from King Edward later that day explained to him that there had been a ‘misunderstanding’ between Britain’s Foreign Secretary and the German ambassador. 17 Gray’s Duplicity On the 26th or 27th, Grey told the Cabinet that he would have to resign, if it did not support his initiative to take Britain into war in support of ‘our ally,’ France. He would not be able to go along with British neutrality. Over these days up until the 1st, or 2nd, when the war was just starting, all the Cabinet of Britain’s Liberal Party government except for Churchill and Grey favoured British neutrality. It was those two who dragged Britain into war. Grey did not yet know whether the Belgian government would say ‘no’ to the German request to be allowed to pass through. To get his war, Grey had to swing it on the ‘poor little Belgium’ angle. Once Belgium had said ‘No’ and yet Germany still went in – as its only way to enter France - a cabinet majority would then became assured. On August 2nd, Grey gave to the French ambassador what amounted to British assurance of war-support. On August 3rd, Grey gave the Commons an impassioned plea in favour of British intervention on behalf of France - making no mention of the German peace-offer. The MP Phillip Morrell spoke afterwards in the sole anti-war speech that day, and pointed out that a guarantee by Germany not to invade France had been offered, on condition of British neutrality, and spurned. As to why Grey did not mention the German offer, the view was later contrived that the German ambassador had merely been speaking in a private capacity! 18 The supposed neutrality of Belgium was a sham, as ministers of that country had secretly drawn up detailed anti-German war-plans with Britain and France. No wonder the Kaiser had a sense of being ‘encircled’ by enemies, because ‘“neutral” Belgium had in reality become an active member of the coalition concluded against Germany’ 19 – i.e. it had plotted against a friendly nation. Quoting the commendably insightful George Bernard Shaw, ‘The violation of Belgian neutrality by the Germans was the mainstay of our righteousness; and we played it off on America for much more than it was worth. I guessed that when the German account of our dealings with Belgium reached the United states, backed with an array of facsimiles of secret diplomatic documents discovered by them in Brussels, it would be found that our own treatment of Belgium was as little compatible with neutrality as the German invasion.’ 20 Steiner’s View Rudolf Steiner’s judgement in his December 1916 lecture (during which Britain was declining a peace offer from Germany) was: ‘Let me merely remark, that certain things happened from which the only sensible conclusion to be drawn later turned out to be the correct one, namely that behind those who were in a way the puppets there stood in England a powerful and influential group of people who pushed matters doggedly towards a war with Germany and through whom the way was paved for the world war that had always been prophesied. For of course the way can be paved for what it is intended should happen. is impossible to avoid realising how powerful was the group who like an outpost of mighty impulses, stood behind the puppets in the foreground. These latter are of course, perfectly honest people, yet they are puppets, and now they will vanish into obscurity …. 21 Grey and Churchill were the two consistently pro-war cabinet ministers. The Conservative Party was solidly pro-war, and Churchill was ready to offer them a deal if perchance too many of the Liberal-party cabinet were going to resign rather than go to war. Steiner here remarked: ‘Anyone [in England] voicing the real reasons [for war] would have been swept away by public opinion. Something quite different was needed – a reason which the English people could accept, and that was the violation of Belgian neutrality. But this first had to be brought about. It is really true that Sir Edward Grey could have prevented it with a single sentence. History will one day show that the neutrality of Belgium would never have been violated if Sir Edward Grey had made the declaration which it would have been quite easy for him to make, if he had been in a position to follow his own inclination. But since he was unable to follow his own inclination but had to obey an impulse which came from another side, he had to make the declaration which made it necessary for the neutrality of Belgium to be violated. Georg Brandes pointed to this. By this act England was presented with a plausible reason. That had been the whole point of the exercise: to present England with a plausible reason! To the people who mattered, nothing would have been more uncomfortable than the non-violation of Belgian territory!’ 