“Who Owns the World?” A Small Group of Big Money

February 26th, 2024 by Peter Koenig

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

“Who Owns the World” is the title of an extraordinary documentary, describing how Big-Big Money controls not only every aspect of your life, but has a stranglehold on every government, the political UN body, as well as every UN agency, and all industries and services of this globe.

These largest investors are BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street.

These same investment groups also control over 90% of the world’s major media.  

Even Rupert Murdoch’s media empire is majority owned by BlackRock / Vanguard. It is therefore no miracle that hardly any news penetrates the walls of secrecy about these major shareholders of every aspect of human life and life-related activities and businesses.

They control politicians,  geopolitics and military deployments

It is a monopoly that can literally not be opposed by traditional means. They have also invented the “rules-based order” — overruling every international and national law at their will.

They know no limits, no ethics and adhere to no human or human rights standard. POWER is them.

The two most powerful investors and investment managers are BlackRock and Vanguard. They are closely linked, to the point where their management is largely interchangeable. Vanguard is BlackRock’s largest shareholder, meaning that they control BlackRock. 

Though Vanguard is not transparent about its own shareholders, Vanguard is owned by the richest families on earth.

Vanguard has been created to hide their investments and money transactions.

Through non-profit organizations, like the Rockefeller Foundation, Gates Foundation, Rothschild Foundation, JPMorgan Foundation, Clinton Foundation, Bush Foundation, Albert DuPont Charity Trust and so on, billions of “donation” money is transferred tax-free to Vanguard, a shield for their potentially criminal transactions and funding. 


The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the largest funder of WHO
. It also controls GAVI, the vaxx-alliance – and is therefore the most influential organization over human health and death.

These same people, alias Foundations, also own Blackrock – which is why BlackRock and Vanguard are interchangeable or can act as one, if it is to their advantage. 

According to Bloomberg, by 2028, the two will own / manage some 20 trillion dollars – about a fifth of the world’s current GDP.

If joined by State Street, as is often the case, the world’s fourth largest investment manager, you may add another US$ 3 to US$ 4 trillion of managed assets. Sometimes they are joined by Berkshire Hathaway, Citi Bank, Bank of America, Chase & Co, Goldman Sachs… adding another few trillion of managed assets to their pie. 

However, these second or third ranking financial institutions, in turn, are also owned by BlackRock and Vanguard. One might call it an omnipotent vicious circle from which it is almost impossible to escape.

See this one-hour Rumble-video for more details and network of ownership that literally rules the world:

With that power they can leverage every country in the world, every institution, and every corporation – as they are the largest shareholders of the industrial, military, service and infrastructure investment machine that makes the world turn.

Please allow just a little detour to Gaza, where the Zionist racist massacre of an entire population has been going on as today for 141 days.

Some 30,000 Palestinian have been killed; 70% children and women. Children and women are the prime targets, because children are the next generation and women are the bearer of the next generation – they must be eliminated by the supremacist Zionists.

The horror and inhumanity have no words, cannot be appropriately described with our human vocabulary: bombs have liquidated an entire family.

The mutilated body of a seven-year-old girl, Sidra, is hanging from a wall. Hind, a six-year-old girl, was mercilessly killed by Israeli armed forces, as she was begging for help from an ambulance, surrounded by the cadavers of her killed family. As illustrated by “Hildebrandt”, a Peruvian, renowned non-mainstream news media (23 February 2024). 

Tell me, please, are these all-powerful financial conglomerates not powerful enough to stop this massacre at once?

They hold entire nations hostage to do their bidding, but they cannot stop Israel, the Zionists behind the State of Israel, from their merciless atrocious killing, murder, massacre of an entire population?

Are they powerful enough to prevent the United States, their Anglo-Saxon and European puppet governments from halting their money, weapon, and “moral” support of the Zionist onslaught? Or is their power behind the US veto breaking the UN Security Council’s quest for a ceasefire in Gaza?

In any case, by not using their power to stop the Zionist war against Palestine, to stop any war, any killing in the world, are they not complicit in the mass murders in Gaza and around the world by not ending them?

They could. Why are they not doing it?

They are drunk with Power – and as we know, power and money have been derailing humanity for a long time, but now the extent of shame and barbarism has reached a level, where our civilization risks to disappear; and where there is no way to escape, not the traditional ways.

BlackRock / Vanguard are also major shareholders in the secondary and tertiary asset management and banking institutions. So, they control the managed investments of, say, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, City, Chase, Morgan-Stanley – you name it. 

If you invest, for example, in a food conglomerate, like Nestlé, Unilever, PepsiCo, most have no idea that they invest in BlackRock / Vanguard, major shareholders of these food corporations, and by doing so, they also invest in the worldwide military industrial (killing) complex which is too is controlled by BlackRock / Vanguard.

BlackRock / Vanguard / State Street are also the powers behind the power – most often invisible.

For example, BlackRock has close links with many Central Banks, especially with the Federal Reserve. They lend money to the FED – and are a principal adviser to the FED and most likely to other central banks, including they advise on computer systems they use and which connects them.

BlackRock, is by far the largest influencer and donor, or “partner”, as they prefer to call themselves, therefore, also “commander”, of the World Economic Forum (WEF), the entire UN system, its political arm, as well as its sub-agencies and by proxy, also the World Health Organization (WHO), and not to forget GAVI, the Vaccination Association, physically located just next door to WHO – and by further extension, Big-Pharma, the pharma industry. 

Together with their faithful think-alike executer of WEF’s mandates, Mr. Klaus Schwab, as well as the multibillionaires, such as the Gates’s, Rockefeller’s, Soros’s of this world, one can easily deduct, they – BlackRock and Co. – control our lives – health and death.

Through their world-domineering ownership of all that moves, shakes, and produces, they are globalists, eugenists and “green-agenda” eccentrics, pushing the climate change lie – come hell or high water. Costs in money and lives do not matter. 

Were these financial monsters behind the covid-plandemic idea? What a question!

Their agenda – eugenist, destruction of current economic structures to rebuild according to this small elite’s criteria – is clearly spelled out by the Club of Rome’s (CoR) “Limits to Growth” (1972), and the follow-on Report “The First Global Revolution” (1991) which claims early on in its text that annihilation of the current system is a MUST, to rebuild, bringing the fundamental changes in favor of the elite with eugenics and absolute control always in the fore.

Is the CoR at the service of the global financial empire? After all, the same powers are behind both. 

Not by coincidence, the Rockefeller Group is the inventor of the Club of Rome, today comfortably seated, tax free and with full diplomatic immunity, in Switzerland.

The fake Covid plandemic is the first building block for this all-destructive mechanism, the “cornerstone” of destruction, so to speak.

The lockdowns, the inhuman, totally invalid PCR tests, the fear-mongering – the invented covid-death rates – were very effective in manipulating people, but also in laying the groundwork for the overall annihilation of our society and even civilization, in shifting assets from the bottom to the top and in abolishing the world economy that carries our civilization.

Once the people were shivering from fear, the deadly “vaxxes” were introduced.

Lo and behold, by now, despite ever-louder opposition – about 5.7 billion people – out of the world’s 8 billion (more than 70%) have received at least one jab and most got 2 or 3 injections.

These poisonous injections are in the human bodies and may most likely react sooner or later. According to Mike Yeadon, former VP and Chief scientist of Pfizer, over the next three to ten years, the death toll will increase probably drastically, but most people will not link it to the “vaxxes” — either because they have been indoctrinated that deaths are due to long or late covid, or because they suffer from and live in cognitive dissonance.

Big Money to own and control it all, must drastically reduce world population. This is propagated by the WEF,  and as of this day by the CoR (see this).

WEF’s Chairman, Klaus Schwab’s top advisor, Israeli Professor, Yuval Noah Harari, asks openly what to do with the “useless eaters” when their “raison d’être” has ben replaced by Artificial Intelligence (AI). Giving them a base salary for (temporary) survival, getting them hooked on violent video games to prep them for the future, and to let them gradually “disappear”? 

In addition to severe human injuries and death, the vaxxes also reduce male and female fertility, cause miscarriages, highly aggressive and lethal turbo cancers, and if course, myocarditis and sudden deaths.

Overall excess mortality in the west is as high as 20% in some countries. In the UK, where excess deaths are alarming the common public, they have started modifying statistics to erase surplus mortality.

In parallel, mostly funded by the Soros Open Society Foundation, the Woke movement is ravaging the western world, with promotion of sex changes and the infamous “multi-letter” agenda — LGBTQIA+ = Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, and Asexual. WOW! This is promoted in schools, in some countries with strict bans of parents’ interference in their children’s, as young as 11 years, wishes for sex-change.

This agenda reduces birth rates further. 

Endless wars create chaos, confusion, desperation and, of course, also deaths. 

The Money Masters have succeeded in creating the first building blocks. WHO may soon become the most powerful health (life and death) tyranny on earth, if the infamous Pandemic Treaty and the harshly modified International Health Regulations (IHR) are approved at the upcoming World Health Assembly (WHA) in May 2024.

Knowing who is in possession and control of WHO and the WHA, the world is called upon to exit WHO.

Internationally renowned Dr. Peter McCullough testified in the European Parliament in Strasbourg about the social and economic consequences of covid vaxxes, as well as the potentially impending WHO tyranny – concluding with a call on the EU and the US and the rest of the world to exit WHO. See this.

To retake the world, by We the People, leaving BlackRock, Vanguard & Co. behind, exiting the UN system and WHO – would be the next step. Most important, and possibly the only way defeating this money power, is withdrawing from the current societal system and start afresh.

Small communal economies – as far away as possible from any digitization – with a dynamic cooperation among themselves, evolving naturally and on a higher spiritual level than the low vibrating one which is typical for our material world and the present strive for ever more material goods. 

“Only when we are divided, can the elite retain its power over us.” 

“The Wound is the Place, where the Light enters You.” — The great Sufi poet, Rumi 

Their weapons are blackmail and fear.

WE MUST NOT FEAR.

We are the 99%.

We can do it.

And we MUST do it for survival of humanity.

*

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

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing. 

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

Over the last few months a troubling narrative has steadily been gathering strength in British politics.

It goes: radical Islamists are taking over the streets of London. They are using their muscle to intimidate politicians, and are destroying the authority of parliament. As a result, democracy itself is under threat.

Over the past 24 hours, this narrative that British Muslims are corrupting the British political system has gone viral.

Robert Jenrick, a former cabinet minister, speaking in the Commons on Thursday, said that Britain has “allowed our streets to be dominated by Islamist extremists”.

He spoke of “a pattern of Islamist extremists intimidating those they disagree with, backed by the prospect of violence”. Penny Mordaunt, leader of the House of Commons, replied that she “could not agree more”.

On Thursday, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak fanned the flames, warning that “we should never let extremists intimidate us into changing the way in which parliament works.”

These are powerful accusations – and neither Sunak nor Jenrick produced evidence to support them.

Islamophobic Rhetoric

It’s important to explain the context of this latest epidemic of Islamophobic rhetoric. It was unleashed in the wake of Wednesday’s chaotic events at Westminster after the Scottish National Party (SNP) tabled a Commons motion supporting a ceasefire in Gaza.

This motion was acutely embarrassing for Labour leader Keir Starmer, many of whose MPs are deeply opposed to his support for the war.

This helps explain why both the SNP and the Conservatives tore into Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle when he over-ruled the advice of his Commons clerks and defied parliamentary convention to allow a Labour Party amendment which got Starmer off the hook.

Amidst furious calls for him to quit, Speaker Hoyle went on the record to say that when making his controversial decision he had been “very, very concerned” about the safety of MPs, their families and members of their staff.

Yesterday, he came back to the Commons to repeat his alarm:

“The details of the things that have been brought to me are absolutely frightening,” adding that “if my mistake is looking after members [of parliament], I am guilty”.

He made clear that he had been influenced in his decision-making by Starmer’s own concern about threats to his MPs.

The Speaker, however, did not explain exactly who it was that threatened the safety of Labour MPs – but nobody at Westminster was in any doubt who he was referring to: Muslims.

A Media Storm

As night follows day, the British media supported these claims.

Alicia Fitzgerald, a political reporter, fuelled the sense of panic on Talk TV when she said she’d been talking to Labour MPs, particularly women, who were “absolutely terrified” of leaving the Commons in the face of a pro-Palestinian “mob” outside.

He added:

“We have crossed a line now. We are not a properly functioning democracy if this is a factor in how our elected representatives act.”

Mail on Sunday journalist Dan Hodges tweeted that he had spoken to an MP “who told me he had weighed up his own physical safety when deciding on how to vote on yesterday’s Gaza motion”.

Far-right commentator Douglas Murray announced on X (formerly Twitter) that “it seems that British MPs are finally waking up. Now that the Islamist threat is coming at them”.

Telegraph journalist and prospective Tory MP Nick Timothy accused Starmer of backing down to “Islamist intimidation” and destroying “the impartial institutions that make our system work”.

Former home secretary Suella Braverman writes in Friday’s Daily Telegraph that “the Islamists, the extremists, and the anti-semites are in charge now”. According to Thursday’s Sun leader column, MPs faced “violent threats from Islamist thugs”.

Meanwhile, on a panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference alongside former Prime Minister Liz Truss, Nigel Farage, the former Ukip leader, declared that “radical Islam is becoming mainstream in British politics”. Farage predicted that “by the 2029 general election, we will have a radical Islamic party represented in Westminster”, adding that “you can’t be a proper country, unless you control your borders”.

And so on and so on. A narrative has been established in just 24 hours. British democracy is under threat from dangerous Islamists.

This narrative is being peddled by our most powerful politicians and media writers.

Where Is the Evidence?

It goes without saying that these are very serious allegations. If it is indeed the case that “radical Islamists” (or any other group) are threatening the lives of MPs and others, then drastic action is needed.

But I issue one word of warning.

No evidence has been provided. No evidence from the Speaker, who set the media storm in motion. Nothing from Starmer, who briefed him.

Remember that physical and verbal intimidation are crimes. That includes common assault and even the use of threatening language – including online.

Anyone who physically threatens an MP – or any other politician –  can and must be prosecuted.

If such threats have been made, as Starmer and Speaker Hoyle claim, then charges must follow, and then jail sentences. Thus far such claims are not standing up. 

Alicia Fitzgerald’s excitable report seems to have been contradicted by another political reporter, Hugo Gye, who reported that he left parliament at 7.30pm “and didn’t see a single protestor”.

Or let’s look at the illuminating case of Scottish MSP Paul Sweeney who said that his Glasgow office had been “stormed” by Gaza protests. They were “terrifying and threatening our staff,” he added.

Yet, according to the National, “Police Scotland has now confirmed it was not aware of anyone storming in or threatening Labour staff.”

The National reports that “Police Scotland also said it was made aware of a ‘peaceful protest’ that officers attended with no issues because the protesters involved left of their own accord.”

A Legitimate Democratic Protest

This is an important episode because it may explain the basis of the claims made Wednesday that “Islamists” were intimidating Labour MPs.

The MPs may have felt, genuinely, that they were threatened, but to others – including the police – they were obliged to endure no more than peaceful protest. A demonstration outside their office for sure. Chanting no doubt. Perhaps abuse. But all was within the limits of legitimate democratic protest.

If something worse took place, and the protest descended into threats to the personal safety of MPs, then the evidence must be handed to the police and charges pressed.

At present all we have is hearsay. And this brings me to Speaker Hoyle and Starmer. 

There are many questions to be asked about the cozy conversation between two of Britain’s most senior politicians on Wednesday.

We know from Gary Gibbon, the respected Channel 4 political editor, that Starmer warned that Labour MPs could face threats in their constituencies unless the Labour motion was heard.

We also know that Hoyle took heed of this remark. Did he ask for evidence supporting Starmer’s allegations? There has been – so far – no suggestion that he did.

Let’s take at face value the accepted account of events. Starmer told Hoyle, face to face, of a serious threat to British democracy. If that had been the case, why didn’t Starmer and Hoyle make a public statement about a threat of such gravity to British politicians? 

The government chief whip should have been at the meeting so that he could be told about the threat to parliament. Had he been present – as he should have been – events would have taken a different turn. 

Let’s note one other thing: the story of the Islamic threat to parliament suits both the Commons Speaker and the Labour leader down to the ground.

A Broader Threat

As far as Starmer was concerned, it was enough to avoid a deeply embarrassing vote that would have exposed deep divisions in the Labour Party.

When he told MPs of his concerns about their safety, the narrative changed at once. The story was no longer about a weak Speaker bowing to intimidation from the Labour leader. It became an Islamist threat to parliamentary democracy.

A story that has been swallowed without inspection, or a sight of a shred of evidence by Britain’s Islamophobic media.

I am not underestimating the seriousness of the charges. 

The physical threat to British MPs is real and it is deadly. Indeed I was one of the first to raise the warning about violence against MPs after George Galloway, then MP for Bradford West, was hospitalised in 2014 following a brutal attack in a London street by a thug apparently enraged by his views on Israel. 

Not a single MP expressed sympathy, least of all then-Speaker John Bercow. And aside from my article, there was no press concern. Yet, that Galloway episode was a hideous warning of what was to follow. Labour MP Jo Cox was murdered during the runup to the Brexit referendum by a right wing fascist. Sir David Amess was murdered by a Muslim in 2019. 

The threat to MPs is broader than a threat from Islamists. And recent history shows that it should be taken with great seriousness. So far both Starmer and Hoyle have been acting on hearsay or innuendo. 

That is reckless and deeply irresponsible.

It means that they are open to the charge, in the words of left-wing commentator Owen Jones, that they were “Trying to portray British Muslims peacefully protesting against the mass slaughter of largely Muslim Palestinians as a dangerous, menacing mob”.

Both Hoyle and Starmer need, as a matter or urgency, to explain exactly what went on in their furtive meeting on Wednesday. What evidence is there that MPs have been physically intimidated? If there is such evidence, why have suspects not been charged? Why was no statement made in the Commons on Wednesday about physical intimidation of MPs?

Aspersions and Innuendo

They need to act because the Speaker’s remarks in the House of Commons, whether deliberately or not, have led to an explosion of Islamophobic hatred against Muslims protesting against Israeli actions in Gaza.

It may be that hard facts do lie behind the Speaker’s remarks. If so he, with the help of Starmer, should make them public. Prosecutions should follow.

If not he should withdraw his comments.

It is important to remember that this is not the first time false aspersions and innuendo have been made about opponents of Israel’s war in Gaza. Remember Home Secretary Braverman’s demonisation of protests as “hate marches”, and her attempt to ban one London march on the Armistice weekend. 

Yet Open Democracy reported in early February that arrests at pro-Palestine marches were at a lower rate than at the Glastonbury music festival last year. It estimated that an average of 0.5 demonstrators at Palestine protests were arrested for every 10,000 attendees. 

Between October and December – during which time millions protested – there were 153 arrests at the protests. Of those, 117 arrestees were released without charge.

Mainstream British politicians are claiming that British Muslims are a security threat and are subverting British democracy. This is a deadly serious and inflammatory claim. The Speaker of the House of Commons and the leader of the Labour Party now have a duty to substantiate their claims.

If not they have a duty to withdraw them.

*

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

Peter Oborne won best commentary/blogging in both 2022 and 2017, and was also named freelancer of the year in 2016 at the Drum Online Media Awards for articles he wrote for Middle East Eye. He was also named as British Press Awards Columnist of the Year in 2013. He resigned as chief political columnist of the Daily Telegraph in 2015. His latest book is The Fate of Abraham: Why the West is Wrong about Islam, published in May by Simon & Schuster. His previous books include The Triumph of the Political Class, The Rise of Political Lying, Why the West is Wrong about Nuclear Iran and The Assault on Truth: Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and the Emergence of a New Moral Barbarism. 

Featured image source

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

Rishi Sunak has been accused of aiding Vladimir Putin’s regime over the government’s plans to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money training up the next generation of Russian leaders.

Britain barred Russians from applying to the Chevening scholarship programme – a fully funded masters degree aimed at “emerging leaders” from all over the world – after Mr Putin invaded Ukraine two years ago.

But, despite the conflict still going on – and Britain ramping up sanctions on Moscow in response to the death of opposition leader Alexei Navalny The Independent can reveal that the scheme has been reopened to applicants from Russia.

Click here to view the video.

The prime minister is now facing calls to reverse the decision, with MPs and campaigners criticising the decision to use foreign aid money in this way. One MP said: “It will only possibly benefit apparatchiks of Putin’s regime.”

Bill Browder, the US anti-corruption campaigner, told The Independent it is “highly inappropriate” to reinstate the scheme.

Click here to read the full article on The Independent.

*

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

Spyware Found on Phones of EU Defense Subcommittee Members

February 26th, 2024 by Turkiye Newspaper

Collapsed Suddenly During COVID Vaccination. A Video Compilation

February 26th, 2024 by Dr. William Makis

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

Dec. 17, 2020 – Chattanooga, TN – CHI Memorial – Nurse Manager Tiffany Dover was the first healthcare worker to be COVID-19 mRNA Vaccinated. She collapsed seconds after vaccination.

Click here to view

 

There are many videos of collapses at vaccine clinics:

VIDEO 03 – Young boy at a vaccine clinic (posted Nov. 26, 2023)

Click here to view

 

VIDEO 04 – Child collapses as mother screams (posted Nov. 26, 2023)

Click here to view

 

VIDEO 05 – Vaccine Clinic collapsed on the floor (posted Nov. 26, 2023)

Click here to view

 

Click here to read the full article.

*

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

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


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biden’s Generals in Pakistan

February 26th, 2024 by Junaid S. Ahmad

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Donation Drive: Global Research Is Committed to the “Unspoken Truth”

***

[This was first published by GR on February 2.]

As the world, and especially Muslims, correctly has been focused on the Zionist genocide in Gaza, we seem to have forgotten President Biden’s criminality in another part of the world.

Indeed, just as Israel’s savagery has been wholeheartedly supported by the Biden Administration, the regime change operation in March-April of 2022 in Pakistan was also on Biden’s watch. More and more Pakistanis, especially in the largest and politically dominant province of Punjab, have come to recognize the venality of the military establishment. Though the other provinces of Pakistan had no illusion of the nefarious and violent role of the generals in Pakistani social and political life, people in Punjab had to experience the torturous wrath of the military top brass after the removal of former Prime Minister Imran Khan – to realize the cold-bloodedness of the military high command. 

Khan has been languishing in prison since August of last year on various trumped up and farcical charges. And now, he and another senior member of Khan’s political party, former foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, have been sentenced to a ten-year jail sentence because of the ostensible cypher-gate scandal. The ‘cypher,’ a secret diplomatic cable sent to Islamabad by Pakistan’s ambassador in Washington in March of 2022, stated quite explicitly the American desire to oust Khan from power. The task was left to Washington’s old Cold War friends in Pakistan’s praetorian guard to fulfill the mission. 

After Khan was removed from power by a military establishment-US embassy.in-Islamabad engineered vote-of-no-confidence in parliament, he made it very clear to Pakistanis that this was a regime change conspiracy involving the US on the one hand, and Pakistan’s generals and kleptocratic politicians on the other. At the time, sadly, those who had historically opposed the role of the military in Pakistan’s politics, refused to believe Khan – essentially considering him a conspiratorial nutcase. After more than a year after Khan’s ouster, the American online publication, The Intercept, confirmed that the official diplomatic cable that Khan referred to was in fact real, and that its content laid out in no uncertain terms the American insistence on removing Khan from power. By now, even the most ardent ‘cypher deniers’ have had to acknowledge the veracity of Khan’s claims at the time of the successful regime change operation in the country. The tragedy was that the big media houses in Pakistan acceded to state pressure to erase the name Imran Khan from any public discourse, and that it took a foreign publication’s stellar investigative journalism to expose the treacherous collaboration between Washington and the generals in Pakistan – in particular, the Chief of Army Staff (COAS), Gen. Bajwa – in subjecting Khan and his political party, PTI, to the most totalitarian forms of repression.

After two decades of the ‘War on Terror’ having created some friction between the American and Pakistani military-intelligence apparatuses, both came to realize that, ultimately, they will always be joined at the hip. The Pakistani military is one of the most vicious relics of colonialism. It transitioned quite smoothly in its neo-colonial relationship with Washington throughout the Cold War. Pakistan’s generals never lose sight of the fact that they make billions from American machinations in West and Southwest Asia. Other than excelling as a satrapy of the American empire, the powerful Pakistani armed forces are good for nothing but extreme levels of repression, torture, disappearances, and murdering its own population. 

However, throughout the past two years, Pakistanis have been somewhat bewildered at the extent of the vendetta and ferocious repression targeted at Khan and his political party. It seems to be the case that the military establishment has never felt as insecure as it has after Khan’s ouster and the subsequent massive outpouring of support for him and his party. The well-understood arrangement between any civilian government and the COAS and the military-intelligence establishment was that the former agrees to cede full control of ‘national security’ and foreign policy to the latter. The generals increasingly felt that Khan began to violate this ‘code of conduct’ by positioning himself as the one who would carve out the direction of the country on the world stage. In addition, the generals’ Western patron-masters saw Khan as a thorn in their control of Muslim despots in West Asia, most of whom were on the path of normalization with Israel, turning a blind eye to Hindutva fascism in India, and engineering a pro-Empire- friendly Islam. On the contrary, Khan spoke passionately about justice for Palestinians and Kashmiris, rejected the imperial categories of ‘moderate’ or ‘extremist’ Islam, and denounced the rise of Islamophobia and its dreadful social and political impact throughout the world. His popularity among, and keen desire to bring together, nations such as Malaysia, Turkey, Indonesia, Iran, and Qatar was correctly seen as a counter-hegemonic bloc to the Saudi domination of the Muslim world. And finally, Khan’s praise of China’s ability to lift more than 800 million out of poverty and the lessons it offers for developing countries like Pakistan, as well as remaining neutral in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, convinced the US national security state that this man must be eliminated.

It’s important to note that generals’ detestation of Khan was not because he was some revolutionary. But he did help to politicize significant chunks of the population, young and old, and especially in the military establishment’s base of support – the province of Punjab. Punjabis protesting en masse against the military establishment was something unforgivable for the generals. Punjabis were supposed to love or at least respect their military leaders, not despise them as they did following Khan’s ouster.

Comparisons are often made with the popular leader of Pakistan during the 1970s, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto – who certainly had a revolutionary character in his rhetoric. But two key differences are often overlooked. Bhutto came to power on the backs of Bengali blood, the genocidal campaign of West Pakistani generals against the population of East Pakistan – which became Bangladesh after winning its war of liberation. Bhutto’s party, the PPP, would have lost to the Awami League political party in East Pakistan had it not been for the merciless military assault on the future nation of Bangladesh. In a cynically transactional manner, Bhutto repaid the favor by effectively rescuing and rehabilitating a humiliated and defeated Pakistani military. In fact, Bhutto would go on to rely on that same military to target political opponents, especially in the provinces of NWFP (now renamed KPK) and Balochistan. Of course, none of this is to deny that Bhutto was a very popular leader. 

But secondly, Bhutto’s own shortcomings and political authoritarianism while in power ultimately led to disillusionment within his support base, resulting in a fairly reticent popular response to his ouster by the military dictator, Gen. Zia-ul-Haq – and, as in the case of Khan, a regime change completely supported by Washington.

One can claim that Khan also came on the backs of the military establishment’s very temporary squabble with the other two major dynastic political parties. But like Bhutto, no one can claim that Khan was not immensely popular. The major difference, of course, is the massive outpouring of support for Khan after his ouster, in rallies across the country sustained for more than a year until the barbaric military crackdown began in May of 2023. In fact, the surprise for many was that despite a rather lackluster performance in his period of governance, still Khan was popular as ever, if not more. 

The saga of the cases, charges, and convictions against Khan are seen by virtually all of Pakistan’s 240 million people as a politically motivated clown-show. Specifically, the recent convictions in ‘courts’ for which the term ‘kangaroo court’ would be way too generous, deferential, and respectful, are intended to further demoralize and terrorize the population before ‘elections’ to be held on Feb. 8th. Some think that these elections would give Saddam Hussain’s and Hosni Mubarak’s forms of elections good competition. 

While Pakistanis in and outside of the country continue to witness one travesty after the next, to see the totalitarianism of the generals and their favored political mafias reach newer and more ruthless heights, the hope remains that, just like in Gaza, the people’s resistance and international solidarity may be able to mount a serious impediment to Biden’s generals’ torture chambers imposed on the country. And the perennial palace intrigues and squabbles of the political and military elite have a tendency to derail all major plans of coordinated and disciplined perpetual punishment of the population.

Nevertheless, one underreported story during the past two years has been of the many officers and overwhelming majority of soldiers who’ve had nothing but revulsion for the shenanigans of the bloodthirsty high command, causing many of them to be ‘disappeared’ or forced to resign, or just resigning on their own, without pension. 

