Human rights advice for homeless to deter councils' heavy-handed tactics
Rush to clear central London of rough sleepers prior to 2012 Olympics could be
breaching human rights, charities fear
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/dec/09/human-rights-advice-homeless
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/christian.charity.launches.human.rights.gu\
ide.for.homeless/24844.htm
Mark Gould - The Guardian, Wednesday 9 December 2009

Charities are so concerned that authorities are using excessively heavy-handed
tactics to eradicate street homelessness that they have issued a guide to rough
sleepers about their human rights.

Housing Justice, Liberty and the Simon Community are among the eight charities
that fear police, local councils and the voluntary organisation working with
them may be breaching human rights in the rush to clear central London of rough
sleepers before the 2012 Olympics.

A booklet, Rights Guide for Rough Sleepers, is being handed out this week to
explain police powers in relation to stop and search, arrest, drunkenness,
obstructing the highway, and urinating in public places. The pocket-sized,
water-resistant booklet points out: "You cannot be arrested just because you
look weird, or are dressed in scruffy clothes. The police officer must have a
reason to think you are up to no good – it has to be more than a hunch." It also
sets out a series of questions based on problems raised by people attending
Salvation Army and women's drop-in centres.

Sally Leigh, London coordinator at Housing Justice, says it is not uncommon for
rough sleepers to be woken up and moved along, or even be stopped and searched,
several times a night. Some parts of the City of London have become "dispersal
zones" – in effect, no-go areas.

One of Leigh's main concerns is the continuing practice of "wetting down"
doorways or other places where people sleep, which was introduced as part of
Operation Poncho in 2008 by the City of London Corporation, in partnership with
the police and homelessness charity Broadway.

"In the early hours of the morning, they target 'hot spots' where groups of two
or more are sleeping and wake them up and use stop and search techniques that
they call a 'welfare check'," Leigh explains. "A Corporation of London water
bowser sprays a jet of high pressure water on the spot several times during the
night so they can't go back to sleep. We think this borders on a kind of
torture."

Val Stevenson, a trustee of The Pavement, the free magazine for homeless people,
another contributor to the guide, says that it is "inundated" with inquiries
from readers asking: "Is this lawful?" If, for example, they ask if they can
urinate in the streets, they will be advised that "this is wrong – don't do it".
But if the query is about being moved along eight times in one night, the answer
will be: "What they are doing to you is wrong".

She says "stop and search" is a particular problem. "One man, woken at 2am four
nights in a row, moved on and lost contact with his homelessness worker."

Howard Sinclair, chief executive of Broadway, denies that rough sleepers have
been subjected to being sprayed with water, or any other coercive behaviour.

He insists that Broadway supports homeless people to get into work or training,
and to get back to their home countries if they are from eastern Europe, and
that he has never had any complaints from them. Since the outreach operation
began in April 2008, it has helped more than 500 homeless people. "We have to
confront people living on the streets where it is dangerous," Sinclair says.
"Life expectancy is around 38 if you're taking drugs. We confront people,
saying: 'You should not be here.' We know we can get people off the streets."

Sinclair agrees that a rights guide is useful, as the number of people on the
streets has risen slightly. Latest figures from the Combined Homeless and
Information Network (Chain) showed that 1,441 people were seen rough sleeping in
London between July and September 2009 – an increase of 169 compared with the
previous quarter, but 21 fewer than in the same period last year. At a memorial
service last month for rough sleepers who have died on the streets in the last
12 months, 200 names were read out – a 25% increase on 2008, which homelessness
charities attribute to the cold winter.

"No one would find it acceptable to sweep the streets of the homeless, but we
have mechanisms to get people off the street into some sort of accommodation,"
Sinclair says.

The City of London Corporation denies that its tactics are excessive. A
spokeswoman says: "We cannot simply leave rough sleepers. We need to engage with
them, check on their welfare, and offer them support. Our outreach workers do
everything they can to ensure their particular needs and requirements are met.
No one needs to sleep rough within the City of London area as we have pledged to
find appropriate accommodation for all who wish to access it."

The Rights Guide for Rough Sleepers is available from housingjustice.org.uk and
thepavement.org.uk

----- Original Message -----

From: dansunrise2009

To: diggers350@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 12:39 AM

Subject: [diggers350] Urgent Action Needed: Somerset County Farms Under Threat

 

Today/Tomorrow (Tuesday 8th December), the Conservative administration of Somerset County Council plan to meet in secret to decide whether to accept a proposal to sell off, with immediate effect, ALL County Farms.

This will be to the highest bidder at auction. The aim is to raise short term funds...obviously at the cost of the future food security of Somerset, and in opposition to their moral responsibilities as custodians of an entrusted estate. The County Farm estate is a community asset. SCC have been stripping it for years, but this will be the final nail in the coffin. It stands in direct opposition to last weeks NFU South West report on the value of County Farms - http://www.nfuonline.com/x43591.xml

Anybody in Somerset who wishes to oppose this, please get in touch ASAP. Tonight, at a meeting of Somerset Land and Food, representatives of groups including the Soil Association, Wessex Community Assets, Somerset Community Food, Somerset Primary Care Trust and many others, all agreed to oppose the move with a united voice.

Email dansunrise@gmail.com if you feel you can help in this campaign. Otherwise, write to the press, your local member and shout it out everywhere you can.

Cheers,
Dan

Subject: Fwd: Fw: Cissbury victory
From:    "downlanders" <action4access@...>
Date:    Sun, December 6, 2009 6:07 pm

Dear All,
The Worthing land is not going to be sold off, hooray.  See the report
below. Big thank you to the campaigners for all their work and to any of you
who wrote letters / emails.
Keep Our Downs Public!


*STOP CISSBURY SELL OFF*

*4th December 2009*

*Worthing to retain its Cissbury Downland*

*Leadership Councillor Steve Waight supports the improvement of public
access and the enhancement of this public downland*



Worthing Council’s Cabinet unanimously agreed to withdraw the Council’s
Cissbury downland from sale yesterday, December 3rd.

Councillor Steve Waight, the Cabinet Member for Resources and Business
Modernisation went further, though, and, in a prolonged exchange with
questioners, conceded most of what protestors have been calling for.

120 protestors had turned up to demonstrate on the steps of the Town Hall
and crowded into the Cabinet meeting. Their numbers amply corroborated Cllr
Waight’s statement that “more local people had responded to him on this
issue than any other in his 18 years as a councillor”.

*Retaining control not just ownership*

In his responses to SCSO supporters Cllr Waight categorically stated that,
in addition to retaining the freehold, the Council “will also retain control
over the land”. He stressed that the primacy of the issue of public access
had been heard and understood by him and that he had heard the call both to
protect the land as it was and to enhance it.

Cllr Waight and Steve Coe, Worthing Council’s Estates Manager, reported that
a meeting had taken place earlier in the day with officials from Natural
England, the South Downs Joint Committee (SDJC) and the National Trust. In
this meeting there was discussion of the nature of the external funding that
Natural England could make available to the Council, chiefly through the
agri-environmental Higher Level Stewardship scheme (HLS), and the support
that both the National Trust and the SDJC were able to offer.

Steve Coe indicated that they will have further meetings with these bodies
to address the options available to the Council.

*No sale of long term leases*

Cllr Waight said that the length of any new lease was yet to be determined,
but indicated a positive attitude to the idea of new leaseholds coterminous
with the ten year duration of each HLS agreement. He stated that there had
been interest expressed from farmers and landholders neighbouring the
Council’s downland. He said that it was necessary for the Council to address
immediate legal technicalities with regard to the cessation of the past
agricultural tenancy, as part of the process.

There was no mention by Cllr Waight of the idea of the sale of long term
leases which had been a feature of both the Report to Cabinet and the
accompanying press release[i].

*Continuing public concern and sense of exclusion*

Questioners repeatedly stressed their suspicion of the Council’s intentions
and their opposition to the truncation of the review that had earlier been
announced (circa 10th November) by Cllrs Waight and Yallop, the Council
Leader. They urged that the final proposals for the downland should be made
fully public and consulted on widely, and criticized the opaque nature of
these events. Cllr Yallop reminded the meeting of his action a year ago to
make public the details of the sale. Cllr Waight stated that the review had
been on the issue of sale alone, not on the wider management concerns, which
did not quell questioners concern at their exclusion from the process of
considering this issue.

*A good first step*

This result is a good first step, though taken within the context of these
ongoing concerns.

Stop Cissbury Sell Off will continue to press the views of residents and
users of this downland, and to press for the democratic accountability of
future management decisions over Worthing’s public downland.

A public information meeting is being arranged by us early next year, when
details of progress will be discussed. It is planned to invite Worthing
Council representatives to brief us on what they are doing.

------------------------------

[i] ‘Agricultural Land at Tenants Hill and Mount Carvey’. Report by the
Executive Head of Technical Services, Cabinet 3 December 2009, Agenda Item
9, Para 3.2, and Worthing Council press release ‘Cissbury farmland withdrawn
from sale’ 26/11/2009.




--
ACTION FOR ACCESS
walking and working for a people's countryside

Today/Tomorrow (Tuesday 8th December), the Conservative administration of
Somerset County Council plan to meet in secret to decide whether to accept a
proposal to sell off, with immediate effect, ALL County Farms.

  This will be to the highest bidder at auction. The aim is to raise short term
funds...obviously at the cost of the future food security of Somerset, and in
opposition to their moral responsibilities as custodians of an entrusted estate.
The County Farm estate is a community asset. SCC have been stripping it for
years, but this will be the final nail in the coffin. It stands in direct
opposition to last weeks NFU South West report on the value of County Farms -
http://www.nfuonline.com/x43591.xml

  Anybody in Somerset who wishes to oppose this, please get in touch ASAP.
Tonight, at a meeting of Somerset Land and Food, representatives of groups
including the Soil Association, Wessex Community Assets, Somerset Community
Food, Somerset Primary Care Trust and many others, all agreed to oppose the move
with a united voice.

  Email dansunrise@... if you feel you can help in this campaign.
Otherwise, write to the press, your local member and shout it out everywhere you
can.

Cheers,
    Dan

Skint star Vernon Burgess is dreaming of a Christmas No.1

For broadband users Vernon's Song for Diggers list members on mp3
http://www.bilderberg-mirror.org.uk/vernon.mp3
If you like it please pass the song on.

Nov 26 2009 by Kat Keogh, Birmingham Mail
http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2009/11/26/skint-star-vernon-burg\
ess-is-dreaming-of-a-christmas-no-1-97319-25253763/

HE'S probably Birmingham's most unlikely reality TV star.

But Vernon Burgess, a Big Issue seller and star of cult BBC1 show Skint, is back
– and this time he's set his sights on scoring a Christmas No.1.

Vernon, who grew up in Kings Heath, shot to fame five years ago thanks to his
star turn on Skint, which followed the likes of the former mechanic as they
struggled to make ends meet.

The 44-year-old's cheeky chappie persona earned him his own spin-off show and he
is now hoping to move back into the limelight with a charity Christmas single.

The track, called Vernon's Song, was recorded with the help of Moseley record
producer Tim Sherlock-Brown and features backing vocals from girl band Belle
Sorelle, who reached the boot camp stage of this year's X Factor.

"I'm really proud of it," said dad-of-two Vernon. "People who see me in the
street remember me from Skint, but with the single they'll now remember me for
two things."

Vernon, who now lives in a council flat in Brierley Hill, insisted that the song
had the potential to beat this year's X Factor Christmas single.

"Everyone who has heard it so far has loved it," said Vernon. "The parts where I
sing is about having people to lean on during the bad times and, after living on
the streets for 19 months, it's good to raise money for homeless people."

Some 20 per cent of the profits will go to good causes, including homeless
charity St Basil's, Caring at Christmas, Thames Reach and Liverpool Habitat for
Humanity.

A Facebook group, Vernon's Song for Christmas No. 1, has attracted more than 600
members.

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2009/11/26/skint-star-vernon-burg\
ess-is-dreaming-of-a-christmas-no-1-97319-25253763/

"Our terms of reference are very broad, but the essential points, as set out by the Prime Minister and agreed by the House of Commons, are that this is an Inquiry by a committee of Privy Counsellors. It will consider the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009, embracing the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, the military action and its aftermath. We will therefore be considering the UK's involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned. Those lessons will help ensure that, if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country." 

WHO DIVIDED GERMANY AND WHY?

By Brian Mitchell
The media recently (November 2009) has been awash with its occasional historical
propaganda reminder about the Berlin Wall, built by those nasty socialists to
divide Germany to keep the East German people away from our wonderful freedom
and democracy.
The truth, however, is entirely different.
As this article will show, with all the evidence necessary to convince even the
most reactionary mind, it was not the East, but the West that wanted to divide
Germany and Europe.
The reason for the post-war division of Germany has to be seen, as with any
other historical geo-political topic, in the context of the underlying Cold War
ideology bearing on it.
In the case of the division of Germany, this means we have to understand what
fear created it, who was afraid of who, and why.
The following is re-constructed from a series of articles, themselves chapters
from a Cold War history book I originally wrote and intended as a Ph.D. but
never gave myself time off from other work to submit a proposal and present it
academically; although it is written in a fully referenced academic style.
References have been omitted for reasons space and of readability flow.

When Did The Cold War Begin?
The Cold War started not, as mainstream Tellytubby history maintains, in the
immediate post-war period; not in the 1950s or 60s. No. The Cold War started as
soon as there was somebody to have a cold war about. The Cold War started
following the Russian Revolution of November 7-8 1917, when Russia's wealth fell
into the hands of the Russian people.
The Cold War didn't come from the politically conscious working class, who
greeted the revolution with enthusiastic support. It came from the capitalists,
whose newspapers screamed:
"a danger as grave as was the invasion of Gengis Khan or Tamerlane"
(Daily Chronicle Dec 18 1918.)
"The remedy for Bolshevism is bullets."
(The Times, Nov 1917.)
"A condition of barbarism worse than the Stone Age."
"The Bolshevik baby should have been strangled in its cradle."
"Of all the tyrannies in history the Bolshevik tyranny is the worst, the most
destructive, the most degrading."
"...the avowed enemies of civilisation."
"An infected Russia, a plague-bearing Russia."
"The dark conspirators in the Kremlin."
"Diabolical machinery all over the world."
  (Winston Churchill.)
Others were even more ridiculous:
Rankin:"Is it true that they eat human bodies there in Russia?"
Bullitt:"I did see the skeleton of a child eaten by its parents."
Rankin:"Then they're just like human slaves in Russia?"
Bullitt:"There are more human slaves in Russia than ever existed anywhere in the
world."
Rankin:"You said before that sixty percent of the Communist Party here are
aliens. Now what percent of these aliens are Jews?
... Is it true, Mr. Bullitt, that the Communists went into the southern states
and picked up niggers and sent them to Moscow to study revolution?
Are you aware they teach niggers to blow up bridges?"
(Testimony of William C. Bullitt to US Un-American Activities Committee.)
"Bolshevism is worse than war."
(Herbert Hoover, Chairman of the American Relief Administration.)
"No one could tell what would emerge from the immense, horrible catastrophe of
Russia, except that it would probably be something very menacing to civilisation
and very dangerous to the peace of Europe and Asia... His Majesty's Government
does not recognise the Petrograd Administration as a de jure or de facto
Government."
(British Foreign Secretary Balfour, to Parliament, Jan 16 1918.)
"The liquidation of the Bolsheviks is only a matter of days or even hours."
(Daily Chronicle, Nov 12 1917.)
"I would very much like the Bolsheviks to have it [poison gas BM.]."
(Winston Churchill, April 1919,, approving General Sir William Ironside's plan
to use poisonous gas against the Soviets.)
Why do you think they hated the Russian Revolution? Would the following have
anything to do with it?:
"Russia is a great country. You all know, because you are intimately connected
with it in your business, what the potentialities of Russia are, whether it be
from the point of view of manufacture or the point of view of mineral wealth, or
any other thing, because Russia has everything."
(Sir Francis Baker, European manager of Vickers, Chairman of the Russo-British
Chamber of Commerce.)
"Siberia, the most gigantic prize offered to the civilised world since the
discovery of the Americas."
(British Federation of Industries Bulletin.)
"In oil Baku is incomparable... Baku is greater than any other oil city in the
world."
(From the British journal "The Near East".)
"Russia, with her 180,000,000 of people, with her fertile soil stretching from
Central Europe across Asia to the shores of the Pacific and from the Arctic down
to the Persian Gulf and the Black Sea... market possibilities such as even the
most optimistic dared not dream of... Russia, potentially and actually - the
granary, the fishery, the lumber-yard, the coal, gold, silver and platinum mine
of the world."
(From the Business journal "Japan Salesman".)
Similar ideas were in the mind of another capital aim a few years later:
"If I had the Ural Mountains with their incalculable treasures of raw materials,
Siberia with its vast forests, and the Ukraine with its tremendous wheat fields,
Germany and the National Socialist leadership would swim in plenty."
(Adolf Hitler, Sept 12 1936.)
The first act of the new Soviet Government, early in the morning after the very
night it took power, was the Decree on Peace:
"The Workers' and Peasants' Government created by the Revolution... supported by
the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies, proposes to all
combatant peoples and their governments to begin immediate negotiations for a
just and democratic peace... To continue this war in order to determine how to
divide the weak annexed nationalities between the powerful and rich nations, the
Government considers the greatest crime against humanity... The Government
abolishes secret diplomacy... conduct all negotiations quite openly before the
whole people, proceeding forthwith to the publication in full of the secret
treaties... concluded by the Government of landlords and capitalists... All the
contents of these secret treaties ...are hereby unconditionally and completely
annulled. ...government of Russia addresses itself in particular to the class
conscious workers ...England, France and Germany... to free mankind from the
horrors of war and its consequences..."
(From the Decree on Peace; the first act of the new Soviet Government, Nov 8
1917.)
The Soviet peace proposals were completely rejected by the governments of
Britain, France, the US and others. The Russian workers thought it better to
make a separate peace with the Germans than continue to drag on a war for
objectives hidden in their capitalist rulers' secret treaties.

The Secret Wars Of Intervention.
"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive �it is the right of the
people to alter it."
(The US Declaration of Independence.)
"No nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that
everyone has a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to
live under."
(US President George Washington.)
"Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise
up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them
better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right � a right which we hope
and believe is to liberate the world."
(US President Abraham Lincoln.)
"Any nation's right to a form of government and economic system of its own
choosing is inalienable... Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations
their form of government is indefensible."
(US President Eisenhower.)
The capitalist governments feared the idea of a state run by the working class,
in case workers in their own countries should also dare to want to run their
countries without capitalists.
A secret treaty signed in Paris in December 1917 by the Allied representatives
of Britain, France, and other Western powers was for joint military intervention
and the division of Russia into spheres of influence.
In 1918 the new Soviet state was invaded by the armies of fourteen capitalist
nations led by Britain, France, Germany, Japan and the USA, and included
Finland, Poland and Czechoslovakia.
British school syllabus and mainstream history books largely ignore the Wars of
Intervention against Soviet Russia.
British plans to attack Russia in 1917 had to be kept from public opinion:
"We should represent to the Bolsheviks that we have no desire to take part in
any way in the internal politics of Russia... It is essential that this should
be done as quietly as possible, so as to avoid the imputation - as far as we can
- that we are preparing to make war on the Bolsheviks." (My italics BM)
(From the secret Balfour Memorandum, adopted by the War Cabinet on Dec 21 1917.)
"Of course we are at war with Soviet Russia, but as far as the press and public
are concerned we are not."
(Written reply given to a journalist at the War Office in Nov 1919.)
"It is necessary to take steps to put the Bolsheviks in the wrong, not only
before public opinion, but before those who hold the view that Bolshevism is
democracy gone astray with large elements of good in it."
(British Foreign Secretary Balfour. 1919.)
"It would be absolutely fatal to the success of military operations to allow
freedom of speech and propaganda to the Bolsheviks... Here amongst the working
classes Bolshevism has many devoted adherents."
(General Poole, British interventionist armies, Sept 15 1918.)
"In pursuance of the cabinet instructions I saw Sir George Riddell about the
anti-Bolshevist campaign. He told me... to get together all the facts on the
subject... and he would arrange for the facts to be distributed to the more
important popular papers." (My italics. B.M.)
(Note from Lord Robert Cecil to Lloyd George, Nov 20 1918.)
"So little of this appeared in print that not only was the newspaper reader at
the time kept in ignorance of the role his countrymen were playing in the
intervention, but the student of today can find little reference to it in his
country's history books."
(Phillip Knightly "The first Casualty: The War Correspondent As Hero,
Propagandist, and Myth Maker.")
"One of the most deadly weapons wielded by the ruling classes of all countries
is their power to censor the press; for thereby they are able to create under
the pretext of military necessity an artificial public opinion with the object
of hiding their fell designs. ...never was it more obvious that the governments
of the Central Powers and the Allies, in order to suppress the workers and
peasants revolution in Russia, must hide from their own people the truth about
this revolution, must represent it to the proletariat of the West as the work of
a gang of robbers... I am in a position to see more clearly than those outside
this iron ring the power possessed by the ruling classes... Telegrams to my
newspaper are suppressed or if passed by the British censor are decapitated, so
that no sense is left in them... provocative rumours about what is happening
here are spread in London and Paris and my attempts to deny them are frustrated.
All the technical apparatus of the capitalist states of Western Europe is set in
motion against those whose duty it is to tell the truth."
(Manchester Guardian correspondent in Russia Morgan Philips Price, 1918.)
Douglas Young, the British Consul at Archangel in the Northern USSR, where
invading British troops were landed, exposed the interventionist plans:
"During my eleven years' service under the Foreign Office... I have seen how the
direction of foreign affairs is the class preserve of an exclusive class
bureaucracy; ...The plea of 'State Secrecy' is used by this bureaucracy to
conceal their blunders, which often involves the lives of thousands of people...
This British Government... proceeded to suppress any news or any expression of
opinion which did not coincide with their preconceived ideas... misrepresent and
blacken every action of the Soviet Government, giving either deliberately untrue
or evasive replies to the independent members of all parties who have tried by
questions in Parliament to extract the truth; though there is, of course, always
the possibility that Ministers have not been allowed by their officials to know
what was going on."
(Douglas Young, "Britain and Russia", Daily Herald, December 14 1918.)
Young was removed from office and recalled. His dismissal was even considered:
"The only point that occurs to me is whether he (Young) would not be rather
dangerous if dismissed from the Service. He can make out a rather plausible
pro-Bolshevist case... and it would be extremely inconvenient to have him at
large countering such anti-Bolshevist propaganda as we are able to conduct."
(J.D.Gregory, British Foreign Office Chief, April 3 1918.)
"The unfortunate thing is that in substance he (Young) has been proved right."
(Lord Curzon, on the question of Douglas Young.)
Invading foreign armies eventually surrounded a small area of central Russia.
The Soviets had to fight or be crushed.
Foreign armies were eventually forced to withdraw because of the lack of any
mass support from the Soviet people:
"The evidence that came home from our most trusted and best informed agents in
Russia convinced me they although the majority of the people were not
Communists, they preferred Bolshevik rule to that of the supporters of the old
regime... They did not want the landowners back. The revolution had given
them... ownership of the land they imperfectly cultivated, and they did not like
the idea of foreigners coming with arms into their country to restore the old
order of landlord domination and exaction."
(Lloyd George, in "The Truth About the Peace Treaties.")
Further evidence of this was revealed by US intelligence officer Lieutenant
Colonel Eichelberger on November 7 1919, and not declassified until 55 years
later:
"...the Kolchak government... backed strongly by England... has not been able to
withstand the advances of the Red Army... The Russian peasant, after a year of
the Kolchak government, can only point to... his villages burned; his goods
stolen... Many of the reports which have reached the world concerning the merits
of the Kolchak government, have emanated from the British Government... ...the
[anti-Soviet BM] government has been engaged in fighting democracy."
(Secret US report of Nov 7 1919, declassified in 1974.)
"We had failed to create a reliable Russian Army... now there was nothing to be
gained by British forces remaining at Archangel a day longer than necessary."
(British War Office Document 33.950.)
"Situation is becoming more and more hopeless. Bolsheviks are masters of the
situation."
(British Ambassador George Buchanan, in a report to London, Sept 18 1917.)
And the British capitalists failed to influence public opinion strongly enough
for continued intervention:
"The difficulties of the Entente in formulating a Russian policy have indeed
proved insurmountable, since in no allied country has there been a sufficient
weight of public opinion to justify armed intervention against the Bolsheviks on
a decisive scale, with the inevitable result that military operations have
lacked cohesion and purpose."
(Sir Henry Wilson, British Chief of Staff, Dec 1 1919.)
"The Soviet government is firmly established and the Communist Party is strong
politically and morally... the Soviet government is the only constructive force
in Russia today... No government save a socialist government can be set up in
Russia today except by foreign bayonets, and any government so set up will fall
the moment such support is withdrawn."
(William Bullitt, American agent on a mission to Soviet Russia, in a telegram to
US President Woodrow Wilson, 1919.)
Counter-revolution from within and intervention from without forced the Soviets
to build a workers' Red Army in order to maintain strong defences against
capital, which they knew would never leave them in peace. Even British spy
Captain Francis McCullough admitted that:
"...the abolition of war and militarism is one of the great objectives of the
Communists. ...it was the attacks made on them by Denikin, Kolchak, the Czechs,
the British, the French, the Americans and others which made them take up arms
to defend their existence... Had it not been for the intervention... there would
have been no Red Army in Russia. The Bolsheviks are pacifists and
anti-militarists."
(British spy in Russia Captain Francis McCullough. 1920.)
Now began a long and arduous task of building a modern industrial Socialist
State in a backward country covering one sixth of the earth, under a complete
economic blockade, with a national "debt" to imperialism of 80,000,000,000 gold
roubles, with material losses from a war of $60,000,000,000 for which the
invading nations paid not a penny of reparations, and with a nation of
uneducated workers and peasants 80% of whom were illiterate.
No other socio-economic system has ever industrialised on such a vast scale and
so rapidly. Even in two centuries, capitalism has not solved a single problem
facing mankind - poverty, starvation, homelessness, education, medicine, health,
unemployment, wars, economic security and stability.
While the Soviet people; surrounded by a hostile capitalist world which was
already plotting their destruction; built the heavy industry necessary for their
massive agricultural, health, education, housing and industrial programmes of
the 1920s and 30s, including massive dams, hydro-electric power and
electrification of the whole country - a project no capitalist country could
undertake even today; the capitalist world was already heading for economic and
social crisis, fascism and another war:
"Unless drastic measures are taken to save it, the capitalist system throughout
the civilised world will be wrecked within a year."
(Governor of the Bank of England Montague Norman in a letter to the Governor of
the Banque de France M.Monet in 1931.)

A Solution To Capitalism In Crisis: Adolf Hitler Is Brought To Power
In January 1933 after a meeting between German big capitalists and Nazi leader
Adolf Hitler, Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany.
"I met the Fuhrer for the first time in 1927... recognising that only the policy
of Adolf Hitler could lead to our goal, I put myself completely at the services
of his movement, beginning with that time... As a result of a pamphlet written
by the Fuhrer which I distributed, several meetings took place between the
Fuhrer and leading personalities from industry in which Adolf Hitler formulated
his ideas in a brief and clear cut form."
(Head of the Rhine-Westphalia Coal Syndicate Emil Kirdorf. 1934.)
"I established the connection between Hitler and the important industrialists...
It is generally known that on 27 January 1932 � a year before he came to power
� Adolf Hitler made a 2� hour speech in the Industrialists' Club in
Dusseldorf. This speech made a deep impression on the assembled industrialists,
and as a result, a number of substantial donations began to flow from the
sources of the heavy industries into the funds of the NSDAP [National Socialist
German Workers' Party � the Nazi Party B.M.]... In the last years before the
seizure of power the large industrial associations provided funds continuously."
(German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, in his book "I Paid Hitler", 1941.)
The banks and the big monopolies of Krupp, IG-Farben, Flick and Thyssen paid
over 60 million Reichsmarks a year to the Nazi Party between 1933 and 1945,
totalling over 700 million Reichsmarks.
"Hitler had only to command and the most powerful of the pre-nazi potentates
would snap to obey - or else. Our poking about in the Villa Hugel and
questioning of Alfred Krupp and his works managers erased that impression. Adolf
Hitler and his party had never been allowed quite to forget that they had
depended upon the industrialists to put them in office, and in the future they
could go further with the industrialists' help than without it."
(James Martin, post-war US military administration section leader in Berlin.)
"It is not true that the big German industrialists joined national socialism at
the last moment... They were its enthusiastic promoters from the very beginning.
Seizure of power by the national socialists was only made possible with the
support of the German heavy industries and high finance. Conversion of the
German economy to a war economy and to the feverish armament for the war of
aggression was made under direct guidance of the German industrialists."
(From the US Senate Kilgore Committee, Oct 1945.)
Much the same as with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, British and American capitalists
who financed German fascism, then, at the end of the war, put the "fascists" on
trial.
A brief description of fascism is that it is naked capitalism � capitalism
stripped of its mask of democracy. It is necessary to be aware of the
distinction that Hitler's racism was against the Slavic and other races and the
Jews; but his fascism was essentially against the organised working class, their
trade unions and political parties, especially where it held real political
power � the USSR. This was what big business invested in and made Hitler and
the Nazis and their organisations powerful, not Hitler's racism against the
Jews. Indeed, rich Jews invested in German Fascism.