22 Could powers behind Grey have wanted war, and steered events towards that end? Steiner argued against the widespread view of an inevitable slide into war: ‘You have no idea how excessively irresponsible it is to seek a simple continuity in these events, thus believing that without more ado the Great World War came about, or had to come about, as a result of Austria’s ultimatum to Serbia. (p.82) We are here reminded of Morel’s account, of how secret plotting had paralysed debate: ‘The nemesis of their own secret acts gripped our ministers by the throat. It paralysed their sincere and desperate efforts to maintain peace. It cast dissention amongst them...They could not afford to be honest neither to the British people nor to the world. They could not hold in check the elements making for war in Germany by a timely declaration of solidarity with France and Russia, although morally committed to France.. In vain the Russians and the French implored them to make a pronouncement of British policy while there was still time.’ 23 On August 4th, Britain declared war, and that same night cut through the transatlantic undersea telephone cables coming out of Germany, 24 enabling British atrocity propaganda to work largely unchallenged. Quoting a recent work on the subject, ‘The hallmark of Britain’s successful propaganda efforts were alleged German atrocities of gigantic proportions that strongly influenced naive Americans yearning for a chivalrous war from afar’. 25 Such consistent, intentional mendacity was fairly innovative, which was why it worked so well: ‘In that war, hatred propaganda was for the first time given something like organised attention’. 26 Thus, a nemesis of what Morel described as ‘futile and wicked statecraft’ here appeared, in that British soldiers were motivated to fight, by a nonstop torrent of lies - from their own government. 27 In conclusion, can we agree with Dr Steiner? Quoting Barnes, ‘It is thus apparent that the responsibility for the fatal Russian mobilisation which produced the war must be shared jointly, and probably about equally, by France and Russia.’ This was because of the French cabinet’s general encouragement, then its final decision to embark upon war on the 29th July, of which Barnes remarked: ‘The secret conference of Poincaré, Viviani and Messimy, in consultation with Izvolski, on the night of 29th of July, marks the moment when the horrors of war were specifically unchained in Europe.’ (pp.328, 242) This had to be the time, it was the only opportunity, because these war-plotters would have known of the mobilisation of the world’s biggest navy, that of Great Britain, over these fateful days, all ready for war. The Russian generals browbeat the Tzar into signing the documents giving his assent - for a war he didn’t want 28. On the 31st one more desperate telegram arrived from the Kaiser about how ‘The peace of Europe may still be maintained’ if only Russia would stop its mobilisation, but the Tzar no longer had that ability. Germany placed itself at a military disadvantage by refraining from declaring war or taking steps to mobilise until the afternoon of August 1st, much later than any of the other great powers involved. Had a deal been reached in London on that afternoon, a conflict in Eastern Europe would presumably still have taken place, but it would have been limited and diplomats could have dealt with it: yes, a world war could have been averted. ................... Essential texts: Alexander Fuehr, The Neutrality of Belgium, NY 1915 * E.D. Morel, Truth and the War, 1916 * The Earl Lorenburn, How the War Came, 1919 * Harry Elmer Barnes, The Genesis of the World War an Introduction to the Problem of War Guilt, 1926 * British documents on the origins of the war 1898-1914, Vol XI, HMSO 1926. * Memorandum on Resignation by John Viscount, Morley, 1928, 39pp. * Alfred von Wegerer, A Refutation of the Versailles War Guilt Thesis, 1930 * Winston Churchill, The Great War Vol. 1, 1933 * Captain Russell Grenfell, Unconditional Hatred, German War Guilt and the Future of Europe (mainly about WW2) NY, 1954 * M. Balfour, The Kaiser and His Times, 1964 * Stewart Halsey Ross, Propaganda for War, How the United States Was Conditioned to Fight the Great War of 1914-18, 2009. Notes: Rudolf Steiner, The Karma of Untruthfulness Vol. 1 (13 lectures at Dornach, Switzerland, 4-31st December 1916), 1988, p.19. NB it’s available online as a Google-book, with the same pagination as here used. The new 2005 edition (subtitled Secret Societies, the Media, and Preparations for the Great War) has a fine Introduction by Terry Boardman. Barnes 1926, pp.284-8. Balfour, 1964, p.351. Ross, 2009, p.9. For a letter by US diplomat and presidential advisor Colonel E.House, concerning the pacific philosophy of the Kaiser, after a visit he paid in July 1914, see Barnes, p.523. For the ex-Kaiser’s view on ‘proof of Germany’s peaceful intentions’ i.e. how Germany had not prepared for war or expected it, see: My Memoirs, 1878-1918 by Ex-Kaiser William II, 1992, Ch.10 ‘The Outbreak of War.’ Morel, p.122: Germany had ‘for forty and four years kept the peace when war broke out in August ... No other Great Power can boast such a record.’ (Morel’s book may be viewed online) Balfour, 1964, p.354 Morel, 1916, pp.6, 8, 13 and 42. Churchill, 1933, Vol. 1, p.107. Churchill, ibid., has the British fleet secretly mobilised over the night of 29-30th July. Hugh Martin, in Battle, the Life-story of the Rt Hon. Winston Churchill, 1937: ‘Churchill, upon his own responsibility and against the express decision of the Cabinet, ordered the mobilisation of the Naval Reserve’ On the 27th, ‘the fleet [was] sent North to prevent the possibility of it being bottled up,’ p.105. A ‘Test Mobilisation’ of the entire Royal Navy paraded before the King on July 26th, at Spitalhead, after which the Navy was held full battle-readiness (The Life and Times of Lord Mountbatten, John Terrence 1968, p11-14); then, ‘On July 29th Churchill secretly ordered the core of the fleet to move north to its protected wartime base .. riding at top speed and with its lights out, it tore through the night up the North sea.’ (To End All Wars, How WW1 Divided Britain, 2011, Adam Hochschild, p.85). The first indication for the Kaiser of war-imminence, was when he learned that the English fleet ‘had not dispersed after the review at Spitalhead but had remained concentrated.’ (My Memoirs, p.241). Bertrand Russell, Autobiography, Vol. 1, 1967, p.239. H.G. Wells judged that: ‘I think he (Gray) wanted the war and I think he wanted it to come when it did ... The charge is, that he did not definitely warn Germany, that we should certainly come into the war, that he was sufficiently ambiguous to let her take a risk and attack, and that he did this deliberately. I think that this charge is sound.’ (Experiment in an Autobiography, II, 1934, p.770) Edward Grey letter Aug 1st: Britain’s ‘Blue Book,’ HMSO, 1926, p.261. See also Morley 1928, p.38-9. The noncommittal attitude expressed by Grey on August 1st to the German ambassador had been endorsed by the Cabinet and Prime Minister: Roy Jenkins, Asquith 1964, p.363. Steiner, Karma, p.18: Georg Brandes, Farbenblinde Neutralität, Zurich 1916 (Brandes was Danish). Steiner quotes extensively from it, Karma, pp. 14-23. Barnes, 1926, p.497. Loreburn, 1919, pp.15-19. Annika Mombauer, Helmuth von Moltke and the Origins of the First World War 2001 CUP p.219-223: Lichinowsky’s telegram misunderstood (NB I’m not endorsing her thesis of German war-guilt). Grey told cabinet about talk with Lichinowsky on 3rd, with a claim that the latter’s views were ‘merely personal and unauthorised.’ (Morley, pp.13-14) If so, why was the conversation recorded and published in Britain’s ‘White Book’ of key wartime documents? How could a German Ambassador make a merely personal proposal? Other such ‘White Book’ documents were recorded as personal, but not this one. As Morel pointed out (pp.26-7), the UK’s ‘Blue Book’ published its account of this interview with no hint that the Ambassador was merely acting privately - and Lichinowsky’s telegram to his Government dated 8.30 pm, August 1, indicated that he had been acting on ‘instructions.’ His offer was generally concordant with telegrams then being sent by the Kaiser and German Minister of Foreign Affairs. (Morel, p.26) Fuehr, 1915, pp.90, 117. (For comments on Fuehr see Ross 2009, pp.116-7: Fuehr’s account was ‘certainly biased’ but ‘well-documented.’) For the incriminating documents, see Ross p.300, note 55. The Kaiser recalled how piles of British army-coats and maps of Belgium were found concealed around the Belgian border, in anticipation of the war: My Memoirs, p.251-2. Ross, 2009, p.42. Steiner, Karma, pp.84-5. Ibid, p.86. Morel 1916, p.297. Ross, 2009, pp.15, 27. Ibid, p.3. Grenfell, 1954, p.125. Likewise from the French government: Barnes, ...For a general comment see Georges Thiel, Heresy: ‘One grows dizzy at the listing of all those lies [against Germany] which, afterwards, were demolished one after the other.’ Historical Review Press, 2006, p.31. For the Ex-Kaiser’s account of how, as he later learned, his telegrams considerably affected Tzar Nicholas in those crucial days, see: My Memoirs, Ch.10.