Absent the ability of the people to, at this point, initiate an effective and formidable challenge to Washington’s comprador military and political elite, a progressive officers’ coup may not be a bad idea.

*

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

Prof. Junaid S. Ahmad teaches religion, law, and global politics and is the Director of the Center for Islam and Decoloniality, Islamabad, Pakistan. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Multipolarista

A OTAN planeja provocação contra Belarus.

February 25th, 2024 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

Os países da OTAN parecem interessados ​​em lançar novas manobras provocativas contra a República de Belarus. De acordo com um recente relatório de inteligência publicado pelo governo bielorrusso, há informações que mostram um plano da Polônia para atacar a sua própria população numa operação de bandeira falsa contra Minsk. O objetivo seria usar tal acontecimento como justificativa para escalar o conflito contra a Rússia – que tem aliança com Belarus.

A informação foi exposta pelo presidente bielorrusso, Aleksandr Lukashenko, durante discurso no dia 20 de fevereiro. Afirmou que a inteligência do país identificou várias ameaças terroristas perto das fronteiras nos últimos dias. Algumas destas ameaças visam o próprio povo bielorrusso, o que motivou, por exemplo, a operação antiterrorista em Gomel, perto da fronteira com a Ucrânia. No entanto, perto das fronteiras polacas também existem ameaças de outra natureza, que visam cidadãos não bielorrussos.

Lukashenko disse que há evidências de um plano para realizar um ataque a civis polacos nas regiões fronteiriças com Belarus. O plano visa gerar indignação na opinião pública na Polônia e nos países ocidentais e, assim, justificar a escalada de medidas políticas e militares contra Belarus e a Federação Russa. De acordo com a inteligência bielorrussa, os serviços secretos polacos e americanos estão a participar conjuntamente num tal plano, sendo portanto uma conspiração de Varsóvia contra o seu próprio povo.

O presidente bielorrusso comparou o alegado plano polaco-americano às práticas nazistas na Segunda Guerra Mundial, recordando como Hitler utilizou o território polaco para iniciar as hostilidades. Sublinhou também que os responsáveis ​​da OTAN não se preocupam com a vida dos cidadãos dos países “aliados”, dispostos a lutar “até ao último” polaco ou ucraniano, se necessário, para continuar a atacar a Rússia e Belarus. Por último, Lukashenko pediu prudência e cuidado à Polônia, apelando aos tomadores de decisões polacos para que repensassem as suas ações.

Esta não é a primeira vez que surgem relatórios expondo planos para envolver Belarus em hostilidades armadas. Desde 2022, o país tem sofrido diversas provocações em regiões fronteiriças, incluindo ataques terroristas de radicais da Ucrânia e exercícios militares agressivos de tropas da OTAN na Polônia e nos países bálticos. Minsk tem sido eficiente em evitar um conflito militar, mas o governo do país é constantemente forçado a lançar operações antiterroristas nas fronteiras para neutralizar sabotadores e infiltrados.

Há um sentido estratégico muito simples por trás de tais provocações. O Ocidente quer fazer com que a Bielorrússia reaja militarmente contra a Ucrânia ou contra a Polônia e os países bálticos da OTAN. Desta forma, uma situação de conflito seria justificada e envolveria diretamente a Rússia numa segunda frente, uma vez que Moscou e Minsk têm um pacto de defesa coletiva no âmbito do Tratado do Estado da União.

Como é sabido, a Ucrânia já não tem capacidade para travar uma guerra contra a Rússia durante um período prolongado. O país está devastado pelas consequências do conflito, estando militarmente enfraquecido e incapaz de manter as suas posições. Por isso é “necessário” que a OTAN abra uma nova frente contra a Rússia o mais rapidamente possível, uma vez que Kiev já se revelou ineficiente no “desgaste” de Moscou. Provocações anti-russas têm sido observadas em países como a Moldávia e a Geórgia, onde a OTAN pretende retomar os conflitos contra grupos separatistas pró-russos. No mesmo sentido, também se procurou uma guerra envolvendo a Bielorrússia, pois isso forçaria os russos a envolverem-se diretamente.

Os responsáveis ​​da OTAN parecem não compreender, contudo, que este tipo de manobra seria extremamente arriscado para a aliança e para o mundo inteiro. O governo russo já deixou claro que qualquer ataque à Belarus será visto como um ataque à própria Rússia, o que significa que as manobras da Polônia poderiam levar a uma verdadeira guerra direta entre o Estado da União e a OTAN, o que significaria uma Terceira Guerra Mundial – com possíveis consequências nucleares.

Por outro lado, um cenário também possível é simplesmente o “abandono” da Polônia e dos Bálticos pela OTAN. Em teoria, a aliança atlântica é obrigada a intervir em qualquer conflito em que participe um dos seus membros. Mas, na prática, esta cláusula de defesa coletiva nunca foi testada num conflito relevante. Muitos analistas duvidam que Washington autorize realmente a intervenção da OTAN numa guerra direta entre a Polônia e a Rússia, razão pela qual Varsóvia pode estar inconscientemente a atirar-se para um conflito no qual não terá apoio.

É também necessário lembrar que atualmente Belarus é um país nuclear. Minsk recebeu armas nucleares táticas russas em seu território e o governo local tem autonomia para optar por utilizá-las caso entenda isso como necessário para garantir sua segurança nacional. Por outras palavras, Minsk tem poder de dissuasão nuclear, o que automaticamente a coloca numa posição de vantagem militar contra os seus vizinhos por procuração dos EUA.

Em todos os cenários possíveis, provocar a Bielorrússia parece ser um grande erro.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

 

Artigo em inglês : NATO allegedly planning provocation against Belarus, InfoBrics, 22 de Fevereiro de 2024.

Imagem : InfoBrics

*

Lucas Leiroz, jornalista, pesquisador do Center for Geostrategic Studies, consultor geopolítico.

Você pode seguir Lucas Leiroz em: https://t.me/lucasleiroz e https://twitter.com/leiroz_lucas

Jamaica: Upcoming Local Government Elections

February 25th, 2024 by Tina Renier

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

As Jamaica gears up for its long overdue, local government elections on February 26, 2024, there are number of critical insights that I would like to share about the overall state of our democracy, based on interpretation and analysis of national poll ratings conducted by (Don Anderson Market Research Limited and Blue Dot), regional studies over the past decade and recent global reports on democracy.

The current efforts of the Jamaica Debates Commission must be highly commended for ensuring that citizens have the opportunity to listen to the policy proposals presented by the People’s National Party (PNP) and the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) as well as to ensure a vibrant, democracy at the level of local government and community development. However, the question that still lingers is to what extent will these national debates influence public opinion of the two major political parties, party leaders and voting behaviour especially given the fact that our dominant political culture is heavily predicated on tradition and clientelist attitudes of the two major political parties?

While the Don Anderson Market Research Limited and Blue Dot poll ratings display projections in differences and consistencies in patterns in voting behaviour and political participation, the most profound and consistent poll results from the two national polling agencies illustrate the top concerns of Jamaicans both at the national level and the local government level and these concerns range from rising cost of living, poverty, food insecurity, vulnerability to natural disasters, alarming crime and violence rates, high actual and perceived political corruption, social marginalization and lack of equitable access to social and economic opportunities including jobs, infrastructure and health care. 

On the topic of corruption, we are quite aware that corruption significantly hampers social and economic development and is also a threat to national security. This is evident in the 2023 World Justice Project survey which reveals that corruption stifles fair access to opportunities and 78% of respondents in Jamaica believe that hiring, recruitment practices and awarding of contracts in the public sector is based on friends or family ties to political parties rather than on merit and at the regional level, this rate stands at 81% among the 14 Caribbean countries surveyed. Additionally, 66% of respondents in Jamaica also believe that those working for political parties are corrupt. Regional studies such as the 2023 Americas Barometer notes that democracy in Latin American and the Caribbean is under duress whereby public attitudes and support for democracy is significantly lower than other regions of the world. The Latin American and Caribbean region underwent its 8th consecutive decline in support for democracy in 2023. In Jamaica, citizens’ trust in elections is as low as 35% and in addition to this, only 18% of respondents believe that elections are crucial levers in advocating for and driving meaningful social changes.

Public dissatisfaction with the political status quo is becoming more glaring and prevalent. This is due to a combination of factors but primarily, there is pessimism with a lack of good governance and a lack of inclusive economic growth wherein development has not delivered widespread benefits for majority of our population. This is seen where although we have been ranked for high human development by the United Nations Development Programme with a score of 0.709 in 2021, there are still vast inequalities in income and wealth distribution and access to opportunities. One of the most intriguing emerging trends from the region that we should pay attention to as citizens and as political analysts and commentators is the fact that the 2023 Americas Barometer Report notes that younger generations in the Latin America and Caribbean region are increasingly interested in social change and show a higher support for democracy. This underscores the importance of youth development in strengthening democracy and reforms.

I end with the statements for our reflection, “broader national issues need to be localized, this is the central ethos of local government” and “political choices affect policy outcomes”.

*

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

Tina Renier is an independent researcher based in Jamaica. She is a volunteer at Just Peace Advocates and a regular contributor to Global Research. She received a Master of Arts in International Development Studies in Nova Scotia, Canada.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated in late 2022 that his priority was to sign a normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia. He called it his number one objective for Israel’s national security. Now, he has lost his dream.

Saudi Arabia stood up alongside 51 countries, and testified at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Israel’s attack on Gaza which has been classified as genocide, and apartheid by human rights experts, South Africa and others. The evidence being presented to the ICJ rule is to prove that the occupation of Palestine is illegal, and must be ended.

Saudi Arabia condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza, and the Occupied West Bank as legally indefensible. Ziad Al-Atiyah, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the Netherlands, strongly condemned Israel for its actions in Palestine which defy international law.

Al-Atiyah stressed that Israel must be held accountable for ignoring international law in its treatment of civilians in Gaza and its continued impunity.

Saudi Arabia expressed deep sorrow over the killing of 29,000 civilians, who are mainly women and children, and rejected Israel’s argument of self-defense, stating that depriving Palestinians of basic means of survival is unjustifiable.

Al-Atiyah called on the international community to take action against Israel’s genocidal actions against Palestinians, and Israel’s constant dehumanizing rhetoric. He added that the court does indeed have jurisdiction in this case, and urged the court to issue an opinion.

Saudi Arabia condemned Israel’s disregard for ceasefire calls, while expanding illegal settlements in the Occupied West Bank, and the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes.

The Kingdom listed Israel’s violations of international obligations, while ignoring UN resolutions condemning its conduct and preventing Palestinians from their right to self-defense.

Israel was also criticized for its 2018 Basic Law declaring Jerusalem as its capital, which is in clear violation of UN resolutions, and the expansion of illegal settlements, and preventing the self-determination of the Palestinian people, which is a universal human right.

Who Else Is There?

The UN General Assembly requested the ICJ for an advisory opinion on the Israeli occupation of Palestine. 51 states will present arguments until Feb. 26.

South Africa, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, the Netherlands, Bangladesh, and Belgium also presented preliminary arguments.

This is the largest case ever presented at the ICJ and at least three international organizations are also slated to address the judges at the UN’s top court until next week. A nonbinding legal opinion will follow the judges’ deliberations.

Gaza changed everything:  the world is against Israel, except the US.

Amar Bendjama, Algeria’s ambassador to the UN, introduced a ceasefire resolution at the UN on February 20. He said the Council “cannot afford passivity” in the face of what is unfolding in Gaza, and that silence is “not a viable option”.

“This resolution is a stance for truth and humanity, standing against the advocates for murder and hatred,” he said. “Voting against it implies an endorsement of the brutal violence and collective punishment inflicted upon them [the Palestinians].”

His words of bitter accusation were directed at one country: The United States of America.  The only country to vote against the ceasefire was America.  The UN Security Council’s 13 other member countries voted in favor of demanding a halt to the war, while the UK abstained.

Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the US ambassador to the UN, has consistently held her hand up high while voting against every chance to relieve the suffering, injuries and deaths of the people in Gaza.

Thomas-Greenfield’s ancestors were African slaves in the US. Her ancestors were deprived of all human rights for hundreds of years until they were granted freedom, and that freedom came resulting from a bloody four-year war.  Her ancestors fought for the freedom that she enjoys, and yet she is defending Israel. She fails to empathize with the Palestinians who should remind her of her ancestors.

The US is isolated as a pariah state because of Gaza. 

The moral authority of the US has been ripped from Washington, DC. by the power of the genocide and war crimes in Gaza, carried out by Israel while using weapons sent to Tel Aviv from the US State Department. Biden’s fingerprints are all over the murder weapons.

How Many Countries Called for Ceasefire in Gaza?

The EU’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, reports that 26 out of 27 EU countries call for “immediate humanitarian pause in Gaza, that would lead to a sustainable ceasefire.” The US likes to think of Europe as their sheep, blindly following every dictate issued by the Oval Office.  But, Gaza has changed that; now the EU is voicing ethical and moral authority over the US.

Netanyahu took office on December 29, 2022, and he is allied by the most extreme right-wing politicians in Israel’s history. Ben Gvir and Smotrich have both made racist and genocidal statements about Palestinians. Their views vacillate between the need to either kill all the Palestinians, or force them to move to Egypt and Jordan.

But, Netanyahu faces a prison term for corruption, and these radical allies are all that is keeping him safe, and in office. His hands are tied: he has to keep them happy, which means he must refuse any call for a ceasefire.

President Donald Trump had championed the Abraham Accords while in office, and was successful in getting several Arab countries to normalize their relationship with Israel. Trump had done more for Israel than any other US President.

Israel wanted normal ties with Saudi Arabia to benefit the economy, and to discourage Iranian influence in the region.

How Many Countries Are Supporting Palestine?

In 2012, the State of Palestine was accepted as an observer state at the UN. 139 countries at the UN have recognized the State of Palestine, compared with the 165 countries recognizing Israel.

Biden will lose re-election because of Gaza.

Andy Levin, a former Representative of Michigan, and a Democrat, was at a gathering on February 20 demonstrating against Biden. Levin explained that Michigan has a large Arab American population, and they are very angry at Biden’s support of the genocide in Gaza. Levin said a Trump victory is very possible if Biden loses support of Michigan voters.

Especially angry are young voters and progressives who believe in human rights and freedom for all peoples, not just Americans.

“Don’t blame us,” said Mr. Levin, who along with Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan has become one of the most prominent supporters of the Uncommitted movement. Levin said,

“He needs votes from Arab Americans, from people of color, from progressive Jews and from young people. He only won Michigan by 150,000 votes in 2020, so politically we have a moment where we can raise our voices.”

People at the rally expressed their horror at the over 29,000 deaths in Gaza, and the refusal of the US to demand a ceasefire and humanitarian deliveries. With scenes on social media of starving Palestinians being gunned down by Israeli soldiers as they try to reach the aid trucks, the Americans who are informed and caring are deciding to not vote for Biden, and in such a close race, he needs every vote to win.

A poll in October found that more people ages 18-29 sympathized with Palestinians than with Israelis in the Gaza war.

Young people are very well informed with what is happening in Gaza by their almost constant use of social media, where they get all their news. Older people might be still watching TV channels, which in the US are very heavily biased towards Israel.

Biden’s November re-election depends on young voters, but he has lost their vote because of his steadfast support of the slaughter of over 29,000 people in Gaza.

Why Did SA Want Normalization?

In September, the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, declared that normalizing relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia was a US “national security interest”.

On September 21, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), told Fox News, “Every day we get closer” to a normalization deal with Israel. Gaza has killed that dream, because Saudi Arabia has stressed that normalization now will only be achieved by a two-state solution under UN resolutions.  Netanyahu has totally rejected the two-state solution, the end of occupation, and a ceasefire.

Riyadh wanted a US defense pact; including fewer restrictions on US arms sales to it, and assistance in developing its own civilian nuclear program. Another perk from signing with Israel would be AIPAC, the political lobby group which political experts in Washington, DC. accredit with tremendous control over the Oval Office and Capitol Hill.

Saudi Arabia and Iran Normalize Relations

In March 2023, China brokered a deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Beijing proved their influential role in the Middle East in contrast to the diminishing role of the United States.

That Chinese deal was a major blow to Biden, who had wanted to keep Iran and Saudi Arabia enemies because Israel views Iran as their enemy.

Since then, Saudi Arabia and Iran have been expanding their cooperation in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon.

Israel is accused of genocide at the ICJ.

Israel stands accused of genocide at the ICJ. The ruling in January ordered Tel Aviv to stop genocidal acts and take measures to guarantee that humanitarian assistance is provided to civilians in Gaza.

“We have dozens and dozens of statements made by senior Israeli political and military leaders with respect to genocidal intent. So I think, at least the plausibility has been established, and there’s quite possibly genocide itself or a genocide in the making, according to the definition of the Genocide Convention,” said Michael Lynk, former UN special rapporteur.

Lynk also pointed to the role of the US in supporting Israel in its onslaught that has left nearly 30,000 Palestinians dead, noting that Washington, besides replenishing Tel Aviv’s shrinking ammunition stocks with 3.8 billion in military aid, is also providing it diplomatic cover at the UN.

“So, it’s hard to see how this offensive and this coming catastrophe in Rafah is going to stop unless the US pulls to a stop and tells Israel that ‘enough is enough,’” said Lynk, while adding “I don’t see that coming.”

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from MD

For Israel, Palestinian State Is Dead

February 25th, 2024 by Karsten Riise

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

A Palestinian State will never come without a devastating military defeat of Israel.

Israel is united in rejecting a Palestinian State. This is demonstrated clearly in a very important piece today 24 February 2024.

“In recent weeks, various leaders of Western countries have publicly broached the idea of the unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state, asserting that the time has come to give the Palestinians independence, even in the absence of a negotiating process. …

But what these esteemed statesmen have apparently failed to grasp is that the very idea of a Palestinian state is no longer geographically viable, morally acceptable, or even politically tolerable to the overwhelming majority of Israelis.

Simply put, the idea of “Palestine” is dead and buried.” 

The Jerusalem Post, February 24, 2024

Israel’s whole war time coalition government including PM Netanyahu and opposition leader Benny Gantz unanimously reject Palestinian statehood.

A whopping 74% of all Israelis reject a Palestinian State. It is false to say that only the right of Israeli politics hate the notion of a Palestinian State.

Many Israelis dislike Netanyahu. But don’t fool yourself to believe that those many Jewish Israelis who dislike Netanyahu like Palestinians or are open for a Palestinian State. Don’t even make the error to believe that those Israelis who dislike Netanyahu are against Netanyahu’s policies. The vast majority is not.

The support for Netanyahu from right wing parties doesn’t mean that an other Israeli government or leader like Benny Gantz would follow any other policy. They won’t.

Israeli settlers in East Jerusalem and the West Bank number more then 700,000 Jews. The settlers are not only right wing wingers –  they constitute a large and integral part of Israeli society. The settlers are already so many and so deep rooted in Israel that it is already impossible for Israel to retract its settlements

The past 10 years, the number of settlers in the West Bank alone has grown 38%. After 7 October 2023, Israel will speed up many-many more settlements. A qualified guess is that Israel wants to soon achieve some 1.5 million Jews living in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. And consequently, more evictions – cleansing – of Palestinians.

It should be added, that hate against Palestinians has exploded in Israel after 7 October 2023 – they want to punish, kill, and destroy Palestinians, not give them anything.

No matter who runs Israel, Netanyahu, Gantz, or any other, Israel is implementing its policies from the Book of Joshua: Removing Palestinians by the most ugly means possible, cementing an Israel “from the River to the Sea”, and perhaps into Lebanon up to the Litani river.

No amount of “protests” or “isolation” of Israel will change Israel or make a Palestinian State possible.

*

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

Karsten Riise is a Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has a university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from Copenhagen University. He is the former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.  

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

Israel’s Minister for the Advancement of Women, May Golan, has yet again displayed disregard for Palestinian life by expressing pride in the “ruins” of the besieged Gaza Strip, adding that every Palestinian baby will in future, “tell their grandchildren what the Jews did.”

“I am personally proud of the ruins of Gaza,” Golan said in a speech in the Israeli parliament (Knesset) on Wednesday. 

“And that every baby, even 80 years from now, will tell their grandchildren what the Jews did…,” she added. 

Addressing far-left politician Oser Cassif, Golan said,

“You can keep dreaming that we will end the war without victory.”

She went on to say,

“We are not ashamed to say that we want to see the Israeli soldiers, the holy heroes of ours, catching (Yahya) Sinwar and his terrorists by their ears, and dragging them all across the Gaza Strip, on their way to the dungeons of the Prison Authority …Or in the best scenario, to a coffin.” 

Denouncing the idea of a Palestinian state, Golan said

“Not a dove and not an olive branch, only a sword to cut off Sinwar’s head, that’s what he will receive from us.” 

‘I Don’t Care About Gaza’

In December, Golan made the headlines for saying she would like to see “dead bodies of terrorists around Gaza.”

“…I don’t care about Gaza, I literally don’t care. For all I care, they can go out and just swim in the sea,” Golan said in an interview with an Israeli TV channel.

“I care about only three things; The first thing is I care about our soldiers, our dear, precious soldiers that danger their lives every day for the state of Israel,” the politician continued.

“I care about the one thing that will have to be and this is killing and destroying Hamas from the face of the earth.”

Golan, 37, is a Likud Party member known for inflammatory statements she made about African refugees in Israel.

Calling the refugees “Muslim infiltrators,” she reportedly said many have Aids, and demanded they be expelled from the country. 

Her nomination by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a consul-general to New York early last year was “denounced by Israeli and American former diplomats, as an affront to the US and damaging for Israel,” according to a report in the Guardian. 

Increasing Death Toll

According to Gaza’s Ministry of Health, 29,410 Palestinians have been killed, and 69,465 wounded in Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza starting on October 7. 

Moreover, at least 7,000 people are unaccounted for, presumed dead under the rubble of their homes throughout the Strip. 

Palestinian and international organizations say that the majority of those killed and wounded are women and children.

The Israeli aggression has also resulted in the forceful displacement of nearly two million people from all over the Gaza Strip, with the vast majority of the displaced forced into the densely crowded southern city of Rafah near the border with Egypt – in what has become Palestine’s largest mass exodus since the 1948 Nakba.

Israel says that 1,200 soldiers and civilians were killed during the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation on October 7.

*

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

Featured image: Israeli Minister May Golan. (Photo: video grab)

Pilot Incapacitations Inflight in 2023-2024, Pilot Deaths

February 25th, 2024 by Dr. William Makis

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

Incident: Lufthansa A321 near Madrid on Feb 17th 2024, first officer unwell 

By Simon Hradecky, created Saturday, Feb 17th 2024 17:03Z, last updated Saturday, Feb 17th 2024 17:03Z

A Lufthansa Airbus A321-200, registration D-AISO performing flight LH-1140 from Frankfurt/Main (Germany) to Seville,SP (Spain), was enroute at FL350 about 40nm southsouthwest of Madrid,SP (Spain) when the crew requested to urgently divert to Madrid reporting the first officer was feeling unwell. The aircraft turned around and landed safely on Madrid’s runway 32L about 18 minutes later.

The aircraft remained on the ground in Madrid for about 5.5 hours then continued the journey and reached Seville with a delay of about 5.5 hours.

***

Pilot Incapacitations Inflight in 2024 

Jan. 16, 2024 – LATAM Brasil Flight LA-3744 (BSB-JPA) Brasilia to Joao Pessoa on Jan.16, 2024 – Pilot Incapacitated, plane diverted to Salvador for safe landing

Commercial Airline Pilot Incapacitations Inflight in 2023 (25 Total)

Dec. 11, 2023 – Cathay Pacific Flight CX101 (HKG-SYD) from Hong Kong to Sydney – Captain felt unwell, crew turned around and returned to Hong Kong, landed safely 3 hr later

Dec. 5, 2023 – Ryanair Flight RK-8528 (STN-OZZ) from London Stansted, UK, to Ouarzazate, Morocco – pilot felt unwell, crew diverted to Faro, Portugal, landed safely 30 min

Nov. 29, 2023 – American Airlines Flight AA755 CDG-PHL, from Paris, France, to Philadelphia, PA, pilot had a seizure and collapsed in the cockpit.

Nov. 26, 2023 – Ryanair Flight FR-3472 (LTN-RZE) from London Luton, UK to Rzeszow (Poland) on Nov.26, 2023, one of the pilots became incapacitated, plane diverted to Krakow and landed safely

Nov. 20, 2023 – Air Transat Flight TS-186 (YYZ-PUJ) from Toronto, Canada to Punta Cana, Dominican Republic – pilot became incapacitated and was replaced by a pilot passenger

Oct. 30, 2023 – Jet2 Flight LS-1711 (MAN-DLM) Manchester (UK) to Dalaman (Turkey) – First officer became incapacitated, pilot diverted aircraft to Budapest, landed safely

Sep. 24, 2023 – Austrian Airlines Flight OS-188 (STR-VIE) Stuttgart to Vienna The captain became incapacitated, first officer took control of aircraft

Sep. 22, 2023 – Delta Flight DL-291 (CDG-LAX) Paris to Los Angeles – Pilot became incapacitated, was taken to cabin for care, plane diverted to Minneapolis, pilot taken to hospital

Aug. 27, 2023 – Air Canada Flight AC348 (YVR-YOW) Vancouver to Ottawa, one of the pilots felt ill and became incapacitated 50 min before landing in Ottawa.

Aug. 16, 2023 – Qatar Airways Flight QR579 (DEL-DOH) Delhi to Doha, Qatar, 51 year old pilot collapsed as a passenger inflight and died, plane diverted to Dubai.

Aug. 14, 2023 – LATAM Flight LA505 (MIA-SCL) Miami to Santiago, Chile – 2 hours into 8hr flight, 56 year old Captain Ivan Andaur collapsed and died in the lavatory – plane diverted to Panama City!

Aug. 9, 2023 – United Airlines UAL1309 (SRQ-EWR) Sarasota to Newark, pilot had a heart attack and lost consciousness in flight

Aug. 7, 2023 – TigerAIR Flight IT237 (CTS-TPE) Sapporo to Taipei, copilot had a medical emergency after landing plane in Taipei

July 19, 2023 – Eurowings Discover Flight 4Y-1205 (HER-FRA) Heraklion to Frankfurt, pilot incapacitated, first officer took control, landed safely

June 7, 2023 – Air Canada Flight ACA692 (YYZ-YYT) Toronto to St.John’s, First Officer became incapacitated, deadheading Captain assumed duties

May 11, 2023 – HiSKy Flight H4474 (DUB-KIV) Dublin to Chisinau (Moldova), 20 min after liftoff pilot became “unable to act”, plane diverted to Manchester

May 4, 2023 – British Charter TUI Airways Flight BY-1424 (NCL-LPA) Newcastle to Las Palmas Spain pilot became ill, plane diverted back to NCL.

April 21, 2023 – Easyjet Flight U2-6469 (LGW-AGA) London Gatwick to Agadir, Morocco, first offer became incapacitated, diverted to Faro, Portugal.

April 4, 2023 – United Airlines Flight 2102 (BOI-SFO) – captain was incapacitated, first officer was only one in control of the aircraft.

March 25, 2023 – TAROM Flight RO-7673 TSR-HRG diverted to Bucharest as 30 yo pilot had chest pain, then collapsed

March 22, 2023 – Southwest Flight WN6013 LAS-CMH diverted as pilot collapsed shortly after take-off, replaced by non-Southwest pilot

March 18, 2023 – Air Transat Flight TS739 FDF-YUL first officer was incapacitated about 200NM south of Montreal

March 13, 2023 – Emirates Flight EK205 MXP-JFK diverted due to pilot illness hour and a half after take-off

March 11, 2023 – United Airlines Flight UA2007 GUA-ORD diverted due to “incapacitated pilot” who had chest pains

March 3, 2023 – Virgin Australia Flight VA-717 ADL-PER Adelaide to Perth flight was forced to make an emergency landing after First Officer suffered heart attack 30 min after departure. 

Commercial Airline Pilot Deaths On Duty (Not Inflight) in 2023 (4 Total)

Sep. 23, 2023 – Alaska Airlines Pilot Death – 37 year old Captain Eric McRae died suddenly in his hotel room during layover, was to fly that morning

Aug. 17, 2023 – IndiGo Flight (NAG-PNQ) Nagpur to Pune, India, 40 year old Pilot Manoj Subramanium died after collapsing at the boarding gate, about to board.

May 3, 2023 – Air Transat and Air Canada Pilot Death – 48 year old Eddy Vorperian, died suddenly during layover in Croatia

March 11, 2023 – British Airways (CAI-LHR) pilot died of heart attack in crew hotel in Cairo before a Cairo to London flight (name & age not released) 

Military Pilot Incapacitations and Deaths

Aug. 18, 2023 – US Army Aviation Center (Alabama) student pilot went into cardiac arrest behind the controls midflight (Aug.18, 2023), Instructor landed plane – pilot was dead for 18 minutes!