Who Supported The Nazis?
"I agree with the words spoken by Herr Hitler last month when he said that
cooperation between our two peoples in full confidence with one another would be
fortunate for the whole world."
(British Prime Minister Chamberlain, in a speech at Blackburn, Feb 22 1939.)
British political support and armaments soon began to flow in large quantities
to Germany.
German Fascism had many friends and supporters in British big business, the
British landed aristocracy, Royal family, bankers, finance and industrial
capital, press lords and Government ministers. They included Prime Minister
Neville Chamberlain, Governor of the Bank of England Sir Montague Norman, Home
Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare, British Ambassador in Germany Sir Nevile Henderson,
Lord and Lady Astor (Marquis of Londonderry, owner of the Observer, Secretary
for Air 1931-35, owners of the Clivedon estate - where the Munich deal was
planned), J.J.Astor, Chairman of The Times, Winston Churchill, the Duke of
Hamilton, Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax, Chancellor of the Exchequer Sir John
Simon, the Windsors and other members of the Royal family. It was the Duke of
Hamilton's estate on which Hitler's deputy Rudolf Hess landed during the war in
1941 in order to try and conclude an alliance between Britain and Germany
against the USSR.
As First World War reparations, Germany was to pay thirty thousand million
dollars over 58 years. But just after the war ended the US loaned Germany ten
thousand million dollars under the Dawes Plan in order to prevent Germany from
going communist. It was the same pattern after the Second World War, when war
reparations and debts were waived and billions of dollars of capital were pumped
into Germany under the Marshall Aid plan to prevent Germany again going
communist.
Thus Germany was built up as the "bulwark against Communism" to the point that
she was able to launch another world war after only twenty years from losing the
first one.
"Will the Germans go to war again? I don't think that there is any doubt about
it; and the curious thing is that I am almost persuaded that some day we shall
have to let the Germans arm or we shall have to arm them... One of the present
menaces to peace in Europe today is the totally unarmed condition of Germany."
(Sir Arthur Balfour (Lord Riverdale), Advisor to the Treasury, Chairman and
Managing Director of Arthur Balfour Co. Ltd; Capital Steel Works, Sheffield;
Chairman of High Speed Alloys; in a speech reported in the Sheffield Daily
Telegraph, Oct 24 1933.)
As a result of the Treaty of Versailles Germany had lost its former colonies,
many to Britain. Germany was an imperial power without an empire or an army.
Germany continued to build up its military strength.
On October 14 1933 Germany withdrew from the Geneva disarmament conference. On
October 19 1933 Germany walked out of the League of Nations (forerunner of the
UN). On March 13 1935 Germany repudiated the Treaty of Versailles, which forbade
Germany to re-arm. On March 16 1935 Germany introduced universal military
conscription; and an Anglo-German agreement was signed enabling Germany to
increase its Navy more than five times. And British Labour Prime Minister Ramsey
MacDonald tabled a draft at the 1933 Geneva Disarmament Conference to double
Germany's land based forces from the Treaty of Versailles limit of 100,000 to
200,000.

Why Did They Support The Nazis?
"I wished to be the destroyer of Marxism. I will achieve this task."
(Adolf Hitler, at his trial, 1923.)
"It is one of the foremost aims of the NSDAP [Hitler's National Socialist German
Workers' Party B.M.] to overcome and destroy the Marxist world outlook, and to
liquidate its chief exponents."
(Hitler's chief Nazi ideologist Alfred Rosenberg.)
"The roots of the Hitlerite movement is the struggle against socialism, in other
words against Marxism."
(Karl Friederick von Siemens, in a lecture to General Electric bosses, Oct 27
1931.)
"Yes, we have taken the unalterable decision to tear Marxism out by its roots."
(Adolf Hitler, addressing the Dusseldorf Industrialist's Club, Jan 27 1932.)
"If the National Socialist Party collapses, there will be another 10 million
Communists in Germany."
(Adolf Hitler, to his financial backers, 1932.)
"We shall not only extirpate this plague. We shall tear the word "Marxism" out
of every book. In fifty years time no one in Germany is to know what that word
means."
(Goering, March 19 1933.)
"We have broken the international solidarity of the proletariat."
(Adolf Hitler, 1933.)
"National Socialism, with its philosophy based on the racial principle, has
recognised Bolshevism in the Jewish-Marxist doctrine as its principle adversary,
which tries to push forward the world revolution in the military or ideological
sphere, having Russia as its base, and which must be regarded as the fiercest
enemy of all German and European culture."
(Nazi Professor H. Ludat, 1939.)
"In their systematic destruction of all opposing groups, Hitler and Mussolini
had the communists first on their list. Among the early opponents of fascism,
the communists were in the forefront."
(From US Army bulletin "Army Talk." March 1945.)

Who Else Supported The Nazis And Why?
Support for German and Japanese fascists also came from capitalists everywhere
including Royal Dutch Shell, an Anglo-Dutch oil company which previously owned
the Russian Baku oil fields; ICI; the French Comite de Forges; US capitalists;
five major British banks, and US and French banks. Arming Germany and Japan were
Vickers Armstrong; Rolls Royce; ICI; Hawker; and the British Aluminium Company.
"The whole of Europe is filled with the spirit of revolution. There is a deep
sense not only of discontent but of anger and revolt among the workers against
pre-war conditions. The whole existing order in its political, social and
economic aspects is questioned by the masses of the population from one end of
Europe to the other."
(Lloyd George, in a secret memo. March 1919.)
"Bolshevism is spreading... It has invaded the Baltic provinces and Poland... we
have received very bad news regarding its spread to Budapest and Vienna. Italy,
also, is in danger... Therefore, something must be done against Bolshevism."
(French Premier Clemenceau, at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference.)
"The whole of American policy during the liquidation of the armistice was to
contribute everything it could to prevent Europe from going Bolshevik."
(Herbert Hoover, in charge of American relief in Europe, Aug 17 1921.)
"If the Powers succeeded in overthrowing Nazism in Germany, what would follow?
Not a Conservative, Socialist or Liberal regime, but extreme Communism. Surely
that could not be their objective? A Communist Germany would be infinitely more
formidable than a Communist Russia."
(Lloyd George. 1933.)
"Unity is essential and the real danger to the world today does not come from
Germany or Italy... but from Russia."
(Sir Arnold Wilson, House of Commons, June 11 1938.)
"I feel that if the Nazi regime in Germany is destroyed then the country will go
Communist."
(Marquess of Londonderry.")
"...the acute danger from Bolshevism that threatens Europe... The extension of
Bolshevism throughout Europe remains the fixed determination of Russia. It is
extraordinary that so many people in this country do not appear to be alive to
the dire peril that exists. �Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini are the direct
outcome of Bolshevism, and there can be no doubt that had it not been for them,
Bolshevism would be devastating the greater part of Europe today."
(Sir Robert Gower, The Times July 31 1936.)
"If we were to isolate Germany and therefore prove to the German people that
Herr Hitler had failed them... eventually they will discard him and seek another
God... There is only one, the anti-Christ of Communism."
(Sir Thomas Moore MP, Sunday Dispatch, Oct 22 1933.)
"In a very short time, perhaps in a year, perhaps in two, the Conservative
elements in this country will be looking to Germany as the bulwark against
Communism in Europe. She is planted right in the centre of Europe, and if her
defence breaks down against the Communists - only two or three years ago a very
distinguished German statesman said to me: " am not afraid of Nazism, but of
Communism" - and if Germany is seized by the Communists, Europe will follow;
because the Germans would make the best job of it that any country could. Do not
let us be in a hurry to condemn Germany. We should be welcoming Germany as a
friend."
(Lloyd George, House of Commons, Nov 28 1934.)
"I consider the danger from the left far exceeds the danger from the right, and
in the event of a new outbreak of communism in Germany, these organisations
[Nazi B.M.] would powerfully serve the cause of order."
(British Ambassador in Berlin Lord D'Abernon, in his diary, Nov 1920.)
"I ask those who hate Hitler... what has Hitler done of which we can reasonably
complain?... Let us try to forget his misdeeds of the past, and the methods
which, no doubt, we all of us deplore, but which I suggest have been very
largely forced upon him."
(British Tory MP C.T.Culverwell, Oct 6 1938.)
"I was at a loss to understand why we could not make common ground in some form
or other with Germany in opposition to Communism."
(Lord Londonderry, 1938.)
"The [Conservative B.M.] leaders... became extremely alarmed at the prospect of
the spread of the ideology of communism... to Great Britain itself. They were,
therefore, prepared to do almost anything to build up protection for British
capitalism and imperialism against the spread of this, to them, dangerous
disease, which had already gained a considerable hold amongst the British
working class... To fight this ideology must mean hostility to Russia...
throughout this period the major factor in European politics was the successive
utilisation by Great Britain... of various fascist governments to check the
power and danger and the rise of communism or socialism."
(Sir Stafford Cripps, Feb 1940.)
"Will the Germans go to war again? I don't think that there is any doubt about
it; and the curious thing is that I am almost persuaded that some day we shall
have to let the Germans arm or we shall have to arm them... One of the present
menaces to peace in Europe today is the totally unarmed condition of Germany."
(Sir Arthur Balfour (Lord Riverdale), Advisor to the Treasury, Chairman and
Managing Director of Arthur Balfour Co. Ltd; Capital Steel Works, Sheffield;
Chairman of High Speed Alloys; in a speech reported in the Sheffield Daily
Telegraph, Oct 24 1933.)
"From 1924 to 1929 a passion amounting almost to mania developed in the City of
London for lending money to Germany."
(Lord Boothby, 1934.)
"Who finances Germany? Without this country as a clearing house for payments and
the ability to draw on credits... Germany could have not have pursued her
plans... Time and again Germany has defaulted on her obligations, public and
private; but she has gone on buying wool, cotton, nickel, rubber and petrol
until her requirements were fulfilled, and the financing has been done directly
or indirectly through London..."
(Stock Exchange Gazette, May 3 1935.)
"We regret to admit that from a small but rather influential circle in the City
of London, there flows a constant stream of propaganda in favour of credits for
Germany. These propagandists say that a loan to Germany would be a twofold
investment. We could buy off German aggression, and by propping up an admittedly
desperate and faithless tyranny we could prevent Germany from falling into
Communism."
(From the City journal "The Banker", Feb 1937.)
"There can be no doubt that practically the whole of the free exchange available
to Germany for the purchase of raw materials was supplied directly and
indirectly by Great Britain.  If the day of reckoning ever comes, the liberal
attitude of the British Government in this matter may well be responsible for
the lives of many British soldiers and civilians. War materiel which will
eventually be used against this country could never have been produced but for
the generosity with which Great Britain is giving her enemy free exchange for
the purchase of raw materials."
(British economist Paul Einzig, "World Finance 1938-1939.")
"Huge German orders for rubber and copper were executed in London yesterday
regardless of cost. The buying of nearly 3,000 tons of copper sent the price
rocketing... Already Germany has bought over 10,000 tons this month in London
alone. The London Rubber Exchange enjoyed almost a record turnover owing to a
German order for 4,000 tons. The price shot up... Germany is reported to have
bought 17,000 tons already this month - two months' normal supply."
(News Chronicle Aug 19 1939. � 15 days before war started.)
"Only thirteen days before war was declared; 17,000 tons of rubber, 8,000 tons
of copper, large quantities of tin and lead, and other materials necessary for
armaments were furnished by Britain to Germany."
(British historian Ivor Montagu, in "The Traitor Class.")
"To execute the orders in time, heavy withdrawals were made from stores in the
UK. A third of our stocks of rubber and a quarter of our stocks of nickel have
gone and are now on their way to Germany. All deliveries have to be made by
September 1st. Mr Burgin, Minister of Supply, had the power to ban the deals,
but refused to do so."
(Evening Standard Aug 21 1939.)

Pushing Hitler Eastward
The Second World War began long before 1939. Germany, Italy and Japan signed the
Anti-Comintern Pact in 1936 and 1937. And from 1931, Japan invaded Manchuria and
the USSR, Italy invaded Abyssinia (Ethiopia), The Germans and Italians bombed
Spain and the democratically elected Republican government there was overthrown
and Franco's fascists siezed power, and Germany entered the Rhine zone and
seized Austria.
In all these actions Britain did nothing.
Not only did that same British government which launched wars of intervention
against the Soviets have a policy of "non-intervention" when the democratically
elected Spanish Republican Government requested aid against Franco's fascist
army, but they recognised Franco not long after he seized power.
On March 1 1938, the German army occupied Austria and incorporated it into the
Reich (Anschluss). Again, the British did nothing. The British and French
officially recognised the Anschluss.
Capitalism was in deepening crisis and making frantic preparations for war on
the Soviet Union. The imperialist powers of international finance capital were
already planning joint attacks on the newly built socialist state. Heads of
states, government ministers, members of the aristocracy, international bankers,
financiers and capitalists were careering about all over the globe conducting
secret talks, agreements, treaties and alliances.
Right up till September 1939, when war was declared by Britain, the "enemy" was
the 'nasty Russian Bolsheviks':
"Unity is essential and the real danger to the world today does not come from
Germany or Italy... but from Russia."
(Sir Arnold Wilson, House of Commons, June 11 1938.)
"The sturdy young Nazis of Germany are Europe's guardians against the Communist
danger... Germany must have elbow room... The diversion of Germany's reserves of
energies and organising ability into Bolshevik Russia would help to restore the
Russian people to a civilised existence, and perhaps turn the tide of world
trade once more towards prosperity. By the same process Germany's need for
expansion would be satisfied, and that growing menace which at present darkens
the horizon would be removed forever."
(Lord Rothermere, in his Daily Mail, Nov 28 1933.)
"We give Japan freedom of action with regard to Russia... We open to Germany the
way to the east by giving it a possibility of expansion."
(Lord Lloyd, 1934.)
"If Germany once again becomes a colonial power, not only will her interests
clash with ours in that field, but she will inevitably be drawn into rivalry
with us as a Naval Power. Surely, then it is the first elementary duty of
British statesmanship to see to it that the great energies, ambitions and
enthusiasms of the new Germany are directed into channels where they will not
clash with the essential interests of Great Britain."
(Churchill's son in law Duncan Sandys, member of the staff of the Foreign
Office, May 2 1935.)
"I am convinced that neither Germany nor the other fascist powers want to go to
war with the western democracies so long as these democracies do not hamper the
drive of fascism towards the East."
(US President Herbert Hoover. 1938.)
"Geographically Germany must occupy the predominating position in relation to
the States of central and south-eastern Europe. I do not see why we should
expect a fundamental change to take place in these regions. Far from this
country being concerned, we have no wish to crowd Germany out of these countries
or to encircle her economically. "
(Chamberlain, House of Commons, Nov 1 1938.)
"I would like to try... to discover in what direction the pressure of German
dynamism can be exercised, to examine if we can still consider this dynamism as
directed exclusively towards the East and to draw some practical conclusions for
our conduct."
(French Ambassador to Berlin Coulondre, to French Foreigh Minister Bonnet, March
19 1939.)
"By 1938 I had come to the conclusion that if a war occurred between Germany on
the one side and England and France on the other, it would result in either a
German victory or in a prostrate and devastated Europe. I, therefore, advocated
that England and France... permit Germany to expand Eastward into Russia without
declaring war."
(Lindburgh, to the America First Committee, Oct 30 1941.)
"The basic idea was that if Britain would leave Herr Hitler alone in his sphere
(Eastern Europe), he would leave us alone."
(British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, Aug 26 1939.)
"Tell your government that I am always ready to abrogate the Franco-Soviet pact
in order to conclude a broad based Franco-German pact."
(French Foreign Minister Pierre Lavalle to the German Ambassador in Paris.)
"Leave us our colonial empire and we'll let you have the Ukraine."
(French Foreign Minister Bonnet to Nazi Foreign Minister Ribbentrop.)

The West Rejects The Only Alliance That Can Prevent War.
On May 7 1939, Britain rejected a triple mutual assistance pact (Britain, Poland
and the USSR) proposed by the USSR on April 16 1939. Poland also refused to
accept it. An Anglo-French-Soviet mutual assistance pact was also rejected by
Britain. Either of these treaties could have stopped Hitler's war plans. Hitler,
in 1939, was awaiting the outcome of the Anglo-French-Soviet talks before
considering taking action over Danzig:
The British wanted the USSR to come to their aid if they were attacked but
wanted no commitments to come to the aid of the USSR:
The rejection of a joint alliance with the Soviet Union, an alliance which would
have ensured the defence of Austria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, France and Britain,
sealed the fate of these countries.
For the second time in their short history the Soviet people had to prepare
themselves to fight or be exterminated.
Britain, France and Poland alone could certainly never have withstood the Nazi
powers. But an alliance of the USSR, France, Britain and Poland had the
overwhelming power to stop German militarism in its tracks.
The USSR was thoroughly adequate in terms of material and productive resources.
But the USSR has a long land border to defend against the Fascist bloc, which
would stretch manpower to its limits. As history was to prove; it was the
Western powers that were thoroughly inadequate.
Even Churchill acknowledged that:
"There was no military organism, nor could there have been for several years,
which could ever have given the blows which Russia has given or survived the
losses which Russia has borne."
(Winston Churchill.)
And:
"...There was no force in the world which could have been called into being,
except after several more years, that would have been able to maul and break the
German army..."
(Winston Churchill, House of Commons, Aug 2 1944.)
Only the inclusion of the USSR into a Western alliance had the power to stop
Hitler. The USSR had already on more than one occasion called for a conference
of all nations for collective security against Nazi Germany in 1939. But the
British Tories were so hostile towards communism that they betrayed the chance
of this alliance which would have prevented the war; as was admitted later.
Britain had effectively signed a non-aggression pact with Germany in September
1938 when it signed the Munich agreement. France signed a similar pact with
Germany in December 1938.
Britain, and other Western powers, did not want an alliance with the Soviet
Union. They all hoped to move in after German and Soviet armies had destroyed
each other. These British actions were also in line with the 1941 Truman/Moore
Brabazon policy of waiting for the two to destroy each other and leave Britain
in a dominating position over Soviet territory.
They did not sign an Anglo-Soviet treaty until July 12 1941, after Hitler had
occupied Europe and attacked the Soviet Union and they realised Hitler would
have the material resources of the USSR at his disposal and security in his rear
in order to be in a stronger position to now attack Britain.
The "phoney war" conducted by the British from September 3 1939, when war was
declared, to Dunkirk, was a war in which nothing serious was intended. Likewise,
the British Government, in order to placate public opinion, conducted phoney
negotiations with the Soviet Government, in which nothing serious was intended.
As late as July and August 1939, World War Two could have been prevented had the
British Government the integrity and morality to ally itself with the Soviet
Union instead of with Hitler.
While conducting secret negotiations with Hitler and refusing an
Anglo-French-Soviet alliance, the British Government accepted Soviet proposals
for military talks on July 25 1939. Diplomatic and military missions were sent
to Moscow. But every delay was put in the way of the progress and conductance of
these talks. On July 10 the British Ambassador to Germany said to the French
Foreign Minister that:
The German Government was following these proceedings and expressed its
willingness to sign a Non Aggression Pact with the USSR on several occasions,
and, as it was known in Britain, the Soviet Government refused this until the
Anglo-French-Soviet negotiations had failed on August 21. The Soviet-German Non
Aggression Pact was signed on August 23. The British and French even refused a
similar Non Aggression Pact with the USSR.
No Anglo-Soviet treaty was signed.  The result was a year later British and
French troops were paying the cost at Dunkirk when the `Phoney War' ended.

The Soviet Unions Only Alternative:
Sign Germany's Non-Aggression Pact.
So much distortion and lies are written about the Soviet-German Non-Aggression
Pact of August 23 1939 that it must be explained in detail.
Not very intelligent and dishonest and usually Right Wing political and history
hacks often, without any further thought, make the dangerous suggestion that:
"the Soviet Union caused the war by forming an alliance with Hitler." And sadly,
I have heard this lie propagated by certain "peace" activists.
Such ignorant or wilful distortions of history show nothing but hypocrisy and
contempt for the Soviet struggle for joint security since the mid 1930s and the
West's rejection of it. The lack of a Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact would
anyway clearly not have stopped Hitler for a single second. However,
neutralising the Soviet Union for a while would buy time for Germany. Hitler was
worried that British and French negotiators were still in Moscow, and thought
that offering a deal with the Soviets was a way of neutralising them while he
invaded Poland.
It is no exaggeration to say that the capitalist powers, both fascist and
non-fascist, had put the Soviet Union in an emergency situation. After the
betrayal of Czechoslovakia, the immediate question for the Soviet Union was: to
face an immediate attack, or to hold it off for whatever breathing space it
could get. As already shown, the Western powers, individually, or even
collectively, could not possibly have the capacity to stop Hitler's armies
without the inclusion of the USSR. Only in an alliance with the USSR could this
be done. But at this late hour the British continued to reject any form of
alliance with the USSR while secretly negotiating with Hitler. The Soviets
realised that the British Government had no intention of any alliance against
Hitler; and thus isolated, played for time to further industrialise and arm
against the coming war by signing the Non-Aggression Pact offered by the German
Government. It is important to point out that this was a mutual non-aggression
treaty, not an alliance, as some bourgeois historians try to make out.
Furthermore, it was a treaty the Soviets were under no illusions that Hitler
would keep.
Also, it is obvious that had the Soviet Union not gained this extra time to arm
itself the outcome of the war would have been quite different. And right up to
the day war was declared, and even at the end of 1943 and again after the war
was finished, powerful leading British circles wanted alliances with Germany to
destroy the USSR. The period of the "Phoney War", Hitler's backing off at
Dunkirk in order to give the British army a chance to escape, and Hess' mission
to Scotland, were further invitations for this, British consideration for which
is still kept secret.
If the Soviets had not signed the Non-Aggression Pact with Germany, fighting the
Germans would have meant not only fighting on two fronts but also without any
allies.
Thus is refuted the ridiculous lie that the USSR started the war by forming an
alliance with Hitler and let Britain "go it alone" in 1939-1941. Britain's going
it alone was none other than Britain's own making.

Britain Conducts "Other Negotiations" � An Alliance With Hitler?
What "other negotiations" were conducted on behalf of the British people by
their government and big business during the years and even weeks leading up to
the Second World War?
On the day Hitler entered Prague the Federation of British Industries was
drawing up agreements with German big business Reichsgruppe Industrie in
Dusseldorf. In July it was revealed that the British Parliamentary Secretary to
the Board of Trade Robert Hudson had been with Hitler's Economics Minister
Helmuth Wohlthat to negotiate a �1,000,000,000 loan to Nazi Germany.
If in the economic field the lives of the millions who were to die in the coming
war were betrayed by capital, over which they had absolutely no control; in the
diplomatic and political field they were even more betrayed by their
'democratic' leaders.
The British appeasers did nothing when the Nazis marched into Austria. In fact;
while the Nazi armies were marching into Vienna, Chamberlain was entertaining
Ribbentrop at a dinner in his honour at 10 Downing Street. During the dinner
Chamberlain was handed a note informing him of Hitler's invasion of Austria.
Even at the late hour of August 26 1939, one week before war 'broke out', the
British Government hoped for a deal with Hitler:
In a poll conducted in April 1939, 87 percent of British people were in favour
of an Anglo-Soviet alliance.
The Germans were meticulous in keeping records of every meeting and
conversation. And the Soviets were fortunate in capturing these records from the
Reichstag, the German Foreign Ministry, and many other sources. One such source
was Herbert von Dirksen, the German Ambassador to Britain 1938-1939. Von Dirksen
did a very careless thing for a diplomat in keeping secret documents and records
at home. The Soviet army in 1945 discovered von Dirksen's private papers in his
estate at Groeditsberg in Germany. Among his papers were typed copies of his
messages from London and messages of the German Foreign Ministry, and secret
talks involving Sir Horace Wilson and Robert Hudson and von Dirksen and
Goering's economics advisor Helmuth Wohlthat. Dirksen's papers show that even at
this late hour, the British Government proposed an agreement with Hitler.
Goering's US educated economist Helmuth Wohlthat met Horace Wilson in July and
August 1939 to discuss Anglo-German cooperation and a non-aggression pact:
Much of these secret negotiations for an alliance with Hitler in the build up to
the war, and continued during the war, is still kept an official secret from the
British people.
In comparison with its "slow boat" low level mission to Moscow, the British
Government made hurried, high level arrangements with Nazi Germany:
The British Government erupted in frantic activity. On August 19 the British
secret service arranged to bring Goering to Britain. Backed by Chief of British
Intelligence Sir Stewart Menzies and with the consent of Lord Halifax and Prime
Minister Chamberlain, British Intelligence Officer Sydney Cotton flew to Germany
to persuade Goering, who could influence Hitler, to come to Britain. On August
21 London received a message that Goering agreed to come to Britain to talk with
the Prime Minister. It was planned that the plane carrying Goering would land at
some remote airfield in Britain, and Goering would be taken by car to see the
Prime Minister at his country estate at Chequers.
Three days before Hitler invaded Poland the British Government were still
looking for an agreement with Germany.
The "No War" Daily Express headlines were planned by Foreign Secretary Sir
Samuel Hoare (Lord Templewood); who also, in secret meetings with the press
owners and editors, revealed the British Cabinet's non hostility to the German
demand that no news unfavourable to the Nazis was printed in the British press.
The British press, being "free", kindly obliged. Daily Herald editor Francis
Williams resigned when his articles were censored by the paper's commercial
board of editors.
On May 6 1938 German Ambassador Von Dirksen thanked the editor of the Daily Mail
for awaiting German approval before publishing Lord Rothermere's article
extolling the Nazi viewpoint saying that "Czechoslovakia is not of the remotest
concern to us."
Press lords and editors were to the fore of the Clivedon set of pro-Nazi
supporters including J.J.Astor, chairman of The Times, and Lord Astor, owner of
the Observer, and their editors Dawson and Garvin.
The British Government persuaded the press owners that:
"...out-spoken criticism of Hitler's policy or of the Nazi atrocities against
the Jews would be against the national interest. Many of these approaches were,
unfortunately successful... such words just at this moment would do the gravest
harm to negotiations then proceeding, as a result of which things would shortly
take a turn for the better."
(Francis Williams, former editor of the Daily Herald.)
A secret Government Ministry of Information was set up. Newsreel films showing
Nazi aggression were censored.
"We did not want to show a film which was going to enhance hatred towards
Germany. We made the decision on a report that was read to us. I have not seen
the film... it could not be arranged in time."
(Chairman of the Watch Committee responsible for censoring films, Nov 1939.)
The Official Secrets Act was judiciously used to suppress any newspaper hostile
to the Government's policy. Newspapers like the Daily Worker (now Morning Star)
were suppressed and closed down. The Daily Worker was banned twice, once for 14
months after Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union.
At that time it was feared by the Government that if the British public knew
that the British Government's relations with the USSR were antagonistic, in the
words of a telegram from Eden to the US in March 1942: "the situation in Great
Britain will be catastrophic."
Such was Britain's policy of appeasement and of pushing Hitler to the East, and
the accompanying unarmed condition of Britain, that Britain had to be sold,
lock, stock and barrel, to the US in exchange for war supplies.