Sunday, 4 December 2011

Is Germany Responsible for the Financial Crisis?

Is Germany Responsible for the Financial Crisis? German bloggers Skeptissimus and Kairos contribute to the websites As der Schwerter. Kairos is also at Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit. By Skeptizissimus translated by Kairos, translation edited by Carolyn Yeager First of all, we Germans are hurt to hear such things. No one among the average citizens has the wish to harm other countries, or to exploit them. Especially for Greece and Spain, most of us have great sympathy. But more important, we ourselves suffer also from the Euro, the EU, the so-called financial crisis, and the crimes that are justified through it. As in Greece and Spain, everything has become more expensive in Germany through the Euro, partly the prices doubled and more. Germany is exactly like these countries—highly in debt, with the only difference that Germany still can afford to borrow. As in the other countries, the average citizens will pay for these national debts and will have to do without many things when it abruptly happens that there are no more loans to be had. As the other Europeans, the EU dictatorship also exploits and overrules the Germans. We Germans feel already that we will – again – become the scapegoat and be held responsible for everything. This is an experience that we already had to suffer in the context of the two “World Wars.” But now the following question: What is true in this picture of evil Germans who benefit from the Euro at the expense of the other countries, and dominate them politically? Especially: Why are such things claimed, and who benefits from these claims? We cannot blame anyone for believing it because politics and media in all countries repeat it, and our own chancellor joins them! Is it really true that Germany totally benefits from the Euro and the EU because it can export more easily to other European countries? German top-quality products such as Mercedes Benz and BMW cars will always be wanted around the entire world as long as they are better than similar products from other countries. When someone has their heart set on a German luxury car it is irrelevant if he pays 500 Euro more or less. The products Germany is famous for always sold well and Germany was “world champion of exports” even before the implementation of the Euro. Meanwhile, China exports more than Germany does, and this in spite of the Euro. China sells its products without problems to the whole world, in spite of the use of foreign currencies and import restrictions. Even before the Euro, most oranges in German supermarkets came from Spain and grapes and strawberries from Greece. This has not changed. One does not need a common currency for trade; a free-trade zone is enough. Let us assume that some private companies do benefit from the Euro; is the Euro also in the interest of the German people, then? As said before, the German people have only drawbacks from the Euro. Nearly everything has become more expensive, while salaries have not been raised. Franz-Ulrich Willeke (Deutschland, Zahlmeister der EU, Olzog Verlag, München 2011, 158 pages, 19.90 Euro) said that Germany paid 324 billion Euro to the EU since the “reunion" (that is 54,1% of the whole EU budget!) and got just 178 billion Euro from it (the “emergency chute” [Rettungsschirm] not being included here). That means Germany has donated 146 billion Euro to other countries in this timeframe! Why? This is money that should have been spent to satisfy the needs of the Germans in Germany. German streets have pot holes; the plaster comes off the walls in German schools; German swimming pools, libraries and theatres have to be closed because there is no money for them; and the retirement pay to the elderly is eaten up by inflation. But before this Germany has to pay her debts, as of 24.11.2011: 217, 282, 103, 154 Euro. The main beneficiaries of the transaction were other countries such as Spain and Greece, where streets, autobahns, seaports, train stations and tracks, airports and so on were renovated or built with EU grants. Ostensibly, it seems that the southern European countries benefit from the Euro. But as the “crisis” shows us, the Euro and the EU are bad for all. What exactly is happening now and how did the southern European countries come into their debt-entanglement? Greece, Spain and the other overly-indebted Eurozone countries had a weak economy long before World War II. They produced few export goods and had to go into debt to import many things they wanted and needed. The least painful way to deal with their mounting debt was inflation (printing more paper currency). Because of national debts, inflation, and a weak economy these countries had to pay ever higher interest rates for new loans, which is actually what saved them from increasing their indebtedness beyond a certain point. This situation changed abruptly with the Euro. With the substance of the economic giant Germany, a stable, hard currency and low priced loan conditions, the interest rates for these