July 19, 2023 – 37 year old US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Andrew James Lingenfelter, of Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, died on July 19, 2023 after battle with Pancreatic Turbo Cancer

May 9, 2023 – United Airlines and US Air Force Pilot Lt. Col. Michael Fugett, age 46, died unexpectedly at his home

*

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

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

Featured image is from COVID Intel


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scott Ritter and the Russian ‘Path of Redemption’

February 25th, 2024 by Scott Ritter

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

Deliberate neglect, followed by a blockade and now war have failed to break the resolve of the peninsula’s inhabitants.

As the Russian military operation against Ukraine approaches its third year, the focus on the ongoing conflict has allowed another anniversary to go relatively unnoticed – it’s now around ten years since the violent events in Kiev’s Maidan Square that put in motion the circumstances which precipitated the current conflict.

Over the course of five days, from February 18 to 23, 2014, neo-Nazi provocateurs from the Svoboda (All Ukrainian Union ‘Freedom’) Party and the Right Sector, a coalition of far-right Ukrainian nationalists who follow the political teachings of Stepan Bandera and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, engaged in targeted violence against the government of President Viktor Yanukovich. It was designed to remove him from power and replace him with a new, US-backed government. They were successful; Yanukovich fled to Russia on February 23, 2014.

Soon thereafter, the predominantly Russian-speaking population of Crimea undertook actions to separate from the new Ukrainian nationalist government in Kiev. On March 16, 2014, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, both of which at that time were legally considered to be part of Ukraine, held a referendum on whether to join Russia or remain part of Ukraine. Over 97% of the votes cast were in favor of joining Russia. Five days later, on March 21, Crimea formally became part of the Russian Federation.

The Northern Crimea Canal after Ukraine blocked the water supply.

Shortly afterwards, Ukraine built a concrete dam on the North Crimean Canal, a Soviet-era conduit transporting water from the Dnieper River that provided around 85% of the peninsula’s water supply. In doing so, Ukraine effectively destroyed Crimea’s agricultural industry. Then, in November 2015, Ukrainian nationalists blew up pylons carrying power lines from Ukraine to Crimea, thrusting the peninsula into a blackout that prompted a declaration of emergency by the regional government.

The Ukrainian assault on Crimea’s water and electricity was merely an extension of the lack of regard shown to the Crimean population during the two-plus decades that Kiev ruled the peninsula. The local economy was stagnant, and the pro-Russian locals were subjected to a policy of total Ukrainization. In general, the Gross Regional Product (GRP) of Crimea was well below the average of Ukraine (43.6% less in 2000, and 29.5% less in 2013). In short, the Kiev government made no meaningful attempt to develop Crimea culturally or infrastructurally. The Crimean Peninsula was in a state of decay perpetrated by Ukrainian governments.

The damming of the North Crimean Canal and the destruction of the electrical transmission lines were simply the radical expression of the indifference shown by Kiev.

In the years that followed the return of the peninsula to Russian control, there has been a gradual improvement in the economy of Crimea. The Russian government undertook a $680 million program to bolster water supplies which involved repairing long-neglected infrastructure, drilling wells, adding storage capacity, and building desalination plants. While this effort wasn’t sufficient to save much of Crimea’s agriculture, it did provide for the basic needs of the population. The Russian government also constructed the Crimean ‘Energy Bridge,’ laying down several undersea energy cables across the Kerch Strait that effectively compensated for the loss of power brought on by the destruction of the Ukrainian power lines.

The Crimean Bridge at night.

But the greatest symbol of Russia’s commitment to the people of Crimea was the construction of a $3.7 billion, 19-kilometer-long road-and-rail bridge connecting Krasnodar Region in southern Russia with the Crimean Peninsula. The bridge is the longest in Europe. Construction began in 2016, and it was opened for car traffic in a little more than two years. It has become a symbol of pride for the Russian people and their leadership; President Vladimir Putin personally drove across the bridge during its formal opening ceremony in 2018. The rail line was opened to passenger traffic in 2019, and freight traffic in 2020. The construction of the Crimean Bridge coincided with the building of the Tavrida Highway, a 250-kilometer, $2.5 billion four-lane road connecting the Crimean Bridge with the cities of Sevastopol and Simferopol. Construction of the road began in 2017 and is still ongoing.

From 2014 to 2022, Crimea saw its population grow by more than 200,000 (from 2.28 million to nearly 2.5 million) as families forced to flee from Ukrainian oppression arrived, and other Russians were attracted by the business opportunities that came with Crimea’s economic revival. With the population surge came new investments by the Russian government in schools, roads, hospitals, and power stations. Tourism flourished as Russians flocked to the beaches of the Crimean coast. A modern airport was built in Simferopol to help manage the flow of visitors.

Life in Crimea was looking up.

And then came the war.

The drive across the Crimea Bridge is an awe-inspiring experience. Coming in from the southern Russian region of Krasnodar at night, one is struck by the lights that line the highway leading to the bridge, a seemingly never-ending line of illumination. However, since the twin attacks on the bridge by the Ukrainian government (the first on October 8, 2022, involving a truck bomb, the second on July 17, 2023, involving unmanned sea drones), the transit now involves an element of risk manifested in the heightened security procedures put in place – barges and nets blocking the water approaches, and extensive physical inspections of vehicles entering the bridge.

I was aware of the attacks against the Crimean Bridge when I drove across it on the night on January 14, taking note of the moment when we crossed the sites of the two attacks, which had dropped a span of the highway each time, and scanning the skies for any evidence of an attack by Kiev’s British-made Storm Shadow missiles. I must admit to breathing a slight sigh of relief when we crossed over onto Crimean soil, cognizant for the first time of the daily reality of Crimeans who look to it as their lifeline.

Coming off the bridge, one enters the Tavrida Highway where, after a bit of a drive, the city of Feodosia appears on the horizon. It has a rich history spanning over two millennia, over the course of which it had been an ancient Greek colony, a Genoese trading port, an Ottoman fortress, and part of the Russian Empire. Now, Feodosia is one of the prime destinations for Russian tourists, and its coast is lined with hotels and restaurants. Like much of Crimea, Feodosia bears the scars of the years of neglect at the hands of the Ukrainian authorities – crumbling buildings, abandoned structures painted in graffiti, and roads in need of repair. But it is a vibrant city nonetheless, and the people are getting on with their daily lives.

War has not escaped Feodosia. On December 26, 2023, the Ukrainian air force launched several Storm Shadow cruise missiles at Feodosia, some of which penetrated Russian air defenses, hitting the Novocherkassk, a large landing ship, and lighting up the night sky in a dramatic fireball. And anyone driving in and around Feodosia cannot help but notice the presence of Russian defenses.

The Black Sea beachfront at Feodosia.

This reality touches the lives of all who live there. Driving northeast out of Feodosia along the Black Sea coast, one comes to the tiny village of Batalnoye. This was the birthplace of my host, Aleksandr Zyryanov, the director general of the Novosibirsk Region Development Corporation. Aleksandr’s family left Batalnoye in 2007, following a new wave of Ukrainian nationalist oppression brought on by the so-called Orange Revolution of 2004-2005, which saw Viktor Yushchenko installed as Ukraine’s president. When Aleksandr returned to Batalnoye in 2014, after Crimea rejoined Russia, he didn’t know what he would find – his family home had been abandoned. Instead of ruins, however, he found a building painted in immaculate white, its contents preserved intact. Alexander’s neighbors, a Crimean Tatar family whose matriarch, Fatima, had helped raise him as a child, had made it a point every year to paint the house in anticipation of the return of its rightful owners.

The loving bond between Aleksandr and Fatima’s family was evident to anyone who bore witness, as I did, to their reunion. Fatima, her husband, and her two sons were gracious hosts, laying out a table typical of Tatar hospitality. Life was not easy for Fatima and her family – they made a living off the land, and the war had suppressed the demand for the milk Fatima brought forth from her cows, and the vegetables she grew in her garden. Her sons were able to find work helping build the Tavrida Highway, but the construction had moved on closer to Simferopol, making the commute prohibitive.

They had felt their house shake when Ukrainian missiles struck the Novocherkassk, and their nights were often interrupted by the sounds of Ukrainian drones flying overhead, and the launch of Russian air defense missiles in response. It’s a hard life, made even more so by the neglect shown the village during the time of Ukrainian rule.

Gas lines being installed outside Fatima’s home in Batalnoye, January 2024

Since the Russians took over, improvements have been incremental – a new school, and some road work. But when I visited Fatima in May of last year, they had no gas, no sewage, and their water came from the initiative of the villagers, who dug their own well despite a water line existing on the village boundary. Now, in January 2024, Batalnoye had been connected to the water line, and the infrastructure for bringing gas to the homes in the village was being installed.

But still no sewage lines.

There are hundreds of Batalnoyes across Crimea, small villages and towns which lack the priority of the big cities when it comes to infrastructure repair and development. But they have not been forgotten – the work in Batalnoye is evidence of that. It’s just that progress takes time, especially when trying to undo years of Ukrainian neglect and the ongoing consequences of the present conflict. This was one of the many points made to me by the head of the Crimean Republic, Sergey Aksyonov, during our meeting on January 15, 2024.

Sergey Aksyonov, who had been a thorn in the side of Ukrainian authorities during Ukraine’s 22-year rule over the Crimean Peninsula, is a man on a mission. To say that Crimea is his passion would be an understatement – Crimea is his life. Even before he was picked by Putin to serve as the head of the Crimean Republic, Aksyonov worked hard to protect the Russian character of Crimea, working to prevent Ukrainian nationalists from erasing the history, culture, language, and religion.

Sevastopol at night, January 15, 2024.

Today, with Crimea returned to Russia, Aksyonov has turned his attention to the task of improving the lives of the citizens of Crimea – Russian, Tatar, and Ukrainian alike. Undoing two decades of neglect is a tall order. Doing so under a veritable economic siege imposed by Ukraine and the West in the aftermath of 2014 verges on the impossible. But Aksyonov is in the business of doing the impossible, a task made somewhat more bearable given the high priority that the Russian government has placed on restoring Crimea to its rightful status as the jewel of the Black Sea. Aksyonov was proud – rightly so – of all he had accomplished. Before we ended our meeting, he issued an invitation for a group of Americans to come to Crimea, all expenses paid, to see for themselves the miracle that he and the Russian government had created.

Russia is at war with Ukraine and the Collective West, and Crimea has found itself on the front lines of this conflict. As Aleksandr and I drove out of Crimea, north toward Kherson and the New Territories (a collective name used in Russia to denoted the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics and the regions of Kherson and Zaporozhye after they officially became part of Russia), I was struck by the reality of this conflict, manifested in the form of Russian military vehicles which crowded the highway in both directions. The highway itself was a mess. In 2022, it was freshly paved. But in the two years that have passed since Russia started the military operation, the heavy military traffic has taken its toll, the road buckling under the weight of the trucks, tanks, artillery pieces, and armored fighting vehicles that plied its asphalt surface.

We crossed the Northern Crimean Canal, its channel filled with water in the aftermath of the Russian military blowing up the dam Ukraine had built for the express purpose of choking off the Crimean people and their economy. Now, the life-sustaining liquid flows freely. Crimea is coming back to life. We paused at the border between Crimea and Kherson to make sure our personal protective equipment (flak vests and helmets) fit properly and was readily available. We were about to enter an active war zone and had to be prepared for all eventualities.

But even as Aleksandr adjusted the straps of my flak vest, my mind kept drifting back to Crimea, and the offer Sergey Aksyonov had made. I thought of Fatima, her family, and the citizens of Batalnoye. I thought of the men and women I met on the streets of Feodosia, Sevastopol, and Simferopol, both last May, and in January of this year. I thought of the pride in Sergey’s eyes, a pride that was shared by everyone I met.

Crimea is their home. Crimea is Russian. Crimea is Tatar. Crimea is.

And it was important for all these people to make sure that the rest of the world knew and understood this fact, this reality.

The Russian ‘Path of Redemption’ through Crimea may have some potholes in it, but it exists nonetheless. The people of Crimea have been redeemed from the sin of more than two decades of Ukrainian misrule, and the further sins on the part of the Collective West and the Ukrainian nationalists in trying to violently suppress the desire of the majority of the Crimean people to live as part of the Russian Federation.

I don’t know if I will be able to take advantage of Sergey Aksyonov’s kind offer – the reality of Western sanctions has a chilling effect on initiatives of this sort. But I will never shirk from my status as an eyewitness to the reality of Crimea today, from telling the truth about what I experienced during my visits to the remarkable land. Fatima and all the people I met in Crimea deserve nothing less.

*

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Read Part I:

The History of US-NATO Led Wars: “Exporting Democracy” through Acts of Subversion and Infiltration

By Shane Quinn, November 28, 2023


Beginning in 1997 the US had been conducting military exercises in former Soviet republics, under the banner of NATO’s so-called Partnership for Peace Program. In 1999 Washington helped to integrate Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova into an organisation (GUUAM) that was a potential step to including those territories in NATO, and which was meant to rival the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) led by Russia.

The Western powers have since overlooked the fact that Russia has recovered significantly as a major power this century, experiencing much improved economic growth and living standards. In 2022 the percentage of the Russian population living below the poverty line was 9.8%. That same year 12.4% of Americans were living below the poverty line. The average yearly salary of a Russian citizen is substantially higher than people living in notable countries like Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, China, Iran and Egypt.

America and its European allies have been guilty of underestimating Russia’s military strength and capabilities, which includes the country’s vast arsenals of nuclear and conventional weaponry. Russia had no alternative in the first place but to acquire nuclear bombs, in 1949, which came as a natural response to America’s possession of such weapons and their unnecessary use in 1945 against two Japanese cities (Hiroshima and Nagasaki), at a time when there was no doubt as to the outcome of the Pacific War.

Top level US military officers, General Dwight Eisenhower and Admiral William Leahy, made it clear afterward that there was no need to drop atomic bombs on Japan because, by August 1945, Tokyo was in a hopeless position and close to surrendering.

Japan counted among its adversaries not only the leading Western states but also the Soviet Union, fresh from victory over Nazi Germany. Hisatsune Sakomizu, the Chief Secretary to prime minister Kantaro Suzuki, estimated that Japan could have held out until October 1945 at the latest before surrendering.

If Washington was prepared to use nuclear bombs against a non-nuclear power that was virtually defeated, then it is likely they would have been prepared to use them against their main international rival, Russia, which prompted the Soviet government to create its own nuclear bombs in what was a necessary defensive measure in order to protect the country. From the 1950s onward Russia’s nuclear weapons have acted as a deterrent.

We can imagine how Washington would respond were a rival power encroaching on its spheres of interest in the Western hemisphere. The Americans in all probability would react with military force. Regardless of realities like these NATO continued with its provocative enlargement, in spite of repeated warnings of the consequences.

Author Moniz Bandeira wrote,

“The Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov and other authorities had reiterated that Moscow would strongly oppose NATO’s expansion in Eastern Europe, since it perceived it as a potential military threat. Ukraine, in particular, remained ‘an emotional and neuralgic point,’ Minister Sergei Lavrov stressed, adding that underlying strategic considerations and policies further strengthened Russia’s opposition, just as it opposed Georgia joining NATO”.

After 1991 the Soviet Union may have ceased to exist but this was not because Russia had been defeated militarily. The country retained its nuclear arsenal and military and economic potential. Russia could not be overcome by armed force and subjugated, as for example Japan was. Russia is also a resource-rich state and contains more natural gas and oil than the US and China put together.

Japan on the other hand has been lacking in natural resources. It was this weakness of the Japanese that proved a critical factor in their decision to begin hostilities against the Americans on 7 December 1941, when Tokyo launched an aerial bombardment on the large US naval base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

Following a direct hit from Japanese war planes, the USS Arizona burns and sinks in Pearl Harbor. [Source: chiff.com]

Just over four months before, on 26 July 1941 Roosevelt’s government, in response to the Japanese Army invading southern French Indochina, enacted a series of crippling economic sanctions on Japan which included freezing all Japanese assets in America. Britain and the Dutch government-in-exile followed suit. The Western sanctions immediately resulted in 90% of Japan’s oil imports being wiped out along with 75% of the country’s foreign trade.

As a result of the sanctions of 26 July 1941, it has been commonly estimated that Japan would have run out of oil at the end of January 1943. Yet by late September 1941, after just two months of sanctions, Japan’s remaining oil reserves had fallen by an alarming 25%, and at that rate of consumption they would have consumed all of their oil in 1942. Tokyo chose direct military confrontation with the US and further expansion to solve their problems.

Japan’s decision to enter the war against the Americans would backfire terribly, and after 1945 the defeated country was coerced into the US-led liberal order. Japan became a peripheral state, whereas Russia remained a player state to borrow a phrase of Halford Mackinder. Russia is located in the centre of Eurasia, a dominant position allowing the country to spread its influence in several directions such as Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia and East Asia.

Similar to Japan, the European Union states are short of natural resources and have depended to a considerable extent on fossil fuel supplies from Russia. The Europeans have been much more dependent on Russia than the other way around. NATO and EU membership has deprived many European countries of their independence and from pursuing policies which are within their interests.

Earlier this century the US attempted to expand its influence into Central Asia and the South Caucasus, focusing on states such as Georgia and Azerbaijan. Washington viewed those countries as pawns on a chessboard, enabling them to shift military hardware and NATO troops through the South Caucasus towards Afghanistan to the south-east, during what the White House called the “war on terror”.

Georgia and Azerbaijan were also pipeline corridors, that could allow the West to navigate raw materials without crossing Russian or Iranian territory. A US presence in Azerbaijan was concerned too with a possible invasion of Iran which borders Azerbaijan to the south. After the Iranian revolution of the late 1970s, Iran has been viewed in Washington as a major foe.

One of the factors behind the Bush administration’s decision to attack Iraq in 2003 was to tighten the encirclement of Iran, which shares a 994-mile border with Iraq. As time moved on it was apparent that the US occupation of Iraq was failing disastrously. If the Americans could not subdue a fragile country like Iraq, they would have little hope of conquering a far larger and stronger state like Iran.

The terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 (9/11) against America enabled the White House to increase the expansionist goals of the country’s foreign policy. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former US National Security Advisor, wrote that Japan’s bombing of Pearl Harbor had united the American public behind the nation’s entry into the Second World War; just as the 9/11 atrocities led to significant support in America for military action abroad.

U.S. troops guarding an opium poppy field in Afghanistan.

Before Pearl Harbor, the majority of Americans were opposed to military involvement in what they felt was a faraway conflict their country should keep out of. Washington drew comparisons between Pearl Harbor and 9/11, in order to justify what were unprovoked invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither country was involved in the terrorist assaults against America.

Regarding the reasons behind the 9/11 attacks, the leader of terrorist group Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, outlined his views on the subject in November 2002. Bin Laden mentioned the hardships of the Palestinian population, who were driven from their homes by the Israelis with the support of America and its allies; US intervention in Somalia under the pretext of “humanitarian action”; the deaths of 1.5 million people in Iraq because of sanctions applied against the country since 1990 by the Western powers; and the US bombing of the people of Afghanistan.

Clearly then, Bin Laden and his cohorts had reasons to be angry, though this does not for a moment condone their terrorist activities which often deliberately targeted civilians. In November 2002 Bin Laden predicted the US would suffer a “military defeat” in Afghanistan and that they would be forced to withdraw from the country, which is what unfolded 10 years after Bin Laden’s death.

Afghanistan withdrawal by the Pentagon portrayed in Global Times

Washington’s intervention in Afghanistan from 7 October 2001 was not principally related to 9/11, and the invasion was planned since mid-July 2001 Niaz Naik had said, a well-known Pakistani politician. He spoke with high-ranking US officials in the middle of July 2001 at a UN-sponsored meeting concerning Afghanistan which was held in Berlin. The American authorities informed Naik that Washington would take military action against Afghanistan before mid-October 2001, that is prior to the arrival of the snowfalls.

Afghanistan is a strategically important state within Eurasia, and shares frontiers with Iran, Pakistan and China along with the Central Asian countries of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. In 2001 Uyghur insurgents, from the region of Xinjiang in north-western China, were undergoing training in Afghanistan in the same camps where the CIA had previously trained Islamic terrorists to fight against Soviet forces in Afghanistan during the 1980s.

The Uyghur extremists, supported by the CIA, had been waging war on Chinese authorities in Xinjiang which included blowing up vehicles and marketplaces and assassination attempts against Beijing’s officials. Between 1990 and 2001 Uyghur fighters, belonging to the terrorist organisation the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), carried out more than 200 terrorist attacks.

The ultimate goal of the Uyghur fundamentalists is to sow instability in Xinjiang and separate the region from China by creating a Muslim state. Xinjiang has been part of China since the mid-18th century and has close ties to Beijing.

To the west of China, by intervening militarily in Afghanistan in 2001 the US expected to eliminate the rule of Islamic militant group, the Taliban, which had come to power in 1996 with the assistance of Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI. By removing the Taliban it was hoped the required “stability” would be created in Afghanistan to allow the California-based fossil fuel corporation, Unocal, to construct a gas pipeline from Uzbekistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan. Unocal had a history of being advised by the US State Department, the CIA and the ISI.

In addition, the building of two oil pipelines was planned by the West, the first across Afghan terrain through Pakistan to the Indian Ocean and the other, the Central Asia Oil Pipeline Project (CAOPP), which would be 1,050 miles long originating from Chardzhou in Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to an oil terminal at Pakistan’s coastline. According to journalist John Pilger, those involved in the pipeline plans relating to Afghanistan were American politicians like Dick Cheney, vice-president to George W. Bush, and James Baker, a former Secretary of State, and Brent Scowcroft, a former National Security Advisor.

Afghanistan is no ordinary country, however. A landlocked nation, bigger than France, about 80% of Afghanistan’s entire territory consists of either mountains or deserts. The average elevation in Afghanistan is 1,884 metres above sea level, making it the world’s 7th highest country.

Afghanistan’s air is thin and can be difficult to breathe, especially for newly-arrived foreigners. Its mountains are jagged and remote, offering numerous hiding places for wanted men or soldiers who wish to avoid capture. This would be a difficult country for any army to overcome. The local fighters in Afghanistan usually had a good knowledge of the land and were used to the harsh climate.

From late 2001, American soldiers struggled to cope with Afghanistan’s high altitude, lack of oxygen and freezing conditions. Suicides became quite common among US troops, and those caught taking heroin in drug tests increased by more than 11 times over, from 10 in 2002 to 116 in 2010. Perhaps most seriously of all the Americans did not have a real understanding of Afghanistan, where the people are diverse and possess a wide variety of languages and cultural beliefs.

*

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

This article was originally published on Geopolitica.RU.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree and he writes primarily on foreign affairs and historical subjects. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Sources

Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The Second Cold War: Geopolitics and the Strategic Dimensions of the USA (Springer; 1st edition, 23 June 2017) 

John Pilger, The New Rulers Of The World (Verso Books, 20 February 2003) 

Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia (Yale University Press, 8 February 2001) 

Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The World Disorder: US Hegemony, Proxy Wars, Terrorism and Humanitarian Catastrophes (Springer; 1st edition, 4 February 2019) 

Ian Kershaw, Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions That Changed The World, 1940-1941 (Penguin Group, 31 May 2007) 

Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 April 1985)

Featured image is from Geopolitica.RU


The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9879389-0-9

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

Price: $9.40

Click here to order.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

First published on February 13, 2024

***

In December 2021 the Naval postgraduate school in Monterey, California approved for public release the study of its students Joshua D. Gramm and Brian A. Branagan with the title “Neurowar Is Here!“, which gained them a Master of Science degree in Defence Analysis (see this). In the study they stated:

“great power competition has returned to the forefront of international relations, as China and Russia seek to contest America’s global leadership… this contest is ultimately a battle… to manipulate and control both adversaries and domestic populations alike. The battle for influence begins and ends in the human mind, where reality is perceived“ (pg. V) .

They identified neuroweapons as the weapons of this battle, “that specifically target the brain or the central nervous system in order to affect the targeted person’s mental state, mental capacity and ultimately the person’s behavior in a specific and predictable way” (pg.3). Does not it mean that we are living in a world,where mass media are (at the request of governments) is hiding from people the ongoing battle for the control of their minds and thoughts?

In the year 2000 the European Parliament’s Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) published the study on Crowd Control Technologies, where it admitted that “In October 1999 NATO announced a new policy on non-lethal weapons and their place in allied arsenals” and explained that

“The most controversial non-lethal crowd control and anti-materiel technology proposed by the US are so-called Radio Frequency or Directed Energy Weapons that can allegedly manipulate human behavior in a variety of unusual ways“ and “the greatest concern is with systems which can directly interact with the human nervous system… The research undertaken to date both in the US and in Russia can be divided into two related areas: (i) individual mind control and (ii) crowd control“ (pg. XIV, LIIII).

The fact that the mass media in NATO countries never publicly discussed those weapons proves that the NATO member states signed an agreement that they will classify their existence. Consequently the only way to get those weapons banned is to declassify them by massive support of their ban. If this happens the EU, which is actually working on the legislation on artificial intelligence, will have to include there, in order to remain a democratic power structure in the eyes of the general public, the ban of the use of energies which make it possible to use the artificial intelligence and neurotechnologies for the remote control of the human nervous system.

Actually, the EU is the only big agglomeration of states that does not own technology of mass manipulation of human brains. China, with the help of Russia, recently finished the construction of its system in Sanya in the Hainan province (see this and this), the USA operates the system HAARP and Russia operates the system Sura. All those systems are among others capable of producing strong electric currents in the ionosphere by transmitting there, by systems of terrestrial antennas, pulsed microwaves in brain frequencies. Those alternating currents produce in the ionosphere strong electromagnetic waves in the brain frequencies which reach large areas of the planet and will control the brain activity of their populations (Elon Musk’s system Starlink with 20.000 satellites around the planet could be used for the same purpose, or 5G system of satellites, if they were pulsing their transmissions in the human brain’s frequencies).

At the present time there exists no international agreement banning the use of artificial intelligence and neurotechnologies for the remote control of the human nervous systems, thoughts, emotions, subconscious etc. There is no other explanation for it, than that the great powers are competing to master the world in this way. In 1997 the Strategic Studies Institute at the U.S. Army War College published the book ”Revolution in Military Affairs and Conflict Short of War”, where it wrote:

”Potential or possible supporters of the insurgency around the world were identified using the comprehensive Interagency Integrated Database. These were categorized as ”potential” or ”active”, with sophisticated personality simulations used to develop, tailor, and focus psychological campaigns for each” (pg. 24-25).

This is an American project for global control of the world. There is no doubt that similar projects are being developed in China and Russia as well (though to control an individual brain, directed energy has to be used).

To protect the world history from reaching this end, it is necessary that world governments sign an international agreement banning the use of neurotechnologies and artificial intelligence to control the activity of human brains, the observation of which would be supervised by the United Nations Organization (which eventually should turn to be rather democratic organization instead of an organization, controlled by superpowers, who have veto rights). For now, we can help it only by requiring the European Parliament to ban technologies of remote control of the activity of the human nervous system with the use of energies, invented by physicists. The European Union can set an example and a challenge to the rest of the world in this way.

*

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

Mojmir Babacek was born in 1947 in Prague, Czech Republic. Graduated in 1972 at Charles University in Prague in philosophy and political economy. In 1978 signed the document defending human rights in  communist Czechoslovakia „Charter 77“. Since 1981 until 1988 lived in emigration in the USA. Since 1996 he has published articles on different subjects mostly in the Czech and international alternative media.

In 2010, he published a book on the 9/11 attacks in the Czech language. Since the 1990s he has been striving to help to achieve the international ban of remote control of the activity of the human nervous system and human minds with the use of neurotechnology.

Featured image: Neurotechnology could help people with disabilities use their thoughts to control devices in the physical world. It may also be useful in weapons systems. Private companies, militaries, and other organizations are funding neurotechnology research. Credit: US Army.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

Dr. James Smith saw the same scene several times a day: residents of the Gaza Strip carrying casualties from Israeli bombings, wrapped in blankets, and laying them on the hospital floor. “Until we unwrapped the blankets, we didn’t know if the person inside was wounded or killed,” he said in an interview 10 days after he returned to London. He worked in Gaza as a volunteer in late December and early January. 

“People also brought the dead, so their deaths would be recorded and they would be buried,” he said. “And because they are usually found among the rubble, they’re all covered in dust.”

Smith came to Gaza as part of an emergency medical delegation jointly organized by Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP), based in London, and the International Rescue Committee (IRC). Dozens of medical personnel like him enter Gaza each week. The volunteers all go back to their countries with the same conclusion. Out of all the war zones where they’ve volunteered, including Syria and Ukraine, it’s in Gaza where their ability to save lives is the most constrained.