Britain Begins A "Phoney War" �
And Hitler Shows His Appreciation At Dunkirk.
This was not called the "Phoney War" for nothing. It was called the "Phoney War"
because no serious attempt was made to oppose Hitler in Europe.
Hitler had long planned his war strategy. He knew that the Western allies would
not seriously attack him so long as he was going to fight their common enemy in
the East. Also Hitler didn't want a war on two fronts:
Hitler needed Britain to stand aside while he mopped up Europe's industry
because Germany would not have had the resources for a sustained war.
Hitler also needed the resources of Europe at his disposal and a subdued Europe
in his rear before invading the USSR. And he needed the resources of a subdued
USSR before turning on Britain and the other powerful Western nations:
The "Phoney War" allowed Hitler to gather territories and resources in Western
Europe for his invasion of the USSR without any serious intervention in his
rear.
Because of this and the rapid capitulation and surrender of their capitalist
governments Hitler was able to occupy the nations of Western Europe one by one
in a very short time: Poland - 25 days, Denmark - 1 day, Holland - 5 days,
Belgium - 19 days, France - 44 days, Norway - 63 days. Hitler's experience of
Britain's inactivity was learnt in Poland.
The British Government's "Munich" gift of Czechoslovakia to Hitler gave him a
free ride down the Danube, with all its coal and iron; and the Black Sea and its
oil.
The Phoney war put up by the British allowed Hitler a free reign in Europe when
Germany was getting short of war materials and Hitler was organising his
"Barbarossa" invasion of the Soviet Union to gain the materials he needed. A
note on drafting Hitler's "Barbarossa Plan" said:
Hitler used tanks from the massive Czech Scoda armaments works to break through
the French army on his way to Paris and drove the British Army into the sea at
Dunkirk a few weeks later. How many British soldiers were killed by
"exceptionally good" Czech armaments given to Hitler at Munich by their British
capitalists?
The trickery of Munich had failed. While Hitler was handed the whole of Europe's
industrial and material potential on a plate and supplied by Britain right up to
the first day of the war by the British Nazi collaborators, and because they had
sent stocks of war supplies to Finland's anti-Soviet war, the British government
had to face the embarrassment of not being sufficiently armed at the beginning
of the war.
So sure was the British government of their appeasement policy of giving Hitler
territories in the East as their bulwark against communism that they left
Britain totally unprepared for war.
The very industries that were called upon to speed up arms production for
Britain after September 1939 were those who had been busy for years speeding up
arms production for Hitler.
Such was Britain's policy of appeasement and of pushing Hitler to the East, and
the accompanying unarmed condition of Britain, that Britain had to be sold,
lock, stock and barrel, to the US in exchange for war supplies.
After keeping silent about its re-armament and appeasement of Hitler, which
included the gift of Czechoslovakia with its massive Skoda tank, aircraft,
transport and armaments works, the British Government suddenly, as if surprised,
declared on September 3 1939 that war had "broken out". Thus began what became
known as the "Phoney War".
Hitler, who was still considering an anti-Soviet alliance with Britain, showed
his appreciation by giving the British Expeditionary Forces a "sporting" chance
to escape at Dunkirk. It was also reflected in Hitler's deputy, Hess' mission to
Scotland in 1941 to discuss the conclusion of an alliance against the USSR.
While Hitler, unmolested by the British Army, was making his preparations for
the invasion of the Soviet Union; there were British plans for negotiating an
alliance with Germany against the Soviet Union.
Just before Dunkirk, British Foreign Secretary Halifax planned to negotiate with
the Nazis stating that "we could get reasonable terms."
Hitler ordered a halt at Dunkirk on May 24 1940 and announced that all he wanted
was that Britain should acknowledge Germany's position on the continent.
On May 25 1940 Halifax drafted a telegram to Roosevelt asking if the US would
approach Hitler; but it was withheld. Halifax also asked the Italian Ambassador
in London if Mussolini would act as intermediary in the negotiations with Hitler
and secure peace through an international conference. Halifax told the British
Cabinet of his plan for a peace conference sponsored by Mussolini, saying that
peace in Europe was the aim, and that we should "consider any proposals which
might lead to this."
The British Cabinet was divided, the choice, in simple terms -- whether it would
be best to give Britain to the US or Germany, was between those, like Churchill,
who wanted to draw the Americans into the war, and the appeasers, who were
opposed to spending what remained of the British Empire with America
The Government were gravely concerned about the public's attitude and morale,
which was poor. The British were in a desperate situation. The British Army was
defeated and home defences were unprepared. Halifax concluded that the British
might have to accept Hitler's mastery of Europe.
Much of this is still kept secret from the British public and from researchers.
Public Record Office files on the subject are still closed. Slight hints of
British interest in a negotiated peace can be found in Manstein's memoirs and by
a careful study of the Mosely Papers declassified in the early 1980s. But the
remainder of the Mosely Papers, those from 1937 onwards, which it is suspected
could reveal British desire to cooperate in an alliance through appreciation of
Hitler's gesture at Dunkirk, are still firmly under lock and key, away from the
prying eyes of researchers at the Public Record Office. The details of Hess'
visit to discuss an Anglo-German alliance is also still kept secret from the
British people.
Evidence from the German side and from a British Major General in charge of the
British evacuation of Dunkirk shows that Dunkirk was not quite the "miracle" it
is made out to be; or if it was, then the "miracle" was due to none other than
Adolf Hitler himself, who ordered his main heavy land army to allow the British
to escape at Dunkirk.
Hitler also refrained from invading Britain when he obviously had the chance
immediately after Dunkirk when Britain was at its weakest:
On May 10 1941, a few weeks before Hitler's planned attack on the Soviet Union;
playing on the combined capitalist's fear of working class power and communism;
Hitler's official deputy Rudolf Hess flew to the Duke of Hamilton's estate in
Scotland with an offer from Hitler of an Anglo-German alliance against the USSR.
Some bourgeois historians try to allege that Hess was acting on his own accord.
But Himmler and Ribbentrop discussed the matter with Fritz Hesse, Ribbentrop's
former assistant and an expert on Britain, immediately after Hess's flight to
Britain, asking him what he thought of Hess' chances. It was also noted that the
German bombing raids on London more or less ceased for some time after May 10,
the day of Hess's flight.
There was also support for an alliance with Hitler in the US, especially among
the America First Committee.

Britain Delays The Opening Of The Second Front.
The Soviets Fight The Nazis Alone For Three Years.
That it was intended that German finance capital would destroy the USSR is
evident from the whole political conduct of the war.
If Churchill kept his true policy hidden behind diplomatic deceit; others were
more open about their intentions and policies. The day after Hitler invaded the
Soviet Union:
"If we see Germany winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we
ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible."
(US Senator, later President, Harry Truman, June 23, in New York Times June 24
1941.)
The opening of a second front by the West was delayed for three years in the
hope that Germany might "kill as many as possible."
A second front was not opened in 1942 or in 1943.
A second front was called for at the Teheran Conference in December 1943. It was
called for by the British Labour movement and the TUC. And it had wide and
popular public support. Even US President Roosevelt supported it. But Churchill
made all sorts of excuses, including "unsuitability of the weather" in order to
delay it.
Because of this inactivity the Germans were able to transfer 39 divisions from
Western Europe to the Soviet front between December 1941 and April 1942, laying
almost bare the Western front to invasion by the Anglo-American forces.
The Soviet people were left to fight the Nazis in Europe virtually alone for
three more years.

Stalingrad And Kursk � The Turning Point Of The War.
But the Nazis' confidence was soon to suffer the first in a series of defeats on
the Soviet front.
The following series of letters shows the rapid change over only a few days in
German confidence after the Red Army proved for the first time that the German
army was not invincible when they halted them at Moscow:
"We are now at a distance of 30 kilometers from Moscow and can see some of its
spires. Soon we will have surrounded Moscow and then we'll be billeted in
sumptuous winter quarters and I will send you presents which will make Aunt
Minna green with envy."
(Letter home from a German soldier, Dec 1 1941.)
"When you receive this letter the Russians will be defeated and we will be in
Moscow parading in Red Square. I never dreamed I'd see so many countries. I also
hope to be on hand when our troops parade in England."
(Letter home from a German soldier, Dec 3 1941.)
"My dear wife, This is hell. The Russians don't want to leave Moscow. They've
launched an offensive. Every hour brings news of terrifying developments. It's
so cold my very soul is freezing. It's death to venture out in the evening. I
beg of you - stop writing about the silks and rubber boots I'm supposed to bring
you from Moscow. Can't you understand I'm dying? I'll die for sure. I feel it."
(Letter home from a German soldier, Dec 6 1941.)
The Red Army halted the Germans at Stalingrad. The only road open for the
Germans was back to Berlin. The Soviet victories at Stalingrad and Kursk were
indeed the turning point of the war.
Unlike Churchill's false words, Roosevelt had genuine admiration and respect for
the Soviet conduct of the war. Commenting on the Soviet victory he said:
"Their (the Soviets') glorious victory stemmed the tide of invasion and marked
the turning point in the war of the Allied Nations against the forces of
aggression."
(US President Roosevelt.)
Communist national liberation movements in the German occupied countries of
Europe exacerbated the Nazis in their rear and helped to change the
military-political aspect of the war, and the political geography of post-war
Europe. These combined features led the Western Allies to fear the spread of
communism in the liberated countries of central and even Western Europe before
their own forces could get there.
The West now had to acknowledge their urgent need for a second front. This was
the main reason the second front was launched; since by now it was obvious that
the Soviets were going to be to the forefront of the victory and peace.
"By 1943, panic seized the Western rulers at the prospect of the fall of fascism
and the victory of communism."
(Labour Monthly, March 1963.)
After the Soviet victory at Stalingrad the US began working frantically on the
atom bomb. It began to dawn on the minds of world capital that the Soviet Union
was not going to be beaten. Western attitudes changed.
Now that the Germans had suffered their first retreat in the war at Moscow, even
a limited operation by the Western Allies would have forced the Germans to
divide their now harder pressed forces between two fronts. The Germans were
fully occupied on the Eastern front and left Europe comparatively free, giving a
good opportunity for attack. But such ideas were kept from the British public:
"In those first days when the invaders were sweeping towards Moscow, ...if the
West attacked while the Nazis were fully engaged in the East, the war could be
won in 1942. Working on Reynolds News, that letter provided me with a 'scoop',
but the censor killed the story."
(British journalist Gordon Schaffer.)
"Most Secret. It is impossible to explain to Parliament and the Nation how it is
our Middle East armies had to stand for 4� months without engaging the enemy
while all the time Russia is being battered to pieces. I have hitherto managed
to prevent public discussion, but at any time it may break out."
(Churchill, in a telegram to Field Marshal Auchinleck, Oct 18 1941.)
Demands for a second front and for a British force alongside the Soviets were
becoming increasingly difficult for the Government to resist:
"Let no man doubt how very near the Russians came to defeating the Germans last
winter. It was a close thing, so close that with a little more the Germans would
have been defeated. The German army would now be invading Britain if the Russian
army had broken down last autumn. For the future we must work together in the
war and in the peace."
(Lord Beaverbrook, Daily Herald June 22 1942.)
Plenty of praise! But what was Britain doing?
"There seems to me to be a lack of urgency, almost as if we were spectators
rather than participants. Germany can be smashed in 1943."
(Sir Stafford Cripps, Bristol, Feb 8 1942.)
"For weeks, millions of workers, massed at 'Aid to Russia' meetings, have
demanded it. [A second front B.M.]"
(Daily Herald June 3 1942.)
"Now the day has come when, in almost every quarter of Britain, the cry goes up,
'Attack, attack in support of Russia'... We know the Russians kill more Germans
every day than all the allies put together. We know they destroy more enemy
tanks and bring down more enemy planes than any of us or all of us. Russia is
the fighting front. That is the opportunity, the chance to bring Germans to
battle... Russia may win victory in 1942... That is a chance, an opportunity to
bring war to an end here and now... How admirable Britain is now equipped in
weapons of war for directing such an attack upon Germany I well know."
(Minister of Supply Lord Beaverbrook, in a broadcast in New York, April 23
1942.)
The truth is that Churchill had no intention of launching a second front until
the Soviet Union had been thoroughly beaten.

Berlin And Victory � Another Capital Power Prepares World Domination.
It was part of the western powers' Yalta agreement that Berlin was to be in the
Soviet zone of operations.
It was the Western leaders that had other ideas:
"Clearly, Berlin is the main prize. There is no doubt whatsoever, in my mind,
that we should concentrate all our energies and resources on a rapid thrust to
Berlin."
(Eisenhower, in a letter to Montgomery, Sept 15 1944.)
"The Russian armies will no doubt overrun all Austria and enter Vienna. If they
also take Berlin will not their impression that they have been overwhelming
contributors to our common victory be unduly imprinted on their minds, and may
this not lead them into a mood which will raise grave and formidable
difficulties in the future? I therefore consider that from a political
standpoint we should march as far East into Germany as possible, and that should
Berlin be in our grasp we should certainly take it."
(Churchill, in a letter to Roosevelt, April 1 1945.)
"I deem it highly important that we shake hands with the Russians as far to the
East as possible; and, if circumstances allow, enter Berlin."
(Churchill, in a letter to Eisenhower, April 5 1945.)
But the Western Allies' race for Berlin could not materialise. The Western
Allies' strength had still not been enough even to defeat Germany themselves.
However, Soviet economic and military strength had grown so strong that it could
easily defeat the Nazis alone. At the end of the war the Red Army could have
swept on and taken the whole of Europe and driven the Nazis into the Atlantic.
"The outstanding fact to be noted is the recent phenomenal development of...
Russian military and economic strength... In a conflict between these two powers
[Britain and the USSR B.M.] the disparity in the military strengths... would...
be far too great to be overcome by our intervention... we could not, under
existing conditions, defeat Russia. In other words, we would find ourselves
engaged in a war which we could not win."
(US Joint Chiefs of Staff to the US Secretary of State, May 16 1944.)
In April 1945, from defending within 20 miles of their own capital, Moscow, the
Red Army reached the German capital, Berlin, and victory.
German finance capital was broken.
But the war was not quite finished. Another world finance capital had already
been planning world domination at least since 1940:
"...to set forth the political, military, territorial and economic requirements
of the United States in its potential leadership... including the United Kingdom
itself as well as the Western hemisphere and the Far East. The first and
foremost requirement of the United States in a world in which it proposes to
hold unquestionable power in the rapid fulfilment of a programme of complete
re-armament... the United States with other countries to secure the limitation
of any exercise of sovereignty by foreign nations that constitutes a threat to
the minimum world area essential for the security and economic prosperity of the
United States."
(Memo of the Economic and Financial Group of the US Council of Foreign
Relations. 1940.)
"...to think of world organisation in a fresh way. The measure of our victory
will be the measure of our domination after victory."
(US Council of Foreign Relations Director Isaiah Bowman, Dec 15 1941.)
Bowman formulated US plans for postwar areas of the world that were:
"...strategically necessary for world control."
(Memo of Jan 16 1942, US Council of Foreign Relations.)
What plans did the US have for Britain after the war was over?:
"At best, England will become a junior partner in a new Anglo-Saxon imperialism
in which the economic resources and the military and naval strength of the US
will be the centre of gravity."
(President of the US National Industrial Conference Board Virgil Jordan, to the
Annual Convention of the Investment Bankers' Association of America, Dec 10
1940.)
"...the British Empire as it existed in the past will never re-appear... the
United States may have to take its place. ...must cultivate a mental view toward
world settlement after this war which will enable us to impose our own terms,
amounting to perhaps a Pax-Americana."
(US Advisory Committee on Postwar Foreign Policy, May 6 1942.)
As a result of her own corruption, Britain had become totally dependent on the
US economically, militarily and politically; and was forced to be drawn into the
Third World War which the US was already planning. Even before Hiroshima and
Nagasaki and the end of World War II the US was planning a nuclear World War III
against the Soviet Union:
"If there can be anything quite definite in this world, it is the future war
between the USSR and the US."
(US Under Secretary of State Joseph C. Grew, May 19 1945.)
"There is, I know, a systematic whispering campaign that the next war will be of
Anglo-America against Russia."
(H.G.Wells. May 24 1945.)
"I realised even before the war ended that there were powerful groups in the
Army, Navy and State Department, working closely with important business men,
who looked on Russia as the next enemy and were getting ready for the next war."
(Roosevelt's Vice President Henry Wallace, 1945.)
"If a contest of will against the Russians involving possible transit into war
should prove inevitable, it would be better to have it come after we and the
world knew of this new master weapon."
(US historian Herbert Feis.)
The US "atom bomb diplomacy" started at Potsdam.
On April 12 1945 US President Roosevelt died and Truman was sworn in as
President.
Truman delayed the Potsdam meeting because the first atom bomb test was due and
he wanted to face the Soviets with the "ultimate weapon." The day after the test
Truman received a coded message: "Operated on this morning. Diagnosis not yet
complete but results seem satisfactory and already exceed expectations."
US world nuclear diplomacy had begun.