inflation-prone countries fell. During the course of an initial deceptive boom (the grants drove their economies and granted an illusion of improvement that, in fact, was not grounded in their own achievement), they borrowed unscrupulously and lived beyond their means. At a certain point in time it became clear that they could not pay back their debts. Now the stronger countries, with Germany at the head of the list, should assist them. The so- called “emergency chute” (Rettungsschirm) was born. This term, however, is thoroughly deceptive. The debts are so high that they never can be paid. The payments and guarantees from Germany only have the effect that the banks continue to collect interest at good rates for some time. This detail reveals that the real beneficiaries of the EU and the Euro is no one else but the banks—surely not the citizens of Germany. And as Germany is herself heavily over-indebted, and the guarantees and payments are beyond her strength, it is just a matter of time until Germany is forced into the abyss, too. Now it becomes clear how we come to the picture of Angela Merkel as strong women of Europe. The German chancellorette has to play a game—for reasons that will become clear in the following paragraphs—a game that clearly ruins the future of Germany. She can only belie it by acting as if it were possible for countries like Greece and Spain to solve their debt problem through saving measures. This she demands repeatedly and loudly, and tries to simulate strength. How did it come to a European Union and Euro in the first place? The question arises as to why Germany participates at all when there are only downsides for us. To understand this one has to go way back into the nineteenth century. It is a complex matter that will be hard for younger people to understand because in the educational system and in the media a different story is told. When one recognizes that history is written by the winners and that Germany was very destructively defeated in two world wars, the following explanations become easier to grasp. From the 17th to the first half of the 19th century, the Germany of today was divided into a mass of tiny, politically insignificant states. For the great powers of that time it was a blessing, as the German-speaking population was the largest folk of Europe. Germany was a sleeping giant. With the union of these states (without Austria and, of course, Switzerland) into the German Empire in the year 1871, France and England suddenly had a new competitor in the neighbourhood. The problem was not Germany’s military strength, as the Reich did not want to expand territorially (as stated by Bismarck). In fact, the German Empire until 1914 did everything to prevent wars. Economically, the new state left the former hegemony of England behind in many areas. The production of indigo is an example. England was leading in the global marketplace with the production of this dye, as the blue colour was fabricated in the crown-colony of India. After Germany developed a process to produce indigo chemically, England lost this role to its neighbour. So it was in many areas, and even other states (especially France and Russia, then also the USA) were not happy with the achievements of the Reich in science and economy. Already in 1897 England, France and the USA decided secretly to put away the competitors Germany and Spain. (This was first published in 1918 in the book The Problem of Japan by an anonymous author.) Already a war was waged against Spain in 1898 (the USA invaded with the ironclad USS Maine into the port of La Habana in the Spanish colony Cuba; the ship exploded and the Spanish were made responsible for it). The war against the German Empire could not be acted out until 1914. Germany and Austria faced 28 enemy states! Even though it is normally told differently today, sources such as the memoirs of Emperor Wilhelm II show that both states had no interest in acting out this war because it was clear from the beginning that they would face an invincible superiority. There was nothing to win. Although their enemies thought they would destroy the two Empires and occupy them, Germany especially defended herself unexpectedly well. In the end, the dictate of Versailles demanded loss of regions and astronomical reparation payments, but Germany continued to exist as a state. With Hitler there came a statesman who succeeded in freeing Germany step by step from this catastrophic situation. This brought the first signs that a new war would start. (Some things are seen as proof that Hitler was primarily, systematically supported by Germany’s enemies in order to have a justification for a destructive war. This, however, cannot be discussed here in detail.) England, France and the USA did everything to make a war happen (what the Allies also deny today). The activator was the conflict with Poland. This state was newly founded after World War I and had been given large areas that were former German territory. The German minority was brutally harassed. Poland tried to force new territories from Germany