Smith, an emergency medicine specialist, has also worked for Doctors Without Borders. But “the catastrophe in Gaza is worsethan anything I’ve seen in the past,” he said. This merely increased his motivation to return to Gaza despite the constant frustration.

“The first thing a doctor wants to do,” he said, “is to ease a person’s pain. But without sufficient personnel, equipment and medication, mainly the pain relievers that Gaza’s sick and wounded need, that’s impossible.”

Treating the wounded at Nasser Hospital in Khan Yunis.

Treating the wounded at Nasser Hospital in Khan Yunis.Credit: MAP/IRC

The doctors’ helplessness was traumatic for all, he said. “We’re going through a double crisis – the scale of violence itself and our inability to respond and provide for people’s most basic needs,” he said.”

“The global media is fixated about aid, and this creates the false impression that the situation is improving. But inside Gaza, everyone knows that as long as the war continues and there’s no cease-fire, no access to humanitarian aid worthy of the name is possible.”

Smith, 35, is also a lecturer in humanitarian policy and practice at University College London. He spent all his working hours in Gaza in the emergency room at Shuhada al-Aqsa Hospital in Deir al-Balah.

He quickly discovered that the wounded brought to the hospital hadn’t received first aid before being loaded into an ambulance or personal vehicle. Because of the risk of the Israeli military bombing an area or building a second time, the rescuers had to rush the wounded to the hospital without stabilizing them at the scene. Numerous died on the way to the hospital as a result.

There have been several mass casualty incidents every day near or inside Deir al-Balah. When Smith was there, the hospital was so overcrowded that the wounded could only be treated on the floor. 

Many patients were brought to him because the preventive medicine system had completely collapsed. Bombing has destroyed clinics; medical personnel have been displaced, killed, or wounded; and medications are in short supply. The ER was also flooded with people who were ambulatory but complained of some pain or illness.

“We gave all of them very basic first aid, because the staff was swamped with work,” Smith said. “We sent them to hunt for medicine in pharmacies.” But it was never certain that they would find any.

The hospital held 650 patients when he was there, almost triple the number of beds, 250. And because people felt the building was safer than a tent or school, many continued to stay there after treatment. They were joined by their families and people displaced after the military ordered them to leave their homes. The hospital rented several nearby buildings as a result. But those sheltering there found that neither the hospital nor the rented buildings were safe amid the approaching battles and frequent bombing.

The doctor’s first day at the hospital was December 27. “I can’t remember what happened on that day,” he said He did remember, of course, that there was a mass-casualty incident.

During his first few days in Gaza, he was unable to remember what had happened the previous day. “I got angry with myself, because I felt that maybe this forgetting was a kind of disrespect for the patients,” he said. But the initial shock, chaos, and incessant buzzing of drones provide a better explanation for his forgetfulness.

“The disquieting drones’ buzzing was the first thing I noticed, and I quickly understood the threat it represented,” he said. “Sometimes, two drones would circle over a certain area, and my colleagues, who were used to it, speculated that the place would be attacked soon. Adults, like children, knew how to distinguish between the different types of bombs and shells.”

His difficulty in remembering probably also stemmed from sleep deprivation during those first few days, as airstrikes shook the entire building. They were especially intense at night and almost incessant. “I remembered this number very well – 374 medical workers had been killed in the Israeli airstrikes,” he said. But in the end, exhaustion won out, and he managed to fall asleep.

Despite these problems, a few incidents are engraved in his memory. There was, for example, the volunteer for UNRWA (the UN agency that aids Palestinian refugees) who “lay on the floor, bleeding, and asked for water all the time. His legs were amputated. Amputated limbs due to being hit by a missile or bomb shrapnel are very common.

“I remember that I bent over and held his hand. I think we had a little morphine for him. He lay there for several hours. But they didn’t manage to take him for an operation, and he died. There were others who died because they weren’t brought into the overburdened operating room in time.”

He also remembers a woman who was admitted with open wounds and a compound fracture in her leg. “She was constantly asking, ‘What happened to my leg? What happened to my leg?’ What we were able to do was give her pain relievers and liquids and clean her eyes so she could see.”

He remembers the wounded screaming in pain. “Often, when the wound is especially bad, the patients aren’t completely conscious,” he said. “In particular, children with serious wounds were quiet, because they had lost consciousness. In triage, you learn that you have to pay attention to the quiet patients. The people who scream aren’t necessarily in the worst condition.”

Inside Nasser Hospital in Khan Yunis.

Inside Nasser Hospital in Khan Yunis.Credit: MAP/IRC

 

In one mass-casualty incident, a 6-year-old boy was brought to the hospital, wrapped in a colorful blanket, and placed on the floor. “There were people around him, so I assumed they were his relatives and that he was being cared for,” the doctor said. When a patient’s relatives are with him, Smith said, they’re able to prod and demand treatment. Their intervention is especially welcome when the ER is chaotic because “it’s terribly hard to pay attention to everyone when there are hundreds of people.”

After a while, one of the surgeons entered the ER by chance and suspected that the boy wasn’t getting any care. They went over to him. He suffered from burns on his face and a bubbling wound on the right side of his chest that meant it reached his lung. “The boy was operated on, and when I left the hospital, he was still alive,” Smith said. 

His last patient was a 12-year-old boy who had been shot near the Nuseirat refugee camp. “His brother found him and brought him in a cart harnessed to a donkey,” he said. “He had terrible open wounds in his pelvis, on the right side. He had lost a lot of blood and was very pale. We gave him a blood transfusion; he received the necessary first aid and was moved to a bed outside the emergency room. He seemed to be recovering. I knew that he would eventually need grafting”.

“I didn’t see him for a few hours. But shortly before I left the hospital, I examined him again. He was very pale, again. And then I discovered a pool of blood in the depression in the bed underneath his back. His father stood next to him and wept.”

The doctors bandaged the wound (there was no gauze) and searched for more blood to give him. “I told his father, ‘the second we get blood, he’ll be OK.’ His father kissed me.” 

Smith also saw many patients who “in any other situation, wouldn’t have been sick, or whose condition wouldn’t have deteriorated so much, because they didn’t see a doctor, didn’t find medicine, didn’t eat enough for days, or drank polluted water … People came with chest pains, others had a heart attack.

“I saw a man of 50 or 60 who was brought to the hospital dead. His family said he simply fell down and died in the middle of the street. I saw two kidney patients who had missed their regular dialysis treatments.” The Israeli military had surrounded the hospital where the treatments were given.

He saw people with diabetes who hadn’t received the necessary medicines or hadn’t received the correct dosage. “In a situation of hunger – and everyone who came to the hospital was hungry – the dosage is completely different,” he said.

“What remains unknown is the sheer scale of indirect morbidity- that has been developing during the war and will erupt afterward – chronic diseases that haven’t been treated, the effects of the hunger and thirst and malnutrition on people’s health,” he added. “This will become clear only in the years to come.” On top of these, there is the phenomenon of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, that we even failed to discuss.

Smith noticed the signs of trauma as soon as he entered Gaza. He saw it in the expressionless faces and in a sort of stillness amidst all the chaos. “This wasn’t acceptance, but collective shock”, he said. “One doctor in the hospital came up to me on the second day after I arrived, a doctor who had worked nonstop for 10 weeks. He asked where I was from, and then asked me, ‘Why does the world hate us Palestinians?’ For me, that summed up the general despondency and draining”.

Additionally, the non-wounded children suffer from incessant anxiety. It was made obvious by the nervous habits they developed. “The child of a member of the local medical staff we lived with in the same compound once helped his mother prepare dough,” Smith said. “He insisted on making it in the shape of a tank. Young as they are, this war will always punctuate these children’s lives.”

Amid all the chaos and the collective shock, the Palestinian doctors were always there, he continued, even though their number had decreased to around a quarter of what it was before the war. “They received some kind of salary, something like $100 a month, worked almost nonstop and didn’t leave the hospital.”

“On the second or third day, we met a doctor who had left the hospital in Khan Yunis where she worked because it was already unsafe. She showed up at Al-Aqsa’s emergency room and volunteered to work with us.

“She said her family had been displaced and was living in a tent. One day she didn’t show up, and she told us later that she had to look for water and food for her family. She told me about her fierce yearning for her previous life and her friends, and said she was afraid that ‘this would be the new normal and we’re the next in line to die.'”

Like every foreign doctor who has volunteered in Gaza, Smith is awed by the Palestinian medical workers. Their dedication to the sick and wounded is phenomenal, he said.

His team had to leave Gaza earlier than planned, to his regret. On January 6, they were informed that the IDF had dropped leaflets ordering everyone living in the buildings around the hospital – many of them already displaced – to leave the area.

The medical volunteers lived in a residential complex in the tiny Al-Mawasi area south of Deir al-Balah, along with the families of the Palestinian employees. They would travel daily to the hospital through neighborhoods that had been tagged for Israeli bombing. Moreover, as in other places, it was clear the next step would be the encirclement of the hospital itself and a demand that everyone staying there leave.

Consequently, the entire emergency medical delegation he volunteered in never returned to the hospital. Local medical staff were also prevented from going, even though hundreds of patients remained inside. One was a MAP employee who had been wounded in an airstrike that hit the building where she and her family had been staying since they were displaced. Some of her relatives, including three sisters, were killed in the bombing.

Relatives of other local MAP and IRC staffers were wounded on January 18 when an airstrike hit this very housing complex in Al- Mawasi. The complex was damaged and had to be evacuated. Six foreign employees were forced to leave Gaza, and their mission was shut down for several weeks. After investigating for around two weeks, the organizations issued a press statement stating explicitly that the shrapnel had come from ammunition that only the Israeli military had.

The IDF Spokesperson’s Unit said the coordinates of the complex provided by Haaretz (which it received from MAP) were outside Al- Mawasi and were in an active combat zone that the military had asked residents to evacuate.

MAP rejected this claim, saying the complex, which flew the MAP and IRC flags, had gone through “deconflicting” – a process of informing and authorization that is meant to keep humanitarian staff and installations immune from attacks.

The British Foreign Office and the British Parliament were also involved in trying to get answers from the Israeli authorities. However, Israel provided various explanations for the strike on the complex, Haaretz was told. A military source told Haaretz that the building wasn’t struck but that a technical problem led to ammunition landing at the site.

*

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

Featured image: A Red Crescent worker carries a child to the hospital after a bombing in Deir al-Balah, December. Credit: Palestine Red Crescent Society

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

First published by Global Research on May 8, 2022

 

 

 

 

History of World War II

Operation Barbarossa

The Allied Firebombing of German Cities and Japan’s Early Conquests

 

by Shane Quinn

 

First published on April 2, 2022

 


About the Author

Shane Quinn was born in Dublin, Ireland and lives just outside the Irish capital city. He studied journalism at Griffith College Dublin for four years and acquired a BA honors journalism degree in 2010. He works in the editing business and is a prolific writer of articles online, focusing on subjects from NATO expansionism to the world wars. He has a firm interest in the environment and, in an amateur capacity, studies ornithology mainly in monitoring local bird populations.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

 


Table of Contents

Preface

Part I

The Nazi-Soviet War

 

Chapter I

Operation Barbarossa. Did Stalin Foresee Hitler’s Invasion?

Chapter II

Hitler’s Secret Directive 18

Chapter III

Nazi Germany’s Economic Exploitation of the USSR 

Chapter IV

Why Nazi Germany Failed to Defeat the Soviet Union

Chapter V

Operation Barbarossa, an Overview

Chapter VI

Hitler’s Early Victories, the Wolf’s Lair Headquarters

Chapter VII

Operation Barbarossa, Analysis of Early Fighting 

Chapter VIII

Germans Surround Kiev and Leningrad 

Chapter IX

Germany’s Advance into Eastern Ukraine and Crimea 

Chapter X

The Brutal Conduct of Operation Barbarossa 

Chapter XI

The Battle of Moscow

Chapter XII

The Battle of Moscow, Soviet Counterattack

Chapter XIII

Consequences of the November 1941 Orsha Conference

Chapter XIV

Analysis of Germany’s 1942 Offensive 

Chapter XV

The Allied Firebombing of German Cities

Chapter XVI

Western Allies Terror-bombed 70 German Cities 

Chapter XVII

Fallacy of Terror-bombing Urban Areas

Chapter XVIII

Red Army Winter Counteroffensive

Chapter XIX

The Red Army’s Winter Campaign, Part II

Chapter XX

Nazi-Soviet War Destined to Become a Long War

Chapter XXI

Overview of the Nazi-Soviet War in Early 1942

 

Part II

The Asia-Pacific War

 

Chapter XXII

Pearl Harbor and the Early Japanese Advances   

Chapter XXIII

The Japanese Assault on Northern Malaya

Chapter XXIV

The Japanese March Through Southern Malaya and Singapore’s Outskirts

Chapter XXV

The Japanese Capture of Singapore. The “Largest Capitulation in British History”

Chapter XXVI

The US Firestorming of Tokyo Rivaled the Hiroshima Bombing

 


Preface

This book is entitled History of World War II: Operation Barbarossa, the Allied Firebombing of German Cities and Japan’s Early Conquests.

The first two chapters focus on German preparations as they geared up to launch their 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union, called Operation Barbarossa, which began eight decades ago. It was named after King Frederick Barbarossa, a Prussian emperor who in the 12th century had waged war against the Slavic peoples. Analysed also in the opening two chapters are the Soviet Union’s preparations for a conflict with Nazi Germany.

The remaining chapters focus for the large part on the fighting itself, as the Nazis and their Axis allies, the Romanians and Finns at first, swarmed across Soviet frontiers in the early hours of 22 June 1941. The German-led invasion of the USSR was the largest military offensive in history, consisting of almost four million invading troops. Its outcome would decide whether the post-World War II landscape comprised of an American-German dominated globe, or an American-Soviet dominated globe. The Nazi-Soviet war was, as a consequence, a crucial event in modern history and its result was felt for decades afterward and, indeed, to the present day.

Within the first four weeks of Operation Barbarossa, by mid-July 1941 the Germans had advanced more than two-thirds of the way to Moscow. Few outsiders would have given the Russians much of a chance at this point. However, the Soviet leadership did not panic, nor did the Red Army collapse as the French had done the year before.

The Nazi invasion was the most brutal the world had ever seen. In 1941 alone millions of Soviet citizens, both military personnel and non-combatants, would either be killed or sent to concentration camps. The murderous nature of the Nazi occupation led to increased resistance from the Soviet Army and local populations, many of whom came to despise the occupiers and joined partisan groups.

Covered here are some key aspects of Barbarossa from the German and Soviet viewpoints, such as intelligence reports warning of the coming German invasion, what impact the purges of the Soviet military command had on the Red Army, strategic errors committed by the Nazi hierarchy, German arrogance and underestimation of Russian fighting capacity and resources, vastness of the Soviet terrain and logistical problems. The German soldiers were led to believe that the Soviet Union was a primitive, technologically backward state, and the surprise was all the greater when they came across military hardware superior to their own, like the Soviet T-34 and KV tanks.

The turning point of World War II is often regarded to be the Battle of Stalingrad, which began in August 1942; but the author argues that the really critical fighting and developments occurred a year before this, in the course of Barbarossa, which officially ended in German failure with the Red Army counterattack on 5 December 1941. The Soviets’ ability to absorb and eventually overcome the Wehrmacht’s blows saved humanity from the nightmare of a Nazi victory, in which case Adolf Hitler would have held dominance over much of Eurasia and perhaps further afield.

 


Part I

The Nazi-Soviet War


Chapter I

Operation Barbarossa. Did Stalin Foresee Hitler’s Invasion?

 

In attacking eastwards from June 1941 the Nazis intended to annex the Ukraine, all of European Russia, the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, while establishing a satellite Finnish nation to the north-east. A greatly enlarged Germany would thus be created, serving as a homeland for hundreds of millions of those belonging to the so-called Germanic and Nordic races. As envisaged by Nazi planners, this expansion would provide the economic base to sustain the thousand year Reich.

According to Adolf Hitler’s Directive No. 18 issued on 12 November 1940, the goal of his eastern invasion was to occupy and hold a line from Archangel, in the far north-west of Russia, to Astrakhan, almost 1,300 miles southward; further conquering Leningrad, Moscow, the Donbas, Kuban (in southern Russia) and the Caucasus.

Nothing was mentioned as to what the Germans would do, once the Archangel-Astrakhan line had been reached. The Wehrmacht’s objective was, however, to annihilate the Soviet forces in western Russia through massive armoured spearheads and encirclements, thereby preventing the Red Army’s withdrawal further east.

It should be stated, firstly, that the USSR had no plans in 1940 or 1941 to attack Nazi Germany; nor did the Soviets hold ambitions to sweep across all of mainland Europe in a war of conquest. There really was no need for the world’s largest state to take control of other vast continents.

David Glantz, the US military historian and retired colonel, realised that Soviet ruler Joseph Stalin’s position in 1941 was that of a defensive one. Glantz wrote how, “Stalin was guilty of wishful thinking, of hoping to delay war for at least another year, in order to complete the reorganization of his armed forces. He worked at a fever pitch throughout the spring of 1941, trying desperately to improve the Soviet Union’s defensive posture while seeking to delay the inevitable confrontation”. (1)

Glantz’ views are supported by other experienced historians like England’s Antony Beevor. He observed that “the Red Army was simply not in a state to launch a major offensive in the summer of 1941”; but Beevor did not entirely exclude the possibility that Stalin “may have been considering a preventive attack in the winter of 1941, or more probably in 1942, when the Red Army would be better trained and equipped”. (2)

Was the Soviet leadership aware of the threat that Hitler posed to their state?; and which was gradually developing around them like a dark cloud. Early in July 1940 a report compiled by the Soviet intelligence agency, the NKGB, was sent to the Kremlin. It revealed that the Third Reich’s General Staff had requested Germany’s Transport Ministry to furnish details, regarding rail capacities for Wehrmacht soldiers to be shifted from west to east (3). It constituted the first hint of what lay ahead. This was the period, in the high summer of 1940, when serious discussions started between Hitler and his generals, relating to an attack on Russia.

As early as 31 July 1940 the German planning for an invasion of the Soviet Union “was in full swing”, as noted by US author Harrison E. Salisbury (4). Earlier in July Hitler had initially pondered attacking Russia in the autumn of 1940 but, by late July, he concluded it was too late in the year with poor weather fast approaching.

There is little indication that Stalin, or high-ranking Soviet officials, were at all worried by the first warning signals they received through intelligence about Nazi intentions. During early August 1940, the British obtained information suggesting Hitler was planning to destroy Russia, and London passed on their findings to Moscow (5). Stalin ignored them as he strongly distrusted the British, not without some reason. This was based in part on Stalin’s recent experiences in dealing with Conservative governments who were, to put it kindly, of an unfriendly disposition towards the Soviet Union.

London and Paris refused to sign a pact with the Kremlin in the spring and summer of 1939 – which would have aligned the British, French and Russians against Nazi Germany (6). Stalin had no choice but to then finalise an agreement with Hitler that autumn, and these unwanted realities have since been suppressed by institutions like the German-led European Union.

The Nazi-Soviet Pact of 23 August 1939 had served the Soviets well, until the Wehrmacht swiftly routed France from May to June 1940. The manner of the French defeat astonished and disturbed Stalin, who was expecting a long, drawn-out conflict in the west, as in the First World War.

Yet Stalin’s agreement with Hitler had kept Russia out of the heavy fighting for now, while the Kremlin made territorial gains by taking over the eastern half of Poland, on 6 October 1939. With the end of the Winter War against Finland, the Soviets absorbed around 10% of Finnish land in March 1940. At the beginning of August 1940 Stalin officially annexed the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, having first occupied those states in mid-June 1940, which resulted in pro-German officials fleeing the region (7). Stalin’s march into the Baltic came as a response to the Nazi triumphs on the western front, and his understandable fear of Baltic nationalism and possible German penetration near Soviet frontiers.

Basil Liddell Hart, the retired British Army captain and military theorist wrote, “Hitler had agreed that the Baltic states should be within the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence, not to their actual occupation; and he felt that he had been tricked by his partner; although most of his advisers realistically considered the Russian move into the Baltic states to be a natural precaution, inspired by fear of what Hitler might attempt after his victory in the west”. (8)

During the days after the Fall of France, Stalin occupied the Romanian territories of Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia. Until World War I, Bessarabia had belonged to the Russian Empire for about a century, but Northern Bukovina never before comprised part of Russia. In the eyes of Hitler and German generals, Stalin’s advance into parts of northern Romania was dangerous and provocative. Hitler first learnt of Stalin’s plan to reincorporate Bessarabia on 23 June 1940, when just after sunrise the Nazi leader was victoriously touring Paris in an open topped vehicle (9). Hitler became irritated when he heard the news. He felt that Bessarabia’s return to Russia would bring Stalin intolerably close to the Axis oil wells, at the city of Ploesti in southern Romania.

During a meeting with Benito Mussolini in the Bavarian Alps on 19 January 1941, Hitler told his Italian counterpart, “now in the age of airpower, the Romanian oil fields can be turned into an expanse of smoking debris by air attack from Russia and the Mediterranean, and the life of the Axis depends on these oil fields”. (10)

Over the course of World War II, Ploesti’s wells furnished the Nazi empire with at least 35% of its entire oil, other accounts state as much as 60%; but the latter figure is most likely excessive and above the overall average (11) (12). For many years Romania was Europe’s largest oil producing country by far, and the fifth biggest on earth in 1941 and 1942, having overtaken Mexico. The significant oil sources in Indonesia (Dutch East Indies) fell under Axis control in early 1942, when that country was overrun by Japanese armies, and they would remain there for over three years.

Hitler wanted his Romanian oil fields to be formidably defended; he ordered the Wehrmacht to place scores of heavy and medium German anti-aircraft guns around the Ploesti refineries, and that smoke screens also be deployed; the latter were effective at obscuring the installations from enemy planes, which were shot down in large numbers.

The Germans created limited quantities of oil from synthetic hydrogenation processes, involving materials like coal. This mostly benefited the Luftwaffe, not so much the panzers and other ground vehicles. The terms of the non-aggression deal with Russia ensured the Reich received in total 900,000 tons of Soviet oil, from September 1939 to June 1941. This was not a huge amount, considering the Wehrmacht consumed three million tons of oil in 1940 alone. (13)

Nazi Germany was also supplied with oil by the United States, then unrivalled as the world’s biggest oil producer and exporter; specifically the dealings that American corporations like Texaco and Standard Oil conducted with the Nazis, sometimes secretly through other countries, along with US-controlled subsidiaries based in the Reich (14). In addition, arriving from the globe’s third largest oil manufacturing state, Venezuela, then a major US client, came shipments of petroleum sent across the Atlantic, destined for the German war machine.

Altogether “around 150 American companies” had “business links to Nazi Germany”, the Israeli journalist Ofer Aderet outlined, writing for the left-leaning newspaper Haaretz. US business deals with the Nazis, Aderet wrote, “included huge loans, large investments, cartel agreements, the construction of plants in Germany as part of the Third Reich’s rearmament, and the supply of massive amounts of war matériel. (15)

Meanwhile, Stalin’s reintegration of Bessarabia in early July 1940 was providing a buffer to the Soviet defence of its navy, in the Black Sea slightly further east; including added security to Russian naval bases, such at the port of Odessa in southern Ukraine. The Soviet advance into Romania “was worse than ‘a slap in the face’ for Hitler”, Liddell Hart observed as “it placed the Russians ominously close to the Romanian oil fields on which he counted for his own supply”. On 29 July 1940 Hitler spoke to his Chief-of-Operations, General Alfred Jodl, about the potential of fighting Russia if Stalin attempted to seize Ploesti. (16)

On 9 August 1940 General Jodl issued a directive titled “Reconstruction East”, ordering that German transport and supplies be bolstered in the east, so that plans would be cemented by the spring of 1941 for an attack on Russia (17). It was at this time that Winston Churchill’s government began warning Moscow of the German invasion plans; but Stalin strongly suspected that the British wanted to drag him into the war, just to take the pressure off London. Stalin certainly believed that Soviet armies would have to fight the Germans some day, but not just yet.

Soviet designs towards Germany remained non-threatening. On 1 August 1940 the Soviet Union’s foreign minister, Vyacheslav Molotov, said that the Nazi-Soviet Pact was centred not on “fortuitous considerations of a transient nature, but on the fundamental political interests of both countries” (18). Nevertheless by September 1940, Soviet commanders stationed along their western frontier began talking about Hitler’s “Drang nach Osten”, meaning the dictator’s proposal for eastward expansion. Soviet military men spoke about Hitler’s habit of carrying around a picture of Frederick Barbarossa, the red-bearded Prussian emperor who centuries before had waged war against the Slavs. (19)

On 12 November 1940 foreign minister Molotov, a staunch communist, landed in Germany by aircraft. Upon Molotov’s arrival in Berlin, Stalin told him to indicate to the Germans that he wanted a wide-ranging deal with them. Stalin still thought a partnership with Hitler into the near future was attainable. Instead, during the talks Nazi officials presented to Molotov a junior partnership for Soviet Russia, in a German-dominated global alliance. Soviet policy, as the Nazis insisted, was to be focused on south Asia, towards India, and a conflict with Britain. This did not satisfy Stalin at all.

Following Molotov’s dispatching of the report on his disappointing discussions in Berlin, according to Yakov Chadaev, a Soviet administrator, Stalin was certain that Hitler intended to wage war on Russia. Less than two weeks later, on 25 November 1940 Stalin informed the Bulgarian communist politician Georgi Dimitrov “our relations with Germany are polite on the surface, but there is serious friction between us”. (20)

Marshal Aleksandr Vasilevsky, a top level Russian officer who repeatedly met with Stalin, had accompanied Molotov to Berlin. Vasilevsky returned home convinced that Hitler would invade the Soviet Union (21). Vasilevsky’s opinion was shared by many of his Red Army colleagues. After Molotov had left Berlin, Hitler met German executives and made it clear to them that he was going to attack Russia.

In the autumn of 1940 draft plans for the strategic positioning of Soviet divisions along their western frontier, in preparation for a German invasion, were sent to the Kremlin by the Russian High Command. Stalin did not respond. Rather ominously, in the second half of November 1940 the central European countries of Hungary, Slovakia and Romania all joined Hitler’s new European order, by signing up to the Axis coalition. Hitler could now depend especially on the support of Romania, under Ion Antonescu. He was a fervently anti-communist and anti-Semitic military dictator, who at age 58 had come to power on 4 September 1940.

Romania is by no means a leading nation today, but during the war years it was indeed an important country. This was mostly due to her natural resources and to a lesser extent its strategic location, beside the Black Sea and the Ukraine.

Stalin was growing slightly concerned as 1940 reached its end. Addressing Soviet generals before Christmas, Stalin referenced passages from Hitler’s book ‘Mein Kampf’, and he spoke of the Nazi leader’s stated goal of attacking the USSR some day. Stalin said “we will try to delay the war for two years”, until December 1942 or into 1943. Shortly after the Wehrmacht’s crushing of the French, Molotov recalled him saying, “we would be able to confront the Germans on an equal basis only by 1943”. (22)

On 18 December 1940 Hitler released his Directive No. 21 outlining, “The German armed forces must be prepared to crush Soviet Russia in a quick campaign, before the end of the war against England”. On Christmas Day 1940, the Soviet military attaché in Berlin received an anonymous letter. It expounded that the Germans were preparing a military operation against Russia, for the spring of 1941. (23)

By 29 December 1940 Soviet intelligence agencies had possession of the basic facts regarding Operation Barbarossa, its design and planned start date (24). In late January 1941 the Japanese military diplomat Yamaguchi, returning to the Russian capital from Berlin, said to a member of the Soviet naval diplomatic service, “I do not exclude the possibility of conflict between Berlin and Moscow”.

Yamaguchi’s remark was forwarded on 30 January 1941 to Marshal Kliment Voroshilov, a prominent Soviet officer who knew Stalin personally. Even before late January 1941, the Soviet Defence Commissariat was concerned enough to draft a general directive to the Russian border commands and fleets, which for the first time would name Germany as the probable enemy in coming war.

In early February 1941, the Soviet Naval Commissariat started receiving almost daily accounts, about the arrival of German Army specialists in Bulgarian ports; and preparations for the installment of German coastal armaments there. This information was relayed to Stalin on 7 February 1941. In fact, other senior figures such as Marshal Filipp Golikov, the chief of intelligence for the USSR’s General Staff, said that all Soviet reports on German planning were forwarded to Stalin himself. (25)

As Molotov was about to make his way to Berlin the previous November, Stalin stressed to him that Bulgaria is “the most important question of the negotiations” and should be placed in the Soviet realm (26). On 1 March 1941 Bulgaria instead joined the Axis. In early February 1941, the Russian command in Leningrad reported German troop movements in Finland. This was no laughing matter as Finland shares an eastern border with Russia.