Who wanted geopolitical military blocs?
It is a political and historical deception to say that the 'superpowers'
"divided" Europe among themselves, as I have sometimes heard among some peace
activists and capitalist oriented historians and journalists. It is equally
false to say that the Soviet Union divided Europe or imposed socialism on the
countries of Eastern Europe.
"Nowhere and at no time has any credible evidence been presented to show that
the Soviet Union wanted to divide Berlin, Germany or Europe; or to create a
massive military alliance system; or that these developments were in reply to
threats or aggressive moves by the USSR. Any careful and objective study will...
show that the exact opposite was the case. Not only did the Soviet leaders
oppose the division of Berlin and Germany and the splitting of Europe but the
record shows that they have consistently called for a reunion of a disarmed and
neutral Germany and the abolition or merger of the two alliances, NATO and the
Warsaw Pact."
(US General Hugh B. Lester.)
After the war Soviet forces were stationed in Austria for 10 years, Iran for 5
years, in Denmark and Norway; yet no revolutions happened in those countries,
nor did the Red Army see its business to impose any.
"We must not allow... our well-planned and steady rebuilding of America's
defences to be overcome by a child-like hope for detente with a country whose
sole aim is and always has been world domination."
(Caspar Weinberger, Detroit, Jan 30 1986.)
"We are being told that we can sit down and negotiate with this enemy of ours,
and that there's a little right and a little wrong on both sides. How do you
compromise between good and evil? How do you say to this enemy that we can
compromise our belief in God and his dialectical (sic) determinism?"
(President Reagan in the 1960s.)
Contrary to capitalist propaganda designed to frighten people and vilify
socialism in the minds of the politically conscious working class, there is no
evidence anywhere that the Soviet Union, or any genuine Communist Party in the
world, has any policy of imposing socialism on anybody.
It is a fundamental Marxist principle among genuine communists that revolutions
cannot be imposed by anyone from outside; and that conditions in a country have
to be right for a socialist revolution.
"The victorious proletariat cannot impose on any other country its own idea of a
happy life without doing damage to its own victory."
(Karl Marx.)
"The times of that superstition which attributed revolution to the ill will of a
few agitators have long passed away. Everyone knows nowadays that whenever there
is a revolutionary convulsion, there must be some social want in the background,
which is prevented, by outworn institutions, from satisfying itself."
(Frederich Engels, 1851.)
"We Marxists believe that revolution will occur in other countries as well...
Export of revolution is nonsense... to assert that we desire to bring about
revolution in other countries by interfering with their way of life is to speak
of something that does not exist, and which we have never preached... The export
of revolution is nonsense. Every country makes its own revolution if it wants
to, and if it does not want to, there will be no revolution... Without the
support of millions, the best minority is impotent."
(Soviet leader Josef Stalin.)
"The Communist system must be based on the will of the people, and if the people
should not want that system, then that people should establish a different
system... "If you feed the people just with revolutionary slogans they will
listen today, they will listen tomorrow, they will listen the day after
tomorrow, but on the fourth day they will say: "To hell with you!" ... True, we
recognise the need for the revolutionary transformation of capitalist society
into socialist society. It is this which distinguishes the revolutionary Marxist
from the reformist, the opportunist... The history of a social system will be
decided not by... bombs, but by the fact of which social system ensures greater
material and spiritual benefits to man."
(Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev.)
"If they want to maintain capitalism in their own countries, let them maintain
it for as long as they want. That is their own business. We are not going to go
to the United States to make a revolution there or to impose socialism on them.
In an academic discussion we can prove to them that socialism is better, more
humane, more rational and fairer than capitalism, but we cannot go there and
tell them: change your social system... that is not our business... We're not
advocating... a social revolution... We cannot suggest socialism as a
prerequisite. We're not recommending socialism, but of course neither are we
advising against it."
(Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro.)
When the Anglo-American allies lost their unofficial and unagreed 'race for
Berlin' they tried to discredit the Soviet Union by hostile propaganda about the
Soviet Union's rightful occupation of the territories agreed at Yalta. The West
vilified the USSR in its occupation of Berlin; but said nothing about new
Western postwar occupations and economic. political and territorial gains.
It was the West who felt the need to create military blocs and re-divide Europe
and Germany. It had been these needs which had determined their whole political
conduct of the war and its consequent military strategy.
Immediately after the Soviet victory at Stalingrad, US and British plans were
devised in London for the partition of Germany, a federation of Danube countries
of Austria, Hungary, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia with the southern German
lands of Bavaria, Wurtenberg and Baden:
"The need for a Scandinavian bloc, Danubian bloc, and a Balkan bloc appears to
be obvious."
(Winston Churchill, Feb 2 1943.)
German Archive documents captured by the Soviets at the end of the war show
that, in a statement reminiscent of Hitler and modern revanchists, CIA director
Allen Dulles had said:
"By extending Poland to the East and preserving Romania and a strong Hungary,
the establishment of a cordon sanitaire against Bolshevism and Pan-Slavism must
be supported."
(US representative Allen Dulles, in a private meeting with Nazi German
representative Prince Hohenlohe, February 1943.)
But Poland's eastern frontier, the Curzon Line, had been agreed in 1919 at the
end of the First World War at the Treaty of Versailles. And Poland had annexed
Byelorussian and Ukrainian territories in 1921. Poland's western border, the
Oder-Neisse Line, was agreed by the West at Teheran in 1943.
How did the West intend to "extend Poland to the East" yet again? One cannot
simply go and move the fence posts. A war had failed to do this in their favour
and had drastically weakened capitalism.
Contrary to the wishful aims of Western propaganda, the emergence of the new
socialist countries after the war was largely a result of the efforts and
popularity of their resistance movements, in which communists played a leading
part, and the influence of their strong Communist Parties; just as they did
against capitalism and fascism in their countries before the war broke out.
Communists all over Europe had always tried to organise to prevent war:
"We are fighting for peace. And there can be no peace while Hitler is in power
and the power of the real masters of Germany, the Krupps, Thyssens, Siemens and
Klockners is not completely smashed. This time we want to pluck out the evil by
its roots, and build a new Germany where an end is made to exploitation and the
drive for profits which always leads to wars."
(Illegal leaflet circulated by the Trade Unionist, Social Democrat and Communist
Workers of the Siemens armaments factory, Berlin, December 1939.)
"From this war there must emerge as victors not those who have called it forth:
neither Hitler nor Chamberlain; neither Daladier nor Mussolini nor Beck. The
victors must be those who, against the will of these people, will end the war:
and they will be the international working class..."
(Manifesto of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, Dec 1939.)
It must be quite obvious that the Second World War was one of the organised
capitalist class against the organised working class.
But even during the war, in August 1943, the US was preparing for the prevention
of a Europe in which capitalism was not the dominant power:
"...to prevent the domination of Europe in the future by any single power (such
as the Soviet Union)... after the defeat of Germany, no single power, and no
group of powers in which we do not have a strong influence, shall direct the
strength of Europe."
(US secret wartime Quebec Conference document, Aug 1943.)
The Soviet Union had gained much well earned prestige during the war and the
peoples of Europe had a lot of sympathy and respect for their own communists and
the Soviet Union.
"In... the ideological phase - the Soviet challenge became increasingly
powerful. In most of the world effective popular leadership is in the hands of
persons who are sympathetic to Soviet Communist doctrines and who turn to Moscow
for moral support. In India, Soviet Communism exerts a strong influence... In
Latin America Communist leaders are steadily gaining in political power. They
are effectively agitating against the so-called "capitalism" and "imperialism"
of the United States... In western Europe Communist strength has grown so that
in France and Italy Communists now exercise a large measure of governmental
power."
(John Foster Dulles, in a speech, Jan 17 1947.)
At the beginning of the war, in 1939, there were 4.3 million communist party
members in Western Europe. By the end of the war, in 1945, their numbers
exceeded 20 million; not forgetting several millions more who were killed by the
Nazis and by Nazi collaborators. Communist parties won leading positions in the
first post-war elections in France and Italy; and there were Communist Ministers
in the post-war governments of many capitalist countries including Austria,
Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Norway and San
Marino, and Communist MPs in Britain. In other countries of Europe and of Asia
the communists became the leading party. Communism was gaining popularity and
support all over the world:
In Britain in 1945 two Communist MPs were elected to parliament and the British
people voted overwhelmingly towards socialism in the shape of Clause 4 in the
Labour Party programme, which stipulates common ownership of the means of
production. But it was anti-socialist elements in the Labour Party that betrayed
them and gained control, implementing only a bourgeois or state capitalist
nationalisation of the economy, which never actually got into real common
ownership and control. This is not socialism. A kind of state capitalism
perhaps.
The fascist elements in British ruling circles among finance, industrial and
land-owning capital had never actually had to fully show their hand during the
war. But it can be certain that had Britain been occupied by the Nazis, Britain
would have collapsed from the top with a massive majority of the ruling class
collaborating fully with the invading Nazis, just as was the case in the rest of
Western Europe.
By the end of the Second World War, capitalism had been thoroughly weakened in
Europe; though it had gained immensely in the US. What's more, Western Europe
was so thoroughly impoverished that there was a real fear among capitalists that
more countries would soon become socialist.
The decisive victory shown by the Soviet Union in the war had demonstrated the
superior productive and social capabilities of socialism over capitalism. With
all this popular support for the Soviet Union and the popularity of socialism,
capitalist Cold War media immediately began to scream "Soviet threat!" once
more.
Emigre governments during war tended to be Right Wing or directly home grown
fascist, whether their governments had collaborated with the Nazis or not. On
the other hand, the resistance fighters in these countries, most of whom were
communists or progressives who stayed and fought, were the true patriots of
their countries. The British feared that these would hinder the post-war
restoration of the former capitalist order in Europe. Britain and the US crushed
any popular resistance and liberation movement and promoted the interests of the
right-wing emigre governments.
One wartime example of this is the use by the British of the murder of Heydrich
in Czechoslovakia; which was the idea of the Czech emigre government and not the
Czech resistance fighters who stayed to fight the Nazis. The result of this ill
planned adventure, which was not supported by the genuine Czech resistance, was
the particularly vicious Nazi reprisal of the total elimination of the village
of Lidice and its entire population.
A similar operation was the Warsaw uprising which was planned and failed by the
British backed Polish emigre government and not by the broad based popular
resistance movement in Poland.
Anti-communist organisations were set up by the CIA and other capitalist
security institutions in Western Europe, usually using Nazi collaborators and
supporters or the home grown fascists of those countries. The US and British
used ex Nazi supporters and collaborators, ex fascists, right-wing elements,
depossessed capitalists, bankers and land owners and other dissident and emigre
elements for propaganda purposes and as spies and provoking agents in incidents
to destabilise and discredit their post war socialist governments such as in
Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and tried to sow discontent among the populations in
last ditch attempts to provoke counter-revolutionary uprisings in these
countries.
In some countries, such as in France and Belgium, and especially in Greece,
popular mass liberation movements were crushed by the British. In Italy it was
the US use of the Mafia which put an end to any Communist presence in the
Government. Eventually in Western Europe it was the capitalists who had
collaborated with the Nazis that were soon back in power, and communists and
resistance fighters who were kept from positions of power, such as under the
West Germany government's Berufsverbote (refused employment) policy:
"The secret investigations have started once again. Files are combed to see
whether there is any indication that postman Muller is a member of the Communist
Party or whether tram conductor Schmidt is a member of the Association of Nazi
Victims... We are returning to the dictatorship of Hitler's Third Reich."
(Frankfurter Neue Presse Oct 26 1950.)
The West German Minister of the Interior ex-Nazi Dr. Robert Lehr applied to the
Federal Constitutional Court for the Communist Party to be dissolved as "an
unconstitutional organisation." The West German newspaper Welt der Arbeit stated
that this application had been made on direct orders from the USA.
The power of US finance capital in the shape of the Marshall Plan, combining
with big business and anti-communist and fascist elements in the church,
accompanied by Cold War rhetoric, succeeded in securing the removal of elected
Communist ministers from West European governments where they were becoming
stronger, such as France and Italy, by 1947 as a condition of these countries
receiving Marshall Aid.
"Mr Marshall used the occasion to serve notice to all European countries that
they can expect no sympathy or help from America if they conspire with
Communism, even to the extent of including Communists in Coalition Governments."
(American correspondent, News Chronicle, June 3 1947.)
In territories liberated by the Soviets, on the other hand, unmolested by forces
of capitalism, these resistance and liberation movements were able to form
credible popular governments.
In Asia, in Indonesia, Malaya and Indochina also, it was the British forces who
crushed any popular communist uprisings. In Vietnam the British rearmed Japanese
prisoners of war against Ho Chi Minh and turned the country over to the French.
The US occupied South Korea and installed its puppet government there. They also
established their domination of the Philippines by installing Roxas, who had
collaborated with the Japanese in their atrocities against the Filipino people.
Like his ilk who collaborated with the Nazis in Europe, in exchange for
exclusion from war crimes convictions, Roxas was prepared to make his country
fully subservient to the US economy.
In country by country, the West used every means possible short of all out war
to see that the popular spread of socialist ideas was halted and reversed.
In Europe it was not Moscow, but London who used its armies to impose Right Wing
exile governments on people who didn't want them:
"As victory was approaching British policy seemed inclined to support many of
the worn out regimes in Europe as against the popular forces which had emerged."
(British Labour MP Seymour Cocks, in a speech in Parliament, 1945.)
In Belgium Churchill used the propaganda of a deliberate lie in Parliament that
an armed uprising was planned against the Belgian government in exile in London
on its return. Churchill said that:
"A putsch had been organised at the end of November to throw out the properly
constituted Government of M. Pierlot."
(Annual Register, London, 1945.)
The Belgian resistance was disarmed by the British army and the emigre
government installed under the usual British pretext, as declared by Eden in
Parliament of maintaining law and order.
Later the truth came out. A News Chronicle correspondent wrote that:
"After making careful enquiries he had been unable to find any trace of the
intended putsch which Mr. Churchill had alleged as the ground of British
interference in Belgium."
(Annual Register, London, 1945.)
In Italy the British disarmed resistance forces and prevented social reforms.
The Italian partisans, anti-fascists and communists held great anti-fascist
rallies and organised strikes for peace. The Italian communists had tremendous
support and prestige and were set to win elections to the Italian parliament.
But the US tried its hardest to prevent communists being elected to the Italian
government:
"The Italian elections were described as a struggle between the United States
and the Soviet Union. There was massive American intervention, but there was no
Soviet interference of any kind and never had been... The United States
officially identifies Communist Parties (and Socialist or other parties allied
with Communists) everywhere as fifth columnists and agents of the Soviet
Government. Therefore any approach to power by any means, constitutional as well
as revolutionary, is regarded as Soviet interference and internal aggression and
the United States must fly to the rescue."
(British Labour MP Koni Zilliacus, in "Dragon's Teeth.")
The US had plans in case of a Communist electoral victory in Italy:
"In the event of Communist electoral victories in Italy, the United States
should among other things: Provide military equipment and supplies to Italy only
if such equipment and supplies are received by anti-communist elements."
(US NSC Directive 1/3, Dec 14 1947.)
Various methods were used to get the Communists out of the Government, including
the use of the Mafia:
"...the OSS became the CIA and the Mafia was used to save Italy from the
Communists... The switch from resisting the Fascists to resisting the Communists
was begun in 1945, when the Communists came very near to gaining control of the
labour unions... in all Italy and southern France. At that time, cooperation
between the OSS and the Mafia was successful in stemming the tide. No serious
historian, left or right, who is familiar with the situation at that time can
deny that had it not been for the Mafia the Communists would by now be in
control of Italy, and the world balance of power would be decisively in favour
of the Soviets."
(Ex CIA officer Miles Copeland, in "The Real Spy World.")
In his memoirs "The White House Years" Henry Kissinger said of the Italian
elections:
"The communists... were tilting the entire spectrum to the left... before a
final push to obtain participation in government... The communist influence
therefore graduated from a tacit to a formal veto under Moro's sponsorship...
The general sense of impotence was reflected in a State Department memorandum to
the president of January 22, 1970... It urged that we 'keep the problem under
close scrutiny and continually assess the means of using our resources to make
our view known in a discreet, but effective fashion'."
(Henry Kissinger "The White House Years.")
Italian Minister of the Interior Aldo Moro was one of those progressive Italian
politicians to whom the US made their view felt in a "discreet but effective
fashion." He spoke for all political forces playing their democratic part in the
Italian government. The US Ambassador to Italy declared publicly that Aldo Moro
was a dangerous politician. Two weeks later Moro was kidnapped and murdered by
the so-called "Red Brigades". The testimony of his wife at the trial of those
accused of his murder show that he was threatened while on a trip to the US in
1974:
"My husband told me word for word what had been said to him... I shall try to
repeat them exactly: "Mr. Minister, you will have to give up pursuing any
further your political course of bringing about direct co-operation of all
political parties in Italy. Either you stop doing that, or you'll pay dearly for
this. Decide for yourself how you should understand this warning"."
(Testimony of Eleonora Moro, wife of murdered Italian Interior Minister Aldo
Moro.)
The Italian newspapers Il Giorno, L'Europeo and others, quoting Italian Senator
Giuseppe Giovagnello, said of Moro's murder that "Traces lead to the White
House", that he had been killed by agents of a "foreign power" and that behind
the "Red Brigades" stood the CIA, the US State Department, Henry Kissinger and
Italian fascists. A Red Brigade leader stated at his trial in 1983 that Moro was
killed because or his support for communist participation in the Italian
government. And in January 1978 the US State Department stated that it would not
accept participation of communists in any West European governments.
Today there is large communist influence in local government in Italy with
communist majorities or total control of some town councils such as Milan,
Perugia, and others. But they were still effectively excluded from central
Government.
In France, after the German defeat at Stalingrad there were intensified
operations by the French resistance.
A British Special Operations Executive memorandum of March 22 1943 to the French
National Committee warned their contacts to prevent the spread of the
resistance. The memorandum said that the assistance requested for the resistance
by French President de Gaulle was counter to Britain's policy of averting the
spread of popular uprisings.
It was the French Resistance and labour movement, and not the Anglo-Americans,
who liberated much of France including a large area of Paris and more than 40
other towns including Lyons and Toulouse and hundreds of villages, a large area
south of the Loire and west of the Rhone, and the whole of the territory from
the Western Alps to the Italian and Swiss borders, all before the Western Allies
arrived. US supreme commander Eisenhower immediately ordered the French
resistance to cease fighting the Germans.
"I could have taken it [Paris B.M.] had I not been told not to."
(US General Patton, in his book "War As I Knew It.")
"...we are not at all anxious to liberate Paris... It would be good if Paris
could pull in its belt and live with the Germans a little longer."
(US General Omar Bradly, in his book "A Soldier's Story.")
The French resistance took no notice and the surrender of the German garrison in
Paris was received in August 1944 by General Jaques Leclerc and Colonel Henri
Rol-Tanguy � a Communist.
As in Italy, the US forced the removal of communists from the French government,
especially as a prerequisite of Marshall Aid:
"America is preparing plans to help France stop the growth of Communism, as part
of a world-wide policy of resisting it wherever it has prospects of gaining
control of governments. This means that America has decided... that even where
there is no question of Russian pressure, as in the case of France, Communism
must be avoided at all costs. It was expected that very substantial aid would
have to be given over the next two years. This decision means that even if the
French people decided to elect a Communist majority under the present French
constitution, the American State Department would not regard this as "democratic
government, nor France as an independent country."
(New York correspondent, News Chronicle May 12 1947.)
"In plain English, a government is democratic and a country is independent only
when its government has been made to order for the State Department. This policy
was imposed on France and Italy and is still being enforced by the USA in those
countries (in the ways described below)... As long ago as December 5th 1947, Mr.
James Reston, Diplomatic Correspondent of the New York Times, reported from
Washington that... it was not much use giving economic assistance to
anti-Communist regimes in Europe in order to keep them in power, unless the
United States was prepared to back up this policy with armed force in case of
need, to prevent Communists or their political allies having any share in power
whatever the majority of the electorate in the countries concerned might want,
and even if the alternative was fascism and counter-revolution, as it may well
prove to be in France. On March 18th, 1948, President Truman, in a violently
worded message to Congress, said the United States must rearm in order to
protect Western Europe against not only external but also "internal
aggression"."
(British MP Koni Zilliacus in his book "Dragons Teeth.")
By 1947 French Communists were removed from Government as a condition of
Marshall Aid.
Nevertheless, there is still a strong communist movement in France, with
majority or total communist control of some town councils, such as Lyon,
Boulogne, Calais, and districts of Paris.
Compared with British communist party's tiny membership, infrastructure and
influence, most European and other countries' communist parties are massive and
widespread. One Communist Party headquarters I visited in Calais in the early
1980s had a building more impressive than the Tory headquarters in London. And
the Communist Party of Portugal has both a daily newspaper and a weekend paper;
whose massive circulation among the Portuguese working class was such that big
businesses such as car manufacturer Nissan were taking full page advertisements.
The British communist party does not even have a newspaper. Counter to
propaganda, the Morning Star newspaper does not belong to the communist party,
but is a workers' cooperative owned by its readers and members, who as well as
communists, are members of other parties and organisations, such as trade
unionists. European communist parties are so large and influential that they
hold massive annual summer festivals lasting a week or two, such as the
Portuguese party's Avante and the French communist party's L'Humanite festivals,
which attract communists, internationalist workers, environmentalists and peace
campaigners from all over the world.
The British intervention in Greece, because of the powerful influence of the
Greek communists, was as bloody and destructive as that of any Nazi.
Before the war Greece was ruled by a corrupt and repressive fascist
dictatorship, which collaborated fully with the occupying Nazis. After the war
these same fascists cooperated fully with the British who landed there in 1944
after the Nazis had retreated.
The Greek resistance, comprised of Liberals, Agrarians, trade unionists,
Socialists, Communists and other progressives forming the National Liberation
Front of Greece (EAM) and together with progressive Greek Army officers, its
People's National Army of Liberation (ELAS) armed forces.
Churchill then ceased aid to these resistance organisations and aided Greek
emigre fascists who supported the monarchy and had collaborated with the Nazis,
and to the Royalist EDES "resistance" forces, who had spent most of their time
not fighting the Nazis, but against ELAS.
The EAM/ELAS forces eventually controlled the whole of Greece and began entering
Athens.
EAM and ELAS had set up a Political Committee of Liberation in March 1944 to
convene a National Council of elected people's representatives. Even The Times
noted that the Greek liberation movement had the support of 90 percent of the
population. And it was supported by the Greek forces based in Cairo, who
mutinied in April 1944, and were crushed by British forces.
As Churchill had admitted in Parliament, there was no military need for landing
British troops in Greece in 1944. And although British forces played no part in
the liberation of Greece, Churchill switched his plans to a British Army landing
there after the Germans withdrew in order to impose the reactionary emigre
Monarchy on the Greek people:
"If substantial British forces take part in the liberation of Greece the King
should go back with the Anglo-Greek Army."
(Churchill, in a letter to Eden, August 1943.)
"If Greece is liberated as a result of an Axis withdrawal, we should be forced
to provide sufficient troops to further the present policy of His Majesty's
Government. This would involve us in a military commitment of at least two
divisions, since a weaker force might land us in an embarrassing position
vis-a-vis the Resistance groups, who were... carrying considerable sway in the
country when it had been liberated."
(British Chief of Imperial Staff, Sept 1943.)
British paratroopers under General Scobie were landed in Athens on October 13
1944 followed five days later by the Right Wing Papandreou monarchist Government
from exile.
The Greek resistance movement not only had the support of the majority of the
Greek people, it also earned the deep respect of British Army officers who had
fought with them:
"We should never have been able to set foot on Greece had it not been for the
magnificent efforts of the resistance movements of EAM and ELAS."
(British Brigadier Barker-Benfield, at a press conference in Athens, Oct 18
1944.)
Brigadier Barker-Benfield had served with other British officers with the Greek
partizans. Two days later Barker-Benfield and other British Officers who had
served with the Greek partizans were ordered out of Greece.
So weak was the support for the Papandreou emigre government flown in by the
British that not only had it to be preceded and accompanied by British
paratroopers, but it also had to be maintained by the diversion of 60,000
British troops to suppress the popular EAM/ELAS resistance in December; all this
while the Allies were still in trouble with the Germans in the Ardennes.
EAM accepted the Papandreou government flown in by the British as a provisional
government until a general election. Papandreou proposed that ELAS disarmed,
which they agreed, provided that EDES and royalist troops disarmed also.
On November 16 General Scobie was instructed to get ELAS forces out of Athens
and disarm them. Churchill gave an order to Scobie to smash the ELAS resistance
movement "as if you were in a conquered city where a local rebellion is in
progress."
Churchill ordered:
"Do not hesitate to act... We have to hold and dominate Athens. It would be a
great thing for you to succeed in this without bloodshed if possible, but also
with bloodshed if necessary... It is most desirable to strike out of the blue
without any preliminary crisis."
(Winston Churchill "The Second World War.")
"Stop, being neutral between the Greek parties; shoot at the communists without
hesitation."
(Churchill, in a telegram to General Scobie, Dec 6 1944.)
A civil and interventionist war was started by the British, fascists and
royalist police forces against the Greek people and their EAM/ELAS
organisations.
"[British troops B.M.] gradually conquered, block by block... Hundreds of
buildings were destroyed, usually containing homes of the poorer people of
Athens, at least eighty per cent of whom were on the side of EAM."
(British historian D.F.Fleming, in "The Cold War and its Origins.")
In February 1945 in Varkiz, near Athens, EAM and ELAS signed an agreement with
the Greek Government to end the state of emercency and hold a plebiscite on the
form of the state system and disarm the resistance and form a combined army. But
the Greek Government did not keep its word. While ELAS disarmed, a repressive
monarchist government was installed by the British and presented as "defending
democracy" by the media.
With the support of the Labour leaders Churchill stepped up the intervention,
and in a major attack by three British divisions with tanks and planes ELAS
forces were eventually driven into the mountains, where they continued fighting
for several years.
World capitalist policy, dominated by the US, now sees Europe as part of its
global strategy:
"To put the problem in a nutshell - our policy must be both "global", ie:
embrace every part of the world, and also "total", ie: include political,
psychological, economic, military and special measures integrated into one
whole.
In Europe we started with economic aid. It is quite possible that without the
Marshall Plan we would have found it more difficult to form NATO. What in fact
happened in this case was that a co-ordinated foreign policy using every kind of
pressure, resulted in the creation of what we hoped was a solid military
union...
...First of all, we should pick out the countries with anti-communist
governments friendly to us, which are already bound to the US through stable
long-term military agreements. In this governmental subsidies and credits may
take the form mainly of military appropriations. The hooked fish needs no
bait... At the same time economic support for those strata of the local business
community which are ready to co-operate with the US should be increased and the
necessary conditions would be created for businessmen of this type to be put in
key economic positions and accordingly for their political influence to be
increased...
Such countries may be given direct economic aid as well but we must give them
only as much as is necessary in order to keep suitable governments concerned in
power and to check any hostile opposition elements."
(From a letter from US Council on Foreign Relations member millionaire Nelson
Rockefeller to President Eisenhower, January 1956.)
"The hooked fish needs no bait."
Thus the US had bought a large collection of European states subservient to
their and who would vote the US way in any UN or other negotiations.
It remains undisclosed how many European countries have secret treaties or
agreements which are not openly written into their constitutions - that NATO
forces of another country have the right to intervene if the interests of NATO
(ie: the US) are considered to be threatened - eg. by the coming to power of a
socialist or non-aligned government or one that wanted to remove US nuclear
weapons and bases, or get out of NATO.
"Do you know what would have happened then? You may read about this in the Bonn
Treaty on relations between the FRG and the Western powers of the 26th May,
1952, in which Article 2 refers to the rights of the Allies, and Article 5 to a
state of emergency. According to this treaty the Federal Government 'in case of
serious violation of public security and order' shall first use its police force
and if it cannot restore order and, in addition, in the opinion of the three
powers, a threat arises to the armed forces of the Western allies, their
commanders have a right immediately to take respective protective measures,
including the use of arms, needed for removing this threat. You see that even 'a
serious threat of violation of the free, democratic order' is sufficient to
impose a state of emergency. ...if there was an uprising in the FRG threatening
the Constitution and the FRG's NATO membership the Americans would the very next
day intervene in our country."
(Henri Nannan, publisher, in his journal Stern, FRG, Jan 1982.)
"...including the ability to deal with a serious disturbance of public security
and order [ie: a communist (proper socialist) government BM.]."
(From Article 5 of the "Convention On Relations Between The Three Powers And The
Federal Republic Of Germany" as amended by the Paris Agreements of October
1954.)
"In case the Federal Republic and the European Defence Community are unable to
deal with the situation which is created by... subversion of the liberal
democratic basic order, a serious disturbance of public order, or a grave threat
of any of these events, and which in the opinion of the Three Powers endangers
the security of their forces, the Three Powers may, ...proclaim a state of
emergency... Independently of a state of emergency, any military commander may,
if his forces are imminently menaced, take such immediate action appropriate...
to remove the danger."
(From Article 5 of the original Bonn Treaty.)
"In the present situation it is certainly the internal unrest, sabotage and
civil war type conflicts, that is, local disturbances in their broadest sense,
which under certain circumstances could most of all endanger the Eastern borders
of the NATO bloc."
(W.Ritter von Schramm, Der Deutsche Soldat. Flensberg 1961.)
"The draft of the committee enables the executive to deploy the armed Bundeswehr
inside the country and to misuse it for internal political aims - without having
obtained the sanction of parliamentary authority. The armed forces may not only
be deployed for police tasks, but also internally 'with weapons'. The decision
rests with the federal government because if any such action becomes topical it
is always possible to say that 'the situation required this sort of immediate
action'."
(Frankfurter Rundschau, 26 April 1965.)
When discussions on ratifying the North Atlantic Treaty were held, US Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs Dean Acheson stated that one of NATO's chief aims
was to prevent what it called aggression, even "by an election" or "conquest
through persuasion." And the NATO Commander in Chief in Central Europe in 1956
referred to NATO as a shield against the "infiltration of ideas." Various NATO
"leaks" to the press in 1970 stated that the US in Europe could resort to
sabotage and subversion and other warfare in the event of "emergency situations"
(ie: genuine socialist governments coming to power) and if necessary take over
and bring any weapons onto a country's territory, including chemical and
biological weapons, and suppress any movement "threatening US strategic
interests." A US document published in the Italian press in 1981 showed that of
over 23,000 missile targets only about 2,500 were in Warsaw Pact countries. The
rest were in capitalist countries in case of the coming to power of a communist
majority government.
Soon after Marshall Aid was agreed by the US Congress, Britain and the US had
secret talks on NATO in the Pentagon in 1949. These discussions were only made
public in 1979. In the documents of these discussions NATO's class war policy is
clearly stated that:
"The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the
territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties
[ie: Capitalism B.M.] is threatened."
(From Clause 4 of the Constitution of the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO).)
Thus the European capitalist leaders have given the US and NATO the right to
intervene diplomatically, economically, and finally militarily in any "political
change favourable to an aggressor" (ie: to any friendship or assistance from a
socialist country) in any NATO country. In other words, the election or
otherwise coming to power of any genuine socialist government or any government
committed to and actually implementing disarmament in any West European country.
And "territorial integrity" includes colonial or neo-colonial territories. The
exiled people of the Chagos Islands and Diego Garcia in the British Indian Ocean
Territories and the people of the British Commonwealth territory of the tiny
Caribbean island of Grenada know full well what NATO policies mean.
It is also important to understand and point out that this means that it is only
necessary that the "political independence or security" of any NATO or NATO
dominated country is judged to be "threatened" not by the country concerned, but
by "any one of them".
"Article Four is even more important. This, with no regional limitations,
provides that if there is any situation anywhere which appears to affect the
security of any member, they will all consult on what action to take... If
developments in Burma, or the Malay peninsula led America, Britain or France to
feel her security was threatened, she could call a conference of Atlantic
Powers... Should the Italian Government fear that Communist sabotage threatened
its political independence, it could call a meeting of the Atlantic Powers with
the possibility that joint action would be taken to meet the danger."
(Daily Telegraph March 23 1949.)
There is no doubt that in the event of civil unrest in any West European country
not being able to be contained by the forces of "law and order" of that country
the US would intervene.
The domination of US world capital has given itself as NATO the right to be the
world anti-Communist policeman.
A group of wealthy and powerful people which has such fears and responds to them
with such contingency plans is already on the slippery slope to a repetition of
the rise of Fascism in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s and committed to
intolerance and world domination.
Events in Malaya, Kenya, and other countries where war was made on their peoples
by the British show what they will do in what they call an "emergency."
Have no doubt about it. If a genuine socialist majority government did ever come
to power in Britain, it won't be "freedom and democracy" that they will be
screaming at us from the rooftops as they try to remind us every day. It will be
US helicopter gunships.