by continually threatening war. This attitude of Poland was backed and supported by England with a promise to protect her in case of a war. Germany declared war on Poland after provocations and crimes (e.g. mass murder of Germans) reached a level that no sovereign state can tolerate. Thereupon England and France declared war on Germany, the 40-some peace offerings made by Hitler since the beginning of the war having been declined, and this also is concealed today. In the end, Germany was destructively beaten by an unbelievably superior enemy. The Nazis did know that they could not win, but the Germans fought desperately because they knew that the enemy was remorseless. All cities with more than 60,000 inhabitants were destroyed by bombs. Millions of Germans were slain, burnt alive, raped and expelled, and the country was occupied. The allies took all that was left, first of all advanced technology and patents. The Germans are held responsible for terrible crimes. Through all the media and educational institutions that were first closed and then re- opened under the control of the allies, the accusations are constantly repeated but it is forbidden by law to discuss the topic freely. (Up till today it remains forbidden to talk freely about the so-called “Holocaust” and to research it scientifically; thousands of people are in jail for “the denial of the Holocaust” – a thought crime, and this not only in Germany.) Through a re-education program that was created mainly by Jewish scientists, ideologists and politicians, the German nation was forced to take the exclusive responsibility for World War II, and for many other crimes besides. He who takes the trouble to investigate with sources and to question the information of the school books and media critically can find proof for all of this. Educated people in all countries of the world know this background, but there are few of them and it is a forbidden truth. The mass of the population knows nothing about it because they get all their information from school, TV and the big newspapers. After Germany was wracked and ruined it took four years until the occupied country was given a new form of administration with the foundation of the BRD (FRG, West Germany). Until 1955, the allies had the official suzerainty over this state. Behind the curtains they’re still doing it today. In addition, they bound the new state to a bunch of structures that made sure they would stay in control. This began in 1951 with the Montan Union that allowed France to get access to the German coal-and steel production. From this structure emerged at first the European Community, then the European Union. As the end of the Soviet Union and the DDR (GDR, East Germany) became obvious and everyone knew that a reunion of the two Germany’s was at hand, France demanded that Germany accept a currency union (until today the French have control of the Euro through the European Central Bank). It was clear from the beginning that this would not be to the advantage of Germany: What advantage does it bring for a land with a strong economy and a hard currency to join with countries that have a weaker economy and inflation? Exactly for this reason England, Norway and Switzerland declined to participate in the Euro. They would only have disadvantages from it. The true background of the EU and the Euro were clearly spoken out by top German politicians within the last years. The EU-Commisario Günter Verheugen said on a talk show that both (EU and Euro) are there only for one reason: to control Germany. The current Finance Minister of Germany, Wolfgang Schäuble, said last month, November 2011, at a bank-summit, that Germany has not been sovereign since 1945, and that in the next months the EU will become a financial union! Angela Merkel and the majority of the other politicians are still lying that the Euro will only bring luck and blessings to the Germans. Frequently it is said that peace in Europe is bound to the Euro. When one has the information delivered in this paper, he knows what is meant by these words. The whole thing is even more complex because wars are never waged because they are in the interest of the participating folks. Even the two World Wars did not happen because Frenchmen, Englishmen and Russians simply hate Germans and the other way around. There were war-beneficiaries then and there are war-beneficiaries now. In both cases the trail can be followed to the banks, to Wall Street and to the Rothschild Empire. (A study at the University of Zurich showed that there are 147 company-groups behind the 40,000 largest multinational companies, such as Goldman Sachs, AXA and the Deutsche Bank. If one researches further it becomes clear that all these companies are bound directly or indirectly to the Rothschild Empire.) In this dirty game, it is routine to agitate folks and religions against one another. But Germans, Greeks, Spaniards and other European folk have no reason to hate one another. Please help more people get this information to help in our struggle against these life-threatening lies!