The Kremlin could not count on Finnish loyalty in the event of a German attack. Finland’s Commander-in-Chief Gustaf Mannerheim, in his mid-70s and an anti-Bolshevik, had been closely acquainted with the deposed Russian Tsar Nicholas II. Mannerheim previously kept a portrait of the Tsar and said, “He was my emperor”. The Finns were far from grateful when the Soviet military rolled into their country in November 1939, without a declaration of war. In February 1941 the Leningrad Command reported German conversations with Sweden, pertaining to the transit of Wehrmacht troops through Swedish land.

The Soviet political administration wanted to emphasize awareness to the Red Army, to be prepared for engagement. Stalin rejected this approach, because he was afraid it would appear to Hitler that he was gathering forces to start an offensive against Germany. Stalin warned General Georgy Zhukov that “Mobilisation means war”, and he did not want to risk a conflict with Germany in 1941. (27)

On 15 February 1941, a German typist entered the Soviet consulate in Berlin. He brought with him a German-Russian phrase book, which was being published in his printing shop in extra large edition – included in it were such phrases as, “Are you a Communist?”, “Hands up or I’ll shoot” and “Surrender” (28). The ramifications were clear enough. Around this time, Russian State Security acquired reliable intelligence stating that the German invasion of Britain was suspended indefinitely, until Russia was defeated.

In late February and early March 1941, German reconnaissance flights were taking place over the Baltic states under Russian control. These were severe infringements into the Soviet zone. The appearance of Nazi planes became frequent over the coastal city of Libau, in western Latvia, above the Estonian capital Tallinn, and over Estonia’s largest island Saaremaa.

Russian Admiral Nikolai Kuznetsov, who intensely disliked the fascist states, granted the Soviet Baltic fleet authority to open fire on German aircraft. On 17 and 18 March 1941, Luftwaffe planes were spotted over Libau and promptly shot at by Soviet personnel (29). Nazi aircraft were then sighted near the city of Odessa, on the Black Sea. Admiral Kuznetsov was summoned to the Kremlin by Stalin, where he found him with the police chief Lavrentiy Beria. Stalin reprimanded Kuznetsov for giving the order to shoot at German planes, and he expressly forbid Soviet units to do so again.

 

Notes

1 David M. Glantz, Operation Barbarossa: Hitler’s Invasion of Russia, 1941 (The History Press; Illustrated Edition, 1 May 2011) p. 20

2 Antony Beevor, The Second World War (Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd., UK edition, 18 Sep. 2014) Chapter 12, Barbarossa

3 Harrison E. Salisbury, The 900 Days: The Siege of Leningrad (Da Capo Press, 30 Sep. 1985) p. 57

4 Ibid.

5 John H. Waller, The Unseen War in Europe: Espionage and Conspiracy in the Second World War (Random House USA Inc.; 1st edition, 9 Apr. 1996) p. 192

6 Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 Apr. 1985) p. 323

7 Anna Louise Strong, The Stalin Era (Mainstream Publishers, 1 Jan. 1956) p. 89

8 Basil Liddell Hart, A History of the Second World War (Pan, London, 1970) p. 143

9 Roger Moorhouse, The Devils’ Alliance (Basic Books, 13 Oct. 2014) p. 107

10 Liddell Hart, A History of the Second World War, p. 147

11 Scott E. Wuesthoff, The Utility of Targeting the Petroleum-based Sector of a Nation’s Economic Infrastructure, Chapter 2, Unlimited War and Oil, Air University Press, 1 June 1994, p. 5 of 8, Jstor

12 Jason Dawsey, “Over the Cauldron of Ploesti: The American Air War in Romania”, The National World War II Museum, 12 August 2019

13 Clifford E. Singer, Energy And International War (World Scientific Publishing; Illustrated edition, 3 Dec. 2008) p. 145

14 Jacques R. Pauwels, “Profits über Alles! American corporations and Hitler”, Global Research, 7 June 2019

15 Ofer Aderet, “U.S. Chemical Corporation DuPont Helped Nazi Germany Because of Ideology, Israeli Researcher Says”, Haaretz, 2 May 2019

16 Liddell Hart, A History of the Second World War, p. 143

17 Gerhard L. Weinberg, Germany and the Soviet Union, 1939-1941 (E. J. Brill, 1 Jan. 1972) p. 112

18 Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s Wars (Yale University Press, 1st edition, 14 Nov. 2006) p. 57

19 Salisbury, The 900 Days, p. 57

20 Roberts, Stalin’s Wars, p. 61

21 Salisbury, The 900 Days, p. 57

22 Robert Service, Stalin: A Biography (Pan; Reprints edition, 16 Apr. 2010) p. 406

23 Salisbury, The 900 Days, p. 58

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid., p. 61

26 Roberts, Stalin’s Wars, p. 58

27 Geoffrey Roberts, “Last men standing”, The Irish Examiner, 22 June 2011

28 Salisbury, The 900 Days, pp. 58-59

29 Ibid., p. 59

 


Chapter II

Hitler’s Secret Directive 18

After the failed November 1940 discussions in Berlin, of the Soviet Union’s foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov, both he and his leader Joseph Stalin occasionally remarked that Nazi Germany was no longer so prompt in fulfilling its obligations to Moscow. This was relating to the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact, of 23 August 1939, an agreement which was meant to last for 10 years. Stalin and Molotov did not attribute much significance to the slacking off in Berlin’s punctuality, as the delivery of German goods and technology to Soviet Russia increasingly did not appear on schedule.

Unknown to Stalin and Molotov, on the very day the Soviet foreign minister had landed in Berlin for talks, 12 November 1940, Adolf Hitler secretly issued Directive No. 18. It outlined the planned German invasion of the USSR, including the envisaged conquest of major cities like Kiev, Kharkov, Leningrad and Moscow. On 18 December 1940 Führer Directive No. 21 was completed, which stated that the Wehrmacht’s attack on the Soviet Union should proceed in mid-May 1941.

For Russia, as 1941 advanced beyond its opening weeks, the warning signs about the German threat were becoming difficult to overlook. False reports were featured in the Nazi press about “military preparations” being made across the border in the Soviet camp. The same German media tactics had preceded Hitler’s invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland.

On 23 February 1941, the Soviet Defence Commissariat published a decree stating that Nazi Germany was the next likely enemy (1). Soviet frontier areas were requested to make the necessary preparations to repel the attack, but the Kremlin did not respond.

On 22 March 1941, the Russian intelligence agency NKGB obtained what it believed to be solid material that “Hitler has given secret instructions to suspend the fulfillment of orders for the Soviet Union”, regarding shipments tied to the Nazi-Soviet Pact. For example the Czech Skoda plant, under Nazi control, had been ordered to halt deliveries to Russia. On 25 March 1941 the NKGB produced a special report, expounding that the Germans had amassed 120 divisions beside the Soviet border. (2)

For months there were concerning cables coming from the Russian military attaché in Nazi-occupied France, General Ivan Susloparov. The German authorities had curtailed Soviet embassy duties in France, and in February 1941 the Russian embassy was moved from Paris southwards to Vichy, in central France. Only a Soviet consulate was left in Paris.

Image on the right: OKH commander Field Marshal Walther von Brauchitsch and Hitler study maps during the early days of Hitler’s Russian Campaign (Public Domain)

During April 1941, General Susloparov informed Moscow that the Germans would attack Russia in late May 1941. Slightly later on, he explained it had been delayed for a month due to bad weather. At the end of April, General Susloparov collected further information about the German invasion through colleagues from Yugoslavia, America, China, Turkey and Bulgaria (3). This intelligence was forwarded to Moscow by mid-May 1941.

Again in April 1941, a Czech agent reported that the Wehrmacht was going to execute military operations against the Soviet Union. The report was sent to Stalin, who became angry when he read it and replied, “This informant is an English provocateur. Find out who is making this provocation and punish him”. (4)

On 10 April 1941 Stalin and Molotov were given a summary by the NKGB, about a meeting that Hitler had with Prince Paul of Yugoslavia at the Berghof, in early March 1941 (5). Hitler was described as telling Prince Paul he would begin his invasion of Russia in late June 1941. Stalin’s response to the alarming reports, such as this, was one of appeasement of Hitler, though a similar strategy had failed for the Western powers.

Remarkably, through April 1941 Stalin increased the volume of shipments of Russian supplies to the Third Reich, amounting to: 208,000 tons of grain, 90,000 tons of oil, 6,340 tons of metal, etc (6). Much of these essentials would be used by the Nazis in their attack on Russia.

Marshal Filipp Golikov, head of intelligence for the USSR’s General Staff, insisted that all Soviet reports relating to Nazi plans were forwarded directly to Stalin. Other accounts informing Moscow about an impending Wehrmacht invasion came from abroad too. As early as January 1941 Sumner Welles, an influential US government official, warned the Soviet Ambassador to America, Konstantin Umansky, that Washington had information showing Germany would engage in war against Russia, by the spring of 1941. (7)

During the final week of March 1941 US Army cryptanalysts, experts at deciphering codes, started producing obvious indications of a German relocation to the east. This material was relayed to the Soviets (8). America’s cryptographers had cracked Japanese codes in the second half of 1940; including the Purple Cipher, Japan’s highest diplomatic code, which ensured that the Franklin Roosevelt government was uniquely well informed of Tokyo’s intentions.

The US commercial attaché in Berlin, Sam E. Woods, came into contact with high-level German staff officers opposed to the Nazi regime. They were aware of the planning for Operation Barbarossa. Woods was in a position to discreetly observe the German preparations from July 1940, until December of that year. Woods sent his findings to Washington. President Roosevelt agreed that the Kremlin should be told of these developments. On 20 March 1941, Welles once more saw Soviet Ambassador Umansky and forwarded the news. (9)

Russia’s embassy in Berlin noticed that the Nazi press was reprinting passages from Hitler’s 1925 book ‘Mein Kampf’. The paragraphs in question were about his proposal for “lebensraum”, German enlargement at the Soviet Union’s expense.

Image below: German troops at the Soviet state border marker, 22 June 1941 (Public Domain)

The Russians had a formidable espionage agent, Richard Sorge, operating in Tokyo since 1933, the year that Hitler took power in Germany. Sorge, a German citizen and committed communist, established an especially close relationship with the imprudent Nazi ambassador to Japan, General Eugen Ott. The data Sorge received was not always 100% accurate, but it allowed him access to the most confidential and up to date German plans.

On 5 March 1941, Sorge dispatched to the Soviets a microfilm of a German telegram sent by the foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, to the German ambassador Ott – and which outlined that the Wehrmacht attack on Russia would fall in mid-June 1941. On 15 May, Sorge reported to Moscow that the German invasion would start somewhere between 20 to 22 of June (10). A few days later on 19 May Sorge cabled, “Against the Soviet Union will be concentrated nine armies, 150 divisions”. He later increased this figure to between 170 to 190 divisions, and that Operation Barbarossa will start without an ultimatum or declaration of war.

All of this fell on deaf ears. Sorge, who had his vices being a heavy drinker and womaniser, was ridiculed by Stalin just before the Germans attacked as someone “who has set up factories and brothels in Japan”. To be fair to Stalin, at the late date of 17 June 1941 Sorge was not fully certain if Barbarossa would go ahead (11). Why? The German military attaché in Tokyo became unsure if it would proceed, and sometimes a spy is only as good as his or her sources.

Meanwhile in March 1941, Russia’s State Security forces acquired an account about a meeting the Romanian autocrat, Ion Antonescu, had with a German official named Bering, where the subject of war with Russia was discussed. Antonescu had in fact been informed by Hitler, as early as 14 January 1941, of the German plan to invade Russia, such was the prominent position Romania held in Nazi war aims. The German-controlled Ploesti refineries in southern Romania produced 5.5 million tons of oil in 1941, and 5.7 million tons in 1942. (12)

Italian dictator Benito Mussolini learnt of the German attack on Russia only after it had commenced – in part because Hitler believed he did not really need Italy, he had not asked for their help; and it was also hardly Italy’s fight, considering that country’s position cut adrift somewhat in south-central Europe. The Italian people, furthermore, would not want their troops involved in a brutal conflict against Russia, and which had nothing to do with Italy. The Duce had other ideas, and after the war the Austrian commando Otto Skorzeny correctly wrote, “Benito Mussolini was not a good wartime leader”. (13)

By mid-March 1941, the Soviet leadership had a detailed description of the Barbarossa plan (14). The period, throughout March and early April 1941, saw tensions rise significantly between Berlin and Moscow, notably in south-eastern Europe. The American author Harrison E. Salisbury noted, “This was the moment in which Yugoslavia with tacit encouragement from Moscow defied the Germans, and in which the Germans moved rapidly and decisively to end the war in Greece, and occupy the whole of the Balkans. When Moscow signed a treaty with Yugoslavia on April 6 – the day Hitler attacked Belgrade – the German reaction was so savage that Stalin became alarmed”. (15)

On 25 March 1941 the Yugoslav government of the regent, Prince Paul, had signed an agreement in Vienna, which effectively made Yugoslavia a Nazi client state. Nevertheless, just two days later patriotic factions in the Serbian populace, assisted by British agents and led by chief of the Yugoslav air force, General Dusan Simovic, overthrew the pro-German regency. They installed a monarchy headed by the teenage king, Peter II of Yugoslavia; and a new government was formed in the capital Belgrade which declared its neutrality. Upon hearing this, Winston Churchill declared it to be “great news” and that Yugoslavia had “found its soul” while it would receive from London “all possible aid and succour”. (16)

Hitler was irate at Churchill’s gloating and the sudden reversal in Yugoslav policy. Feeling he had been betrayed somehow, he decided to teach the Yugoslavs a lesson. Hitler ordered his Luftwaffe chief Hermann Göring to launch a furious air attack on Belgrade. In the days from 6 April 1941, thousands of people were killed in Belgrade from Nazi air raids. On the ground Yugoslav forces were no match for the Germans, who were helped by the Italians, and the fighting was all over after less than two weeks. Churchill’s aid and succour was sadly not forthcoming.

The Nazi-led Axis powers likewise invaded Greece on 6 April 1941, and by the middle of that month the Greek position had become untenable (17); therefore on 24 April British forces in Greece began their evacuation of the country. This was an operation the British had by now developed a real expertise in, as to escape the German blows they previously evacuated Dunkirk, Le Havre and Narvik.

Because of his subjugation of Yugoslavia and Greece, Hitler on 30 April 1941 postponed the attack on the Soviet Union until 22 June. It has sometimes been claimed that this delay, of just over five weeks, was a central factor in later derailing Barbarossa. Though an attractive one, this theory does not stand up under closer inspection.

The Nazi invasion eventually petered out, but largely due to strategic errors committed by the German high command and Hitler, such as not directing the majority of their forces towards Moscow, the USSR’s communications centre. Moreover, Canadian historian Donald J. Goodspeed observed, “the middle of May was really too early for an invasion of Russia. Before the middle of June, late spring rains would ruin the roads, flood the rivers, and make movement very difficult except on the few paved highways. Thus, since the initial surprise thrust had to go rapidly to yield the best results, Hitler probably gained more than he lost by his postponement”. (18)

The spring and early summer of 1941 were particularly wet, across eastern Poland and the western parts of European Russia. Had the Germans invaded as originally intended on 15 May 1941, their advance would have bogged down in the first weeks. It is interesting to note that the Polish-Russian river valleys were still overflowing on 1 June, according to the American historian Samuel W. Mitcham. (19)

On 3 April 1941 Churchill attempted to warn Stalin, through the British ambassador to Russia, Stafford Cripps, that London’s intelligence data indicated the Germans were preparing an attack on Russia. Stalin gave no credence whatever to British intelligence reports, because he was distrustful of Britain even more so than America, and it is likely such warnings if anything increased his suspicions further.

In late April 1941 Jefferson Patterson, the First Secretary of the US Embassy in Berlin, invited his Russian counterpart Valentin Berezhkov to cocktails at his home. Among the invitees was a Luftwaffe major, apparently on leave from North Africa. Late in the evening this German major confided to Berezhkov, “The fact is I’m not here on leave. My squadron was recalled from North Africa, and yesterday we got orders to transfer to the east, to the region of Lodz [central Poland]. There may be nothing special in that, but I know many other units have also been transferred to your frontiers recently” (20). Berezhkov was disturbed to hear this, and never before had a Wehrmacht officer divulged top secret news like that. Berezhkov passed on what he heard to Moscow.

Throughout April 1941, daily bulletins from the Soviet General Staff and Naval Staff outlined German troop gatherings along the Russian frontier. On 1 May an account from the General Staff to the Soviet border military districts stated, “In the course of all March and April… the German command has carried out an accelerated transfer of troops to the borders of the Soviet Union”. Try as the Germans might, it was impossible for them to conceal the gathering of vast numbers of their soldiers. The German presence was obvious along the central River Bug boundary; the Soviet chief of frontier guards asked Moscow for approval to relocate the families of Red Army troops further east. Permission was not granted and the commander was upbraided for showing “panic”. (21)

Nazi reconnaissance flights, near or over Soviet territory, were increasing as the spring of 1941 continued. Between 28 March and 18 April, the Russians said that German planes had been sighted 80 times making incursions. On 15 April, a German aircraft was forced into an emergency landing near the city of Rovno, in western Ukraine. On board a camera was found, along with exposed film and a map of the USSR (22). The German chargé d’affaires in Moscow, Werner von Tippelskirch, was summoned to the Foreign Commissariat on 22 April 1941. He met stiff protestations about the German overflights.

Yet Nazi planes were hardly ever shot at, because Stalin forbade the Soviet armed forces from doing so, for fear of provoking an invasion. In early May 1941 the German propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary, “Stalin and his people remain completely inactive. Like a rabbit confronted by a snake”. (23)

On 5 May 1941 Stalin received from his intelligence agencies a report detailing, “German officers and soldiers speak openly of the coming war, between Germany and the Soviet Union, as a matter already decided. The war is expected to start after the completion of spring planting”. Also on 5 May Stalin gave a speech to young Soviet officers at the Kremlin, and he spoke seriously of the Nazi threat. “War with Germany is inevitable” Stalin said, but there is no sign the Soviet ruler believed a German attack was imminent. (24)

On 24 May 1941, the head of the German western press department, Karl Bemer, got drunk at a reception in the Bulgarian embassy in Berlin. Bemer was heard roaring “we will be boss of all Russia and Stalin will be dead. We will demolish the Russians quicker than we did the French” (25). This incident quickly came to the attention of Ivan Filippov, a Russian correspondent in Berlin working for the TASS news agency. Filippov, also a Soviet intelligence operative, heard that Bemer was thereafter arrested by German police.

In early June 1941 Admiral Mikhail Vorontsov, the Russian naval attaché in Berlin, telegrammed his fellow Admiral Nikolai Kuznetsov, who was in Moscow, and stated that the Germans would invade around the 20th to the 22nd of June. Kuznetsov checked to see if Stalin was given a copy of this telegram, and he found that he certainly received it. (26)

 

Notes

1 Harrison E. Salisbury, The 900 Days: The Siege of Leningrad (Da Capo Press, 30 Sep. 1985) p. 59

2 Ibid., p. 60

3 Ibid., p. 61

4 Robert H. McNeal, Stalin: Man and Ruler (Palgrave Macmillan, 1st edition, 1988) p. 237

5 Salisbury, The 900 Days, p. 63

6 United States Congress, Proceedings and Debates of the U.S. Congress, Volume 94, Part 9, p. 366

7 Salisbury, The 900 Days, pp. 61-62

8 John Simkin, “Operation Barbarossa”, Spartacus Educational, September 1997 (Updated January 2020)

9 Ibid.

10 Salisbury, The 900 Days, p. 65

11 Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s Wars (Yale University Press, 1st edition, 14 Nov. 2006) p. 68

12 Evan Mawdsley, Thunder in the East (Hodder Arnold, 23 Feb. 2007) p. 50

13 Otto Skorzeny, My Commando Operations: The Memoirs of Hitler’s Most Daring Commando (Schiffer Publishing Ltd., 1 Jan. 1995) p. 238

14 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 36

15 Salisbury, The 900 Days, p. 63

16 Basil Liddell Hart, A History of the Second World War (Pan, London, 1970) pp. 151-152

17 Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 Apr. 1985) pp. 384-385

18 Ibid., p. 390

19 Samuel W. Mitcham, The Rise of the Wehrmacht: The German Armed Forces and World War II (Praeger Publishers Inc., 30 June 2008) p. 402

20 Salisbury, The 900 Days, p. 62

21 Ibid., p. 64

22 Ibid.

23 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 8

24 Robert Service, Stalin: A Biography (Pan; Reprints edition, 16 Apr. 2010) p. 407

25 Salisbury, The 900 Days, p. 61

26 Ibid., p. 66

 


Chapter III

Nazi Germany’s Economic Exploitation of the USSR

 

Looking back over an eight decade timespan at the design for Operation Barbarossa, the June 1941 German-led attack on the USSR, its invasion plan betrays a pathological overconfidence. The strategic planning, of advancing across a breadth of many hundreds of miles of terrain, was excessively ambitious to the point of being grotesque.

Barbarossa’s intelligence details were also poorly worked out. Nazi estimates on Soviet military capacity were based more on guesswork than reliable information, and this underestimation of the enemy would come back to haunt them.

On 13 May 1941 in preparation for the invasion, Adolf Hitler’s close colleague Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel issued an order outlining that, upon capture, all Soviet commissars were to be executed immediately. The commissars were Communist Party officials attached to military units, in order to imbue Red Army troops with Bolshevik principles and loyalty to the Soviet state.

It was because of this that Hitler designated the commissars to be liquidated in their thousands. The order signed, on 13 May, continued that Soviet civilians suspected of committing offences against the Wehrmacht could be shot, on the request of any German officer. Most maliciously of all, it was made clear that German soldiers found perpetrating crimes against non-combatants need not be prosecuted.

Those Wehrmacht officers that did not believe in Nazism, i.e. because they were monarchists or conservatives, could still reprimand German troops for misdeeds if they wished to, and this did occur. One of the most prominent German Army commanders in the early 1940s, Field Marshal Fedor von Bock leading Army Group Center, was an avowed monarchist who disliked Nazism.

The Jewish Virtual Library, overseen by American foreign policy analyst Mitchell Bard, acknowledged that von Bock “privately expressed outrage at the atrocities” committed by SS killing squads on the Eastern front; but the field marshal was “unwilling to take the matter directly to Hitler” though he did send “one of his subordinate officers to lodge the complaint”. The Jewish Virtual Library noted that the crimes committed against Soviet civilians further “outraged many of von Bock’s subordinate officers”.

This is not to suggest the Wehrmacht, as a whole, was clean in its conduct in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. It was by no means that, which came primarily as a result of staunch Nazis being placed in positions of authority in the German Army; like the Chief-of-Staff Franz Halder and Field Marshal Walter von Reichenau, commander of the German 6th Army.

Among the invasion’s goals was flagrant exploitation, looting and annexation. With this in mind, the Nazis established the Economic Office East, which was placed under the authority of Reichsmarshall Hermann Goering, the second most powerful man in the Third Reich. Goering informed Benito Mussolini’s son-in-law, Count Galeazzo Ciano, that “This year [1941] between 20 and 30 million persons will die in Russia of hunger. Perhaps it is well that it should be so, for certain nations must be decimated. But even if it were not, nothing can be done about it”. Count Ciano, who was the Italian Foreign Minister since 1936, passed on Goering’s comments to Mussolini.

More than three weeks after the German attack, Goering wrote on 15 July 1941, “Use of the occupied territories should be made primarily in the food and oil sectors of the economy. Get to Germany as much food and oil as possible – that is the main economic goal of the campaign”.

It is still not entirely clear whether the Nazi method of systematizing the plunder and administering the occupied territories (known as Plan Oldenburg) was based on the belief that the Reich required this amount of foodstuffs, with the deaths of millions of Russians and Jews from starvation being a side effect; or whether their desire was the depopulation of the conquered regions, with starvation used as a convenient process for mass murder. Whatever the principal motive, the prospects of Soviet citizens unfortunate enough to fall under Nazi occupation was grim.

The German march onto Russian soil was hardly a new historical occurrence. A generation before, the eastern divisions of the Imperial German Army, commanded by Erich Ludendorff and Paul von Hindenburg, had from late 1914 captured chunks of the Russian Empire’s territory; which on that occasion came after the Imperial Russian Army had marched into East Prussia.

German eastern expansion under Ludendorff and Hindenburg was concerned too with conquest, but theirs was more humane than Nazi policy, as it did not descend to the widespread killing of civilians or Jewish populations. Instead, Ludendorff and Hindenburg sought to commandeer livestock and horses, while exploiting “the extensive agricultural and forestry resources for the German war effort”, historians Jens Thiel and Christian Westerhoff observed.

Hitler’s East Prussian gauleiter Erich Koch, who would be in charge of ruling Nazi-occupied Ukraine, said that, “Our task is to suck from the Ukraine all the goods we can get hold of, without consideration of the feeling or the property of the Ukrainians. Gentlemen: I am expecting from you the utmost severity toward the native population”.

The 1941 German invasion force consisted of 136 divisions, which amounted to 3 million men. They were supported at the beginning by over half a million Finnish and Romanian troops, commanded by Gustaf Mannerheim and Ion Antonescu, two experienced career officers who for differing reasons desired the USSR’s destruction. Field Marshal Mannerheim of Finland, a monarchist and more moderate figure than General Antonescu, had never forgiven the Bolsheviks for shooting Tsar Nicholas II and his family on 17 July 1918; Mannerheim wept bitterly when he heard of the Tsar’s death, for he was both well acquainted with the Russian monarch and had served under him in the Imperial Russian Army.

Of the 136 Wehrmacht divisions which would attack the USSR on 22 June 1941, a modest 19 of them were panzer divisions and 14 comprised of motor divisions. In all, about 600,000 German motor vehicles would roll to the east, but the Germans deployed up to 750,000 horses in the invasion. It demonstrates that the Wehrmacht was not the ultra-modern, motorized army that Nazi propaganda insisted it was.

Facing the Germans across the border, in the western USSR, were three very large Soviet Army Groups, comprising of 193 equivalent divisions. Fifty-four of these were tank or motor divisions, significantly more than the Germans had. Since 1932, Joseph Stalin spent huge sums in equipping the military with motorized machines and heavy armor. In particular, the Russians possessed a far greater number of tanks than the enemy; but the experience and quality of Soviet tank crews was noticeably inferior to the Germans, who were battle-hardened and well-versed in the Blitzkrieg (Lightning War) style of combat.

There were other serious Russian weaknesses. Stalin’s purge of the Red Army high command from May 1937 “affected the development of our armed forces and their combat preparedness”, Marshal Georgy Zhukov wrote, the most lauded Russian commander of the 20th century. The purges, though they targeted a minority of the entire Soviet military corps, had inflicted “enormous damage” on “the top echelons of the army command” Zhukov stated. It meant that paralysis was endemic in the Red Army’s decision-making apparatus, which would have serious implications around the time of the German invasion.

Hitler’s calculations for attacking the USSR were audacious, to put it mildly. The Fuehrer expected to overthrow Stalin’s Russia in about 8 weeks, and once that was accomplished, he intended to turn back and finish off Britain. Hitler estimated that he would not really be embroiled in a two-front war and, in this he was right, for now. The British were in no position in 1941 to interfere with the Nazi plan for eastward enlargement.

The German offensive was indeed to be launched across a massive front, but the Schwerpunkt – the heaviest point of the German blow – was to land north of the Pripet Marshes in Soviet Belarus. Here, two formidable forces, Army Group North led by Field Marshal Ritter von Leeb, and Army Group Center led by Field Marshal von Bock, would implement a giant pincers movement against the Soviet armies opposing them. They would then as envisaged continue advancing and take the capital city, Moscow, European Russia’s communications hub. This indicates that Hitler had originally assigned Moscow as a primary objective.

Von Leeb’s Army Group North comprised of the German 16th Army (commanded by Ernst Busch) and the 18th Army (Georg von Kuechler), supported by four panzer divisions under Colonel-General Erich Hoepner.

Army Group Center was, by some distance, the biggest of the three Army Groups which attacked the USSR. It consisted of the German 2nd Army (Maximilian von Weichs), the 4th Army (Günther von Kluge) and the 9th Army (Adolf Strauss), bolstered by two armored groups totaling 10 panzer divisions and commanded by Generals Heinz Guderian and Hermann Hoth.

Gerd von Rundstedt’s Army Group South was made up of the German 6th Army (Walter von Reichenau), the 17th Army (Carl-Heinrich von Stülpnagel), a German-Romanian Army (Eugen Ritter von Schobert), and supported by four panzer divisions under Colonel-General Ewald von Kleist. Von Rundstedt’s Army Group was designated to advance south of the Pripet Marshes.