A New Socialist Europe Is Formed.
It is a dangerous and provocative lie to suggest, as most bourgeois historians
do, followed sadly and unfortunately by some in the peace movement, that the Red
Army imposed socialist revolutions on the countries of Eastern Europe at the end
of the war; and the consequent misleading referral to these countries as "Soviet
satellite states". These countries are not "satellites" of anybody. They are
equal members of CMEA (Council for Mutual Economic Assistance - known in the
West as Comecon). The CMEA is a socialist equivalent of the West European EEC,
or the Common Market. These countries are no more "satellites" of the Soviet
Union than Britain is of France or West Germany. However, it is true to say that
Britain, France, West Germany, and almost every other country in the capitalist
world, is a satellite of the US global New World Order.
Some of these so-called East European countries had socialist revolutions either
before the Red Army arrived or long after the Red Army had left them. The Red
Army had left Czechoslovakia in 1945 and the communists took power there in
1948.
Regarding Czechoslovakia, British Labour MP Koni Zilliacus said that:
"The change of regime in Czechoslovakia was the unaided work of the Czechoslovak
Trade Unions, Communists and Socialists and there was no Russian influence of
any kind."
(British Labour MP Koni Zilliacus, in "I Choose Peace." and "Dragon's Teeth.")
"The Russians maintained reasonably correct relations with the Czechoslovak
'London Government', and never attempted to set up a rival pro-Communist
Czechoslovak Government either in Moscow or in the liberated part of
Czechoslovakia."
(British historian Alexander Werth "Russia at War 1941-1945.")
Other socialist states were brought about by popular anti-fascist and
anti-capitalist uprisings that took place in the wake of the retreating Nazis,
in some cases even before the Red Army had reached them. Even the US had to
agree that:
"The majority of Europeans regard them [the Soviet Army B.M.] as their
liberators. Even in the West the Red Army receives the major share of the
credit."
(From a memorandum on "International Communism" prepared for Truman at the
Berlin Conference.)
In many of these Eastern European countries which became socialist after the
war, communists were elected to governments and as their prestige increased more
of them were elected and they became the majority, with other parties eventually
fading into insignificance, finally dropping out of government altogether.
Even US General Clay, a noted anti-communist, noted that:
"New governments in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary had Communist
participation, but were not Communist dominated. Even the Balkan States were not
under Communist control."
(US General Clay, In his book "Decision in Germany.")
In what became new socialist countries, where the people had become more class
conscious as a result of their own fascist bourgeoisie having cooperated fully
with the Nazis, capitalism was thoroughly discredited during and after the war,
and it was the Communists in those countries who enjoyed mass popular support
from their peoples. The war enabled these peoples to develop well organised and
politically educated mass liberation movements. The resistance and liberation
movements became the only credible patriotic authority in these countries. They
rejected capitalism and capitalist rule and formed their own socialist
governments. Then, ensured that the fascists and capitalists, external and
internal, could never return, and that the peoples in these countries could
defend themselves, the Red Army withdrew from these countries either immediately
after they had been liberated from fascism or had achieved political stability.
It is also another twisting of history to say that the 'superpowers' "divided"
Europe among themselves at Yalta. There was never any agreement to 'divide'
Europe. This would have been against Soviet policy anyway and they would not
have agreed to it. A socialist system is not imposed by another country, not can
it be. This is a fundamental tenet of Marxism. Nor is it established by
international conferences, agreements or treaties such as Yalta. The Eastern
European socialist states were not decided by the three powers at Yalta or by
the Red Army, but by the peoples of those countries themselves through political
organisations of their own. Contrary to what is suggested by some dishonest
historians, whose work is mainly discursive and not referenced, sourced or
attributed. What was decided and agreed at Yalta was that the peoples of the
liberated countries should decide their own future under the protection of the
occupying Allied Powers:
"There is much misunderstanding about the substance of the Yalta conference. Let
me state as clearly as I can: There was no agreement at that time to divide
Europe up into 'spheres of influence'. On the contrary, the powers agreed on the
principle of the common responsibility of the three Allies for all the liberated
territories."
(George Bush, in US Department of State Bulletin, 1983.)
It was part of the Yalta agreement that declared:
"The establishment of order in Europe and the rebuilding of national economic
life must be achieved by processes which will enable the liberated peoples to
destroy the last vestiges of Nazism and fascism and to create democratic
institutions of their own choice."
(Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin's Joint Declaration on Liberated Europe, Yalta
Conference, Feb 1945.)
In the Balkan countries the choices for the peoples of countries like Hungary,
Bulgaria, Rumania was whether to continue to be governed by their capitalist
governments who had collaborated with Hitler or to form popular democratic
governments of their own. Presented with such a choice, it is small wonder that
the peoples of these countries opted for socialism.
In the Balkan countries the British wanted the old reactionaries and fascists
back in power. Throughout the war the British Balkan strategy, which was to
offset the opening of a second front in Western Europe, was to occupy the Balkan
countries with British and US forces before the Red Army reached them in order
to reinstate the former regimes with whom they had consulted all through the
war, and who were so discredited that they could only be maintained in power
with British and US military assistance.
Cretzianu, the Rumanian envoy who conducted negotiations for the fascist
government of Antonescu with the British in Ankara in 1943 said in his memoirs
that:
"The present Government [of Antonescu B.M.] considers itself to be in office
solely to ensure order, and that it would immediately yield the reins to a
Government approved by the British and Americans... Rumania is not waging war
against Britain and the United States. When British and American troops arrive
on the Danube, they will not be opposed by Rumanian troops. The Rumanian troops
at that moment will be on the Dniester, fighting back the Russians"
(Alexandre Cretzianu "The Lost Opportunity.")
When Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania withdrew from the war and popular uprisings
in these countries put progressive governments in power, the presence of the Red
Army in these countries blocked the plans of any Anglo-American occupation and
throttling of the revolutions under the pretext of establishing 'democracy'.
"Democracy" to the British and Americans meant the return to power of the same
capitalists who had established fascist governments in these countries and
collaborated with Hitler and fought with the Nazis against the USSR and the
Western Allies. But the peoples in those countries did not want this bourgeois
"democracy". They had established their own popular peoples' democracies.
After the failure of British attempts to join hands with the Nazis against the
USSR at the end of the war, Churchill tried to continue his Balkan strategy at
Potsdam; even though this meant breaking the existing Allied agreement of Yalta.
For the time being the British and US delegations at Potsdam refused to
recognise the new Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania unless they were
integrated into the capitalist system:
"We cannot resume diplomatic relations with these Governments until they are
reorganised as we consider necessary."
(US President Truman, at Potsdam Conference, July 24 1945.)
The Soviet delegation's proposal of a denouncement and non-recognition of
fascism in Franco's Spain was met with Churchill's flat complaint that this
would be "interference in domestic affairs" of Spain. The West's refusal to
recognise the newly formed governments of these countries was not seen as
"interference in domestic affairs" of these countries by Churchill, who had
interfered in the domestic affairs of just about every other nation on earth
throughout his life.
The British Labour Government was just as reactionary as the Tories, and more
reactionary in some respects than Roosevelt. Blaming Roosevelt's Yalta decisions
as the cause of the loss of the new European socialist states, British Prime
Minister Attlee wrote:
"That was Roosevelt's line at Yalta. It was two to one against us. We had to
agree to many things we oughtn't to have agreed to... I think if Alexander had
been allowed to go into Italy, he would have joined hands with the Yugoslavs and
moved across into Czechoslovakia and perhaps right over Germany before the
Russians got there."
(British Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee.)
In other words, the Labour Prime Minister was an ardent supporter of Churchill's
wartime Balkan strategy. And what makes the "socialist" Attlee think that the
Yugoslavs would want to "join hands" with the British army?
The Americans were more realistic about the situation at the time:
"Neither our military, our economic nor our ideological power reached far enough
to determine the fate of the Balkan states."
(New York Herald Tribune March 5 1947.)
In Yugoslavia there was tremendous popularity and respect for the Soviet Union
and for the communist led resistance movement. After the war the Soviet Union
gave enormous economic and material help to Yugoslavia.
"Our sacrifices, our efforts and our faith were crowned with victory because the
mighty Soviet Union and its Red Army were on our side. The Soviet Union was the
country that helped us selflessly from the very outset, requiring nothing in
return and binding us to nothing that would clash with our national interests."
(Edvard Kardelj, Yugoslav resistance leader, Ljubljana, June 12 1945.)
In Yugoslavia extensive operations to ensure the crushing of the popular
resistance and liberation movements were carried out.
In opposition to the resistance in Yugoslavia there were the Cetniks, directed
by Mikhailovic's emigre government in London, who mostly fought against the
resistance and collaborated with the Nazis. The British wanted the return of the
King and the Right Wing Yugoslav emigre government in London. Even the British
admitted that:
"During the last few months Mikhailovich had been displaying little activity
against Axis [Nazi BM.] forces... The partizans have undoubtedly undertaken
operations against the Axis, but at the same time fighting has occurred between
their forces and those of General Mikhailovich... It has been decided to
continue to support General Mikhailovich, since it is felt that his organisation
affords the best chances of preventing an outbreak of anarchy and chaos in
Yugoslavia on the withdrawal of the Axis forces."
(British Government memorandum to the Soviet Government, March 9 1943.)
By "anarchy and chaos" the British mean socialism.
A secret British mission was sent to Bulgaria in September 1944 to plan for
Turkish troops to occupy Bulgaria, handing over to British and American troops
later.
After the Soviet army declared war on the Bulgarian fascists a Fatherland Front
Government was formed after an uprising by Bulgarian Communists and others in
September 1944 and immediately declared war on Germany and signed an armistice
with the USSR.
In Hungary after the war the fascist dictatorship of Horthy, which put Hungary's
industry and workers in the service of the German Nazis, was defeated and a
socialist government was set up. Nazi collaborators such as the big landowners,
industrialists, bankers, the church and aristocracy were convicted and
expropriated of their land and wealth by a government decree. Middle and small
peasantry kept their land; and post war socialist construction went ahead. In
the elections of August 1947 the Communist Party emerged elected as the largest
single party.
British strategy in Hungary was along the same lines as in Bulgaria. The
Hungarian troops who had been allies of Hitler were to hold back the Red Army
while offering no resistance to the British and Americans:
"Foreign circles feel that Hungarian troops must hold the front against the
Russians and offer no opposition to the British."
(Hungarian Chief of General Staff, to Council of Ministers of Hungary, Aug 25
1944.)
"The Anglo-Saxons do not want Hungary to be occupied by the Russians. They want
the Hungarians to keep the Russians back until they themselves are able to
occupy Hungary."
(Hungarian Deputy Foreign Minister, to Council of Ministers of Hungary, Aug 25
1944.)
In Czechoslovakia, even before the war had ended, in August 1944 there was a
popular uprising against the German Nazis and the Czech capitalists who had
enlisted their aid and support against the working class and their
organisations. There had also been a Czech-Soviet mutual support treaty signed
between progressive Czechs and the Soviet Union in 1943.
The Slovak uprising was internationalist in character, comprising some 30
nationalities including 3,000 Soviet partisans, Czechs, Hungarians, French,
German, Poles, Yugoslavs, Greeks, Italians, Bulgarians, Belgians, Dutch,
Austrians, Americans and British and other resistance fighters and escaped
prisoners of the Nazis and of their own fascist governments. Such was the
general anti-fascist feeling in Europe.
Czechoslovakia became a Socialist Republic in 1945 after being liberated from
German and Czech fascists by the Red Army and the Czech people's Army under
Ludvik Svoboda who became the President.
General Elections were held in May 1946. There were nine parties; and the
elections were confirmed as free and fair by British and American observers and
a British all party parliamentary delegation. The Communists took 114 seats -
almost 40 percent of the votes - more than double the votes of any other party;
while their nearest rivals took only 55 seats. MPs elected to the Czech
parliament were 114 Communists, 55 Benes Socialists (anti-Marxist bourgeois
"socialists" like the British Labour party), 47 People's Party, 36 Social
Democrats. The votes in the Czech lands were: Communists 2,205,658, Benes
Socialists 1,298,917, People's Party 1,126,777, Social Democrats 862,494. In
Slovakia: Democrats 988,275, Communists 490,257, Freedom 67,575, Labour 49,983.
The new Czech government was faced with the choice in 1947 of accepting US
Marshall Aid and losing their economic and political independence to US capital
or of increasing their trade and relations with the Soviet Union. To the
annoyance and frustration of the capitalist world, the Czechs rejected Marshall
Aid and signed a trade agreement with the USSR.
Right-wing members of the Czech cabinet resigned in 1948 in an attempt to
provoke a constitutional crisis and prevent the communists from their predicted
victory in the next elections. But the plot failed. The right-wing had put
themselves out of government and the communists gained an overwhelming victory.
In Poland the popular patriotic government of the Krajowa Rada Narodowa was
formed in Warsaw on January 1 1944.
After the Red Army had liberated Poland the London Polish Government in Exile
instructed its agents in Poland to liquidate the patriotic democrats who stayed
and fought in the resistance against the Germans. And the Armija Krajowa, also
controlled by the London Poles, was instructed to cease fighting the Germans and
prepare to seize power. The London Poles were as anti-Soviet as any Nazi or US
cold warrior:
"An essential condition for our victory and our very existence is at least the
weakening, if not the defeat of Russia."
(Underground newspaper of the Polish government in exile Penstwo Polski, spring
1944.)
"I talked to your General Anders the other day, and he seemed to entertain the
hope that after the defeat of the Germans the Allies will then beat Russia."
(Winston Churchill, to Mikolajczyk, 1944.)
"The London Poles openly talk about a third world war, which they expect within
a very short time."
(Kingsley Martin, in New Statesman and Nation May 26 1945.)
The London Poles rejected a Soviet offer, which the British agreed to at Tehran,
to amend its borders � the Curzon Line � in favour of Poland with a large
area including Bialystok.
Unlike the London Poles who fled their country and left the Polish people to
their fate, and their 'friends' who collaborated with the Nazis; true patriotic
Poles formed resistance units and a Polish division named after Tadeusz
Kosciuszko. In reaction to this the London Poles formed their own underground
organisations in Poland with the intention of eventually using them against the
USSR. These organisations spent more time and energy fighting against the Polish
partizans than against the Nazis.
After the battle of Kursk and the Soviet drive West, the British became more
concerned about the post-war 'Polish question'. The British Foreign Office now
urged the Poles to recognise the Curzon Line and accept Danzig (now Gdansk),
East Prussia, and the Oppeln province of Upper Silesia. Eden suggested that the
British and the London Poles recognise the Curzon Line as Poland's Eastern
frontier in exchange for the Soviet Government's cooperation with the London
Polish Government in exile with regard to the Polish resistance fighters and the
Polish division fighting on Soviet territory. Thus the British were prepared to
accept Soviet claims to what was anyway original Soviet territory in Western
Ukraine and Byelorussia if the Soviets would withdraw their support for the
Polish resistance and progressive Poles and help Britain impose on them after
liberation a government of reactionary emigres who were as anti-Soviet as any
Nazi. Naturally, this was untenable.
The British Government exercised complete control over the Polish Government of
General Sikorski in exile in London during the war while backing his claims to
Soviet territory in Western Byelorussia and Western Ukraine. In the US in 1943
Sikorski outlined plans with US Assistant Secretary of State Sumner Welles of
the creation of:
"An Eastern European union running from Poland in the North down to Turkey in
the South... Poland would be the anchor in the North and Turkey the anchor in
the South."
(Polish General Sikorski, to US Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles, Jan
1943.)
Sumner Welles said that:
"[this plan B.M.] could only be interpreted by the Soviet Union as a cordon
sanitaire of a purely military character directed squarely against the Soviet
Union."
(US Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles, Jan 1943.)
In a visit to the US in March 1943 Eden told Roosevelt that the London Polish
Government: "has very large ambitions after the war" which were used in vicious
anti-Soviet propaganda in the Polish press in London, even to the disturbance of
the British Foreign Office and the US Government:
"Polish opposition press in London would continue to be a disturbing factor."
(Foreign Relations of the United States, 1943.)
The London Poles refused to accept the Tehran agreements and Churchill followed
them, now saying that the Polish question could only be settled after the war
had ended and, in an open threat to abandon plans for a second front, "would
affect the operations which all three were about to undertake." In other words,
he preferred to take advantage of any weak position that the West could put the
Soviet Union in by political-military means by the end of the war. He also
demanded that parts of Lithuania and Western Ukraine be administered by the
London Poles and that United Nations authorities take part in the administration
of the rest of Western Ukraine and Western Byelorussia. Naturally, the Soviet
Government could not agree to these outrageous proposals.
"As regards the desire to place certain Soviet territories under foreign
control, we cannot agree to discuss such encroachments, for, as we see it, the
mere posing of the question is an affront to the Soviet Union."
(Soviet Government's reply to Churchill, March 3 1944.)
"I shall soon have to make a statement... that we continue to recognise the
Polish government with whom we have been in continuous relations since... 1939;
that we now consider all questions of territorial change must await the
armistice or peace conferences of the victorious powers; and that in the
meantime we can recognise no forcible transferences of territory."
(Winston Churchill to Stalin, March 21 1944.)
Apart from accusing the Soviets of any "forcible" transfer of territory in 1944;
Churchill was notable silent when these territories were forcible taken from the
Soviets after the 1917 Russian Revolution.
Stalin replied:
"I was struck by the fact that both your messages and particularly Kerr's
statement bristle with threats against the Soviet Union. I should like to call
your attention to this circumstance, because threats as a method are not only
out of place in relations between Allies but also harmful... The Soviet Union's
efforts to uphold and implement the Curzon Line are referred to in one of your
messages as a policy of force, This implies that you are now trying to describe
the Curzon Line as unlawful and the struggle for it as unjust... I must point
out that at Teheran you, the President and myself were agreed that the Curzon
Line was lawful. At that time you considered the Soviet government's stand on
the issue quite correct, and said it would be crazy for representatives of the
Polish emigre government to reject the Curzon Line. But now you maintain
something to the contrary.
You say... that the problem of the Soviet-Polish frontier will have to be put
off till the armistice conference... I think there is a misunderstanding here.
The Soviet Union is not waging, nor does it intend to wage, war against Poland.
It has no conflict with the Polish people and considers itself an ally of Poland
and the Polish people... It would be strange, therefore, to speak of an
armistice between the USSR and Poland. But the Soviet Union is in conflict with
the Polish emigre government, which does not represent the interests of the
Polish people or express their aspirations."
(Stalin to Churchill, March 23 1944.)
As with any other country, the situation in Poland is best understood with the
knowledge of its past:
In May 1926 a military coup brought Pilsudski to power. In 1935 elections were
held. All opposition parties and 55.6 percent of the public boycotted these
'elections'. A new 'constitution' gave unlimited powers to the President
including appointing and dismissing the Cabinet, the Commander in Chief of the
army, the President of the Supreme Court, summoning and dissolving Parliament,
deciding to make war, and foreign policy. Conditions were so poor in Poland in
the 1920s and 30s that its biggest export was people in search of work. Poland
became a country to emigrate from.
As is their usual practice, the British Government wanted to keep any fascist
power, native or otherwise, in control of Poland; even the post World War One
German army. But even that failed:
"A Polish Socialist leader in London, M.Ciolkosz, has revealed how the Allies
attempted to keep the German Army of Occupation in Eastern Poland for fear of
Bolshevism, and were seriously troubled when most of the army proceeded to go
red, elect soldiers' councils, etc, and the whole of it was disarmed and sent
home by the Poles."
(British Labour MP Koni Zilliacus, in his book "The Mirror of the Past.")
During the war the main thrust of the London Poles was to restore the old
fascist order after the war. Incidentally, it was the London Poles who organised
the disastrous Warsaw uprising towards the end of the war largely with the
effect of discrediting the Soviet Union and the genuine Polish resistance who
stayed and fought.
It was the Polish Committee for National Liberation, known as the Lublin Poles,
who remained in Poland through the war which had the respect and support of the
majority of the Polish people, especially the working class based political
organisations.
After the Russian Revolution the Baltic states wanted to make peace with the
Soviets and become autonomous Soviet states themselves. But it was the Western
Allies that forced them to continue the war against Soviet Russia. Previously
these countries, with their reactionary and fascist regimes, were Churchill's
"outpost of Europe against Bolshevism." The West had always tried to detach the
Baltic states from the Soviet union. But at the Paris Peace Conference after the
First World War the British Government, like their Russian Tsarist Generals and
their allies, made it quite clear that they were absolutely opposed to the
separation of the three Baltic states from a Tsarist Russia:
At a conference on September 30 1919 the Baltic states decided to open peace
negotiations with Soviet Russia. The Western Allies responded by imposing a
blockade of the three Baltic republics. Despite Allied denials of their forcing
the Baltic states into submission, the three Baltic states were forced to accede
to the Allied demands:
"In spite of the various disclaimers of various members of the Government, there
is little doubt that Allied pressure has been exerted upon the Baltic states
generally... to induce them to continue the war against the Bolsheviks."
(British General Sir Hubert Gough, in a letter to the press, Jan 1920.)
By early 1940 the peoples of the Baltic countries, under the burdens and threats
of fascism from without and within, were in a state of social crisis. It was
admitted privately and publicly at the time and since even by bourgeois
historians and politicians in their moments of honesty, such as Estonian
Minister for Foreign Affairs Jurimaa, that had the people freedom of political
expression these countries would easily have become "bolshevised" long before.
In late 1940, under popular pressure, parliamentary elections were held in the
three Baltic states and Soviet governments which had been abolished by the
fascists who took power there during the 1918-1919 wars of intervention, were
restored, and after plebiscites, the USSR Supreme Soviet granted their
re-admittance to the USSR as autonomous sovereign republics with their own
parliaments (Soviets.) By 1940, the Soviets had merely regained their own
territory taken by Germany and Poland as a result of the Brest-Litovsk treaty
and the armed intervention between 1918 and 1921.
And that the Soviets had any right to re-enter this territory anyway was
intrinsic in the separate Mutual Assistance Treaties signed between the USSR and
the three Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in September and
October 1939.
"In the Baltic States: between June 17-21, 1940, the Fascist or semi-Fascist
Governments in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania fell and Left-wing Governments were
set up. Elections by secret ballot held in these States, July 14, 1940, in which
81.6 to 95.5 per cent of the electorates voted, resulted in the formation of new
Governments which decided to set up Socialist Soviet Republics, and on July 21,
1940, the Parliaments of these three Republics applied for incorporation into
the USSR as Constituent Republics of the Union, and were accepted by the latter
in August."
(British historians Pat and Zelda Coates, "A history of Anglo-Soviet
Relations.")
To the interfering Westerners who have no business meddling in the internal
affairs of the Baltic states or any country of the Soviet Union, the Soviets
reply for instance that:
"It is high time it was understood that the question of the Baltic States is an
internal Soviet matter which is none of Mr Wilkie's business. Anyone interested
in such questions should take the trouble to become acquainted with the Soviet
Constitution and with that democratic plebiscite which took place in these
Republics; and let him also remember that we know how to defend our
constitution. As for Finland and Poland, not to mention the Balkan countries,
the Soviet Union will manage to thrash things out with them, without any
assistance from Mr Wilkie."
(Pravda, Jan 1944.)
At the 1942 talks on the post war Soviet frontiers during the drafting of the
Atlantic Charter, which was to agree a post-war settlement, Eden used as a
stalling excuse that Britain's "Dominions" would have to be consulted; while at
the same time objecting to the legitimate Soviet demands for recognition of its
1941 frontiers. The Atlantic Charter continued the West's hostile policy against
the USSR:
"I thought the Atlantic Charter was directed against those people who were
trying to establish world dominion. It now looks as if the Atlantic Charter was
directed against the USSR... Why does the restoration of our frontiers come into
conflict with the Atlantic Charter?... All we ask for is to restore our country
to its former frontiers. We must have these for our security and safety... I
want to emphasise the point that if you decline to do this, it looks as if you
were creating a possibility for the dismemberment of the Soviet Union."
(Stalin.)
As has been admitted by many who could not be accused of pro-Soviet sentiments,
the Soviet Union was concerned only with its own security and was rightly
suspicious of any attitudes or actions of the West:
"One of the chief aims of Soviet policy has been and no doubt still is to obtain
the maximum guarantees of Russia's security so that the Soviet Government can
work out their own social and economic experiment without danger of foreign
intervention or war."
(Lord Halifax, at US State Department, 1942.)
"There is little doubt that the Soviet Government is suspicious lest our policy
of close collaboration with the United States Government will be pursued at the
expense of Russian interests and that we aim at an Anglo-American peace and
post-war world."
(British Foreign Office telegram to the US, 1942.)
But the British had persisted in trying to obtain an advantage over the Soviet
Union in regards to Soviet Baltic territories all through the war.
Like the modern revanchists, Britain and the US, in their negotiations all
through the war, and the political conduct of the war, were pursued with the aim
of depriving the USSR of its rightful territory. But after the German defeat at
Moscow they found it might no longer be possible to deprive the USSR of its
rightful territory and reducing it to its 1920s or 1939 frontiers:
"We cannot be certain... that Germany's defeat may not be brought about in
principle by Russian action before our own and American war potentiality is
fully developed... It would be unsafe to gamble on Russia emerging so exhausted
after the war that she will be forced to collaborate with us without our having
to make any concessions to her."
(Foreign Relations of the United States, 1942, Vol.III.)
"It is particularly important that Great Britain make no concessions, that are
not essential to victory over the Germans, in Eastern Europe. This is true even
of the three Baltic states � Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania... No one can tell
what frontiers... will be in the interests of England and most favourable to the
balance of power, because the condition of Eastern Europe as it will be at the
end of the war is unpredictable."
(The British journal "Nineteenth Century and After." 1942.)
The war over; the balance of power in Europe had changed in favour of socialism.
The West then tried political and diplomatic means to limit and reverse the
strength of socialism.
Against all their plans; at the end of a war which was supposed to destroy
socialism; the balance of political and ideological power in Europe had changed
drastically in favour of socialism in the spirit of peaceful coexistence, which
even Roosevelt agreed was the only way:
"The spirit of Yalta, which he [Roosevelt B.M.] vainly fostered, was an
expression of his determination to keep the competition peaceful lest mankind
suffer the agony of a new war on the very morrow of finishing the old one."
(American historian Professor J.P.Morray "From Yalta to Disarmament, Cold War
Debate.")
But as the attempts on Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the GDR and Poland were to
reveal; as we shall see in a later chapter; they were to make further attempts
to "roll back" socialism later:
"The way to bring peace is to produce revolutions in the countries behind the
Iron Curtain."
(US General Clay, quoted in New York Times June 29 1952.)

Who Divided Germany?
"Both the President and Eden agreed that, under any circumstances, Germany must
be divided into several states."
(Harry Hopkins.)
"If you had a unified Germany it would be owned by the Russians."
(US historian Steven Ambrose, Channel 4 TV May 24 1987.)
It was the West who wanted a divided Germany.
While publicly presenting a policy for a united Germany the West did everything
possible to ensure that Germany was divided.
As early as the Teheran conference in 1943 the US proposed dividing Germany into
five small independent states; which would thus be harmless and easy for US
capital to dominate. In 1944 Churchill and Eden went to Moscow with a plan to
divide Germany into three parts. Stalin flatly refused.
"Not only did the Soviet leaders oppose the division of Berlin and Germany and
the splitting of Europe but the record shows that they have consistently called
for a reunion of a disarmed and neutral Germany and the abolition or merger of
the two alliances, NATO and the Warsaw Pact."
(US General Hugh B. Lester.)
The Soviets never wanted Germany to be divided. The Soviet view was that it was
not the German people but the Nazis and their financial and industrial
capitalist backers and supporters who were to blame for the war and it was they
who should be punished and pay reparations; it was they who should be broken up,
not the German nation. Throughout the war Stalin refused to identify the Nazis
with the German people. Even in February 1942, when the Nazis were at the gates
of Moscow and surrounded Leningrad, he said in a speech:
"It would be ridiculous to identify the Hitler clique with the German people,
with the German State. The experience of history teaches us that Hitlers come
and go, but the German people, the German State, remains."
(Stalin, Feb 1942.)
And after the war Stalin opposed any policy which would destroy or divide
Germany and thus punish the German people:
"Three years ago Hitler publicly stated that his task included the dismemberment
of the Soviet Union and the severance from it of the Caucasus, the Ukraine,
Byelorussia, the Baltic and other regions. He definitely said, "We shall destroy
Russia so that she shall never rise again." This was three years ago. But
Hitler's insane ideas were fated to remain unrealised. ...the very opposite of
what the Hitlerites dreamed of in their delirium occurred. Germany is utterly
defeated... The Soviet Union is triumphant, although it has no intention of
either dismembering or destroying Germany."
(Stalin, May 9 1945.)
At Potsdam the Soviets proposed the setting up of a central German
administration for political and economic unity. This was rejected by the US and
Britain.
In dividing Germany the West broke a Potsdam agreement, a Soviet proposal, that
Germany should remain a single economic unit under the control of the German
people. The Soviets also proposed the withdrawal of all occupational troops and
let Germany be run by the German people. Fearing that a people released from
living under fascism will invariably opt for socialism, this of course was
rejected by the Western Allies.
In Paris, Moscow and London Soviet minister Molotov consistently proposed the
establishment of a provisional government of all political parties and trade
unions in all four occupation zones of Germany followed by an all German
constitution with secret elections by proportional representation to an all
German government of the German people, supervised by observers of the four
occupying powers. Bourgeois democracy could certainly not have complained about
that; since in no way could it have been dominated by communists, since the
Soviet zone had only 18 million out of Germany's 67 million population.
Fearing that the whole German people might vote for the Communists, the West
rejected all these proposals.
A unified Germany under terms of the Potsdam Treaty would put Germany under the
control of the German people and give them the opportunity to opt for socialism.
To the twisted thinking of the West this meant "giving it to the Russians." The
West greatly feared a communist Germany:
"The first question is whether Germany will turn Communist... Manifestly, then,
if we wish to make any effort to prevent Germany from going Communist we, along
with Great Britain and France, are impelled to exert every effort to breathe new
life into Germany's prostrate economy by integrating it as a prospering element,
into our own... ...if the people of western Germany became convinced that
Communism offered the best means of unity, the majority of them would become
Communist."
(US Government Memo "Future Policy Towards Germany," March 26 1946.)
The West was so afraid of the possibility of Germany becoming communist that
they staged a repeat of the Zinoviev letter incident. A letter known as
"Protocol M", written in pseudo-Marxist language and calling for strikes and
"liberation of the world proletariat", was "released" by British Intelligence
onto the British and world press. Repressions against Communists and closures of
Communist newspapers followed immediately as eagerly as those of the Nazis, and
left-wing books banned by the Nazis were also banned by the Westers powers.
Three months later it was admitted in the House of Commons that "Protocol M" was
a fake.
The Soviet view was that a divided Germany would always be dangerous to world
security, since sooner or later along could come another Bismark or Hitler to
"re-unite" Germany. The ideas of US military commander of Germany General Clay,
and the modern German and US revanchists are examples of this.
A divided Germany enabled US forces to intervene and put down any socialist
transformation if the German people had any thoughts of 'going communist'; which
they could not have done if the whole of Germany was under joint control with
the Soviets.
A divided Germany enabled separate peace treaties to be made by the West which
they could not make with a unified Germany under the terms of the Potsdam treaty
because of the influence of the USSR. Separate peace treaties paved the way for
West Germany to be incorporated into NATO.
A divided Germany enabled US monopoly capital to dominate a separated West
German state, whereas they could not have dominated a unified Germany under the
joint East-West supervision terms of the Potsdam agreement. A divided Germany
enabled US monopoly capital to dominate West German heavy industry and restore
the power of the cartels and multi-nationals; which would become part of the
foundations of the European Common Market and part of the formation of NATO -
both as an anti-Soviet alliance; and both of which they could not have done in a
unified Germany under the terms of the Potsdam Treaty.
A divided Germany also presented for the US a possible future starting point for
the cause of another war against communism:
"The hell of it is that the State Department is always six months behind us.
They have only just now accepted our demand to set up a separate West German
state. We have been all set to go on that for more than six months... Now
they've accepted the idea of a separate state, of course, we're ready to go
ahead with the Peace Statute. With the Peace Statute signed, we can make Germany
an ally. We'll have a seventeenth nation in the Marshall plan with its heavy
industry and 44 million more people on our side... We're losing precious time.
We should be all set to go in another few months... of course we'll be ready to
go. I should say we'll be ready to go. As a matter of fact, one of my last jobs
has been drawing up a paper on our occupation policy for the Soviet Union."
(Richard Scammon, US Military Government, Berlin, 1947.)
The capitalist world's desire to destroy the world socialist community of
countries becomes even more obvious when you consider that the USSR, our ally in
the war against German Fascism, was denied membership of NATO; while Germany,
who had just attempted to take over the whole of Europe - East and West, was
immediately welcomed with open arms as a friend and ally in NATO:
"First of all we should see that Germany is firmly tied into the other nations
of Western Europe and become a full partner in the North Atlantic Pact [NATO
B.M.]. The importance of this cannot be overemphasised... The Shuman plan offers
a real assurance in this direction."
(New York Herald Tribune Oct 27 1950.)
The formation of NATO by the West was a direct violation of the Potsdam Treaty:
"Each High Contracting Party undertakes not to conclude any alliance and not to
take part in any coalition directed against the other High Contracting Party."
(From the Potsdam Treaty.)
The NATO military alliance was formed in 1949, just after the Soviet Union had
demobilised 8.5 million of its armed forces. NATO was created solely as an
anti-socialist military alliance. The Warsaw Pact socialist military alliance
was formed six years after NATO.
Plans for rearming Germany, against the Potsdam Treaty, were in the making
despite the deceitful and naive statements of US and British politicians.
"There is no intention to rearm Germany."
(US Secretary of Defence Louis Johnson, Nov 1949.)
"We are all against German rearmament."
(Ernest Bevin, House of Parliament, summer 1950.)
However, there is a power far higher than a British Labour Foreign Secretary:
"Mr. Bevin went to New York, determined to prevent the precipitate rearmament of
Germany... He failed... Faced with an American ultimatum... he toed the line."
(New Statesman and Nation, Dec 2 1950.)
"I have discussed the whole thing with Monty and he fully shares my view that we
must get a German army as soon as possible. Some dumb politicians are against
it, but they won't be much longer."
(Commander in Chief of the British Army on the Rhine Sir Charles Keightley, at
the Press Club, Berlin, June 1950.)
As part of NATO and against the Potsdam Treaty, and away from public view, West
Germany again rearmed; just as it did in the 1930s:
"It is the great merit of the entire German military economy that in those bad
years it did not remain inactive, even if, for understandable reasons, its
activities were hidden from the public. In years of quiet work the scientific
and practical requisites were created so that the German Wehrmacht could resume
work without loss of time and experience at the given hour... Only due to this
work of the German enterprises, which was shrouded in silence... was it possible
immediately after 1933 to find speedy solutions to the new tasks of rearming,
could the many new problems be mastered."
(Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, in a speech at the University of Berlin in
Jan 1944.)
And for the British, in typical contradictory British logic, that was fine, just
as it was in the 1930s:
"I do not consider that the repeal of the disarmament dispositions of the
various peace treaties would in actual face lead to an increase in arms. On the
contrary, I believe that the announcement of the German rearmament programme
brings new hope of a general limitation of arms by all countries."
(Winston Churchill's son-in-law, Foreign Office official Duncan Sandys, Nov 2
1935.)
Even before the Second World War had ended it was decided by the West that
post-war Germany should again be the capitalist world's bulwark against
communism:
"Back to War Office to have an hour with Secretary of State discussing post-war
policy in Europe. Should Germany be dismembered or converted into an ally to
meet the Russian threat of twenty years hence? I suggested the latter and feel
certain that we must, from now onwards, regard Germany in a very different
light. Germany is no longer the dominating power in Europe - Russia is.
Therefore, foster Germany, gradually build her up and bring her into a
federation of Western Europe. [Forerunner of the EEC. B.M.] Unfortunately, this
must all be done under the cloak of our policy of a holy alliance between
England, Russia and America, not an easy policy and one requiring a super
Foreign Secretary."
(British Chief of Staff Field Marshal Sir (later Lord) Alan Brooke, in his
diary, July 27 1944.)
In 1945, under personal pressure from the King and Churchill, and against even
Attlee's choice, which was to be Hugh Dalton, Ernest Bevin was installed as that
"super Foreign Secretary".
About NATO Bevin had said:
"This pact is a powerful defensive arrangement, it is not directed against
anyone."
(British Labour Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin.)
Italy's Fascist Foreign Minister Ciano had said the same before the war about
the Anti-Comintern Pact:
"The pact has no hidden aims. It is directed against no one."
(Italy's Foreign Minister Ciano, talking about the pre war Anti-Comintern Pact
between Nazi Germany and its allies.)
All that was needed then, and capital has been trying to conjure one up in
people's minds ever since, was to create a situation of conflict in order to
start a war with the Soviet Union and the Socialist world:
"Inasmuch as the Russians appear to be achieving great success with the peace,
and are unlikely to gain more by war, the conflict will have to be of our
making, sparked off by some event, either in Berlin or elsewhere in Europe,
where Russia and the West may come into conflict."
(Monetary Times, Nov 1948.)
As we shall see in other parts of this book; further attempts to create
situations of potential conflict were made later in Hungary and Czechoslovakia
as well as the GDR, Poland, Cuba and Vietnam.
The same policy was still in operation over 20 years later:
"The new policy will be to fire battlefield nuclear weapons at targets in E.
Germany, Poland or Czechoslovakia, but not at the Soviet Union, directly
relevant to the front line fighting. This would mean tactical airfields, first
line supply depots or collecting points for reinforcements."
(Defence correspondent Douglas Home, The Times Dec 23 1969.)
Also, Sir Alec Douglas Home, as Foreign Secretary, according to The Times, told
the NATO Council in Paris on December 22 1961, in a reference to Berlin that the
British people were prepared to "be reduced to atomic dust."
Europe didn't have to wait many years for a conflict.
As the diaries and memoirs of US Government officials such as Forrestal,
Vandenberg and Hickenlooper now reveal; since British scientists played a large
part in the development of the atom bomb, there was a secret pledge made by
Roosevelt and Churchill at the Quebec Conference in 1943 not to use it without
British consent. The US threatened to oppose Marshall Aid to Britain if the
British Government didn't release them from this treaty. The Attlee Labour
Government agreed, the US was released from the Quebec agreement, and Marshall
Aid arrived in Britain accompanied by American bombers - for a "short training"
and "good will" visit. Also as a requirement of Marshall Aid Britain sold over
to the US Britain's share in the Congo uranium mines, which the US needed for
its nuclear weapons programme, and Britain's assets abroad such as military
bases for US nuclear bomber use; as well as opening the British colonies up to
US capital.
The British Government had already secretly agreed to Britain's own nuclear arms
programme in 1947.
Bases for the US bombers had already been set up in Britain under the pretext of
airlifting supplies to "starving Berlin" which was said to be "blockaded" by the
Soviets, who in fact were themselves feeding the people of West Berlin.
The truth, however, was that the West had begun to divide Germany by introducing
a separate currency into the Western zones, which upset the economy of the
Soviet zone. As was expected by the West, the Soviets closed the border in order
to protect the currency and the economy in their sector. But movements of
supplies and people were not heavily restricted. The Soviets even offered to
supply the whole of Berlin since there was no shortage in the Soviet zone of
Berlin. A similar offer was made by the Mayor of Berlin's Soviet zone:
"We have the coal and food stored in our warehouses. They can be had by Herr
Reuter [West Berlin's Mayor] for the whole of Berlin without any conditions
whatsoever. And if Herr Reuter does not want to accept, individual suburban
bergermeisters can have it. They can collect from us or we will deliver it to
them."
(Mayor of Berlin's Soviet zone Friedrich Ebert.)
Herr Reuter, who had said he would hang all communists "from the nearest trees
and lamp-posts", rejected the offer and forbade Western mayors to accept. Even
Western companies who accepted Ebert's offer of coal were blacklisted by the
Western authorities. Western Berliners had their sacks of coal given to them by
the Eastern sector confiscated by West Berlin border police.
The crisis and the airlift had to continue. There was no "blockade" of essential
supplies at all.
"The so-called 'blockade' began when the Americans and the British decided to
establish a separate West German State. That decision was a breach of the
Potsdam Agreement."
(D.N.Pritt KC. MP. in his book "Russia is for Peace.")
The so-called German "food crisis" was created by the West. The "food crisis"
enabled the US separate and get complete control of Western Germany.
It is significant that the day after the US currency reform many categories of
food suddenly became unrationed and luxury foods suddenly appeared in the shops.
The industrial workers, however, had been going short of basic foods since 1945,
surviving on about 700 calories a day (a slice of bread and a few potatoes was
the daily food intake for most of the Ruhr working class) as against the
promised 1,500 calories. The US controlled all food movement and prices, and
prevented the traditional trade of Ruhr coal and steel for foods from the East
on a barter basis. Instead, food had to be imported at US prices. The day after
currency reform it was planned to end potato rationing because a sudden
"surplus" of potatoes had accumulated in the US zone.
The "Berlin airlift" was nothing but an expensive propaganda show in order to
"prove" the Soviet Union's "hostile intentions" and provide a reason for setting
up the anti-Soviet alliance of NATO and for initiating another war against the
USSR.
Dividing Germany was also part of the US strategic war plans:
"1. To evaluate the chances of success in delivering a powerful strategic air
offensive... and to appraise any adverse effect on this offensive of the
continuation of the Berlin airlift at its contemplated level until war occurs...
4. The Berlin airlift will be continued... until the outbreak of hostilities...
5. The strategic air offensive will be implemented on a first-priority basis."
(From declassified US security document JCS 1952/1, of Dec 21 1948.)
The Berlin airlift had the required propaganda value:
"There could be a settlement of the Berlin situation at any time on the basis of
a Soviet currency for Berlin and our right to bring in food, raw materials and
fuel to the Western sectors. The present situation is, however, to US advantage
for propaganda purposes. We are getting credit for keeping the people of Berlin
from starving; the Russians are getting the blame for their privations. If we
settle Berlin, then we have to deal with Germany as a whole. We will have to
deal immediately with a Russian proposal for withdrawal of all occupation troops
and a return of Germany to the Germans. Frankly I do not know what we would say
to that. We cannot keep up the airlift indefinitely."
(Truman's foreign policy advisor, later Secretary of State John Foster Dulles,
in an off-the-record speech to the Overseas Press Club, Paris, Jan 24 1949.)
It was much better for the US if the crisis could be maintained and the
shortages blamed on the Soviets and the fact that Germany had "lost" the rich
agricultural lands East of the Oder-Neisse line.
At the end of January 1949 Dulles stated in a New York Herald Tribune interview
that the US did not want the Berlin situation settled until NATO existed and
West Germany was integrated into Western Europe.
It was the West's actions which created a separate German state. The West
introduced their separate currency into the Western zones on June 18 1948. This
was extended to West Berlin on June 23. The new notes had been printed in the US
many months before, and made the Marks in the Soviet zone valueless. The Soviets
immediately, as from June 20, put a tight control on all road, rail and river
transport into the Soviet zone. As an emergency measure the Soviets had to
prepare stamps which were pasted over the notes in their zone. These currency
reforms in West Berlin and West Germany seriously affected the economic
relations between West and East Germany. Over the 12 years of its open border
policy the GDR lost nearly 30 billion Marks.
Also a separate West German constitution was drawn up. The Allied Control
Council was dissolved by the West. On December 5 1948, separate elections were
held in the Western zones for a separate West German state. On December 21 1948
the British, US and French established a separate tripartite Kommandatura in
West Berlin. Finally, a separate Bonn state was established on September 7 1949.
Since Germany no longer existed as a whole, on October 7 1949 the GDR was
formed.
The FRG (capitalist Federal Republic of Germany) was again set up as Europe's
"bulwark against communism."
Coupled with this is the dangerous West German ideology of revanchism; to
"reclaim" Europe's "lost territories".
"The best way to get back the German Eastern territories is the rearmament of
Germany in the framework of the European army."
(West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, Feb 10 1952.)
"Our aim is the liberation of our 18 million brothers and sisters in the Eastern
territories. Until now we have always spoken of the reunification of Germany.
But we should rather say 'liberation'."
(West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, Sept 7 1953.)
"The Eastern frontier of Bavaria must be strengthened for a solution of the
Sudeten German question in the spirit of the Munich pact and for an all European
solution."
(West German Minister, ex-Nazi Theodor Oberlander, in "Bulletin of the Federal
Government" Nov 6 1953.)
The same Oberlander had envisaged the same ideas in 1940:
"In any case we must achieve complete Germanisation in the eastern territories.
Measures effecting complete ejection and resettlement may seem to be harsh to
those involved... but severity employed once is better than small scale warfare
carried on for generations... For this reason, along with many others, an
assimilation of the Polish people must be rejected."
(Theodor Oberlander, Neues Bauerntum April-May 1940.)
"I can only welcome any reinforcement of the defence front, whether through the
despatch of atomic weapons or by other military means."
(West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, to US Army newspaper Stars and Stripes,
Nov 1953.)
"If we give the Germans weapons and equal rights in the Atlantic Defence
Community, and also the hope that the East German zone can be liberated and the
lost territories East of the Oder-Neisse Line can be won back in a war, then
there can be little doubt that we can win the Germans as our most reliable
allies."
(The American Mercury, after Chancellor Adenauer's visit to the US, June 1953.)
"The Potsdam Agreement contains not only economic principles, it also contains
political principles which are for us Germans unacceptable and will remain
unacceptable."
(West German Chancellor Adenauer, Feb 1 1953.)
"The following definitions and written forms are to be applied in regard to the
East German territories... For the East German territories beyond the Oder and
Neisse: German Reich territory within the frontiers of 31 December 1937 under
temporary Polish (or Soviet) administration, or the corresponding short form:
Eastern territories of the German Reich (as of 31 December 1937) at the moment
under foreign administration."
(West German War Ministry instructions on the official "designation of the
eastern territories, Dec 1958.)
"Our territorial demands reach far beyond the Oder-Neisse line; we want to
recover the old German domains. The year 2000 must not be allowed to become the
83rd anniversary of the October Revolution in the world."
(Von Hassel, West German Minister for Expelled Persons, Refugees and War
Victims, Bulletin des Presse und Informationsamtes der Bundesregierung, Bonn,
Aug 21 1960.)
The border remained open till 1961.
In the middle of 1960 two West German Army officers; Major Bruno Winzer and
Captain von Gliga went to the GDR and revealed detailed plans for the FRG to
launch a lightning war against the GDR. The plans used the idea of creating an
'incident' in the GDR so that West German forces could intervene and occupy and
present the world with a fait accompli, saying that an internal German question
had been settled. These plans were made public by the GDR, who made it quite
clear in conjunction with the USSR that the Warsaw powers would defend their
ally.
On June 14 1961, West German revanchists in the Bundestag passed a resolution
for the revision of Europe's frontiers. In the US on July 25 1961 the West
German Minister of defence, ex-Nazi Franz Josef Strauss, who still suffered from
frosbitten toes as a constant reminder of his exploits at Stalingrad, said that
the Second World War had still not ended and that a kind of civil war was in the
making.
A plan called "Outline" was developed to seize the GDR by force. On August 1
1961 NATO troops were ordered on a full alert for an armed clash in Berlin. A
public threat was issued by Kennedy and a nuclear attack was planned. The USAF
mobilised planes and the West German navy was deployed in the Baltic and ex-Nazi
General Spiedel had NATO ground forces mobilised for the attack.
The Warsaw Pact member nations met in Moscow.
War was imminent. On August 13 1961 the West woke up to find the Berlin wall had
been built and manned by the GDR workers' militia, the People's Army of the GDR;
backed by rows of Warsaw Pact tanks and artillery and troops behind it. On
August 25 1961 US General Clay's tanks approached the border only to find lines
of Soviet tanks opposing them. 16 hours later Clay's tanks withdrew. The world
stepped back from the brink of World War III.
NATO's plan was abandoned; switching their plans to Czechoslovakia in 1968, as
we shall see later, when again their plans were stopped by the sudden appearance
of five Warsaw Pact forces, not just Soviet, to defend Czechoslovakia against a
combined counter-revolution and any desires of NATO to establish a military base
in Czechoslovakia.
The Berlin wall was a normal border of a sovereign state. It was not a wall that
simply divided East and West ethnically or geographically; but a wall that
divided two world economic systems. It divided two ideologies and two world
outlooks; two worlds, one controlled by capital and one controlled by labour.
The division of Germany is on class lines. In the GDR, the working capital of
the whole state is owned by the whole people - by the working class, there is no
other class of people in a true socialist state, no capitalist class. What share
of their countries' working capital do working people own in the capitalist
world? None!
The Berlin wall and the borders of the socialist countries are a barrier against
economic and political destabilisation of the world socialist community. The
defence of socialism begins at the Berlin wall. Does Wall Street or Threadneedle
Street intend to move it? Does the Pentagon or Whitehall intend to knock it
down?
In 1961 the GDR used the power of its borders to show the imperialists the
limits of their power. Imperialist power ends at the wall. But even though the
events of August 1961 showed the West the limits of its power, they haven't
given up, as revanchism shows:
"Our fatherland is Germany, not only the Federal Republic but also the Soviet
zone as well as the territories under Polish administration and the Soviet
annexed region around Konigsberg."
(Soldatenkurier, soldier's newspaper of the 5th Tank Division, Dietz/Lahn, May 1
1962.)
"Our all-German positions are against the stabilisation of the status quo in
Germany and Europe. As long as we - supported by the free world - refuse to
accept the facts established by the communists in Germany, we are not only
keeping open the German question, but we are at the same time becoming effective
against the finality of the stabilisation of the status quo in Europe. The
non-recognition of the zone and the Oder-Neisse line fulfils a European
function... for the destiny of the Europeans under communist domination is... a
matter of political, historical and moral concern."
(Rainer Barzel, Die Welt, West Berlin, Oct 30 1965.)
"In my talks in the USA I explained that the Federal Republic of Germany...
would struggle with all political means for the restoration of the frontiers of
the German Reich of 1937... with a view to providing lasting conditions and a
peaceful order throughout the whole of Europe."
(Franz-Josef Strauss, Bayerne Kurier, Munich, June 25 1965.)
So a "peaceful order" in Europe is dependent only on restoration of the 1937
German Reich. And what if "all political means" fails? How then does one move
the frontiers of Europe? One cannot simply go and move the fence-posts:
"Without possession of atomic weapons it is unthinkable that Germany can restore
its historical frontiers."
(Secret memo of the Bonn Government, Dec 1961.)
"If it were up to me, we could break down the wall in Berlin. You have in the
meantime learned enough from me that I would risk a break-through. And I am sure
I could rely on you."
(Captain Ott, to soldiers of Armoured Rifle Brigade 13 of the West German Army.)
"As far as I am concerned, it could begin tomorrow. In one day we could be in
Leipzig [GDR B.M.] and by night-time I would already be sleeping on the stairs
of the central railway station."
(Captain Schubert, Signal Battalion Clausthal-Zellerfeld, to West German Army
recruits.)
"An atomic war of extermination should be made the basis of total military
preparations by the government leadership. All military measures must be
reconsidered from the viewpoint of a war of extermination."
(Land Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany as an Organisational Problem.
Wehrkunde, Munich, 1966, No.5.)
"No, in this question of German life and destiny complete clarity and frankness
are all the more necessary... the final aim which is the united Reich including
the German territories in the East."
("Might and Right", in German Soldier's Yearbook 1966.)
Like Hitler's Nazis, the West German revanchists still keep their military
options open for expansion to the East:
"Whoever is of the opinion that the best forward defence is a foreign policy,
which pushes its position ahead towards the East, will not allow the military
instrument to become blunted."
(Frankfurter Allgemeine, Feb 9 1967.)
"Once flourishing stretches of country are situated beyond the Oder-Neisse line
which had formerly brought forth a surplus of food for the provision of many
millions of people - and which are now in a state of decay. The Polish settlers
installed there consider their presence in the Eastern German territories as
temporary."
(Information fur de Truppe, special issue with map with 1937 frontiers "Die
Deutschen Ostgebeite." (The Eastern German Territories).)
The US government and its faithful owners of the British media still pander to
West German revanchism in the 1980s:
"Let me be very clear, the United States does not recognise the legitimacy of
the artificially imposed division of Europe... This division is the essence of
European security and human rights problems."
(US Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs George Schultz, to Stockholm
Conference on Confidence Building Measures and Disarmament, Jan 17 1984.)
Even during the world's 40th anniversary of its victory over fascism the West
German and US revanchists were calling for the restoration of the 1937 Reich
borders:
"May 8 1945 did not draw a line through the German question. The Reich within
the 1937 borders is not abolished."
(Alfred Dregger, former Nazi army Captain, chairman of the Christian Democratic
Union - CDU/CSU faction in the West German Bundestag, May 1985.)
"The reason Yalta remains important is that the freedom of Europe is unfinished
business."
(US President Ronald Reagan, Feb 1985.)
"Forty years ago today the leaders of the Soviet Union, the United States and
the United Kingdom, met at Yalta in the Crimea to discuss the future of
Europe... Yalta means the root of all their present political evils... That is
what divided Europe and divides it still."
(The Times Feb 4 1985.)
Revanchism is presented to West Germans several times a day. Every time they see
the weather map on television it shows the 1937 frontiers. West German postage
stamps are issued which show as belonging to West Germany cities which belong to
other states. Thus revanchism is kept alive in the minds of the people in the
hope that one day conditions might present themselves in which the West can take
back the GDR into the imperialist fold. And psychological preparation of public
opinion continues:
"This fourth dimension is a war which cannot be shown on any strategic map, but
is wherever the press, radio or pictures can reach into the last village.
The battles of a third world war, fought on the level of this fourth dimension,
have long been in action, it is the struggle for the minds of the people of our
world."
("Press Freedom and Psychological Armament." in Wehrkunde, official organ of the
West German War Ministry, Munich, 1964, No.9.)
To those in the West who speak of a reunification of Germany, the GDR people
asked: under what socio-economic system? Socialism but with a Mercedes?

Who Forced The Creation Of An East German State?
In the GDR (German Democratic Republic - what the West calls East Germany), in
accordance with the Potsdam Agreement, there are no Fascists in power, no
armaments industries, and no large army. Unlike West Germany, however, there was
also no Marshall Aid. The social and economic production systems of the
socialist countries had to be build by the people themselves with their own
resources of materials and labour. Nobody helped them.
Contrary to malicious Western propaganda, designed for no other purpose than
putting any thoughts of socialism as an alternative socio-economic system firmly
out of the enquiring minds of ordinary people, the Red Army did not "impose"
socialism on East Germany or any other country after the war.
Regarding Germany, Stalin said at Potsdam that the political system of Germany
must be the decision of the German people:
"Germany is what she has become as a result of waging a war, there is no other
Germany. It is a nation without a government, without borders, without wealth,
without an army and without heavy industry and without Nazis. Germany is now
Zones of occupation. Therefore let the German people choose its government and
means of production and distribution of wealth."
(Stalin, Potsdam, 1945.)
In strict accordance with the Potsdam Treaty, and in direct contrast with the
FRG (West Germany), in the GDR (East Germany) land reforms were carried out, and
the property of Fascists was turned over to the people, and non-fascist
political parties and trade unions were formed. Local self government and
administration was established, and elections to community, district, and state
assemblies of people's representatives were held in 1946. Elections were equal,
direct, and by secret ballot, in which representatives of the Socialist Unity
Party won the majority of votes. Junkerdom, fascism and militarism were
abolished, and monopoly capital in land, finance and industry was handed over to
the people; and the press, judiciary and education were purged of fascists.
Contrary to the Potsdam Treaty, in the western Zones of occupation the formation
of a single German government was impeded, unification of political parties on a
nationwide basis was prevented and the Socialist Unity Party was prevented from
functioning. The Western occupied zones were united in a block as part of the
West's policy of splitting Germany. In September 1948 Western military
commanders formed a so-called "parliamentary council" which drafted the Bonn
constitution of a separate West German state which was approved of by the
Western military commanders-in-chief on May 12 1949. The West German people took
no part in the drafting of this constitution, which provided for the
re-domination of the monopolies and gave no guarantees against militarism,
fascism and revanchism (reformation of the 1937 German "Reich" lands).
The FRG was formed on September 20 1949 and headed by Adenauer.
"Bismark spoke about the coalition against Germany as his nightmare. I also have
my nightmare which is Potsdam."
(West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer.)
Not long after the ink was dry on the Potsdam Agreement, West Germany was
absolved most of its war debts and reparations and received billions of dollars
of US capital investments known as "Marshall Aid." The German economy was so
poor that it was feared again, as it was before the war, that the German people
would opt for socialism.
There had always been a strong socialist tradition in Germany, with many fine
leaders, such as Ernst Thaelmann, who spent ten years in Nazi jails from 1933
and was finally killed in Buchenwald, a concentration camp specifically for
political prisoners � communists, socialists, trade union leaders and members,
working class leaders and other anti-Nazi political prisoners from all the
nations of Europe including British, all of whom had a politically aware working
class internationalist consciousness; and was the only concentration camp in
which the inmates organised to overpower the guards and liberated themselves.
When the town of Eisleben, now in the GDR, was liberated, a banner which had
been presented to the workers of the town long before the war by Soviet miners
from Krivoi Rog was brought out to greet the Red Army.
"The market-place was a sea of red flags. In the old town-hall a democratic
administration, a representative body of the working class was installed under
the glorious banner of the Krivoi Rog miners which Otto Brosowski, the Party
veteran, would not relinquish despite torture and solitary confinement by the
fascists. In the open... stood a statue of Lenin - material evidence that in
this part of Germany the torch of proletarian internationalism had never gone
out, that the banner of Ernst Thaelmann's Party had been held high, untainted,
despite the fascist darkness."
(Otto Winzer.)
Another act of solidarity by the town was the hiding of a bronze statue of Lenin
which the Nazis had brought from Smolensk in the Soviet Union to melt down for
armaments. Reprisals were taken, but the statue remained hidden. When the Red
Army liberated the town, the inhabitants wanted to give the statue back to its
rightful owners. The Smolensk Soviet authorities said: you saved it, we donate
it to you. A German journalist writes:
Many of the founders of the GDR were members of the Free German Committee formed
during the war by anti-Nazi German army officers and Reichstag deputies, some of
whom managed to reach the safety of Moscow before the war, and some of whom were
German prisoners of war captured by the Soviets. One such prisoner was Field
Marshal von Paulus, who surrendered the German armies at Stalingrad and joined
the Free German Committee in Moscow. After the war he taught at a Soviet
military academy. He died in the GDR in 1957.
The program of the Free German Committee had stated in 1943 that:
"If the German people continue inertly to follow Hitler, then he can be
overthrown only by the armies of the Coalition. But that would mean the end of
our national independence and the partition of our country. If the German people
have the courage to free Germany of Hitler... then Germany will have won the
right to decide her own fate, and other nations will respect her... But no one
will make peace with Hitler; therefore the formation of a genuine National
Government is an urgent task... Such a government can be formed only by men who
have risen against Hitler... The forces in the Army, true to their Fatherland,
must play a decisive part in this. Our aim is a free Germany, i.e.a strong
democratic power totally unlike the impotent Weimar Republic."
(From the Programme of the Free German Committee, 1943.)
The majority of Government ministers in the GDR also spent time in Hitler's
concentration camps - on the inside of the wire, including GDR President Erich
Honecker, who survived 10 years in Nazi concentration camps. President Honecker
and the people of the GDR say that as far as they are concerned: "Never again
will capitalism, exploitation, fascism or war emanate from German soil."
The GDR had a difficult birth. Berlin. like the rest of Germany, was a heap of
rubble, no food, since the Nazis had destroyed all the food stores, and little
of anything else. Most of the food, transport and other essentials were supplied
by the Soviet Union. British historian Alexander Werth describes:
"The feeding of Berlin was a terrible problem, since the Nazis had destroyed all
the food-stores, saying: 'While we are here you'll have food, but when the
Bolsheviks take over, you'll starve.' But things were not nearly as bad as the
Germans - very frightened at first - had expected. The Red Army had presented
Berlin with a thousand lorries... twenty-five million marks..."
(British historian Alexander Werth.)
One of the first priorities of the GDR was to rid the country of fascism. Nazis
were removed from all positions of power and given other work to do. Nazi school
books were replaced and it was difficult to find enough anti-Nazi teachers.
Government. banks, land and industry were taken over by the East German people,
who, after paying heavy war reparations and without a penny of Marshall Aid,
built themselves a fine, modern industrial country whose industrial output
became among the world's top ten, with an economic growth rate that was the envy
of the capitalist world, and whose standard of living was at least as high as
the average worker's in Britain.
Like the other Socialist countries, the GDR has no inflation, prices remain
stable, and wages rise steadily, so the real standard of living steadily rises.
Without any capital aid from the West, the East German people also had to
rebuild their ruined and destroyed cities;
"Berlin, another of the cities largely decimated by World War II, immediately
involved one in thought of all the tortuous calamities resulting from warfare.
whilst the people were still living largely in cellars, dugouts or ruins, it had
been a question of whether it was worth trying to rebuild East Berlin at all, or
whether it would not be simpler to start afresh on a new site."
(Dean of Canterbury, Hewlett Johnson.)
East Berlin is now a bright new clean and impressive modern city in almost all
respects and to an immensely greater degree than London, New York, and certainly
by contrast with West Berlin. It is often said that if you photographed or
filmed East and West Berlin and reversed the titles, such are people's abysmal
ignorance and prejudices engendered by a mind-saturating Western media, most
people would believe you. Much of West Berlin is dirtier, more run down and full
of rubbish, empty buildings, unemployment, homelessness, drug addicts,
vandalism, crime and every other example of Western inner city depravity and
decay. East Berlin's equivalent to London's Oxford Street is a wide boulevard
with wide tree lined pavements, bright new shops, office blocks and apartments
of a quality which disgraces much of its London counterpart. And how many
working people in London could afford the rent to live in an apartment in Oxford
Street; as they do in the centre of East Berlin?
To have an idea of what the GDR has had to cope with since 1945, let GDR workers
speak:
"For years we have been rebuilding Semper's Opera House which was destroyed
during a barbaric air raid on my home town. I don't know if anyone can imagine
how many bricks had to be carefully laid one by one with a spirit level, before
a window appeared, closed by an arch. The old stately building had thousands of
broken doors and windows. And inside the ring walls there was hardly a vault
left standing. But we have all grown up with concrete slabs. Who would know how
to model stucco rosettes? Who would know what colours were used for the painting
on the ceiling 110 years ago?
We had to learn all that and undertake the reconstruction work in full
accordance with the old designs, as if court architect Semper was standing right
behind us. He needed eight years to complete the building; the air raid in 1945
only needed eight seconds to destroy it. The surrounding pond was drained empty
to extinguish the fire. I sometimes wish that the general staff officers of the
American Air Force had had to drag all the bricks for us so that they might
think a little before they press the button again! With the bombs they have on
board today, the surrounding pond would evaporate in a flash.
I merely want to say: we builders will still not be finished with this project
when the Opera House is opened on 13 February 1985. That will be the 40th
anniversary of its destruction.
We must also ensure that anyone who wants to throw again a firebrand into our
building has his hand stayed. For this reason, I have served three years in the
National People's Army and, thus, I go on marches with the workers' militia at
the weekends: for the Zwinger, for the Kreuzkirche, for Semper's Opera House,
and for life in this city."
(Gerolf Otte, 27, bricklayer, Dresden, GDR.)
"As I see it, there's a two-fold political as well as a two-fold economic reason
why we had to carry out land reform and make a success of it. First of all we
had to get rid of the Junkers, the princes, counts, barons and such junk. They
have been the curse of Germany and the curse of the small peasants and labourers
too, for long enough. They were a breeding ground for militarists, adventurers
and reactionaries of all sorts. They had to go. Without their estates, they're
no power and no danger at all. Let them go to the West and sit in their friends'
castles there and make their plans. They'll never come back, take my word for
it. Think of it, 2,000 of them owned as much land as 2,000,000 of our peasants."
(East German village committee official, to Australian journalist Wilfred
Burchett, in his book "Cold War in Germany.)
"The expropriated enemies of the people were received in the West German zones
of occupation with open arms. They put many a spoke in our wheel. We had a
miserable inheritance: we had four blast furnaces, and they were only fit for
the scrap heap. In what is now the Federal Republic, there were 156. In Leuna,
not one piece of piping was intact, in the IG-Farben works, by contrast, the
chimneys soon began smoking again."
(Gerda Hesse, Director of the Pirna Industrial Health Academy, GDR.)
"When I was born, the question of who would win out, socialism or capitalism,
had been decided in favour of socialism. For 16 years the imperialists tried to
bleed us white on account of the open state borders, causing us losses in excess
of 100,000 million marks. They tried to roll socialism back through terrorist
groups, the discontinuation of vital supplies, phoney currency exchanges,
deliberate brain drains and smear campaigns. But we soon learnt to fight against
this. The workers' militia, the National People's Army, the Soviet Army and the
Warsaw Treaty Organisation created an impregnable barrier in August 1961. From
then on, we could at last work for ourselves."
(Carola Guntert, GDR.)
Much propaganda is made by the West about people in the European socialist
countries inability to travel to the West. In Britain it is often complained
about the "brain drain", where, doctors and other specialists trained here go
off and earn big dollars in the US or elsewhere. This issue needs to be properly
evaluated in the contextual terms of the socialist countries.
When I stayed in the Moscow hotel which was built for the 1980 Olympics there
was a conversation going on in the bar with a group of British mainstream
journalists and a group of students from the GDR (Eastern Germany). The British
journalists kept trying to plug away at the socialist countries' lack of freedom
to travel ot the "West." One bright GDR agricultural engineering student put it
this way:
Taking the example often quoted in the West of a surgeon going abroad, he said,
and I cannot recall his exact words: In our country, somebody wanting to be a
surgeon first of all goes to university for an extension of his education. Then
he goes to medical gollege, followed by medical training in a hospital or
medical institute. When he qualifies, he is then as what we in the West would
call a house doctor or a registrar. This extends his training and experience for
a few more years until he qualifies and becomes what we in the West call a
consultant. This whole process covers some ten or more years of his life. Who do
you think pays for his upkeep, his living expenses, and all this education and
training? It is us who work in the factories and in the fields. What do you
think we feel when he turns round and says to us "Thanks fellas, but I want to
go and earn big money in the West." Do you think we want to say to him: "Sure!
Have a nice time. Send us a postcard."? No. We have supported him all these
years and now he pays back our society by looking after our health, as we
continue to provide for his living and lifestyle.
When I originally wrote the book that this article is edited from, the GDR was
still in existence and going strong, and I added the following paragraph:
Can anyone seriously imagine that the people of the GDR want to give the
factories back to the Krupps, Thyssen and IG-Farben monopolies, the banks back
to finance capital, and the land back to the Junkers land owners?
Well, the "wall" has come down and Germany is now unified. And mainstream
journalism and academia will be gleefully rubbing their hands together,
gloatingly telling me what a fool I was.
So what do I say about that?
In a brief way, I can say that all attempts at creating manned flight failed or
collapsed, and people said it was impossible, before the Wright brothers made
their historic first flight in their not much more than paper and string
aircraft.
Less briefly, I will say that it is necessary to take into account several
things which contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the European
socialist community.
I will also say that sooner or later there will be another, stronger, well
founded European, indeed world socialist community. But that's another story and
will involve heaps of debate and discussion and validification of Marxist
socio-economic philosophy.
But to understand the historically temporary collapse and failure of the
European socialist community, first of all it is necessary to understand the
terrible losses these countries, especially the USSR, suffered in the Second
World War � the primary aim of which was to destroy the Soviet Union and any
notions of real socialism in the first place.
Also, whereas billions of US dollars was pumped into the capitalist countries to
keep them afloat and surviving; the socialist countries got nothing.
The West had millions of dollars of Marshall Aid to implement a much smaller
amount of reconstruction. Not only did the Soviet Union not get a penny of
Marshall Aid, but they were cheated out of war reparations at Potsdam:
At both Yalta and Potsdam it was agreed that nations should be compensated
according to losses.
It was a provision of the Yalta agreement that:
"Germany must pay in kind for the losses caused by her to the Allied nations in
the course of the war. Reparations are to be received in the first instance by
those countries which have borne the main burden of the war, have suffered the
heaviest losses and have organised victory over the enemy."
(From the Crimea (Yalta) Conference Protocol, signed by the USSR, the US and
Britain, Feb 11 1945.)
Eventually the Soviets dropped their claims for percentages and accepted nominal
figures. The Soviet's share of other reparations, such as shares of industrial
enterprises, and German gold - after the return of what Germany had plundered
from other countries, and German investments and enterprises abroad, including
those in the US, was either lowered or blocked altogether. At Potsdam Bevin
asked:
Later, on August 1 1945, the US and Britain proposed that in exchange for an
agreed percentage of capital equipment, the Soviet Union should waive its claims
to German assets abroad, gold, and its shares from German enterprises in the
Western zones of occupation. The Soviet Union later waived many other claims to
which it was entitled.
Also not only did the Soviet Union have to settle Poland's claims from its own
share of reparations, but it had to supply the Western zones with the equivalent
value in food and coal and other commodities in exchange for 15 percent of
usable industrial capital equipment.
It is indubitable that the Soviet Union bore the main burden or war and suffered
the heaviest losses and organised the main victory over the enemy. But the
Soviets were compensated the most unfairly.
The socialist countries' infrastructure, industry and economies were in ruins,
they had to build it all up themselves, with nothing but socialist capital -
their own labour. Their recovery and advances were more remarkable in the rate
of their achievement than anywhere in the West. For instance, food rationing in
the UK remained in force during my early childhood and for longer than in the
Soviet Union. And note that it was the USSR which not only launched the world's
first satellite into outer space, but also put the world's first cosmonaut, Yuri
Gagarin, into space.
Secondly, dragging them down was the vicious and crippling arms race imposed by
the West.
Another issue was problems associated with world socialist integration.
Something which is an anathema to imperialist global economic domination, which
only exploits and impoverishes the rest of the world.
The instrument of economic integration of the socialist community of countries
is called the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA � what the West
calls "comecon" � a sort of socialist world common market.)
As I understand it from Soviet and GDR officials I met in the 1970s, the the
nature of the world socialist community was that, with the creation of the CMEA,
the world socialist community integrated their economies. At a certain stage in
its history, the policy was for the European advanced socialist economies such
as the USSR, GDR, Czechoslovakia and Hungary to tread water and put massive
resources and efforts into building up the newer and poorer socialist countries
such as Cuba and Vietnam. This caused a certain amount of stagnation in the
advanced socialist countries' domestic economies. One example of CMEA mutual
economic assistance was after the Cuban revolution when Cuba nationalised its
oil refineries, the US placed an international boycot on Cuba's sugar and other
exports and on supply of oil to Cuba. So Cuba and the Soviet Union signed an
sugar for oil deal. A point about this is that the Soviet Union doesn't need to
import sugar; it has masses of resources of its own � though more from beet
sugar than from cane sugar. But as world sugar prices dropped, the USSR
continued to pay the higher 1960s prices for Cuba's sugar, and continued to
supply Cuba with oil at lower 1960s prices as world oil prices rose.
Another thing was that some of the European socialist countries took a direction
independently from the USSR and the main CMEA block policies, and took massive
crippling loans in Western hard currency. Others imported large elements of
capitalism and allowed big capitalist corporations to invest in their economies
and build capitalist complexes in their countries. It doesn't need me to tell
you that capitalism never invests in anything without getting massive profits
out of it. Continuing massive and unpayable debts to the West, and the West's
"investment" in the rest of the world cripples the poor world and is the direct
cause of their continuing poverty today.
Also, historically there were always two political trends competing in the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union � hard line and easy going. The easy going
side won out and culminated in Gorbachev's ultimate sell out to the West and the
Soviet Union's ultimate demise, along with most of the rest of the world
socialist community, and the economic and social help it gave to other,
non-socialist, poor countries.
But as I say, there will eventually be another, stronger, world socialist
community. Communist parties in the former Soviet states are still strong and
influential. Once the populations of these countries have had enough of their
taste of this wonderful capitalist freedom and democracy thye will re-think the
potential of a better form of the socialist alternative.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union and its massive former support, it wasn't
going to be easy for the rest of the socialist community to survive. Today, Cuba
remains an example to the world of what a socialist system can do for its people
and is the model most Latin American countries aspire to. The trends in
Venezuela under Hugo Chavez, and Bolivia under Evo Morales are good examples of
this encouraging trend. Vietnam and China are other advances in examples of the
possibility of socialist alternatives.
So what have the people of the former GDR gained under unification?
Well, they have certainly lost their socialist advances in education, health and
welfare services. But have they all now got a Mercedes?
After the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Unification of Germany, an old GDR
party member and journalist friend of mine referred to what she called the
"socialism but with a Mercedes" syndrome among GDR people pre-unification;
saying that many former GDR workers thought they were voting for being able to
keep their socialist social, education, health and welfare system but also have
a Mercedes.
With unemployment and homelessness unheard of in the USSR or the GDR, it is so
sad that millions of inhabitants of these countries are now unemployed, homeless
and unhealthy, drug addicts and criminals, and I would probably now be in tears
if I dared to venture into the back streets behind Moscow's Prospekt Marxa or
Berlin's Unter Den Linden.