In doing so, von Rundstedt was expected to move rapidly in conquering eastern Poland and, specifically, to capture the ancient Polish city of Lublin, close to the Ukrainian border. This would provide a launching pad for Army Group South’s panzers to thrust into the Ukraine, and take its capital Kiev, the Soviet Union’s third largest city with 930,000 inhabitants. Thereafter, von Rundstedt’s divisions would be requested to occupy all of the Ukraine, with Hitler wanting that country’s resources for pillaging, such as wheat, for it to become “the breadbasket of the Reich”, as he put it.

While Hitler gathered his 136 divisions along the Nazi-Soviet frontier, he left 46 divisions behind to guard the rest of mainland Europe. That number does seem excessive and many of those German formations would be left idle. Military historian Donald J. Goodspeed wrote, “Certainly far fewer than 46 divisions could have countered any British initiative on the continent, a possibility that was in any case unlikely”.

Although the Soviet Army proved much larger than the Nazis thought, it was unprepared for the attack that was to come. A considerable proportion of the Red Army in June 1941 was positioned too close to the Nazi-Soviet boundary which, since 1939, had been extended across Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Romania.

The Stalin Line, a series of fortifications constructed from the late 1920s, and which guarded the western USSR’s pre-1939 frontiers, had merely been partially dismantled. The new forward defense positions were incomplete by mid-1941. The Soviet military’s armored formations had also been broken up, and the tanks allotted to infantry divisions. The latter error was corrected by Stalin as he repositioned the armored divisions, but they were still in the process of entering full working order when the Germans attacked.

Furthermore, Stalin and the Red Army high command believed the focal point of the German assault would fall south of the Pripet Marshes – that is through the Ukraine – whereas the Germans would, as mentioned, strike most heavily north of the Pripet Marshes across Soviet Belarus. The Russian defenses were placed at their strongest in the wrong sector of the front. This misjudgment in part enabled Army Group Center to advance rapidly into the heart of Belarus, where the Red Army was not fortified so strongly.

 

 

Sources

John Simkin, “Wilhelm Keitel”, September 1997 (Updated January 2020), Spartacus Educational Jewish Virtual Library, “Fedor von Bock (1880-1945)”

Rupert Butler, Legions of Death: The Nazi Enslavement of Europe (Leo Cooper Ltd., 1 Feb. 2004)

Goering’s Green Folder Explained, Plan Oldenburg

Jens Thiel, Christian Westerhoff, “Forced Labour”, 8 October 2014, International Encyclopedia of the First World War

Samuel W. Mitcham Jr., The German Defeat in the East: 1944-45 (Stackpole Books; First in this Edition, 23 March 2007)

Christian Hartmann, Operation Barbarossa: Nazi Germany’s War in the East, 1941-1945 (OUP Oxford; Reprint edition, 28 June 2018)

Andrei Gromyko, Memories: From Stalin to Gorbachev (Arrow Books Limited, 1 Jan. 1989)

Oliver Warner, Marshal Mannerheim & The Finns (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1st Edition, 1 Jan. 1967)

Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s General: The Life of Georgy Zhukov (Icon Books, 2 May 2013)

Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 April 1985)

Ivan Katchanovski, Zenon E. Kohut, Bohdan Y. Nebesio, Historical Dictionary of Ukraine (Scarecrow Press; 2nd edition, 11 July 2013)

The Stalin Line, as a line of Fortified Regions, Stalin-line.by/en

 


Chapter IV

Why Nazi Germany Failed to Defeat the Soviet Union

 

As the First World War was erupting from late summer 1914, the great majority of political leaders believed it would be of short duration.

Only the rare far-sighted individual knew what was coming, such as Herbert Kitchener, Britain’s Secretary of War. At one of the first British Cabinet conferences at the conflict’s outset, Kitchener predicted the fighting would rumble on for three years, and that Britain would eventually be required to deploy its full resources (1). His estimation of a three-year war was shy of just one year.

Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary, recalled that Kitchener’s prediction had “seemed to most of us unlikely, if not incredible” (2). On 8 August 1914 Winston Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty, estimated that the war would last for nine months, which was longer than many thought.

Kitchener’s colleagues failed to realise, such was mankind’s advancements in technology by the early 20th century – about 150 years after the Industrial Revolution had begun in Britain around 1760 – that a war between the great powers would most likely be lengthy, and a slaughter of unprecedented proportions could only ensue. After the bloodletting finally stopped on 11 November 1918, realistic analysts like Vladimir Leninstated that the waging of war was “a survival from the bourgeois world”; while the German commander Hans von Seeckt said “war was no longer an intelligent way to conduct a nation’s policy”. (3)

The rise to power in Italy and Germany of fervent warmongers, Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, was a near guarantee that another large-scale conflict was in the offing.

Both Mussolini and Hitler’s taking of power, in 1922 and 1933 respectively, was assisted massively by the social upheaval and destabilisation induced as a result of World War I.

Neville Chamberlain, Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini Meet in 1938

The weak-willed response of the western democracies to Nazi enlargement from the mid-1930s, particularly the timid French reaction, emboldened Hitler on the path to war. British professor Evan Mawdsley, who specialises in Russian history, wrote of the Third Reich’s position by 1941 that “invading Russia was not the fatal mistake of Nazi Germany. After all, what was Hitler’s alternative? Not to invade Russia? Inaction would have allowed Germany’s enemies to become stronger, and would have left Germany economically dependent on Russia. The lethal mistake had been made earlier, when Hitler’s adventures in Czechoslovakia and Poland led Germany into a general war”. (4)

The fighting initially went as well as the Wehrmacht could have hoped for; they routed Poland in September 1939 and then scored further routine victories in Scandinavia and across western Europe, during the spring and summer of 1940. The principal opposing force, the French Army, had been decaying ever since 1917. That year mutinies spread to no less than 54 French divisions by 9 June 1917. Even in those formations where no mutinies occurred, over 50% of French soldiers returning from leave reported back drunk (5). These amazing occurrences were hushed up as best they could by the French military command, and the silence needlessly continued long afterwards.

Canadian historian Donald J. Goodspeed explained,

“Shame and pride are bad counselors, and the causes of the catastrophe in French morale that occurred in 1917 were never brought out into full daylight, where they could have been analysed and perhaps cured. That no real cure was effected, the debacle of 1940 conclusively proved”. (6)

The Nazis now turned their attention to the main target of their imperialist foreign policy: the Soviet Union, which Hitler had envisaged conquering for many years. Hitler was given encouragement by the Soviet Army’s underwhelming performance, in the 1939-1940 Winter War against Finland, with its population of around 4 million.

Yet as the Finns’ leading commander Gustaf Mannerheim fairly concluded, the Soviets learnt lessons from their opening military shortcomings on Finnish soil, and their performance “slowly improved” as the weeks elapsed (7). The gradual uptake in Russia’s military display here was unknown to the few German military observers, who had accompanied the Red Army on their Finnish incursion. The Germans were left unimpressed by the first Soviet raids, before departing homeward early.

The Wehrmacht meanwhile enjoyed more swift triumphs, over Yugoslavia and Greece in April 1941, which only emboldened Hitler further. The German conquest of Yugoslavia and Greece compelled Hitler to postpone his invasion of the USSR by 38 days. This delay is often purported to be a crucial reason, in the Nazis’ failure to capture Moscow and overthrow the Soviet Union.

American military historian Samuel W. Mitcham, who focuses largely on the Nazi regime, revealed otherwise as “the spring rains in eastern Poland and the western sections of European Russia came late in 1941, and were much heavier than usual. Many of the Polish-Russian river valleys (including the Bug) were still flooded as late as June 1; therefore, the invasion of the Soviet Union could not have begun until after that”. (8)

The ground in the western USSR had dried out by 22 June 1941. It was ideal for the panzers, half-tracks, and so on to move with ease. In addition, for weeks Joseph Stalin had refused to believe the swell of intelligence accounts he received in person from his own agencies, and from abroad, warning of a coming German attack.

Lt. Col. Goodspeed wrote,

“The reports from Soviet intelligence were the most plausible, accurate and detailed of all; and they displayed a remarkable convergence, which should have augmented their credibility. Victor Sukolov, the head of the Rote Kopelle [Red Orchestra] in Brussels, Rudolph Rössler in Switzerland, Leopold Trepper in Paris, and Dr. Richard Sorge in Tokyo all informed Stalin of Barbarossa”. (9)

The Kremlin was clearly not expecting the German invasion to fall in the summer of 1941. Marshal Nikolay Voronov, a top level Russian commander in charge of the Red Army’s artillery forces, and a future Hero of the Soviet Union, remembered on the eve of Hitler’s attack, “I did not know in that time whether we had any kind of operative-strategic plan, in case of war. I only knew that the plan for artillery and combat artillery tactics had not yet been approved, although the first draft had been worked out in 1938”. (10)

 

Further evidence of the lack of Russian preparedness was seen when, in the opening phase of the invasion, large numbers of Soviet airplanes were destroyed by the Germans, much of them on the ground. Air units of the Soviet Western Military District lost 740 of its 1,540 aircraft (a 48% loss) on the first day alone of the German attack (11); its local commander, General Ivan Kopets, viewed the destruction with despair and shot himself on 23 June 1941.

The ruin of the Soviet Air Force was even worse in the Baltic Military District. During the first three days of Operation Barbarossa, 920 Soviet aircraft out of a total of 1,080 were destroyed in the Baltic region, an 85% loss (12). Furthermore, many undamaged and repairable Russian planes had to be abandoned, as the Germans and their Axis allies (mainly Romanians and Finns at first) swarmed over Soviet terrain. By the first week of July 1941, the Soviets had lost almost 4,000 aircraft, while the Luftwaffe was shorn of just 550 of its planes at that point. (13)

Stalin had been awoken by his security chief, Nikolai Vlasik, in the early hours of 22 June 1941, and he was told of heavy German shelling along the Nazi-Soviet frontier. Stalin at first refused to believe that the worst had occurred and he said, “Hitler surely doesn’t know about it” (14). Later in the morning of 22 June, Stalin ordered the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov to seek out the German ambassador to the USSR, Friedrich von Schulenburg. The latter confirmed Nazi Germany’s declaration of war on the Soviet Union.

A dismayed Molotov (image on the right) reported back to Stalin,

“The German government has declared war on us”. Robert Service, the British historian of Soviet history, noted that upon hearing this, “Stalin slumped in his chair and an unbearable silence followed”. When General Georgy Zhukov then suggested they put in place measures, to hold up the German advance, Service wrote “Stalin continued to stipulate that Soviet ground forces should not infringe German territorial integrity”. (15)

Contrary to what is commonly claimed, on learning that the Germans had certainly attacked with Hitler’s agreement, Stalin did not suffer a breakdown and disappear. On 23 June 1941 for example, as Service wrote in his biography of the Soviet ruler, “Stalin worked without rest in his Kremlin office. For 15 hours at a stretch from 3.20 am, he consulted with the members of the Supreme Command” (16). As the hours went by Service writes that Stalin “called generals to his office, made his enquiries about the situation to the west of Moscow, and gave his instructions. About his supremacy there was no doubt”.

Only from the early morning of 29 June 1941 did Stalin suffer a relapse, and retire to his nearby dacha in a deeply depressed condition. This was quite probably a delayed reaction brought on by his difficult visit, on 27 June, to the Soviet Ministry of Defence. When Generals Zhukov and Semyon Timoshenko showed Stalin, on operational maps, the astonishing advancements made by the German Army, Service wrote that Stalin “was shocked by the extent of the disaster for the Red Army”. (17)

Image on the left: General Zhukov

By 27 June, units from German Army Group Centre had already reached Minsk, the capital of Soviet Belorussia, and less than 450 miles west of Moscow. Shaken and disturbed by this Stalin reportedly lamented, “Lenin founded our state and we’ve f**ked it up”. (18)

After Hitler had ordered the attack against Russia on 22 June, the authorities in Britain and America forecast another brisk German victory. Their views were influenced by the apparent invincibility of the Wehrmacht, their dislike of Bolshevism, and also Stalin’s recent purge of the Red Army. Outside observers mistakenly believed the purge had decimated Soviet fighting capacity. Mawdsley in his extensive study of the Nazi-Soviet war wrote, “Many able middle-level commanders survived the purges” while the “commanders and commissars who were shot made up a minority”. (19)

A major offensive in the modern era, perhaps in any age, constitutes a huge gamble on the part of the invader, brutal as these attacks usually are, and the Nazi invasion was the most vicious of all. Various factors can combine to result in its failure: strength of the invasion force, strategic errors, quality of the terrain, underestimation of the enemy, the weather, etc. These elements are magnified when attacking the world’s largest country (Russia), as Napoleon had discovered and soon Hitler too.

Nevertheless, there are a couple of overwhelming reasons why the German attack would fail. Firstly, Hitler did not place the German nation on a Total War footing, until February 1943, much too late. The Nazi economy in the early 1940s produced an “extraordinary degree of inefficiency and wastefulness”, the English historian Richard Overy discerned (20). It resulted in labour shortages, fewer German weapons, aircraft and panzers, and less soldiers, while German women for the most part remained at home, rather than working in the armament factories.

After the defeat of France, a full mobilisation of German manpower would have produced a Wehrmacht attacking force of about 6 million men in June 1941 (21). This is double the size of the 3 million German soldiers which invaded Russia that month. Taking into account strategic mistakes committed and heroic Russian resistance, a German invasion with 6 million troops would surely have been too much for the Soviets to contend with, and it was possible to achieve.

Albert Speer, German Minister of Armaments and Munitions from 1942-1945, wrote on 29 March 1947,

“In the middle of 1941, Hitler could easily have had an army equipped twice as powerfully as it was… We could even have mobilised approximately 3 million more men of the younger age-groups before 1942, without losses in production… 3 million additional soldiers would have added up to many divisions. These, moreover, could have been excellently equipped as a result of the increased production”. (22)

Another monumental error, on the part of the German high command and Hitler, was the strategic design for Operation Barbarossa. This consisted of splitting their forces into three large Army Groups, and ordering them to capture three different objectives simultaneously (Leningrad, Moscow and the Ukraine); rather than directing their resources towards easily the most important goal – Moscow, the communications stronghold and heartbeat of Soviet Russia, which will be discussed further here.

Lt. Col. Goodspeed, a skilled military strategist, wrote that,

“Although in operations and tactics the German Army had proved itself far and away superior to the Red Army, the same could not be said of German strategy. The fault was so simple and obvious that a child might have foreseen it. The German high command had attempted too many things at the same time”. (23)

The German attack was launched across almost the entire breadth of the western USSR. Its Schwerpunkt, that is the heavy point of the German blow, fell north of the famous Pripet Marshes in Belorussia. However, the Germans and their Axis allies were ordered to attack everywhere at once. The strategic planning for Barbarossa went beyond even the Wehrmacht’s military capabilities; it was breathtaking in its boldness, irresponsible and grotesque.

Goodspeed summarised,

“But Hitler wanted too much and, as a consequence, got nothing. This same fundamental error was repeated again and again. It recurs like a leitmotif in the Führer’s strategic thought. When the advance against Moscow might have been successfully resumed in August, and previous mistakes rectified, Hitler turned his thrust south into the Ukraine and north against Leningrad. Again, two objectives and both of them the wrong ones. When Leningrad might have been taken in September, Hitler diverted forces back from Army Group North to Moscow, and thereby captured neither Leningrad nor Moscow”. (24)

This viewpoint is supported by Mawdsley who pinpointed the “mistake that Hitler and his high command made in 1941” which was “to attack everywhere” (25). Hitler did not designate primary importance to Moscow, until it was weeks too late. The Russian capital held critical significance as the centre of Soviet communications, which was recognised by military leaders like Field Marshal Fedor von Bock, the commander of German Army Group Centre, which was supposed to capture Moscow (26). Virtually all roads and railways led to the capital, like spokes into the hub of a wheel.

This was not the case when Napoleon’s forces had occupied Moscow on 14 September 1812. Moscow at that time did not hold the same status, by comparison to its importance in the 20th century, when armies had become reliant on railways and motorised transport for supplies. The first railway line in Russia was built in 1837, a quarter of a century after Napoleon’s invasion.

Were Moscow to be captured in the autumn of 1941, the Russians would have had tremendous difficulty supplying and reinforcing their northern and southern fronts (27). This includes the Leningrad and Ukrainian sectors. The rail system of the western USSR would have been shattered, inflicting a hammer blow on the Soviet Army.

Goodspeed wrote that from Barbarossa’s outset,

“Quite conceivably, a single great thrust along the Warsaw-Smolensk-Moscow axis might have secured the Russian capital for the Germans by the end of August. Army Groups North and South could have acted as flank guards for such a thrust, and once the Russian centre had been demolished and the communications hub of Moscow taken, the Soviet northern and southern fronts would have been isolated from one another. Then a drive down the Volga in September might well have achieved a second victory, greater even than the Battle of Kiev. This done, Leningrad and the northern front could have been dealt with at leisure, and by another overwhelming concentration of force”. (28)

One major thrust towards Moscow would, also, have taken the ferocious Russian weather out of the equation. The autumn rains and snow arrived in force from early October 1941, weeks after Moscow could have been taken. As events panned out, such weather seriously slowed the German advance.

The political ramifications of Moscow’s capitulation would have been considerable too. Stalin and his entourage were headquartered there. What would Stalin have done had Moscow fallen to the Germans in August or September 1941? He may have decided to stay and thereby seal his fate, or he could have chosen to relocate to Asiatic Russia, where it would have been arduous to hold together a government.

Most importantly of all, as Germany’s generals were aware, the bulk of the Red Army was centred in front of Moscow for the defence of the capital. If these Russian divisions were to be surrounded in a vast pincers movement and forced to surrender, the war would have been practically over. (29)

Two months into the invasion, on 21 August 1941 Hitler fatefully intervened in the direction of the war, believing he would be proved right and the German generals wrong – as had been repeatedly the case on political matters. Hitler compounded Barbarossa’s early strategic mistakes by ordering on this date: “The most important objective to be taken before the coming of the winter is NOT the capture of Moscow, but the capture of the Crimea and of the industrial and coal-mining area of the Donets, and the cutting off of Russian oil supplies from the Caucasus; and to the north the investment of Leningrad and the linking up with the Finns”. (30)

Hitler’s Chief of Operations, General Alfred Jodl, defended this decision by claiming that Hitler wished to avoid the blunders of Napoleon (31). As mentioned earlier, Moscow was of much greater importance in the year 1941 as opposed to 1812. Hitler was greedy and saw too many things at once, rather than focusing on a single goal at a time (similar strategic errors were committed in July 1942, when Hitler split up his forces to capture two objectives simultaneously, Stalingrad and the Caucasus).

Hitler’s wish, to strike everywhere, could have been influenced too because of his desire to spread as much death and destruction to the Soviet Union as possible, which he believed was the homeland of “Jewish Bolshevism”.

Upon hearing the new orders of 21 August 1941, two days later General Heinz Guderian travelled west to Hitler’s headquarters, situated in the dense forests near Rastenburg, East Prussia. Guderian, commanding the 2nd Panzer Group, informed Hitler that the taking of Moscow would paralyse the Soviet transportation and communication networks; the general stressed the political significance of Moscow’s demise, and the huge lift it would provide to German morale. (32)

Moreover, Guderian insisted that the fall of the capital would make it easier to conquer other parts of the USSR, such as the Ukraine. Yet Hitler’s mind was firmly set and he told Guderian that his generals “know nothing of the economic aspects of war”. The orders were left unchanged.

Goodspeed observed,

“Thus, quietly, in a headquarters far from the sound of guns, Germany lost the war. The Führer directive of August 21, 1941, marked a great turning point in modern history. Many horrors were still to come, and mankind has by no means moved out from the darkness of these times, but at least the world was to be spared a Nazi victory”. (33)

General Franz Halder, Chief of Staff of the German Army High Command, stated that Hitler’s above directive was “decisive to the outcome of this campaign”. (34)

 

Notes

1 Peter Simkins, “Kitchener, Horatio Herbert Kitchener Earl”, 1914-1918-online, 29 March 2018

2 Paul Addison, Churchill on the Home Front, 1900-1955 (Faber and Faber; Main edition, 11 June 2013) Chapter 4, Two Faces of a Home Secretary, 1910-1911

3 Donald J. Goodspeed, The Conspirators: A Study of the Coup d’Etat (Macmillan, 1 January 1962), Intro., pp. x-xi

4 Evan Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, The Nazi-Soviet War, 1941-1945 (Hodder Arnold, 23 Feb. 2007) pp. 7-8

5 Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 April 1985) p. 235

6 Ibid.

7 Oliver Warner, Marshal Mannerheim & The Finns (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1st Edition, 1 January 1967) p. 169

8 Samuel W. Mitcham, The Rise of the Wehrmacht: The German Armed Forces and World War II (Praeger Publishers Inc., 30 June 2008) p. 402

9 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 392

10 Harrison E. Salisbury, The 900 Days: The Siege of Leningrad (Da Capo Press, 30 Sep. 1985) p. 78

11 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 58

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid., p. 59

14 Robert Service, Stalin: A Biography (Pan; Reprints edition, 16 Apr. 2010) p. 410

15 Ibid., p. 411

16 Ibid., p. 413

17 Ibid., p. 414

18 Shane Kenny, “The Man Who Really Defeated Hitler”, Irish Times, 30 April 2005

19 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 21

20 Richard Overy, Goering: The Iron Man (Bloomsbury Academic, 2nd edition, 1 Oct. 2020) p. 169

21 Albert Speer, Spandau: The Secret Diaries (Fontana, London, 1977) p. 62

22 Ibid., pp. 62-63

23 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 403

24 Ibid., p. 404

25 Mawdsley, Thunder In The East, p. 128

26 Antony Beevor, The Second World War (Phoenix Press, 2013) p. 201

27 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 395

28 Ibid., pp. 403-404

29 Ibid., p. 396

30 Ibid.

31 Beevor, The Second World War, p. 201

32 Paul Schultz, The Führer Virus: A Tale of Espionage (Strategic Book Publishing & Rights Agency, LLC, 19 Nov. 2008) p. 313

33 Goodspeed, The German Wars, pp. 396-397

34 Andrew Roberts, The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War (Allen Lane, 22 July 2009) Chapter 5, June-December 1941

 


Chapter V

Operation Barbarossa, an Overview

 

The USSR’s hierarchy was caught unprepared, and unnecessarily so, when Nazi Germany invaded their country eight decades ago on 22 June 1941, in a military offensive titled Operation Barbarossa. It was named after King Frederick Barbarossa, a red-bearded Prussian emperor who in the 12th century had waged war against the Slavs.

On the sixth day of the attack, 27 June 1941, German Army Group Center had already reached Minsk, the capital of Soviet Belarus. Amazingly it meant, at this very early stage, that the Germans were closer to Moscow than Berlin: as the crow flies, the Wehrmacht was now 430 miles from the Russian capital as opposed to 590 miles from the German capital.

After a week of fighting, the Soviets had lost around 600,000 troops and thousands of their aircraft had been destroyed, the majority of them on the ground. When on 27 June the Soviet commanders, Georgy Zhukov and Semyon Timoshenko, showed Joseph Stalin on operational maps that the Germans had advanced on Minsk, he was visibly shocked by the magnitude of the disaster. Should Stalin have been so surprised, considering the unprecedented rapidity the year before at which the Germans had blazed through France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg?

In the middle of 1941, Stalin had been in charge of the Soviet Union for over a decade whereas, in Germany, Adolf Hitler was in control for little more than 8 years. By the early 1940s, the Wehrmacht was Europe’s most efficient military organization and killing machine. This was in some contrast to the larger Red Army, whose poor display against Finland’s paltry armed forces, from 30 November 1939 to 13 March 1940 (the Winter War), provided stark evidence of the harm imparted on the Soviet military by Stalin’s purges, which had begun in May 1937.

British historian Evan Mawdsley wrote that “the purges certainly played a most important part in what happened on and after 22 June 1941”. Marshal Zhukov, one of the most celebrated commanders in Russian history, was heavily critical of the purges after the war, which will be elaborated upon further here.

It can be mentioned firstly, however, that the extent of the Soviet military purges has tended to be exaggerated and distorted down the years. There were 142,000 Soviet Army commanders and commissars in 1937, just before the purges started. Mawdsley noted, “It is sometimes suggested that half the leadership of the Red Army was wiped out, which was certainly not the case” as “the Red Army commanders and commissars who were shot made up a minority” of the entire Russian military leadership corps.

The damage inflicted on the top ranks was still extensive. Three out of five marshals and 20 Soviet army commanders, along with dozens of corps and divisional commanders among others, were liquidated between 1937 and 1941. The loss of high-level officers inevitably undermined and weakened the Red Army’s command apparatus, and it came at a time when the clouds of war were ominously gathering in Europe.

Marshal Zhukov wrote in his memoirs of “unfounded arrests in the armed forces” which were “in contravention of socialist legality. Prominent military leaders were arrested which, naturally, affected the development of our armed forces and their combat preparedness”.

Altogether, more than 34,000 Soviet officers were dismissed from the military as the purges ran their course, but a third of these (11,500) were eventually reinstated; perhaps most notably Konstantin Rokossovsky, who became one of the most important Soviet commanders of World War II. English author Geoffrey Roberts, writing in his biography of Zhukov, realized that “the vast majority of the armed forces” had “survived the purges”, which is necessary to stress.

Yet in the weeks before and after the German invasion, when the initiative to make crucial and independent decisions was needed, much paralysis reigned in the Soviet high command; which had been disproportionately affected by the purges.

Mawdsley, who specializes in Russian affairs, wrote of the Red Army leaders that were victimized, “These men possessed the fullest professional, educational and operational experience the Red Army had accumulated… Despite professional and personal rivalries among themselves, these leaders had formed a fairly cohesive command structure. The paradox is that this is why Stalin mistrusted them”.

An eminent Soviet diplomat, Andrei Gromyko, who was the USSR’s Foreign Affairs Minister from 1957 to 1985, was first introduced to Stalin in 1939 and saw him many times thereafter. Gromyko became acquainted too with Soviet Army dignitaries like Zhukov. In Gromyko’s book ‘Memories: From Stalin to Gorbachev’, he wrote that Zhukov “spoke bitterly of the enormous damage Stalin had inflicted on the country by his massacre of the top echelons of the army command”.

Gromyko recalled Zhukov saying of the Soviet military men that were purged, “Of course, I regard them as innocent victims. Tukhachevsky was an especially damaging loss for the army and the state”. Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky, known overseas as “the Red Napoleon”, was a central figure in the Russian Army’s modernization during the 1920s and 1930s. Zhukov first met Tukhachevsky in 1921 and he later described him as, “A clever, knowledgeable professional, he was splendidly conversant with both tactical and strategic problems… Tukhachevsky was an ace of military thinking, a star of the first magnitude among the great soldiers of the Red Army”.

Zhukov stated that he himself came under suspicion as the purges were unfolding, due to his connections to some of the accused. He vigorously defended his position and avoided censure. Moreover, Zhukov informed Gromyko, “Before the war, the political decision to arm fully was taken very late, and that was the main problem”.

While Zhukov’s criticism on the latter point is also valid, Stalin had engineered a massive increase in the Soviet arms budget from the early 1930s onward, and for this he should be commended. Part of Bolshevik ideology is a belief in the virtue of motorized machines and warfare, without which the Red Army could not have defeated the Wehrmacht and its panzer divisions. Five months before the German attack Stalin told his senior commanders, “the winning side will be the one with the greater number and the more powerful engines”.

Between 1932 and 1937, spending on the Soviet military increased by 340% in overall terms, undoubtedly as a result of Stalin’s direct influence. Through 1937 to 1940 expenditure doubled again on the Soviet defense budget. From 1939, the USSR was constructing over 10,000 warplanes per year, along with almost 3,000 tanks, more than 17,000 artillery pieces and 114,000 machine guns. Payment and conditions for Soviet officers had meanwhile improved greatly, so it was far from being all doom and gloom.

The above figures on Soviet armed capacity were unknown to the Germans; that is, until after they had attacked the USSR, when it soon became obvious the Red Army was much more formidable than Nazi intelligence had estimated. As Mawdsley revealed, German agencies calculated that the Russians had 10,000 tanks in June 1941, whereas in reality they possessed 23,100 tanks. The Germans thought there were 6,000 Soviet aircraft in mid-1941, but in the whole of the USSR there were 20,000 planes, with 9,100 of these positioned near the Nazi-Soviet border.

Under Stalin’s leadership the Russians achieved a remarkable relocation of industry eastwards, in the months following the German assault. This policy was critical to ensuring the Soviet Union could continue producing weaponry en masse, and largely secure from the Nazi onslaught.

Irish professor and geographer John Sweeney wrote, “Over 1,500 industrial enterprises were transplanted, between July and November 1941 alone, to what were considered relatively safe refuges in the interior. The Urals (which received 667 of these enterprises), Kazakhstan and Central Asia (308), West Siberia (244), the Volga Region (226) and East Siberia (78), benefited permanently from this massive injection of industrial investment, and it was in this heartland area that urban growth during the post-war recovery period was concentrated”.

Relating to manpower, the Red Army was likewise significantly bigger than Hitler and his generals believed. In June 1941 Soviet forces consisted of more than 300 divisions, amounting to 5.5 million personnel, 2.7 million of which were stationed in the western USSR. The Germans thought there were only 200 Russian divisions in existence, despite the fact the Soviet population was appreciably greater than Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe combined. In comparison the German invasion force comprised of 3 million men, supported by less than a million troops from its Axis allies such as Romania and Finland, led by the anti-Bolshevik military leaders Ion Antonescu and Gustaf Mannerheim respectively.

Seven weeks into the German invasion, General Franz Halder acknowledged in his diary, “The whole situation makes it increasingly plain that we have underestimated the Russian colossus”. Not long after, even Hitler admitted in a speech in central Berlin, “We had no idea how gigantic the preparations of this enemy were”.

Zhukov and Timoshenko were acutely aware of the massing of German, Finnish and Romanian divisions adjacent to the USSR’s boundaries. The Soviet Army’s foreign intelligence agency (the GRU) confirmed on 15 June 1941, just a week before Operation Barbarossa commenced, that a huge transfer had taken place of German forces to the Nazi-Soviet frontier; with 120 to 122 Wehrmacht divisions reportedly deployed there.

Zhukov told Stalin repeatedly, and as late as mid-June 1941, to be prepared in the case of a German attack. Stalin in turn insisted a few days before Wehrmacht-led armies invaded, “Germany has a Treaty of Non-Aggression with us. Germany is involved up to its ears in the war in the West, and I believe that Hitler will not risk creating a second front for himself by attacking the Soviet Union”.

From November 1940 to June 1941, Stalin personally received a total of 80 intelligence reports warning about a German invasion, according to English historian Andrew Roberts. In mitigation to Stalin, a fair proportion of the intelligence accounts proved inaccurate regarding the invasion start date; others constituted misinformation planted by the Germans; but most reports were genuine and some uncannily close to the mark, like the material sent to the Kremlin by Richard Sorge, a now famous Soviet spy then operating in the German embassy in Tokyo.

Stalin was further warned about Nazi intentions by Soviet agents like the courageous Leopold Trepper in Paris, and also Victor Sukolov in Belgium. The most plausible and detailed reports of all indeed came from Soviet sources, and they peaked in intensity during the first three weeks of June 1941 – along with alarming information forthcoming that Hitler’s allies Finland and Romania were mobilizing for war against Russia. This could not be ignored.

Robert Service, in his lengthy book on Stalin, wrote that, “For weeks the Wehrmacht had been massing on the western banks of the River Bug, as dozens of divisions were transferred from elsewhere in Europe. The Luftwaffe had sent squadrons of reconnaissance aircraft over Soviet cities. All this had been reported to Stalin by his military intelligence agency. In May and June [1941], he had been continually pressed by Timoshenko and Zhukov to sanction the dispositions for an outbreak of fighting. Richard Sorge, the Soviet agent in the German embassy in Tokyo, had raised the alarm. Winston Churchill had sent telegrams warning Stalin. The USSR’s spies in Germany had mentioned the preparations being made. Even the Chinese Communist Party alerted Moscow about German intentions”.

By the second half of June 1941, Stalin was counting on it being too late in the year for the Germans to attack. Regardless, the French commander Napoleon, generations before fast-moving motorized vehicles emerged, had launched his invasion of Russia on 24 June 1812, two days later in June than the Germans.

In addition the spring rains arrived late in the western USSR in 1941, and they were much heavier than normal. Many of the river valleys, including the strategically important River Bug in eastern Poland, were still flooded at the late date of 1 June 1941. This meant that an attack on the Soviet Union could not have proceeded until after then.

 


Chapter VI

Hitler’s Early Victories, the Wolf’s Lair Headquarters

In Hitler’s goals to attain Germanic dominion of the planet, he enjoyed some of his most triumphant days secured away at the vast, virtually unheard of Wolf’s Lair. The complex was known in the German tongue as Wolfsschanze. Hitler had inserted “Wolf” into the title of many of his military headquarters, as it was a self-appointed nickname.

Situated over 400 miles from Berlin in East Prussia, Hitler arrived at the Wolf’s Lair for the first occasion during late evening of 23 June 1941. The advanced time was not an issue. From the days of Hitler’s “struggle” beginning in the early 1920s, he had developed a habit of remaining active until the small hours, often present in rowdy beer halls, and rising as late as noon.

On the night of 23 June 1941, the dictator was again in no mood for bed rest; his form was in fact jubilant as remarkable news filtered through from the Eastern Front. Less than 48 hours after the invasion began, German armies were smashing through the first bewildered Soviet lines, and had already reached the USSR republics of Lithuania, Belarus and the Ukraine.

Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, Hitler’s most trusted military companion, also travelled eastwards to join his leader at the new Wolf’s Lair. As Operation Barbarossa rolled mercilessly along, Keitel’s disposition remained pensive and austere. It was the 58-year-old Keitel, almost standing alone in isolation, who had warned Hitler not to attack the Soviet Union.

Conservative and cautious by nature, Keitel detected the unmistakable sense of danger in the air. He was convinced that assaulting a landmass as great as the USSR – with its numerous complications – would be a task too much, even for the apparently unstoppable Wehrmacht. Due to Keitel’s reputation as a willing pawn of Hitler, he was held in poor esteem by an array of German generals and field marshals.

Yet Keitel’s military career had dated to the year 1901, and he possessed a distinguished record, claiming honours for bravery during the First World War while rising through the ranks. Keitel’s demeanour was that of a charming and approachable officer, educated in the old-fashioned virtues of the Prussian military establishment. Keitel possessed strong organizational and literary skills, but lacked the insubordinate, resolute nature to challenge Hitler directly.

Keitel had said later,

“It isn’t right to be obedient only when things go well; it is much harder to be a good, obedient soldier when things go badly and times are hard. Obedience and faith at such time is a virtue”.

His subservience would inevitably lead to a complicity in some of the Nazis’ atrocious crimes.

Unlike Keitel, the great majority of German military leaders firmly supported Hitler’s decision to attack Russia, believing the conflict would last around two months with Stalin’s expected ousting and death. The Nazi war chiefs’ unrealistic confidence swayed Hitler, who believed the Red Army would fold like a pack of cards. By mid-1941 Hitler had still to assume personal command of men in the field, and he unavoidably lacked the required knowledge and expertise.

Meanwhile, on the same evening that Hitler first entered the Wolf’s Lair (23 June 1941), one of the largest tank engagements in military history was starting. It was called the Battle of Brody: A near forgotten clash in north-western Ukraine between 750 panzers and 3,500 Soviet tanks, stretching across the cities of Brody, Dubno and Lutsk. About 350 miles northwards Hitler was in tune to proceedings from the Wolf’s Lair, and awaiting further stunning reports. They would come.

Despite the Nazis being outnumbered by more than four to one during the Battle of Brody, their panzers bludgeoned a way to victory by 30 June 1941. The Germans destroyed many hundreds of Soviet tanks, while meting out 65,000 casualties upon the Red Army. For mile after mile, this section of north-western Ukraine was strewn with dead bodies and horses, shattered Soviet armoured vehicles along with battered heavy weaponry.

The triumph around Brody consolidated vital German gains on the Ukraine’s western boundaries. It was also an indication of the ferocity of Hitler’s troops, as they unleashed what would be the bloodiest invasion of all time.

Also on the night Hitler became acquainted with the Wolf’s Lair, the Battle of Raseiniai was under way in western Lithuania; it was another critical early meeting between around 240 panzers and 750 Soviet tanks. Outmatched by three to one, the Germans were again victorious in the face of seemingly daunting odds. By 27 June 1941, they had destroyed over 700 of the Soviets’ 750 tanks near Raseiniai, a medieval Lithuanian town. The Luftwaffe also provided telling air support when it was needed.

Further south Lithuania’s capital, Vilnius, had easily been captured on 24 June 1941 and Kaunas, the country’s second largest city, capitulated that day too. Germany’s Army Group North, under Field Marshal Ritter von Leeb, was now positioned 600 miles from Moscow; yet his key objective was to seize the major Russian city of Leningrad closer to the north.

As a Blitzkrieg easily overcame Red Army resistance in Lithuania, an onlooking Hitler had been situated a mere 90 miles from the Lithuanian border at his Wolf’s Lair. In Hitler’s choice of headquarters across Europe, it was his desire to be as near the fighting as conceivably possible. Previously, as the Battle of France commenced (10 May–25 June 1940), Hitler’s compound, the Wolf’s Ravine (Wolfsschlucht), was erected in the Belgian village of Brûly-de-Pesche.

While the Nazi leader oversaw France’s swift and humiliating defeat, he became a resident for over two weeks at this Belgian hamlet. Brûly-de-Pesche is only five miles from the French northern frontier, and Paris was within comfortable driving distance.

Choice of location for the Wolf’s Lair was painstakingly assessed; in late 1940, construction began in the ancient and mysterious Masurian woods, near a small Prussian town called Rastenburg. The Wolf’s Lair was clear of urban centres and primary roads, while its entire complex covered 2.5 square miles. It was safeguarded by three security zones, and disguised by extensive netting that cleverly mimicked leaf cover when viewed from above.

Otto Skorzeny, the SS commando, wrote that

“I was ordered to the Wolfsschanze [Wolf’s Lair] nine times and also flew over it; it was so very well camouflaged from air attack that one could only see trees. The guarded access roads snaked through the forest, in such a way that I would have been unable to give the exact location of the Führer headquarters”.

Regardless of Hitler’s growing fears and precautions, not one bomb was dropped on the Wolf’s Lair, while his private secretary Traudl Junge later revealed “there was never more than a single aircraft hovering over the forest”. This is despite the fact that Hitler spent over 800 days immersed there.

As Germany’s victories mounted, the prevailing mood at the Wolf’s Lair became increasingly euphoric. At the end of June 1941, German forces had claimed a significant success when capturing Minsk, the sprawling capital of Belarus. By 11 July 1941, the Wehrmacht had conquered vast regions of Belarus, a state rivalling the size of Great Britain.

In doing so, the Nazis inflicted almost 420,000 casualties on Soviet divisions around the Belarusian capital, while the invaders lost only 12,000 men by comparison.

During fighting near Minsk, the Red Army further saw 4,800 of its tanks eliminated and up to 1,700 aircraft destroyed, while the Germans were shorn of just 100 panzers and 275 airplanes. The scale of victory is put into even sharper perspective when considering the Wehrmacht had a combined total of about 3,500 panzers, and little more than 2,000 warplanes.

While July 1941 proceeded, German infantrymen were pouring forward onto the very borders of Russia, taking the town of Ostrov on 4 July, in north-west Russia – followed, on 8 July, by their capturing Pskov 30 miles further north.

From the small city of Pskov, Moscow lay but 450 miles further east. As the world looked on in wonder, including the Americans and British, it seemed an eventuality the Nazis would cover these last few hundred miles, and overwhelm the Russian capital.

By 10 July 1941, the 13th Panzer Division (of Army Group South) had advanced to the Irpin River, just over 10 miles from Kiev, the capital of the Ukraine – a country with a rich agricultural base that would help sustain Germany’s foot soldiers. Yet it would not be for another nine weeks until Kiev itself fell, with the surrendering of almost 700,000 Soviet troops.

In the meantime, due to the incredible progression and devastation wrought, it was perhaps not surprising that on 8 July 1941 a boastful Hitler was telling propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, “The war in the east was in the main already won”. Hitler was simply echoing the views of his commanders.

As early as 3 July 1941 the 57-year-old Franz Halder, Chief of the Army General Staff, had written in his diary,

“So it’s really not saying too much, if I claim that the campaign against Russia has been won in 14 days”.

The experienced Halder was surely letting himself get carried away. In the autumn of 1942 Halder would be sacked by Hitler, due to their ongoing disagreements over Russian fighting capacity, with the dictator saying to him,

“We now need National Socialist ardour rather than professional ability to settle matters in the East. Obviously, I cannot expect this of you”.

Hitler replaced Halder with General Kurt Zeitzler, who was thought to be a genius in his ability to manoeuvre large formations across battlefields, and perceive danger. It was expected that Zeitzler would finally move German armies to where Hitler wanted them to go.

 


Chapter VII

Operation Barbarossa, Analysis of Early Fighting

 

The German-led invasion of the Soviet Union began at 3:15 am, on 22 June 1941, with an enormous artillery barrage along the Nazi-Soviet frontier. The USSR’s hierarchy had counted on it being too late in the year for German forces to attack, despite warnings to the contrary.

Comprising part of the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact, Russian deliveries of commodities to Nazi Germany continued until the final moments; the last trainload arrived into the Reich at 2 am on 22 June, which amused the onlooking German soldiers who were about to advance into the Soviet Union.

During the attack’s opening phase, much went according to plan for the invaders.

Nearly all of the bridges across the vast front were taken by the Germans intact. Many hundreds of Soviet aircraft were either shot down, destroyed on the ground, or fell undamaged into the enemy’s hands. Significant numbers of Soviet troops were on leave, while other Red Army divisions were separated from their artillery when the Wehrmacht swarmed across the border. Many Russian formations were simply overrun, and taken prisoner, before they had an opportunity to form an effective defence. In the first week of the invasion, the Soviet Army saw around 600,000 of its troops either killed, captured or wounded.

 

A key proponent of the Blitzkrieg (Lightning War) concept, General Heinz Guderian commanding Panzer Group 2, was concerned that the first panzer thrusts were not penetrating deeply enough. His fears seem unfounded; on the fourth day of the invasion, 25 June 1941, Army Group Centre had cut off and encircled two entire Soviet armies east of Bialystok, in north-eastern Poland. On 27 June Army Group Centre reached Minsk, the capital of Soviet Belarus, meaning the German spearhead was closer to Moscow than Berlin.

On 3 July 1941, all Soviet divisions in the Bialystok Bend of the Niemen River had been wiped out. Army Group Centre opened its pincers, and closed them again on the Red Army forces west of Minsk. The German claws snapped shut on 10 July, and in this huge trap 33 Soviet divisions were eliminated, amounting to over 300,000 men. The Russians also lost 4,800 tanks along with 9,400 guns and mortars.

Southward, Gerd von Rundstedt‘s Army Group South attacked the region of Galicia, which covers parts of eastern Poland and western Ukraine. Soviet forces were larger here and they fought superbly well, under the leadership of General Mikhail Kirponos, who would be killed almost three months later near Kiev in a landmine explosion. Army Group South made slow progress at first, not more than six miles per day. However, before June 1941 was out, Field Marshal von Rundstedt’s army had broken into the Ukraine, capturing the cities of Rovno on 28 June and Lvov on 30 June.

Army Group North, commanded by Field Marshal Ritter von Leeb, made initial rapid progress. As part of Panzer Group 4, General Erich von Manstein’s 56th Panzer Corps sliced through Lithuania and, by 25 June, had advanced 155 miles to safely capture the bridge over the Daugava River at Daugavpils, in south-eastern Latvia. Von Manstein was halted here for six days, until the German 16th Army infantry divisions could catch up with him. This delay for Army Group North allowed the Russians to fortify their rearguard. When von Leeb’s advance resumed on 2 July 1941, they met much stiffer resistance.

In the Soviet Army’s central section, their 48-year-old General Andrey Yeremenko, commanding the Soviet Western Front, had instilled new life into the defence. During early July it rained heavily for a brief time, helping further to slow the main German advance. Despite these obstacles, Fedor von Bock’s Army Group Centre captured Vitebsk, in north-eastern Belarus, on 10 July. That same day, Guderian’s panzers managed to cross the Dnieper River, which flows through eastern Belarus and central Ukraine.

On 16 July 1941, Army Group Centre was at the outskirts of the Russian city of Smolensk, 230 miles from Moscow as the crow flies. It meant, in just over three weeks of fighting, that the Germans had advanced more than two-thirds of the way to Moscow. The Wehrmacht’s timetable was running as scheduled. At this period, it seemed that a German victory was inevitable. Already on 15 July, General Hermann Hoth‘s Panzer Group 3 had bypassed Smolensk to the north, and successfully cut the Smolensk-Moscow highway.

Herman Hoff at the center of the image

Yet the USSR did not crumble like past Wehrmacht victims had. On 16 July the German pincers closed around Smolensk, but the encircled Russians fought on for another three weeks, until 7 August. The Germans captured another 300,000 Soviet troops, but their own casualties were not insignificant and they paused for reorganisation. A principal difference between the Nazi invasion of France, and the Soviet Union, was that the landmass was so much bigger in the latter nation, and the distances therefore took longer to navigate. In addition, the French road networks were of superior quality to the Russian road system.

As soon as the Germans halted at Smolensk, Soviet troops launched a vigorous counterattack. Extremely heavy fighting ensued in the Yelnya Bend east of Smolensk, and it continued through August 1941. North of the Smolensk-Moscow highway, the Russians also counterattacked, using for the first occasion one of their secret weapons: the Katyusha rocket launcher which the Germans nicknamed “The Stalin Organ”, due to its melancholy wailing sound as it fired multiple rockets. The Russians had 1,000 Katyusha rocket launchers in service during the second half of 1941.

In mid-August 1941 the German invasion was eight weeks old, the length of time in which Adolf Hitler, his commanders and also the Americans and British expected the USSR to be overthrown. By late summer, the Wehrmacht had conquered a great deal of territory but the leading goal, of annihilating the Soviet armies west of the Dnieper River, had not been accomplished.

Below the Pripet Marshes, von Rundstedt’s Army Group South took the Ukrainian cities of Zhitomir and Uman. In the latter city in central Ukraine, four panzer divisions surrounded and destroyed three Russian armies in the first week of August 1941. Hitler and his Axis ally Benito Mussolinivisited Uman later that month, on 28 August, in order to inspect the Italian expeditionary force and to call on von Rundstedt’s headquarters, which were located in Uman.

Army Group South now marched down the southern side of the Dnieper Bend, and on 18 August 1941 reached Zaporozhye. On 24 August at Zaporozhye, the Russians blew up their Dnieper Dam in order to stall the enemy. Two days later, the city of Dnipropetrovsk fell to the Germans, little more than 40 miles north of Zaporozhye. The Romanian 4th Army, in the meantime, invaded southern Ukraine and encircled Odessa, a city which contained 600,000 residents, a third of them Jewish. The Romanian 4th Army was joined in the Siege of Odessa by the German 11th Army, but Odessa did not capitulate until 16 October 1941.

Progress was not as quick as Army Group North had expected either. In the north-western USSR, the terrain was more suited to defending and the front was shorter, making it easier for the Soviets to hold the Germans up. Red Army divisions in this sector launched counterattacks too but, regardless, Army Group North captured the Russian city of Pskov on 9 July 1941, fewer than 150 miles south-west of Leningrad.

The way appeared open for a march on Leningrad, between Lake Peipus and Lake Ilmen. This route ensured that the Germans could link up with Marshal Gustaf Mannerheim‘s Finnish Army, which was attacking the Russians across the Karelian Isthmus east of Lake Ladoga, Europe’s biggest lake. Hitler stated that, “We Germans only have affection for Finland”, which he said was not the case between the Germans and Italians, only between himself and Mussolini. By now the Axis armies were reinforced with Hungarian, Croatian and Slovenian units.

Von Leeb’s divisions ran into a strong Soviet defensive line, bypassing Lake Ilmen and the Narva River on the Gulf of Finland, which it took Army Group North three weeks to overcome. Army Group North’s advance resumed on 8 August 1941, and though the Russians continued to resist, Novgorod fell on 15 August, one of Russia’s oldest cities.

Towards the end of August 1941, von Leeb’s left wing was within 25 miles of Leningrad. On 29 August the Finns took the town of Viipuri, less than 80 miles north-west of Leningrad. The following day, 30 August, the Germans entered the urban locality of Mga, which contained the last railway line connecting Leningrad to the remainder of Russia.

It looked as if Leningrad was doomed, and while von Leeb’s divisions closed on the famous city, another campaign was unfolding in Arctic Russia. Hitler had decided that he wanted the strategically important Russian port city of Murmansk, over 600 miles north of Leningrad. He dispatched General Eduard Dietl’s Mountain Corps, so as to capture Murmansk by advancing from the Petsamo region of northern Finland. Further south, the German 36th Corps was to sever the Murmansk railway line at the town of Kandalaksha; and further south still, the 3rd Finnish Corps was to cut the rail link at Loukhi.

All three of these German-Finnish operations failed, and Murmansk remained in Soviet hands but it was continually bombed by the Luftwaffe.

Regarding president Franklin Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease program signed into law in March 1941, American equipment entered Murmansk harbour from December 1941. The US military hardware, it should be highlighted, would amount to a small fraction of the matériel Soviet Russia had at its disposal throughout the entire war – the great majority of which was domestically produced by the Russians.

Hardly a scrap of US or British military aid was sent to the Red Army, when the critical fighting was occurring from the late summer to the early winter of 1941. This suggests the Anglo-American powers were quite content to sit back, and watch the Germans and Soviets knock lumps out of each other; while the Americans, in particular, gathered their strength on the sidelines for the conflict they knew they would enter before long.

The Russian historian Evgeniy Spitsyn wrote,

“Out of the almost $46 billion that was spent on all Lend-Lease aid, the US allocated only $9.1 billion, i.e., only a little more than 20% of the funds, to the Red Army, which defeated the vast majority of the divisions from Germany and her military satellites. During that time the British Empire was given more than $30.2 billion, France – $1.4 billion, China – $630 million, and even Latin America (!) received $420 million”.

By the final week of August 1941, von Bock’s Army Group Centre was 185 miles from Moscow. The German High Command (OKH) knew what the next objective should be: the Russian capital, in front of which the bulk of the Red Army was being massed for its defence. OKH issued an order on 18 August for the taking of Moscow, but Hitler instead intervened fatally in the war, believing that he knew more about military affairs than the generals. On 21 August he set Moscow temporarily to one side, and ordered that the Wehrmacht capture various targets including Kiev, Leningrad and the Crimea.

This gave Joseph Stalin time to bolster the Soviet defences in front of Moscow. Army Group South was the main beneficiary of Hitler’s reallocation of German divisions, as Army Group Centre was stripped of four of its five panzer corps and three infantry corps; but even the Army Group South commander, von Rundstedt, felt those forces should have remained in the centre for the drive on Moscow.

Von Rundstedt was requested by Hitler to institute a giant encirclement in the Dnieper Bend around Kiev; with the northern flank of Army Group South co-operating with the southern flank of Army Group Centre.

 

 

Sources

Alexander Hill, The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union, 1941-45 (Routledge, 1st edition, 9 Dec. 2008)

Chris Bellamy, Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War (Vintage; Illustrated edition, 14 October 2008)

Samuel W. Mitcham Jr., Gene Mueller, Hitler’s Commanders: Officers of the Wehrmacht, the Luftwaffe, the Kriegsmarine and the Waffen-SS (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2nd Edition, 15 Oct. 2012)

Yitzhak Arad, The Holocaust in the Soviet Union (University of Nebraska Press, 25 July 2013)

Evgeniy Spitsyn, “Roosevelt’s World War II Lend-Lease Act: America’s War Economy, US ‘Military Aid’ to the Soviet Union”, Global Research, 13 May 2015

Volker Ullrich, Hitler: Volume II: Downfall 1939-45 (Vintage, 1st edition, 4 Feb. 2021)

Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 April 1985)

Evan Mawdsley, Thunder in the East: The Nazi-Soviet War, 1941-1945 (Hodder Arnold, 23 Feb. 2007)

Ian Kershaw, Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions That Changed The World, 1940-1941 (Penguin Press, 1st edition, 31 May 2007)

 


Chapter VIII

Germans Surround Kiev and Leningrad

 

In the second half of August 1941, the German strategic plan in their invasion of the USSR was drastically altered. Most of Army Group Center’s armor was dispatched southward to the Ukraine, with the Wehrmacht’s advance on Moscow postponed temporarily.

By now, the Nazi Security Service was reporting on a “certain unease” and a “decline in the hopeful mood” of the German population. The quick triumph in the east they were assured of by Joseph Goebbels‘ propaganda had not arrived. The anxiety afflicting the German public was increased by letters sent home from Wehrmacht troops, many of which confirmed that the attack on the Soviet Union was not progressing as planned. There were also rising numbers of death notices of German soldiers in the newspapers.

Well-known German author Victor Klemperer, who was Jewish, wrote from Dresden with far-sighted accuracy on 2 September 1941,

“The general question is whether things will be decided in Russia before the wet season in the autumn. It does not look like it… One is counting how many people in the shops say ‘Heil Hitler’ and how many ‘Good day’. ‘Good day’ is apparently increasing”.

Hitler himself “realized that his plans for a Blitzkrieg campaign in the east had failed” by early August 1941, German historian Volker Ullrich wrote in the second part of his biography on Hitler. Two weeks later on 18 August, Hitler said outright to Propaganda Minister Goebbels that he and the German generals had “completely underestimated the might and especially the equipment of the Soviet armies”.

Russian tank numbers, for example, were more than twice greater than Nazi intelligence had originally estimated, and the Red Army itself was much larger than predicted. Seven weeks into the invasion, on 11 August 1941 General Franz Halder, Chief-of-Staff of the German Army High Command (OKH), stated in his diary, “At the start of the war, we anticipated around 200 enemy divisions. But we have already counted 360”.

Yet, as September 1941 began, it seemed quite possible that Hitler was pulling off another telling victory to silence his commanders’ doubts. In dry weather with clear skies overhead Panzer Group 2, led by General Heinz Guderian, captured the northern Ukrainian city of Chernigov on 9 September 1941, just 80 miles north of the capital, Kiev. Guderian’s panzers drove east, thereafter, to take the long Desna Bridge at Novgorod Severskiy.

Colonel-General Ewald von Kleist’s four panzer divisions, belonging to Army Group South, rolled northwards to link up with Guderian’s armor. It was becoming obvious to Soviet military men that the Germans were implementing a gigantic pincers movement, which was aimed at cutting off all of the Russian armies within the Dnieper Bend and, in doing so, surrounding Kiev. The 58-year-old Marshal Semyon Budyonny, leading the Soviet Southwestern and Southern Fronts, could see this clearly. He pleaded in vain with Joseph Stalin to let him retreat to the Donets River.

From early on Stalin had refused to allow Kiev to be abandoned. His prominent commander Georgy Zhukov warned him, as early as 29 July 1941, that the exposed Ukrainian capital should be forsaken for strategic purposes. An angry Stalin replied to Zhukov “How could you hit upon the idea of surrendering Kiev to the enemy?” Zhukov said throughout August that he “continued to urge Stalin to advise such a withdrawal”. On 18 August, Stalin and the Soviet Supreme High Command (Stavka) issued a directive ordering that Kiev must not be surrendered. Stalin could not bear to give up the Soviet Union’s third largest city without a fight.

At the end of August 1941, the Wehrmacht had forced the Red Army back to a defensive line at the Dnieper River. Kiev lay vulnerable at the end of a long salient. Stalin then compounded his original strategic mistake, by reinforcing the area around Kiev with more Red Army divisions.

On 13 September 1941 Major-General Vasily Tupikov, in the Kiev sector, compiled a report outlining how “complete catastrophe was only a couple of days away”. Stalin responded, “Major-General Tupikov sent a panic-ridden dispatch… The situation, on the contrary, requires that commanders at all levels maintain an exceptionally clear head and restraint. No one must give way to panic”.

The following day, 14 September, von Kleist and Guderian’s panzers met at the Ukrainian city of Lokhvytsia, 120 miles east of Kiev. The trap was sealed. Budyonny’s troops fought frantically to extricate themselves but these efforts failed. As also did the Russian attacks coming from further east, which were attempts to rescue the doomed 50 Soviet divisions encircled in the Dnieper Bend.

Kiev fell to the Germans on 19 September 1941, and by the time the fighting died down on 26 September, 665,000 Soviet troops surrendered, the better part of five armies. This was the largest surrender of forces in the field in military history. The Soviets further lost 900 tanks and 3,500 guns. Total Red Army personnel losses in the Kiev area, including casualties, came to 750,000 men. Among the dead was Tupikov who, as mentioned, had tried to warn the Soviet General Staff about the calamity that was set to unfold.