Postscript:
British school and college history syllabus teaching and books do not contain
this information.
All the material and information I have presented here is readily available to
historians, writers, journalists, teachers, educators and syllabus publishers.
Although I have spent many hundreds of hours gathering it all together, I did
not have to look very far to find any of it.
Most people think British education is among the best in the world. It isn't. It
never has been. From before and right through the industrial revolution, the
British ruling class has always feared an educated working class. When it was
proposed to build free libraries for working people a century ago, Lord
Salisbury said: "Libraries! They don't want libraries; give them a circus."
Now we have an education circus.
"The object of education is to prepare the young to educate themselves
throughout their lives� It sometimes seems as though we were trying to combine
the ideal of no schools at all with the democratic ideal of schools for
everybody by having schools without education."
(Robert Maynard Hutchins.)
"We are in a period of considerable social change� There may be social unrest,
but we can cope with the Toxteths [Liverpool riots BM.)� but if we have a
highly educated and idle population we may possibly anticipate more serious
social conflict. People must be educated to know their place."
(Secret report of British Department of Education on rationalising school
curricula, 1984.)
It means that as a teacher you can get away with teaching about the Nazis or
Apartheid on a superficial level, because these historical eras are too well
known. But if you ventured seriously and treated them with any depth, revealing
the whole story, including British complicity and support for Nazism and
Apartheid, and seriously investigated British complicity in most other such
events in history, you soon learned that you would be progressively
marginalized, criticised, then ostracised, left out of career improvements or
promotion, and get a sense of the unspoken threat of not being able to pay the
mortgage and bills supporting a teacher's lifestyle.
When as a trainee history lecturer, it was suggested I take the class on a trip
to the Tower of London and then set them an essay on what life was like for a
soldier in King Charles' Army centuries ago. Very useful knowledge that! A
sociology of the past perhaps? But certainly not history in its most important
sense; unless history is to mean simply anything old or `interesting' that you
might do in evening classes, like antiques, flower arranging or basket weaving.
When instead, in my teaching practice in a Further Education college in Slough,
I taught real history � learning from the past in order to change the future
� the collective life-experience of humanity, I was got rid of. The head of
the history department complained that the students had remarked that I made
them think; which the head of history had probably never done in a lifetime of
teaching. I ended up washing and cleaning and emptying surgical and clinical
waste in a hospital in Slough, the stress of the boredom of which made me
physically and mentally ill for a few years, and later the only employment that
would take me was serving customers in a large local DIY store, in livery that
wouldn't look out of place on American prisoners at Guantanamo.
Unless teachers learn to be brave and intellectually honest (difficult when they
have a mortgage and bills to pay), future historical, social and economic
education and popular `knowledge' will also not refer to the US or British
history and capitalism's continuing complicity in global plunder, exploitation,
domination and control, wars of aggrandisement and acquisition, causing the
deaths and devastation of the homes and lands of millions of people � the 40,
or is it now 50 thousand children under the age of two who will die tonight
through simple lack of food, clean water, medicine and education � things that
we take from them every day without even thinking about it � the untold
millions of unnecessary deaths among the overwhelming majority of humanity on
this incredibly rich and abundant and ultimately sustainable earth � a world
which we, the 15 percent rich, have taken from humanity and still own and
control. The only viable solution to which is socialism spreading across the
world.


From Brian Mitchell. Evolution Independent Journalism and Publishing.

Responses and criticisms welcomed.
Reply to my personal e-mail if you prefer, or want further information or
sources:
   evolution2005 at btinternet d0t c0m  .
My replies to criticisms will be posted.

This article is taken from "1917 And All That - The Untaught History Syllabus.
In Their Own Words � A POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE COLD WAR 1917-1983."  By Brian
Mitchell. Written originally in the 1980s.
Original references have been removed from this text for reasons of space and
reading flow.
A list of references for all my work is available on request.
The book from which this article is edited was never published in the UK and is
is now probably out of print in most countries in which it was published.
The original manuscript (latest edit, with additional notes) is also available
from the author on CD to individuals and researchers. It is available free to
organisations.
The original manuscript (latest edit, with additional notes) is offered on CD
free to educational establishments, political organisations and individuals in
developing countries.


In Their Own Words: The Untaught Syllabus series - History For Peace Activists:

Security firm will protect properties round the clock for £2,600 a week

Peter Dominiczak
11.11.09

Wealthy homeowners are turning to private security firms to protect their empty
London properties from squatters at a cost of up to £2,600 a week.

One company is set to "squat proof" hundreds of houses and even offers ways of
getting unwanted guests to leave.

It comes after the Standard revealed that squatters were regularly targeting
properties worth up to £50million in Belgravia and Mayfair, which are often
owned by investors hiding their identities behind offshore companies.

According to the Empty Homes Agency there are more than 80,000 empty properties
in London, or 2.5 per cent of all homes. A growing number are properties bought
by foreign investors who want a secure asset but continue to live elsewhere.

Forbes Risk, a security company predominantly staffed by former members of the
armed forces, offers a range of "squat proofing" measures which they say will
turn a potential squat into an "inhabited property", making any attempt to enter
the property illegal.

For a six-storey Belgravia townhouse, their basic package would cost about
£1,700. The property would be professionally sealed, meaning squatters would be
unable to gain entry without causing criminal damage. A client would have to pay
around £2,600 per week for 24-hour protection.

Andrew Walker, a director of Forbes Risk, said: "We have a lot of wealthy
clients who for obvious reasons do not want squatters in their properties.
Squatting, particularly in wealthier parts of London, is becoming an epidemic.

"We have some crazy laws in this country and squatters are realising just how
easy it is to get in very expensive homes. We have ways to get these people out
for our clients."

Last month a group of squatters occupied a house doors away from the home of the
ex-wife of Chelsea billionaire Roman Abramovich and the couple's five children.

"Squatters cause a lot of hassle. Mrs Abramovich, for example, has a young
family and was understandably alarmed," said Mr Walker.

Latest figures from the Empty Homes Agency show that the number of empty
properties in Westminster, which includes Mayfair, Belgravia and Marylebone,
stood at 3,584 at the end of last year. At least 2,512 homes stood empty in
Kensington and Chelsea, 1,654 in Islington and 3,627 in Barnet.

David Ireland, chief executive with the Empty Homes Agency, said: "Off-shore
account owners are exploiting a tax loophole. They don't have to pay capital
gains tax and many of them simply treat these properties as an investment and
allow them to sit empty, never intending to occupy them."

Security firm will protect properties round the clock for £2,600 a week

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has commissioned the Institute for
Voluntary Action Research and Cordis Bright (as well as a number of
other partners) to undertake detailed research into the community
ownership and management of assets.

We would very much appreciate your input into this important piece of
national research and would be grateful if you would please complete
this short survey. It should take no longer than ten minutes.

Assets could include buildings, land, financial assets and energy
generation facilities. They might be owned by voluntary and community
organisations, charities, community interest companies, co-operatives or
other mutual organisations.

We are interested in hearing from organisations across England, Wales,
Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Responses are required as soon as possible, and all surveys must be
completed by Friday 18th December at the latest.

If you have any questions about this survey, please contact Lucy Asquith
or Katie Rix at Cordis Bright:

Lucyasquith@..., katierix@..., 0207 330 9170.

Thank you

*SURVEY*:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=uPy8gMyFpX4uydHQwYFrfw_3d_3d

EastEnders spin-off show sees new characters living in a squat

By Nicola Methven 25/11/2009

The four characters in EastEnders' online spin-off E20 will be living in a
SQUAT.

Teenagers Fat Boy, Mercy, Leon and Shirley's niece Zsa Zsa are all running away
from family issues and decide to stick together in Albert Square.

Fatboy invents person as to conceal his real self, Leon is a boxer with an
alcoholic father, Mercy is hiding a secret from her strict Nigerian grandmother
and Zsa Zsa is a troubled tomboy.

The quartet are played by "noisy and fun" newcomers and their antics will launch
via the BBC website in the New Year.

Expect a few familiar faces to pop up online, too...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv-entertainment/tv/tv-land/2009/11/25/in-the-pipeline-1\
15875-21848385/


BBC reveal unknown cast of EastEnders online soap spin-off E20
By Daily Mail - 25th November 2009
Four relative unknowns have been cast in BBC's upcoming EastEnders internet
spin-off soap E20.
The TV newcomers will play four troubled teenagers who end up living together in
a Walford squat.

Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1230887/BBC-reveal-unknown-cast-Eas\
tEnders-online-spin-E20.html#ixzz0YTv7FRMS

It hasn’t sunk in either to us or to them.

We’re the biggest kid on the block

Whats on offer 

the land to build our own houses,

a privileged  planning category for self –builders

the loudest voice in every housing debate

prosecution of corporate builders for hoarding land

scrapping Housing Associations which manufacture class division

and dribble overpriced  half houses to waiting list sufferers

Office of Fair Trading Homebuilding Survey 2008 says

“Self build is the biggest supplier of new houses “

I see TEAM  self build is the way forward.

Divided we suffer united we rule. First step is to

join and work together. 

Self build United (draft structure)

 A foundation for experienced and start up  home-builders

- to promote self build housing

- to publicise the advantages and potential of the sector

- to share information and resources

- to  connect corporate experience to people initiative

- to encourage start up individual and team projects

- to give face and voice to self builders at government, professional and public levels.

- to promote sustainable construction and development

- to provide essential resources, off the peg, at the critical start up stage

- provide continuity and encouragement in the extended embryonic project formation stage

- to negotiate planning, insurance and finance packages tailored for self builders

JA  28 November 2009

Sbt:prospectfoundation

The Benn Lecture 2009

Nick Davies - Bad News: What's Wrong with the Press

[Have a listen to Norman Baker speaking here about why he believes David Kelly
was murdered. (part 2)
http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/691473
http://bristol.indymedia.org/attachments/nov2009/dialect_281109bimc.mp3
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/37641
ED.]

Day two and the Chilcot enquiry is already ignoring the elephant in the room.

Britain HAS  w. m. d.  in spades including a large black new submarine launched
last week. Even worse, Britain developed chemical weapons  AND USED THEM,

AND USED THEM IN 1920, AND USED THEM IN 1920 IN IRAQ, AND USED THEM AGAINST

IRAQI NATIONALISTS.

Yet possessing chemical and biological agents  was a potential  cause  for
invading Iraq, we heard at the Chilcot Iraq enquiry to-day. Also the claim that
Iraq was continuing  to develop weapons of mass destruction.
But UK had and still has w m d .
And UK has and did have chemical weapons and has used them, and  used them in
Iraq in 1920, In   Geoff  Simons ' book �Iraq�, 1993 we learn that Winston
Churchill, Secretary of State for the Colonies , advocated  using  poisoned gas
against uncivilised tribes.  Simons quotes Churchill  �Gas was used against 
Iraqi rebels by  the army in 1920 with excellent effect' The ministry drew up a
list of  possible weapons, some of them the forerunners of  napalm and air to
ground missiles:
phospherous bombs, war rockets, metal crowsfeet ( to maim livestock)
man killing shrapnel,  liquid fire and dealayed action bombs, many of these
weapons were first used in Kurdistan�  ( Britain  occupied Iraq under UN
mandate.)
James.




_________________________________________________________________
Use Hotmail to send and receive mail from your different email accounts
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394592/direct/01/

 

The proposal below is to be discussed at the  P not W meeting on Wednesday in London.
My first thoughts are that  the case to the Iraq enquiry is,  the  demo is evidence that democracy is not working, and that the invasion of Iraq is the disastrous proof.
Maybe the best way to make the point is to submit  written evidence  and ask also to give evidence to the  enquiry in person (employ an advocate?) and  turn up in numbers on the  day as a smaller representation of the  1 million demo.  Its relevant to  the land issue - in Iraq, and also  in UK as effective democracy is the only prospect  to bring about change
to the inequitable land system in UK.
James

---

 

Mark,

Goodwishes  for your meeting on Wednesday.
 
To-day is a very important for our  non democracy.
The official Iraq enquiry has started.
(dont hold your breath)
"750,000" (Police),"1 million" (BBC)" 2 million" (anti war organisers), on Sunday 16th Feb, 2003 , marched in London and also in Glasgow ,and Belfast, against the  incipient Iraq invasion.  
 
I am bringing this  to the attention of the enquiry , with the point that
it is relevant evidence that should be consdered. into the legitimacy and the   democratic credentials of theUK government. 
It is relevant in connection with the  later invasion, that for  ' the biggest ever demonstration in London" (Police statement ) and therefore important in a democracy , there was, and is ,  no constitutional arrangement to feed this unprecedented expression of the voice of the people. 
 
Offensive overseas war is the  extreme defining characteristic of the legitimacy of  statehood and with no  means of representing the people's`voice on the Iraq war issue, the legitimacy of constitutional government as at present constituted in UK is questioned.
 
 
Could you find an opportunity to  raise this view at the meeting?
James, Dorchester.
 
 
 
 
 
 
> Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:15:52 +0000
> From: marknbarrett@googlemail.com
> To: campaignforrealdemocracy@lists.aktivix.org
> Subject: [Campaignforrealdemocracy] This Wed Reminder

>
> Just a quick reminder:
>
> This Wednesday 25th November from 6pm
> Campaign for Real Democracy meeting & presentation
> 1 Richmond Road
> Dalston Hackney E8
>
> Draft Agenda - pls suggest any other items
>
> - Local Reports
> - Future meetings with PnW / others
> - Egality Now
> - Dec 2nd CRD with 21st Century Network
> - Dec 15th CRD stall at House of Commons event
> - Proposed Feb meeting with Community Sector Coalition
> - Report/discuss 2010 direct action election campaign
> - Leaflet Distribution
>
> -------------
>
> Wed meeting kindly hosted by Peace not War and Passing Clouds:
> "Discussions and friendliness from 6pm, Campaign for Real Democracy
> presentation/meeting at 7:30, "Money as Debt" presentation at 8:30.
> Great musicians and performers from 9pm. Brandy hot chocolate! Mulled
> wine (and spiced alcohol-free punch). Delicious vegan food.
>
> The Campaign for Real Democracy (CRD) aims at encouraging
>
> 1. local democracy cells to form in every neighbourhood
> 2. consensus based democratic decision making
> 3. a movement under one banner and a transformed culture
>
> Free entry before 9.30pm - £2 after.
>
> All proceeds to Solar Aid
>
> Please can CRD people and others interested be there to take leaflets
> for distribution, help out with event (and therefore, team building
> for future events) and to generally show a face to each other
>
> Cheers
>
> Mark
>

> _______________________________________________
> Campaignforrealdemocracy mailing list
> Campaignforrealdemocracy@lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/campaignforrealdemocracy

---

Have more than one Hotmail account? Link them together to easily access both.

--
"We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet /Yet is there no man speaketh as we speak in the street.”

---

Use Hotmail to send and receive mail from your different email accounts. Find out how.

Nigella Lawson gets new neighbours after serial squatters take over abandoned £33million Belgravia mansion

We urgently need to make compassion a clear, luminous and dynamic force in our
polarized world. Rooted in a principled determination to transcend selfishness,
compassion can break down political, dogmatic, ideological and religious
boundaries. Born of our deep interdependence, compassion is essential to human
relationships and to a fulfilled humanity. It is the path to enlightenment, and
indispensible to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community.

This was brought to my attention this morning and, although it doesn't mention
access to land, it seems a pretty good idea.
  http://charterforcompassion.org/share

Joan Lawson

Article by Corporate Watch 'WATCHING THE CORPORATIONS -  Dale Farm
travellers to be evicted, Constant & Co. to make £2m' below.


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: SAVE DALE FARM CAMPAIGN
From:    "Dale Farm" <dale.farm@...>
Date:    Thu, November 19, 2009 10:16 am



SAVE DALE FARM CAMPAIGN
 
3 December
 
An information evening, with
films and music, is being held at
London Action Resource Centre
62 Fieldgate Street
Whitechapel
London E1 1ES
Starts 7pm
 
This is in preparation for

10 December
 
Human Rights Day protest rally, starts 7.30pm outside the Basildon Centre,
St Martin's Square Basildon SS14 1DL
 
Anti-fascist expo on placards depicting treatnment of Gypsies
from l939 Nazis to 2009 BNP, allied to Hungarian Guard, which has murdered
9 Roma this year.
 
Basildon District Council's Cabinet will be meeting to award
a two million pound contract to one of two bailiff companies for
the eviction operation against Dale Farm and Hovefields Travellers'
communities.
 
Supporters can take a train from Fenchurch Street direct to Basildon; or
make use of mini-buses running from Dale Farm to the Basildon Centre, from
6.45pm
 
The demonstration is being supported by students from Essex University.
[end]



Article: WATCHING THE CORPORATIONS   Dale Farm travellers to be evicted,
Constant & Co. to make £2m

by Corporate Watch
November 18, 2009
Ref: http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=3454

The Basildon District Council cabinet is meeting on 10th December to
decide which of two undisclosed bailiff companies it will use to forcibly
evict travellers living on Britain's biggest traveller site, the renowned
Dale Farm in Essex. Constant & Co., the UK's most notorious anti-traveller
bailiff firm, said, in July, that it expected to win the £2 million
contract, which would culminate in the biggest eviction operation in
modern British history.

'This land is our land'

As part of a larger traveller site on Oak Lane in Crays Hill, Billericay,
Dale Farm has been home to Roma and travellers since the 1960's, when the
first group of Roma settled there. During the l970's, a number of families
were granted planning permission by the then Labour-controlled Basildon
Council and by 1996 there were some 40 properties on the site owned by
travellers.

The l994 Criminal Justice Act not only 'relieved' local authorities of the
duty to provide caravan parks to travellers, a duty imposed by the l968
Caravan Sites Act, but also increased police powers, under Section 62, to
evict travellers attempting to camp on roadsides or car parks. The
Conservative government at the time advised travellers to buy the land
they had been living on to 'avoid trouble'. Indeed, relatives of those
settled on Oak Lane bought an old scrap-yard and other adjacent greenbelt
land, including Dale Farm.

Dale Farm was divided into 52 plots and accommodated some 70 families. The
number of residents has since grown considerably with approximately 1,000
men, women and children now living on the site. This expansion has been
due to evictions in other parts of Essex, in Hertfordshire and
Cambridgeshire where travellers lost land they had bought because local
councils refused to grant them planning permission.

In 2005, Basildon District Council, together with Tory MP John Baron,
started a campaign to "rid the district of travellers," as a local
newspaper put it at the time. Needless to say, the issue has been
exploited by a plethora of politicians to win votes, from the
Conservatives, through Labour, to the BNP. The district council is now
Conservative-controlled.

Eviction battle

All planning applications for plots on Dale Farm were refused and three
public inquiries were held. The travellers' appeals to government
eventually resulted in a temporary stay for two years. In May 2005,
however, Basildon Council voted to spend up to £4 million on 'direct
action eviction' under Section 127 of the Town and Country Planning Act,
not only of Dale Farm but also of other traveller families living at
Hovefields Avenue, Wickford. The Essex County Council has even drawn up a
plan to allegedly take more than 100 children at Dale Farm into temporary
care as a means of pressuring their families to leave Basildon, or Essex
altogether.

In May 2008, the Dale Farm eviction was put on hold when the High Court
issued an injunction against the eviction, ruling that the council had
failed to offer an alternative site. The council also took later decisions
concerning two other sites and these were subsequently included in the
same judicial proceedings. In January 2009, the Court of Appeal overturned
the High Court ruling, paving the way for an imminent eviction. An
application to the House of Lords to appeal the decision made by the Court
of Appeal has recently been refused.

It is worth noting that the Dale Farm case has been registered with the
United Nations Advisory Group on Forced Evictions, which has even sent a
special team to monitor the eviction. The Children's Commissioner has also
written to the council to enquire about its plans to avoid further
traumatising the 150 or so children living on the site and to determine
what alternative accommodation it has to offer them. The council has not
been able to provide any answers, even though a 'huge re-housing process'
is allegedly underway. According to the travellers, only two or three
families have so far been offered accommodation in the form of houses,
which the families have refused, saying, as travellers, they do not want
to live in houses but want land instead. Richard Bennett, a Tory Surrey
councillor who chaired the Local Government Association's 'Gypsy and
Traveller Task Group' between 2004 and 2007, when it was disbanded, has
been appointed as a 'mediator'. The council, however, does not seem to be
interested in 'solutions' other than forcible eviction. By its own
admission, "a number of other options were available" to Basildon's
Development Control and Traffic Management Committee when it met on 5th
June 2007. Nevertheless, they decided by four votes to one that "direct
action”, namely eviction, “offered the only effective and lasting way to
deal with this serious breach of planning control within the green belt."

'Specialists in gypsy evictions'

On 14th July 2005, Basildon Council voted to spend a minimum of £1.9
million to evict about 500 men, women and children living on Dale Farm.
The eviction has been on hold for four years due to legal proceedings but,
now with legal obstacles removed, there is a likely candidate to win the
lucrative contract: 'specialist' bailiff firm, Constant & Company, a
company used by the council for previous traveller evictions. In addition
to the £1.9 million, it is estimated that the accompanying police
operation will cost £1 million, which will come from public funds.

Constant & Co. describes itself as "the most experienced" and "busiest"
company in the country in recovering possession of land from "unwanted
trespassers." Searching online for the company, one finds it pointedly
accompanied by the tagline "gypsy & traveller evictions”. Through such
brutal evictions as the infamous Meadowlands and Twin Oaks evictions in
2004, Constant & Co. has gained itself a reputation as the country's most
notorious anti-traveller bailiff firm. Its other services include squatter
evictions, commercial rent recovery and local authority enforcement
actions. It also provides private investigation services, including
criminal and civil investigations, surveillance and tracing. In relation
to the latter, the company's website boasts that its "dedicated specialist
staff" are able to meet "new challenges", such as the Data Protection Act
and Human Rights Act, which "have made it increasingly difficult to
conduct successful tracing." Through "blending" the latest technology with
traditional investigative techniques, they claim to have achieved
"impressive results" in this field. Some of the company's directors and
'core employees' are former police officers, while the rest of its teams
of bailiffs are civilian employees bonded and certificated by county
courts.

Established in 1973, Constant & Co. is the trading name of Constant and
Company (Bedford) Limited, registered in England and Wales with registered
number 1899428. Previously known as Constant & Co. (Cambridge) Ltd., it is
a relatively small private company limited by shares. By 12th March 2009,
the company had issued 100 shares, each worth £100. Of these, 99 shares
are owned by director Brian Denys George Constant, with the other share
held by co-director Brian Edward Lecoche. Constant's registered office is
136-140 Bedford Road, Kempston, Bedford, MK42 8BH, but its head office is
located at 66 Harpur Street, Bedford, MK40 2RA. It also has a 'fully
computerised' processing centre in Milton Keynes (163 Queensway,
Bletchley, MK2 2DZ) and two smaller offices in Cambridgeshire and
Hertfordshire.

Needless to say, Constant & Co. has earned millions of pounds over the
years removing travellers from land they live on, and in some cases own,
in mostly unlawful, cowboy-style operations around the country. Its most
recent accounts show that its net current assets at the end of 2008 were
almost £1.2 million.

Constant & Co. markets itself by arguing that court proceedings can be
"extremely expensive" and "involve delay." Thus, "a fast alternative
course of action" that the company regularly deploys and that has
allegedly been "very successful" with many high-profile clients is for
bailiffs to forcibly take 'legal' possession of an occupied site, usually
within 24 to 48 hours of being instructed, then arrange for tow trucks and
cleansing contractors, if needed. Constant & Co.'s contractors include G
Moore Haulage Ltd., which is based in Bedford, and WFL Recovery, which is
based in Cambridge.

During last year's High Court appeal, the Dale Farm Housing Association
submitted a detailed dossier, comprising 26 pages, photographs and video
footage, about Constant & Co.'s conduct during the Hovefields eviction
three years ago. The evidence showed that Constant had ignored health and
safety regulations, such as carrying out operations with heavy machinery
while children were present and failing to enclose demolition sites with
fencing. Constant is also known to have smashed travellers' caravans and
mobile homes and, on one occasion, ignored a High Court injunction not to
enter a traveller-owned property. The dossier was also sent to the
Ministry of Justice, the Bailiffs Association and Constant itself, but
there has been no response. The council questionnaire sent to Constant
recently in preparation for the Dale Farm eviction asks how the company
has responded to complaints in the past - it would certainly be
interesting to know the answer.

During the May 2008 hearing, the High Court judge, having watched a video
of a previous Constant eviction, said it was "inappropriate" for Basildon
Council to continue using Constant & Co. However, everything indicates
that it will continue to do so. Furthermore, it has recently surfaced that
Basildon Council, along with its contracted bailiffs, has failed to
produce Risk Assessment reports for previous evictions, such as the one at
Hovefields, or as part of the planning for the Dale Farm eviction.

Of course, Constant & Co. is by no means the only bailiff company offering
its 'services' to local authorities to deal with what the industry happily
terms “the gypsy problem”. For instance, Civil Enforcement Agent, a
bailiff company based in Kent and whose clients include many large
multinational blue-chip companies, states on its website that "court
action [to remove travellers] is expensive and takes several weeks... so
why not use a bailiff?" The company goes on to 'explain': "The longer they
stay, the dirtier the area."

1st Class Bailiffs Limited, another bailiff company based in Darlington,
Durham, uses a similar marketing argument: "Our procedure is much quicker
and cheaper than going for a court order." Hatwel Services, which has
acted on behalf of various district and county councils in south-east
England, goes even further: "We are the only bailiff company that can
offer a one-stop-shop solution to your traveller/gypsy problems." As
"specialists in the business of evictions of travellers and gypsies," they
offer "a complete eviction and a clear-up service."

Other bailiff companies in the travellers eviction business include Alpha
Collections (based in Crawley), Safeguard Bailiff Services (Leicester),
Secure Site UK (Worthing), Maltaward (West Sussex), Uniqwin (Warrington),
M.S. Webb and Co. (Surrey) and UK Bailiff Company (Kent). It is worth
noting that almost none of these companies is a member of the Enforcement
Services Association, formerly known as the Certificated Bailiffs
Association, which currently has around 30 corporate members.

Resistance

During seven years of legal battles, scores of protests by the Dale Farm
travellers and their supporters have taken place. To coincide with the
Basildon cabinet meeting on 10th December 2009, incidentally International
Human Rights Day, a public demonstration and rally has been called outside
the district council offices at the Basildon Centre. No Borders London is
organising an info night on 3rd December at the London Action Resource
Centre (LARC) in Whitechapel to mobilise for the rally and resistance to
the possible eviction.

Grattan Puxon, a spokesperson for the Save Dale Farm campaign, told
Corporate Watch that a request by Dale Farm mothers to address the cabinet
meeting has been turned down. The council's Corinna Hill told the Dale
Farm Homeless Mothers' Committee that the reason for declining their
request is that "agenda items about business and financial matters are
exempt from public disclosure." Another request by the Dale Farm Housing
Association to mount an exhibition at the Basildon Centre to mark Human
Rights Day has also been refused. The pictures, however, will be displayed
as part of an expo that will tell the story of the brutal treatment of
Roma from 1939 to 2009, including the Nazi genocide which took the lives
of 500,000 Roma.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

As I've been saying for a while, resource limitations will stop the "green
tech."/efficiency technological revolution from happening in the way depicted in
the media. An excellent report from Newsnight's Paul Mason explains why:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8366603.stm

Forget hybrid cars or concentrating solar power, the future is all about
'Limits to Growth' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth) -- the
future is food, and community and cooking, as it's been for the many
millennia. Just accept that, move on and start deciding what you're going to
get rid of from your "modern" lifestyle.

[polemic mode off]


P.


- --

"We are not for names, nor men, nor titles of Government,
nor are we for this party nor against the other but we are
for justice and mercy and truth and peace and true freedom,
that these may be exalted in our nation, and that goodness,
righteousness, meekness, temperance, peace and unity with
God, and with one another, that these things may abound."
(Edward Burroughs, 1659 - from 'Quaker Faith and Practice')

Paul's book, "Energy Beyond Oil", is out now!
For details see http://www.fraw.org.uk/ebo/

Read my message board, "Ecolonomics", at:
http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/ecolonomics/

Paul Mobbs, Mobbs' Environmental Investigations
3 Grosvenor Road, Banbury OX16 5HN, England
tel./fax (+44/0)1295 261864
email - mobbsey@...
website - http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/index.shtml

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAksGZFUACgkQeaiR6/5i3nvyDQCff/16agQZSNtPnDstWRJ4iKLX
T1UAniD9EyOfcnhcmhfhRDQ1Z0ht/lMK
=eTeQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I'm certain you're right, Mark and I'm with the squatters...but the
environmental issues are an imperative of equal weight, too. There are many
parallel issues here in Britain, though without the degree of brutality and pain
seen in the Kenya struggle...The task is to make demands that satisfy both
imperatives: - the need to organise against homelessness and loss of livelihood
and the need to defend the environment...
Dave Bangs

[TLIO has a detailed 'Land For Homes' policy. There is no conflict of interest
between responsible and sympathetic, low-impact human settlement and the
environment. ed.]


   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Mark
   To: LegacyofColonialism@yahoogroups.com ; diggers350@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:01 PM
   Subject: [diggers350] Kenya evicts thousands of forest squatters in attempt to
save Rift valley



   Where the survival of underpriviledged peoples' squatting conflicts
   head-on with concerns for environmental protection in Kenya... question
   is, reading between the lines, it is no doubt vested capital interests in
   the tourism, tea and energy industries acting to primarily protect their
   interests - not altruistic concerns of environmental protection:

   Kenya evicts thousands of forest squatters in attempt to save Rift valley

   Tourism, tea and energy industries threatened after a quarter of huge Mau
   forest destroyed in 20 years

   by Xan Rice in Nairobi
   The Guardian, Wednesday 18 November 2009
   Ref:
   http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/18/kenya-forest-squatters-evicted

   Several thousand people who had settled illegally in Kenya's most
   important forest have left their homes at the beginning of an eviction
   plan designed to end rampant environmental degradation in the Rift valley.

   Security officers this week entered the Mau forest, the country's largest
   water catchment basin, in the first stage of a government operation that
   will eventually see up to 30,000 families leave. More than a quarter of
   the 400,000-hectare forest has been lost because of human activity over
   the past 20 years, threatening Kenya's crucial tourism, tea and energy
   sectors and the livelihoods of millions of people reliant on the Mau
   ecosystem.

   "We have no time to waste here," said Christian Lambrechts, a United
   Nations environment programme expert seconded to the government's Mau
   Secretariat. "The ecological services must be restored."

   The dozen or so rivers that originate in the montane forest complex feed
   the Masai Mara Reserve and Lake Victoria, as well as the lush tea fields
   of Kericho. But in recent years the river flows have decreased or stopped
   during the dry season. At Lake Nakuru, Kenya's most visited national park,
   wildlife officials were forced to pump in water to supply the animals this
   summer when all the feeder rivers dried up.

   A serious drought that has led to water and power shortages across the
   country was a contributing factor. But human destruction of the once-thick
   Mau Forest, which has caused its aquifer levels to fall significantly and
   seen soil erosion increase, played a major part. At its root, as so often
   happens in Kenya, is politics and corruption. Before the 1990s, the forest
   was a protected area. But then senior officials in President Daniel arap
   Moi's government grabbed large plots of the highly fertile land for
   themselves - Moi still owns a large tea farm in the Mau - profiting from
   the timber they cleared. They also removed protection from other parts of
   the forest where thousands of their supporters were allowed to settle and
   begin farming. Many of the plots were subdivided and then illegally sold
   on, sometimes to unwitting buyers.

   Amid warnings that the entire ecosystem in the Rift valley and western
   Kenya was in danger due to the rapid deforestation, Kenya's government has
   made saving the Mau its number one environmental priority. A task force
   formed by the prime minister, Raila Odinga, last year recommended that all
   settlers in the forest be removed and that cleared areas be rehabilitated
   through mass tree planting. Only genuine titleholders - many of the titles
   in circulation are fictitious - are to be considered for compensation.

   Some politicians from Moi's Kalenjin ethnic group, among them large
   beneficiaries of the land grab, have opposed the plan, describing it as an
   attack on their community. They have demanded alternative land for the
   nearly 1,700 families - about 8,000 people - identified as illegal
   squatters without title who are being targeted in the first phase of the
   operation. About 3,500 of them had left the Mau by this morning after
   being served with eviction notices. Some have complained they have nowhere
   else to go.

   The next round of relocations, due in the next few months, will focus on
   those people with some sort of title to the land. The trickiest part will
   be dealing with the large landowners, including the politicians, who are
   unlikely to give up their farms without a fight.

   It is likely that some forest dwellers, including a few thousand members
   of the Ogiek ethnic group who have lived in the Mau for generations, will
   be allowed to remain.

Where the survival of underpriviledged peoples' squatting conflicts
head-on with concerns for environmental protection in Kenya... question
is, reading between the lines, it is no doubt vested capital interests in
the tourism, tea and energy industries acting to primarily protect their
interests - not altruistic concerns of environmental protection:


Kenya evicts thousands of forest squatters in attempt to save Rift valley

Tourism, tea and energy industries threatened after a quarter of huge Mau
forest destroyed in 20 years

by  Xan Rice in Nairobi
The Guardian, Wednesday 18 November 2009
Ref:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/18/kenya-forest-squatters-evicted

Several thousand people who had settled illegally in Kenya's most
important forest have left their homes at the beginning of an eviction
plan designed to end rampant environmental degradation in the Rift valley.

Security officers this week entered the Mau forest, the country's largest
water catchment basin, in the first stage of a government operation that
will eventually see up to 30,000 families leave. More than a quarter of
the 400,000-hectare forest has been lost because of human activity over
the past 20 years, threatening Kenya's crucial tourism, tea and energy
sectors and the livelihoods of millions of people reliant on the Mau
ecosystem.

"We have no time to waste here," said Christian Lambrechts, a United
Nations environment programme expert seconded to the government's Mau
Secretariat. "The ecological services must be restored."

The dozen or so rivers that originate in the montane forest complex feed
the Masai Mara Reserve and Lake Victoria, as well as the lush tea fields
of Kericho. But in recent years the river flows have decreased or stopped
during the dry season. At Lake Nakuru, Kenya's most visited national park,
wildlife officials were forced to pump in water to supply the animals this
summer when all the feeder rivers dried up.

A serious drought that has led to water and power shortages across the
country was a contributing factor. But human destruction of the once-thick
Mau Forest, which has caused its aquifer levels to fall significantly and
seen soil erosion increase, played a major part. At its root, as so often
happens in Kenya, is politics and corruption. Before the 1990s, the forest
was a protected area. But then senior officials in President Daniel arap
Moi's government grabbed large plots of the highly fertile land for
themselves – Moi still owns a large tea farm in the Mau – profiting from
the timber they cleared. They also removed protection from other parts of
the forest where thousands of their supporters were allowed to settle and
begin farming. Many of the plots were subdivided and then illegally sold
on, sometimes to unwitting buyers.

Amid warnings that the entire ecosystem in the Rift valley and western
Kenya was in danger due to the rapid deforestation, Kenya's government has
made saving the Mau its number one environmental priority. A task force
formed by the prime minister, Raila Odinga, last year recommended that all
settlers in the forest be removed and that cleared areas be rehabilitated
through mass tree planting. Only genuine titleholders – many of the titles
in circulation are fictitious – are to be considered for compensation.

Some politicians from Moi's Kalenjin ethnic group, among them large
beneficiaries of the land grab, have opposed the plan, describing it as an
attack on their community. They have demanded alternative land for the
nearly 1,700 families – about 8,000 people – identified as illegal
squatters without title who are being targeted in the first phase of the
operation. About 3,500 of them had left the Mau by this morning after
being served with eviction notices. Some have complained they have nowhere
else to go.

The next round of relocations, due in the next few months, will focus on
those people with some sort of title to the land. The trickiest part will
be dealing with the large landowners, including the politicians, who are
unlikely to give up their farms without a fight.

It is likely that some forest dwellers, including a few thousand members
of the Ogiek ethnic group who have lived in the Mau for generations, will
be allowed to remain.

ARTICLE 'The new South Downs National Park: a class act'
by DAVE BANGS - see below


VIDEO: Hundreds protest to stop Cissbury Ring land sale
Dave Bangs - local downlands campaigner & Kate Ashbrook from the Open Spaces
Society speak on the day of the rally about why so many people (400) turned out
braving blustery conditions in campaigning against the proposed sell-off of
downland near Worthing by the local council:

http://www.worthingherald.co.uk/worthing/VIDEO-Hundreds-protest-to-stop.5824709.\
jp
  [Published Date:  14 November 2009]


A PROTEST rally was staged today (Saturday, November 14) by the Stop Cissbury
Sell off group.

Despite Worthing Council's decision to review whether 200 acres of its
agricultural land near Cissbury Ring should be sold, the protest went ahead at
11am.

During the protest which was attended by about 400 people, the group held a
short meeting before walking across Mount Carvey, Cissbury Ring and back down
Tenants Hill to view the for-sale land.

The group discussed how they wish to see it improved under Worthing's ownership.

Open Spaces Society general secretary Kate Ashbrook spoke during the rally.

She said: "The Open Spaces Society has campaigned to save our open spaces for
more than 140 years and is pleased to add its weight to this crucial campaign
for the Cissbury downland.

"This is of exceptional value for its landscape, chalkland habitat and public
enjoyment. It forms a vital part of the setting of the celebrated Cissbury Ring,
and is within the new South Downs National Park.

"We are delighted that the leader of Worthing Council, Paul Yallop, has agreed
to review the sale of its downland around Cissbury Ring.

"But we fear that this may merely be a stay of execution. We want the council to
revoke that decision and to resolve not only to retain the downland, but to
restore it to its former wildlife- and wildflower-rich landscape."

Cabinet member Steve Waight said: "Because the decision was made a year ago and
because of public concern, we feel it right to review the decision in order to
make sure we take everything into account before a final decision."



_______________________________________________________




South Downs National Park: a class act, by Dave Bangs

Republished with kind permission from ECOS (originally published in the Summer
2009 issue of ECOS):

'The new South Downs National Park: a class act'
by DAVE BANGS

The designation of this latest National Park is an historic victory. It is
shaped, however, in its boundaries and governance by the influence of class.

This article is a kind of footnote to the story of the South Downs
National Park. Sometimes, though, footnotes tell their own important tale.

I should have felt wonderful when the new Park was finally proclaimed in March
2009. Instead, I felt like a wet blanket. My mood was down to this: whilst the
new National Park had finally been achieved, based on new geographic boundaries
more generous than we had dared to hope, there were a number of howling
omissions. The Park boundaries, particularly around the Brighton conurbation,
are pock-marked by irrational exclusions of Down and chalk cliff.

The pattern of these inclusions and exclusions raises much bigger issues about
how and for whom these designated landscapes are made - issues which extend also
to the matter of governance for National Parks.

An 80 year saga

The long story of the fight for the South Downs National Park has elements of
heroic endurance. The South Downs were first suggested for National Park status
around 80 years ago. They were, again, on the Hobhouse Report's list of 1947
from which all National Parks have been drawn since the National Parks and
Access to the Countryside Act was passed in 1949.

They were, however, dropped as a candidate in 1956, after the National
Parks Commission of the time judged that the destruction of their
aboriginal Down pastures in the great post-World War plough-ups had
proceeded too far for designation to be meaningful. That did not stop the small
band of campaigners for Park status, and their efforts were revived in the last
two decades and placed on a vigorous footing by the new South Downs Campaign.

It achieved its first great victory when Michael Meacher, New Labour's
first Environment Minister, announced at the 1999 Labour Party Conference a
project to designate two new National Parks: the New Forest and the South Downs.
Meacher's speech made clear that the South Downs Park was to be based on a
project of landscape restoration. It was to revive a badly battered
nationally-loved landscape and bring it back to health.

A two-tone picture

The Park project faced a two-tone local political picture. Amongst
ordinary residents, the Park was consistently popular, with opinion poll support
rates around 90%. This support reflected a hegemonic local view that the Downs
were special and deserved protection. Most local authorities and most business
leaders, however, opposed, or only guardedly endorsed the National Park project.
Their leaders judged that the Park's tighter planning regime would damage
business's exploitative opportunities, and that the transfer of planning from
the area's local councils to a new National Park Authority would reduce those
councils' corporate powers.

This contradictory picture of broad popular support for the Park and elite
opposition to it was largely a matter of class. But the issue of class cannot be
boiled down to some simple opposition between farmers and business folk who see
the countryside as a source of profit only, and the rest of us who suffer from
their greed. As elsewhere in England the designated countryside of Sussex and
Hampshire is dominated by middle and owning-class folk who have created a huge
leisure landscape, by the taking over of farmland and all manner of rural
housing. Many of the activists from this constituency joined with the South
Downs Campaign. Working people who have been able to survive in the countryside
have lost even that weak political voice which they erstwhile had.

The conflict in the countryside between landscape exploitation and
landscape conservation is largely a conflict between two better-off social
strata: those who wish to use the countryside as a source of profit, and those
who wish to use it as a privileged source of pleasure. Whilst the
preservationist wing of these social layers dominates in the Downland and West
Wealden countryside, it is the developmentalists who have just had the edge in
recent times in the Brighton conurbation, pushing through the new Brighton and
Hove Albion stadium, and a wave of prestige tall tower developments proposed
since 2000 (temporarily stymied by the recession).

The lovely urban fringe

Yet, paradoxically, on the urban edge of the Brighton Downs a series of the best
remnants of the old landscape survive. A peculiar mixture of physiography,
historical land use, past municipal initiative, and the retreat of farming, has
meant that the Brighton urban fringe retains a necklace of high quality sites
often superior to those that survive on the more remote Downland plateau beyond.
The famous Castle Hill National Nature Reserve - home to Wartbiters and Early
Spider Orchids - is an urban fringe site, as is Newhaven Cliffs, with 'one of
the two best beetle assemblages in Sussex'.

Seven miles of gleaming white chalk cliffs march from east Brighton to Newhaven,
all designated as a geological SSSI for the unparalleled view they give of
millions of years of development of the chalk outcrop. Whitehawk Hill boasts one
of the 10 best preserved upstanding Neolithic causewayed camps in Britain.

Elastic boundaries

When the National Park announcement was made, 5 miles of that SSSI
cliffscape had been excluded, including 2.5 miles in pristine form without any
coastal engineering, along with Whitehawk's Hill, parts of Newhaven's heathy
Downland, and a big urban fringe valley - Toad's Hole, inter-visible with large
adjacent areas of the wider Downs.
By contrast, Winchester's water meadows right down almost to the heart of the
City, the old Royal Forests of Alice Holt and Woolmer  and Jane
Austen's landscape of Chawton, are all included. Not only the high relief land
of the Western Weald, with its sandstone scarps and abundant commons, but large
areas of the Low Weald north of the chalk scarp of the eastern Downs are
included. Places like Ditchling that are visually connected to the Downs only by
their southerly views to the chalk scarp are included, and the National Park
border laps right up to the urban edge of the Mid Sussex commuter town of
Burgess Hill.
The Downland county town of Lewes, with its castle and historic streets, is
included, with the towns of Midhurst, Petworth, Liss, and Petersfield, whilst
the Downland town of Arundel is excluded, apart from its castle, together with
that other Saxon baronial capital of Bramber, with neighbouring Beeding and
Steyning.

What can we make of such an inconsistent boundary pattern? It is a plain
reflection of the inconsistent pattern of campaigning pressure, which was, in
turn, most obviously a reflection of class.

Statistics of poverty

Before the Public Inquiry on the National Park I did a comparative study of a
quarter of the responses made in the Countryside Agency's public consultation on
the Park, with reference to four sub-landscapes on the Brighton Downs. I chose
four areas in the Countryside Agency's Area of Search, two adjacent to
communities with high levels of social
deprivation, and two adjacent to areas of social privilege. One of the two
socially deprived areas was next to the east Brighton racecourse
landscape, with its LNR, SNCIs and Neolithic causewayed camp (a SAM -
Scheduled Ancient Monument), and one was next to Newhaven's LNR and SNCI, SAM,
SSSI & RIGS cliffs and Downland. The two areas of privilege were Rottingdean
(where Rudyard Kipling and the Pre-Raphaelite artist
Burne-Jones once lived) and its adjacent suburbs, and Low Wealden
Ditchling parish with three adjacent villages.

The difference in the levels of response to the National Park consultation was
sharp. Only eight people from the poor wards adjacent to the East Brighton
Downland made representations in the sample quarter of the responses that I
looked at. The even-poorer wards adjacent to Newhaven's Downland had only one
representation made to the CA consultation - and that was from a field studies
teacher far away in Surrey! By contrast, well-off Rottingdean and the prosperous
Ditchling area together made 274 representations in my sample.

Overall, then, the ratio of responses to the CA consultation made in my samples
was 1:30 between the poorer and richer areas. This painful
difference was exaggerated by the Countryside Agency's own discriminatory
behaviour. It held at least one meeting in rich Rottingdean, but no such event
in the poor areas adjacent to the east Brighton Downland.

Fish and chip Downland OUT: Cream tea Downland IN

This differential responsiveness of consultees has absolutely nothing to do with
the relative intrinsic qualities of Downscapes adjacent to poorer areas versus
those adjacent to richer areas. To the contrary, for the landscape around
better-off Rottingdean embraces a subtopian sprawl of low-density housing, as
well as large areas of Downland stripped almost entirely of their aboriginal
Down pastures. There is no evidence, either, that working class users of their
neighbouring Downland love their bits of nature any less than more prosperous
users cherish their bits, and both the East Brighton Downs and the Newhaven
Downs and seashore are crowded with users on sunny days. Black pentecostalists
motor down from London to hold church services on the beach, and teenagers
canoodle amongst the undercliff boulders. Generations of kids have slid down
Whitehawk Hill's steepness on bits of cardboard in snow and sun.

The final boundaries of the Park reflect the disparities between those
levels of engagement with the consultation process. Rich Rottingdean sees the
inclusion of all its Downland and half of its cliffland within the National
Park, and the whole of Ditchling and its surrounds is included.

The richer communities see their areas to be included within the new Park
expanded far beyond the old Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
boundaries to include previously undesignated Downland, areas of the Low Weald,
and cliffscape.

By contrast, the poorer areas see only small gains or, indeed, roll-back of the
boundaries they had enjoyed under the old AONB. Elsewhere the picture is the
same. How better can we account for the exclusion at all stages of the
consultation of the attractive village of Beeding and its wide brooklands than
by looking at its class structure? It is a village with much social and
ex-social housing. A BNP candidate fared very well in a recent election,
reflecting a deep alienation from the main bourgeois parties. The exclusion of
Steyning and Bramber and its Norman castle is more difficult to explain, for
they have acted as gateway settlements to the Downs for over a thousand years.
For a while they were proposed for inclusion. How, though, could their activists
match the fire power of the town of Lewes, packed with University, County Hall,
and London professionals determined to preserve their 'positional goods'. All of
that
town and surrounds is to be included.

Gilbert White of Selborne

This picture of the clout of the middle class activists being used to
include their favoured bits of landscape irrespective of their
relationship to any unitary landscape type or to the recreational needs of the
working class is reinforced at the far outposts beyond what was ever
traditionally defined as the South Downs. How can we do else but whole-heartedly
welcome the inclusion of the wonderful Forests of Woolmer and Alice Holt in the
National Park, despite knowing that Gilbert White of Selborne would have gasped
at the idea that they had any relationship with the South Downs beyond that of
close proximity and contrast with them ?

Of course our activists welcome their inclusion, but I would do so more
whole-heartedly if I did not have to deal with the painful memory of the SDC's
relative indifference to our struggle. They mostly left us to fight on our own.
For the broader social inequalities in the environs of the new Park were always
reflected within the South Downs Campaign.

It will not sit well with any story of a united peoples' campaign for the new
Park to remember that at one stage the coalition of local Brighton wildlife
groups had to picket the annual meeting of the South Downs Campaign with banners
and leaflets to assert the case for the inclusion of the important Brighton
urban fringe sites. We shouldn't have bothered, for the little note that was
taken of our case.

Let's say it plainly. What made the Inspector, the Countryside Agency, the DEFRA
officials, and many South Downs Campaign activists, reject those excluded areas
was the ugliness of poverty, not any ugliness of landscape.

Tweedledum and Tweedledee

Let us compare two landscapes in Lewes District Council's area. The
District had two main Downland towns in contention: Lewes and
Newhaven-Peacehaven. Both are gateways to the National Park landscape.

Newhaven has cliffs and the sea, brooklands and heathy Down. It also has a
rundown port, struggling industrial estates, and semi-derelict old plotland
dwellings. Lewes has cliffs (quarries, actually), brooklands and Downs. It also
has a large historic core, and a castle, as well as industrial estates, the
County Hall tower block, prison, and noisy A27 bypass.

Masses of campaigning activity went into the inclusion of Lewes town,
using large posters and bill boards like an old fashioned election
campaign. By contrast, no District-level activity went into the inclusion of
Newhaven's cliffs and Down. Its largely working class communities found scarce
any District advocates, with one notable exception - the redoubtable Downland
campaigner Paul Millmore - who were prepared to argue for the inclusion of this
wonderful cliffscape, with its Kittiwakes, Fulmars and Peregrines, its Oil
Beetles, Bombardier Beetles, Sea Clover, Fenugreek and Eocene sharks' teeth.

Our own panel of witnesses did well. The SDC improved its position and
endorsed a weaker version of our proposed boundary. The Inspector conceded that
the cliffs met the criteria. Those small gains were all lost in the end, though.
They did not have the weight of advocacy they needed. The inclusion of Lewes
town was a victory for its middle class
environmentalists. The exclusion of Newhaven's Downland was their
betrayal.

Business is business

Many business groups and landowners, as well as councils worked hard to oppose
the Park, triggering the spending of huge sums of public money to argue before
and during the Public Inquiry against its principle and proposed footprint. They
succeeded in excluding aristocratic Arundel whose relationship to the wider
Downs is identical to that of Lewes - set on a chalk hill overlooking a river
which courses through a narrow gap in the Downs.

That lobby worked hard in Brighton, too, having many friends in key
council departments, though those officers did not have the public behind them.
Even Steve Bassam, the then Labour Council leader, changed his mind and now
supports the Park, as, indeed, did all the political parties with councillors,
including the Brighton Tories.  Yet the Council's formal engagement with the
Park was feeble and ambivalent, seeking to exclude key urban fringe areas -
hills and valleys, allotments, parks and open spaces - from its boundaries so as
to preserve future development opportunities.

Though activists constructed a coalition of the large Green and Tory
council groups, with two dissident Labourites, which won a vote for a
cling film City boundary for the Park, the new recommended boundary was later
watered down in the Council's core Policy and Resources Committee.

When it came to representing the Council's new, improved position at the Public
Inquiry the developmentalist chief officers simply didn't turn up to promote
those bits that they disagreed with, rather than appear, as one of them said to
me, to be contradicting their earlier policy!  By such undemocratic logic no
civil servant would work for an incoming government's new policies if they
contradicted the policies of the outgoing government!

Governance - Whose un-democracy do we support?

Ideas of democratic accountability with respect to the new Park were lost in a
confused muddle of partial truths and distortions. Tory opponents of the Park
(who dominated some rural District Councils and the County Councils) correctly
argued that the forthcoming National Park Authority's wholly unelected governing
body would be undemocratic, whilst choosing to ignore the fact that their
vigorous opposition to such a plainly popular designation was itself
undemocratic. Committed supporters of the Park fell into the trap of arguing
that the appointed governing council will actually be democratic because its
members are to be appointed by democratic councils or by a democratically
elected Secretary of State.

I know of only one councillor, from the Green Party in Brighton, who
attempted to raise these wider issues of democracy in the debate on the Park.
Since the enabling legislation means we will be saddled with a wholly appointed
Park Authority we could at least have raised the issue of democracy in a
propaganda fashion, and helped build a long-term argument for legal change, so
that such local and sectoral state bodies should in future gain a chance of
being elected.

This issue of democratic governance is a serious one. The process of
undermining local state democracy has taken place over more than a century -
since universal suffrage was won. Within living memory Health Boards, Poor Law
Guardians and School Boards were directly elected. Local councils, too, have
been amalgamated, then amalgamated again, numbers of councillors reduced,
stripped of tax raising and executive powers, replaced by 'Bonapartist' directly
elected mayors, and had their committee systems abolished. It is not good to see
liberal minded advocates of National Parks arguing that governance by appointees
is the same as governance by elected representatives.

Many in the National Parks movement feel that the inclusion of parish
council nominees on Park Authority boards, under the provisions of the
1995 Environment Act, does something to rectify this democratic deficit.

Scarcely so. Different forms of democracy serve the interest of different social
classes and sectors. The process of demographic change whereby the well-off have
taken over so much more of our National Parks means that the provision for the
enhanced direct representation of the parish council sector further
disenfranchises those users at a distance from the Parks - say in Manchester or
Sheffield, Brighton or Southampton, which include many poorer working people. It
was, after all, in the interest of the populations of those large conurbations
that the concept of National Parks was first promoted.

We must be apprehensive about the further regressive social effects that may
result from such changes. National Park status for the South Downs, for example,
will undoubtedly make it easier to enforce action against gypsies and other
travellers, and we can be sure there will be an even steeper rise in property
prices within the Park.

Reasons to be cheerful

All those caveats about the structure and boundaries of the National Park must
of course be put in the context of the many reasons to be cheerful about the
outcome. For a while the whole Park project had clouded over badly. The
tortuously slow process of consultation was halted in its tracks by the 'Meyrick
Judgement', made as a result of a legal challenge to the proposed New Forest
National Park boundaries by a neighbouring large estate. That judgement meant
that the notion of what constituted appropriate landscape to include in a
National Park was greatly narrowed, until new legislation was passed to clarify
things. It was successfully argued by the Meyrick Estate that their ornamental
planned park landscape was both too artificial and too private to qualify for
inclusion in the National Park. Though this delay was frustrating, the resulting
legal clarification represents a real advance on the rather misanthropic and
unhistorical notions of natural beauty implicit in earlier National Park
boundary making. Such notions always overvalued unpeopled, montane wildness at
the expense of the softer, more 'domestic' lowlands.

We have another very large reason to be cheerful in the success of the
SDC's campaign for the inclusion of the Western Weald in the new Park.
Things there, too, looked very ominous after the first of the two Public
Inquiries, when the Inquiry Inspector ruled that this landscape should be
excluded. The SDC mustered its forces brilliantly and won that argument at the
second Inquiry.

New onslaughts: new foundations

We must not celebrate too long. Appalling new threats loom over the
landscape of the whole of the Wealden basin of Sussex, Kent and Surrey. We need
to mobilize against a housing allocation which, in Sussex alone, will take up an
area the size of the Brighton conurbation, and which does not differentiate
between affordable public housing and housing for the better-off. There is also
the prospect of other infrastructure, such as a second Gatwick runway, and new
giant reservoir proposals. We must counter these threats on a basis which allies
us with the struggles of working people, rather than treating them with
indifference or as an enemy.

Building these strong foundations for the defence of nature will need more
clarity than the South Downs Campaign has shown. A campaign that demanded the
inclusion within a National Park (correctly) of the creepy ugliness of Roedean
Public School - sprawling above the Brighton chalk cliffs like some
millionaire's daughters' version of Colditz - but rejected the inclusion of the
yelping delight of working class Whitehawk Hill, with its Velvet Ants, Whitehawk
Soldier Beetles, and drifts of Adonis Blues - was a campaign that had gone
astray.
One incident encapsulates the dilemmas of  the campaign for the National Park,
in a Downscape which has been so appallingly damaged by capitalist development.
A member of one of our panels of witnesses was to make the case for the
inclusion of a wooded combe and a collectively run allotment project on the edge
of Brighton. He is a model activist. He has built firm bonds with the local
working class community and has developed the allotments and woods as an
educational project with a particular focus on young people who are at risk. He
is a passionate believer in re-connecting our community with nature. Yet he had
always said to me that the wider
Downs were 'rubbish' - a boring agribusiness arable desert far inferior to the
rich urban fringe. I thought that raw notion would not go down well in a Public
Inquiry about making that very landscape into a National Park, and persuaded him
that he should on no account express it. At the Inquiry he gave his evidence
passionately and persuasively. Too passionately, in fact, to withstand the
temptation of honesty. He said plainly how he felt that the wider Downs were not
worth much. They were an unattractive desert. Folk would do better by staying on
the edge of town on sites like his. And, despite my unease, I knew that what he
said had a large grain of truth. I turned it round, and asked the Inspector to
take on board what he had said. A National Park that did not embrace people's
most loved edge of
town Downland sites, and obliged them to 'minibus in' to the good stuff was one
that was turning its back on the founding objectives of such Parks: to reconnect
people en masse to landscapes of natural beauty.

The Inspector must have heard our message. That site is one of the only
significant sites of the many that we advocated for that is now to be within the
new Park.

References
   Peter Hodge, Sussex entomologist. Pers com.
   The boundary can be viewed on the Natural England website. Key
documents, including The South Downs Inquiry Report, dated 28th November 2008,
are on the DEFRA website. Alice Holt is a new addition which is subject to
consultation, but it will surely receive endorsement.

Dave Bangs is a countryside activist. He recently published A Freedom to Roam
Guide to the Brighton Downs which may soon be reprinted price £15. FFI please
contact dave@...

_______________________________________________________