English scholar Geoffrey Roberts wrote, “On 17 September Stavka finally authorized a withdrawal from Kiev, to the eastern bank of the Dnepr. It was too little, too late; the pincers of the German encirclement east of Kiev had already closed”.

After the loss of Kiev, Stalin was “in a trance” according to Zhukov and it understandably took him some days to recover. At this point three months into the Nazi-Soviet war the Red Army had, altogether, lost at least 2,050,000 men, while the Germans had suffered casualties of less than 10% of that number, 185,000 men, the British historian Evan Mawdsley noted. The 185,000 figure still amounted to a higher number of casualties inflicted on the German Army (156,000) in the Battle of France, and the fighting on the Eastern front was of course far from over.

On 23 September 1941 Goebbels visited Hitler at the latter’s military headquarters, the Wolf’s Lair, located near the East Prussian town of Rastenburg. With Kiev having just fallen, Goebbels observed that Hitler looked “healthy” while he was “in an excellent mood and sees the current situation extremely optimistically”.

Hitler took personal credit for taking Kiev, in which he had previously ignored the German commanders’ protests, as they were adamant the advance on Moscow should resume. Hitler told Goebbels that Army Group South would continue marching, in order to capture the USSR’s fourth largest metropolis, Kharkov, in eastern Ukraine, over 250 miles further east of Kiev; and after that they should move on to take Stalingrad, another 385 miles further east again. One of these two goals was reached, with Kharkov falling to the German 6th Army on 24 October 1941. Northwards, Hitler also wanted Leningrad to be utterly subdued, Soviet Russia’s second biggest city.

In his memoirs Marshal Zhukov wrote, “Before the war, Leningrad had a population of 3,103,000 and 3,385,000 counting the suburbs”.

On 8 September 1941 Army Group North had penetrated these suburbs, with the German panzers just 10 miles from the city. So officially began the terrible Siege of Leningrad. During 10 September, Hitler informed lunch guests of his intentions regarding Leningrad, “An example should be made here and the city will disappear from the face of the earth”.

Already on 8 September, the Germans captured the town of Shlisselburg on the south shore of Lake Ladoga. A week later Slutsk (Pavlovsk) fell in Leningrad’s outer suburbs, as too did Strelna, close by to the south-west of Leningrad. To the north, the Finnish Army advanced to within a few miles of Leningrad’s northernmost suburbs and the city was now surrounded.

The German Armed Forces High Command (OKW), with Hitler’s agreement, ordered that Leningrad was not to be taken by storm; but would be bombarded from the air by the Luftwaffe, while the city’s residents were to be starved to death through military blockade. On 12 September 1941 the largest food warehouse in Leningrad, the Badajevski General Store, was blown up by a Nazi bomber aircraft.

Moreover, heavy German weaponry and artillery was ominously lined up on the ground, across Leningrad’s outskirts. The German guns had sufficient range to strike every street and district of the city, meaning that virtually no house or apartment block in Leningrad was safe, a constant terror for its inhabitants.

Following Hitler’s Directive No. 35 of 6 September 1941, Colonel-General Erich Hoepner’s Panzer Group 4 was moved away from the Leningrad region on 15 September. It was transferred to the central front for the renewed march towards Moscow. The halting of the German advance on Leningrad, at a time when it appeared on the cusp of success, meant in the end that the city was not captured at all. The 41st Panzer Corps commander, Georg-Hans Reinhardt, had been confident that Leningrad would be taken. Reinhardt was sketching various routes on a map of Leningrad for the advance into the city, when he was ordered to cease his approach.

Nor was Leningrad fully encircled in wintertime when the water froze on Lake Ladoga, by far Europe’s largest lake. The Russians were soon able to traverse Lake Ladoga with vehicles carrying food and supplies, though they were regularly assaulted by the Luftwaffe. Fortunately, a large proportion of Leningrad’s inhabitants escaped from the city. Zhukov wrote, “As many as 1,743,129, including 414,148 children, were evacuated by decision of the Council of People’s Commissars between June 29, 1941 and March 31, 1943”.

The Germans were never able to regain the momentum in their initial march towards Leningrad. In November 1941 an offensive to join forces with the Finns east of Lake Ladoga failed. Through December the Germans were forced to retreat to the Volkhov River, about 75 miles south of Leningrad. All efforts to destroy the Soviet bridgehead at Oranienbaum, near to the west of Leningrad, were unsuccessful.

Leningrad was helped in its defense by the city’s geographical position, between the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga. In comparison to Kiev or Moscow, Leningrad was considerably easier for the Red Army to defend. Leningrad’s western approaches were guarded by the Gulf of Finland, its northern part by the narrow strip of land called the Karelian Isthmus, its south-eastern section by the upper Neva River; while much of the area bordering the city to the south comprised of marshy terrain, which the Germans could not wade through.

Stalin placed even more importance in Leningrad’s survival than Kiev. In a telegram of 29 August 1941 sent to his Foreign Affairs Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, an anxious Stalin wrote, “I fear that Leningrad will be lost by foolish madness and that Leningrad’s divisions risk being taken prisoner”. If the city was captured by Hitler’s forces, it would enable the enemy to make a flanking attack northward on Moscow. The loss of the city that bore Lenin’s name, the founder of Soviet Russia, could only constitute a serious blow to Russian morale and a great triumph for the Nazis. The Soviet Union would be deprived of an important center of arms production were Leningrad taken.

On 10 September 1941, Stalin ordered Stavka to appoint Zhukov as commander of the new Leningrad Front. Zhukov, who possessed great ability and energy, helped to stiffen the defenses around Leningrad, forbidding Soviet officers to sanction retreats without written orders from the military command. By late September 1941, the Leningrad front had stabilized.

More than a million Soviet troops would be killed in the Leningrad region, over the next two and a half years. During that time 640,000 of Leningrad’s inhabitants died of starvation, and another 400,000 lost their lives due to either illnesses, German shelling and air raids, added to those who perished in the course of evacuations, etc.

The Siege of Leningrad was endured mainly by its female residents. Most of Leningrad’s male populace were fighting in the Soviet Army or had joined the People’s Militia, divisions of irregular troops. Leningrad’s heroic resistance helped to tie down a third of the Wehrmacht’s forces in 1941, which assisted in Moscow being saved from German occupation.

 

 

Sources

Marshal of Victory: The Autobiography of General Georgy Zhukov (Pen & Sword Military, 3 Feb. 2020)

Volker Ullrich, Hitler: Volume II: Downfall 1939-45 (Vintage, 1st edition, 4 Feb. 2021)

Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s General: The Life of Georgy Zhukov (Icon Books, 2 May 2013)

Clive N. Trueman, The Siege of Leningrad, The History Learning Site, 15 May 2015

Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953 (Yale University Press; 1st Edition, 14 Nov. 2006)

Evan Mawdsley, Thunder in the East: The Nazi-Soviet War, 1941-1945 (Hodder Arnold, 23 Feb. 2007)

Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 April 1985)

Weapons and Warfare, Heavy Artillery at Leningrad

 


Chapter IX

Germany’s Advance into Eastern Ukraine and Crimea

 

By late September 1941, it was becoming clear to much of the watching world that the German-led invasion of the USSR had not unfolded as the Nazis expected. Three months into Operation Barbarossa the Soviet Union’s position was still very serious, however.

At this point the Red Army had suffered at least two million casualties, while the Germans had lost a modest 185,000 men, which gives a firm indication of the Wehrmacht’s superiority over the Soviets, in 1941 at least. In north-western Russia, Leningrad was already surrounded from 8 September 1941 by German-Finnish forces. Leningrad was enduring bombardment from the air and the ground, while its inhabitants were being mercilessly starved by blockade. In the coming winter, as much as 100,000 people in Leningrad would die of hunger each month.

To the south, the Ukrainian capital Kiev had fallen on 19 September 1941 to a German pincers movement; as the Red Army suffered an unprecedented loss of around 750,000 men in the Kiev area, the vast majority of them taken prisoner. With Kiev in German hands Army Group South, led by Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt, plunged deeper into Ukrainian territory.

As part of Army Group South the German 11th Army, under its new commander Erich von Manstein, occupied Perekop on 27 September 1941, an urban settlement which connects the Ukrainian mainland to the Crimean peninsula. General von Manstein would become one of the Wehrmacht’s most formidable commanders of the war.

In early October 1941, the German 11th Army proceeded to link up with Ewald von Kleist’s Panzer Group 1, now reinforced and called the 1st Panzer Army. They promptly encircled large elements of two Soviet armies east of Melitopol, a city in south-eastern Ukraine and near the Sea of Azov, a body of water slightly greater in size than Belgium. This encounter was, as a result, titled by the Germans as the Battle of the Sea of Azov, a conflict mostly forgotten today.

Elements of the German 3rd Panzer Army on the road near Pruzhany, June 1941 (Licensed under Public Domain)

As the noose tightened, the German divisions captured over 100,000 Soviet troops beside the Sea of Azov. The Russians lost more than 200 tanks here and almost 800 guns, while the commander of the Soviet 18th Army, General A. K. Smirnov, was killed in action by artillery fire on 8 October 1941. The historian Aleksander A. Maslov wrote of Smirnov, “The Germans who buried the general placed a plywood board on his grave, with an inscription in Russian, German, and Romanian, exhorting their soldiers to fight as bravely as this Soviet soldier”.

With their column of panzers and infantrymen stretching for miles across the horizon, the Germans swept up the coast along the Sea of Azov. The 1st Panzer Army captured Berdiansk, a Ukrainian port city, on 6 October 1941. Two days later, just over 40 miles further east along the shoreline, Mariupol fell, on the north coast of the Sea of Azov. The fighting in this region of south-eastern Ukraine ended on 11 October 1941, with a decisive Wehrmacht victory. British scholar Evan Mawdsley acknowledged that the Battle of the Sea of Azov “was certainly one of the half dozen great Red Army defeats of 1941”.

The Marcks Plan was the original German plan of attack for Operation Barbarossa, as depicted in a US Government study (March 1955). (Licensed under Public Domain)

The advance itself astride the Sea of Azov continued, as the Germans crossed the Ukrainian frontier into south-western Russia. On 17 October 1941, two SS divisions from the 1st Panzer Army reached Taganrog, home to around 200,000 inhabitants. The SS divisions were followed from behind by Wehrmacht soldiers.

The German 11th Army had, meanwhile, marched westwards to join forces with Marshal Ion Antonescu’s Romanian 4th Army, which had surrounded Odessa in southern Ukraine and on the Black Sea. The engagement here revealed some serious flaws in the Romanians’ fighting capabilities, and they were grateful to see the German 11th Army arrive. After two months of stoic opposition, Odessa fell on 16 October 1941 as the Soviet Army retreated from the city.

In following days the Romanian forces, assisted by SS units, would murder tens of thousands of Odessa’s Jewish inhabitants (the Odessa massacre). About half of Odessa’s Jewish population got out of the city in time. Yitzhak Arad, the former Soviet resistance fighter, wrote that “Odessa had the largest Jewish community with a population of over 205,000” and “between 108,000 to 110,000” of these residents “were evacuated”.

Through August and September 1941, the majority of Red Army reserves had been shifted by Joseph Stalin to the crucial Moscow theatre in the center. Von Rundstedt’s Army Group South, in part because of this, made steady progress. Army Group South’s advance was threatening the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkov, a great industrial center, while under peril too was the Donbass, an important coal-mining area along with Rostov-on-Don, a Russian city considered to be “the gateway to the Caucasus” and its oil fields.

In the drive towards Kharkov, the Soviet Union’s fourth largest metropolis, the German 6th Army captured Sumy on 10 October 1941. The 6th Army was led by Field Marshal Walter von Reichenau, a committed Nazi, and having taken Sumy they were 90 miles from Kharkov. The Jewish Virtual Library (JVL), an encyclopedia detailing Jewish history, outlined that von Reichenau “encouraged his soldiers to commit atrocities against Jews in the territory under his control”.

Kharkov was in a dire position. Not only was the German 6th Army advancing rapidly towards the city, but Kharkov’s population had swollen to over a million people, as Soviet citizens previously fled from other areas to avoid Nazi occupation. Kharkov’s pre-war populace was 840,000, but some estimates state that by September 1941 it almost doubled to 1.5 million.

On 15 October 1941, the Germans took the town of Okhtyrka, just over 60 miles north-west of Kharkov. Twenty-four hours later Bohodukhiv was taken, less than 40 miles from Kharkov. In following days the German 6th Army continued to move forward and, by 20 October, the Soviets completed their evacuation of industrial enterprises from the city. Four days later, on 24 October, von Reichenau’s men entered Kharkov and swiftly captured the city.

Kharkov’s demise came as a considerable blow. It was an industrial stronghold, where the Soviet T-34 tank had been produced at the Kharkov Tank Factory. Von Reichenau, upon inspecting a captured T-34 tank, reportedly said “If the Russians ever produce it on an assembly line we will have lost the war”. He would certainly have been disconcerted to know that, even with the loss of Kharkov, the Soviets built 12,000 T-34 tanks in 1942. Nevertheless, there were fewer than 1,000 T-34s available when the Germans invaded in June 1941; and most of those were destroyed when the really critical fighting was taking place in 1941. With Kharkov subdued, the German 6th Army proceeded to occupy the Donbass in south-eastern Ukraine.

The 1st Panzer Army, supported by the German 17th Army, was marching towards Donetsk (Stalino), 155 miles south of Kharkov. Although the Germans were hampered by supply issues and the start of the autumn rains, they captured Donetsk on 20 October 1941.

By mid-October von Manstein’s 11th Army was free to advance into the Crimean peninsula. Hitler had stated in his 21 August 1941 directive, “The Crimea has colossal importance for the protection of oil supplies from Romania. Therefore, it is necessary to employ all available means, including mobile formations, to force the lower reaches of the Dnepr rapidly before the enemy is able to reinforce his forces”.

In late October 1941, the panzers broke clear into the Crimea with a costly frontal assault. On 1 November the German 11th Army took Simferopol, the Crimea’s second biggest city. On 9 November the Wehrmacht captured Yalta, the southern Crimean resort city, and one of the Soviet Union’s most popular holiday destinations. Stalin held possession of a residence in Yalta and he had vacationed there in the summers.

A week after Yalta fell, on 16 November 1941 the German 11th Army occupied Kerch, a coastal city in eastern Crimea. The Germans had overrun almost all of the Crimea and, in doing so, they destroyed 16 Soviet divisions and captured more than 100,000 Red Army troops. Yet the Crimea’s largest city, Sevastapol, in the peninsula’s far south-west, remained in Russian hands for the time being and was effectively a fortress. Sevastapol was bolstered by the Soviet garrison which had been evacuated from Odessa in October.

The German 6th Army took the Russian city of Kursk on 3 November 1941. Army Group South had now established a line stretching more than 300 miles across, extending along Kursk-Kharkov-Donetsk-Taganrog. Hitler’s attention in this region turned further east again to Rostov-on-Don. Rostov contained over half a million people and lay 245 miles south-west of Stalingrad. The taking of Rostov would enable the Wehrmacht to advance towards the Caucasus and Stalingrad.

Luckily for the Germans, in early November 1941 the heavy Russian rainfall (rasputitsa) stopped, to be replaced by clearer weather and colder conditions. With the presence of light frost, the soil hardened and this allowed the panzers, trucks and motorcycles to shift into gear and move across the ground with relative ease.

The German 3rd Army Corps raced ahead to take Rostov, but Sepp Dietrich’s SS “Adolf Hitler” motorised division entered the city first. Rostov was captured on 21 November 1941. Nearby, the Germans seized intact the railway bridge over the frozen Don River. They were further able to cut the Caucasus oil pipelines, which Soviet Russia was heavily dependent on.

The Russians, correctly discerning the importance of this sector, launched fierce counterattacks across the Don River against the German positions in Rostov. Soviet casualties were severe, as were the German, and they were too heavy for the latter to endure. Field Marshal von Rundstedt, in overall command of all German divisions in the south-western USSR, asked Hitler for permission to retreat from Rostov.

The 65-year-old von Rundstedt was also a very experienced officer, but Hitler refused his request, and the former resigned in protest on 1 December 1941. Von Reichenau, previously the 6th Army commander, replaced von Rundstedt at the head of Army Group South.

Assessing the situation at Rostov, von Reichenau immediately came to the same conclusion as his predecessor: he therefore asked Hitler for authorisation to retire from Rostov. On 2 December 1941, Hitler took a flight from East Prussia to Mariupol, not far from Rostov and just 60 miles from the front line, in an attempt to resolve the problem himself.

Entering a world with driving blizzards and subzero temperatures, this was a far cry from what Hitler was used to at his Wolfsschanze headquarters, sheltered in the dense Masurian woods. Hitler realised the extent of the crisis and gave way to von Reichenau’s arguments. In early December, the Germans relinquished Rostov.

In some confusion, the invaders retreated 30 miles or so westwards, to a winter line behind the Mius River. It was the first major German reverse of the Nazi-Soviet War. Stalin was delighted at these developments and he publicly praised “the victory over the enemy and liberation of Rostov from the German-fascist aggressors”.

 

 

Sources

Aleksander A. Maslov, Fallen Soviet Generals: Soviet General Officers Killed in Battle, 1941-1945 (Routledge, 1st edition, 30 Sep. 1998)

Jewish Virtual Library, “Walter von Reichenau, 1884-1942”

Imperial War Museums, “Operation Barbarossa and Germany’s Failure in the Soviet Union”

Yitzhak Arad, The Holocaust in the Soviet Union (University of Nebraska Press, 25 July 2013)

Evan Mawdsley, Thunder in the East: The Nazi-Soviet War, 1941-1945 (Hodder Arnold, 23 Feb. 2007)

Valery Dunaevsky, A Daughter of the “Enemy of the People” (Createspace Independent Publishing Platform, 5 Mar. 2013)

David M. Glantz, Barbarossa Derailed: Volume 3 – The Documentary Companion Tables Orders and Reports Prepared by Participating Red Army Forces (Helion & Company; Reprint ed. Edition, 15 April 2022)

Anthony Heywood, “Battle for Stalingrad”, The-past.com, 11 May 2019

 


Chapter X

The Brutal Conduct of Operation Barbarossa

The method of warfare fought by Hitler’s forces in the Soviet Union would, before long, come back to haunt them. By pursuing a conflict in extreme ideological terms against Russia, it steeled the Red Army’s resolve in overcoming the “fascist hordes” at whatever cost.

Hitler had titled his march eastwards “Operation Barbarossa”, named after King Frederick Barbarossa, a red-bearded Prussian emperor who centuries before had waged war against the Slavs.

In Soviet territory, Hitler demanded his men undertake “war of annihilation” procedures. These murderous assaults eventually rebounded onto the Germans, who were dealt little mercy as they themselves had shown. By indiscriminately targeting Soviet soldiers and civilians, the Nazis were already sowing the seeds of their own defeat, though they did not yet know it.

A proportion of the USSR’s citizens, such as those in the Ukraine, had welcomed the Germans as gallant saviors releasing them at last from Stalin’s iron grip. The July and August 1941 arrival onto Ukrainian lands of Hitler’s young, undefeated foot soldiers – some golden-haired and many bronzed from the glowing sun – had indeed seduced certain Ukrainian civilians.

As German troops pushed deeper into the lush wheatfields of the Ukraine, growing numbers came forth from country homesteads to warmly greet their apparent rescuers. The ancient offering of bread and salt was graciously provided to Nazi infantrymen, as were flowers.

Joseph Goebbels‘ propaganda machine was working away seamlessly too. German officers, standing upon platforms in town squares, were handing out large color posters to civilians of an aristocratic-looking Führer, dressed in full military attire, and staring imperiously across his shoulder into the distance. At the bottom of each poster a caption in Ukrainian read, “Hitler the Liberator”.

To some in the Ukraine that is how it seemed, in the beginning at least. During that long, fateful summer of 1941, as the world watched on in wonder, it looked like nothing would ever stop the Germans in their advance towards Russia’s great cities. From the 22 June attack, after just a week of fighting, the Wehrmacht was already halfway to the capital Moscow. Such news sent Hitler into raptures at his Wolf’s Lair headquarters in East Prussia, whose construction had been completed hours before the invasion.

Towards the end of July 1941, following a month of combat, the Nazis had claimed an area double the size of their own country. It was a scale of victory that would have subdued any other European country.

Before too long, however, the severity of Hitler’s policies would turn the smiling villagers into wary adversaries of the German Reich. Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, Hitler’s right arm during the war years, noted that when the dictator firmly set his mind on a decision, he would follow it through to the end. So it would be in this ideological conflict quickly descending into hatred.

Early in 1941, Hitler had said of the impending Russian attack,

“You have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down”.

After more than three months of fighting, Hitler insisted during his Berlin Sportpalast speech of 3 October 1941 that,

“this enemy [Russia] is already broken and will never rise again”.

The Nazi leader further outlined that his soldiers were,

“fighting on a front of gigantic length and against an enemy who, I must say, does not consist of human beings but of animals or beasts. We have now seen what Bolshevism can make of human beings”.

In the Ukraine, Hitler’s war of ruin served only to swell partisan numbers, while sending floods of Ukrainian men to the ranks of Soviet Armies – millions would inevitably join Stalin’s forces. The Nazi enslavement of countless Ukrainians by turning them into medieval laborers also disillusioned the society, while large-scale murders of the Jewish population drew much horror.

Operation Barbarossa Infobox.jpg

Clockwise from top left: German soldiers advance through Northern Russia, German flamethrower team in the Soviet Union, Soviet planes flying over German positions near Moscow, Soviet prisoners of war on the way to German prison camps, Soviet soldiers fire at German positions. (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

Had the invasion been conducted through avoidance of these mass killings, such as in the manner of Germany’s 1940 offensive against France, it may have weakened the Soviet soldiers’ fortitude. Hitler and his followers viewed the French racial composition as of a superior creed, however.

By directing an inhumane warfare in the east, it was impossible for the Nazis to convince local inhabitants theirs was a just motive. Sympathy swept behind the Soviet cause, and even towards Stalin himself, whose Great Purge remained fresh in the memory.

Some short years after the Second World War – across in the Caribbean – a critical factor allowing Cuba’s revolutionary, Fidel Castro, to claim power in the heartland of American dominion was the form of warfare he pursued. Castroite forces avoided the depredations of conflict witnessed elsewhere, such as wanton murder and torture. In turn, this clean conduct of battle diluted the fighting desire of Castro’s opponents, while bolstering his reputation among the Cuban people.

Of Hitler’s troops Castro noted they,

“didn’t let any Bolsheviks escape with their lives, and I really don’t know how the people in the Soviet resistance might have treated the Nazis who fell prisoner. I don’t think they could do what we did [let prisoners go]. If they turned one of those fascists loose, the next day he’d be killing Soviet men, women and children again”.

Castro’s units were battling the soldiers of Fulgencio Batista – a corrupt dictator who since 1952 was sustained mostly by American financial might. Despite the rebels being eternally outnumbered against Batista, by the late 1950s they had gathered crucial momentum.

Castro said his compliance of the laws of war, apart from its ethical aspect, was also,

“a psychological factor of great importance. When an enemy comes to respect and even admire their adversary, you’ve won a psychological victory… I once said to those who accused us of violating human rights, ‘I defy you to find a single case of extra-judicial execution; I defy you to find a single case of torture’… I say to you that no war is ever won through terrorism. It’s that simple, because if you employ terrorism you earn the opposition, hatred and rejection of those whom you need in order to win the war. That’s why we had the support of over 90% of the population in Cuba”.

In the Soviet Union, however, Hitler’s fanaticism failed to recognize the benefits, both moral and emotional, of avoiding arbitrary murder. By engaging in a war of terror, the Nazis delegitimized their purported reason for arriving as “liberators”, which held no basis in reality.

Occasionally, Hitler overcame his ideological mindset by revealing unusual, contradictory viewpoints. On separate instances, he remarked that sections of the Soviet population were racially purer than even that of the Germans.

Even before his attack on Poland, Hitler had said,

“Today the Siberians, the White Russians, and the people of the steppes live extremely healthy lives. For that reason, they are better equipped for development and in the long run biologically superior to the Germans”.

When the war turned in Russia’s favor from early 1943 onward, it was an argument Hitler would put forward with growing consistency.

Previously, in late summer 1940, after the Wehrmacht had routed French armies in the west, Hitler predicted to his generals Wilhelm Keitel and Alfred Jodl that, “a campaign against Russia would be child’s play”.

It was a gross misjudgment of what lay ahead. The triumphs the Nazis had enjoyed, from autumn 1939 to the spring of 1941, cannot have been lost on Hitler as he watched German armies sweep to one easy victory after another. The apparent invulnerability of his soldiers emboldened Hitler, making him reckless and foolhardy. It also set a foundation for complacency.

During Albert Speer‘s time as the German armaments minister (1942-45), he oversaw a hugely productive war economy; however, by 1943, as Germany’s weapons industry soared it was by then too late. Speer lamented that his total war strategies had not been implemented from 1940 – he estimated that, utilizing these policies, the German war machine which attacked Russia could perhaps have been twice larger than it was in 1941.

Almost four million Nazi-led units marched eastwards in June 1941, supported by over 3,000 tanks and up to 5,000 aircraft. The Soviets had much greater numbers of both airplanes and tanks, though many models were at that stage of an inferior quality to their German rivals.

Hitler also allowed himself to be misled by faulty military intelligence underestimating Russian strength; he was swayed too by the Soviets’ dismal performance against Finland in the Winter War of 1939. When it came to defending their own soil, the Red Army would be a different proposition.

While Hitler was disregarding Russian capacities, he had forgotten the woes that befell Napoleon during his 1812 invasion of the motherland. The French emperor attacked Russia on 24 June 1812 with almost 700,000 men, then the largest force in history – as early as mid-October 1812 Napoleon was set in retreat, and by December he had lost about 500,000 soldiers. Siberian conditions gnawed away at French hearts, as the Russians fought bitterly, employing scorched earth tactics.

France’s invasion of Russia was the Napoleonic Wars’ bloodiest battle, a turning point whose outcome weakened French hegemony in Europe, while damaging Napoleon’s once infallible reputation. It was a lesson from history that Hitler failed to heed.

 


 

Chapter XI

The Battle of Moscow

 

The heavily decorated panzer commander Hasso von Manteuffel knew Adolf Hitler reasonably well, having met him on numerous occasions from the summer of 1943 until the spring of 1945.

During their discussions, Manteuffel recognised Hitler’s extensive knowledge of military history but, crucially, the German general discerned also the dictator’s shortcomings as a commander. Hitler’s inadequacies in the military domain were hardly surprising, for he was not really a soldier at all, but a politician, who had no formal military education; unlike Manteuffel who was a renowned strategist.

The American historians Samuel W. Mitcham and Gene Mueller, in their co-authored book ‘Hitler’s Commanders’, outlined the following, “Although Manteuffel was impressed with Hitler’s grasp of combat from the field soldier’s point of view, as well as the Fuehrer’s knowledge of military literature, he recognized Hitler’s weaknesses concerning grand strategy and tactical awareness, even though the Fuehrer had a flair for originality and daring. Although he was always respectful, Manteuffel always expressed his own views, regardless of how they might be received by Hitler”. (1)

It is no exaggeration to state that the outcome of World War II rested mostly upon Hitler’s deficiencies as a military leader – and specifically the decisions made, from June to August 1941, relating to grand strategy in the invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa). The turning point in the war had come over a year before the German defeat at Stalingrad. (2)

Beginning on 22 June 1941 the German-led attack on the USSR, which culminated late that year in the Battle of Moscow, apart from being the most brutal and murderous invasion ever, was by a strategic standpoint deeply flawed. From the start, the Wehrmacht’s invasion force of three million German soldiers was sliced up into three Army Groups, which were ordered to capture a number of difficult targets simultaneously (Leningrad, the Ukraine, Moscow, the Crimea, the Caucasus, etc.).

The most important objective by far was the capital city, Moscow, the Soviet Union’s biggest metropolis. Almost all roads and railways in the western USSR led irresistibly to the gates of Moscow, like spokes directed into the centre of a wheel (3). If the wheel (Moscow) is put out of action, the rest of the structure cannot function properly. Moscow was the communications hub and power centre of Soviet Russia, where Joseph Stalin and his entourage were headquartered. Stalin himself placed immense store in Moscow’s survival.

Stalin asked his famous general, Georgy Zhukov, late in 1941 “with an aching heart” whether “we will hold Moscow?… Tell me honestly, as a Communist” (4). General Zhukov replied to Stalin that Moscow will be held “without fail”. Stalin made sure that the road to Moscow was defended whenever possible by large Soviet forces, even when Hitler had turned his attention elsewhere.

Commanded by the 60-year-old Field Marshal Fedor von Bock, Army Group Centre was tasked with capturing the Russian capital. Hitler’s criminal intentions regarding Moscow were clear, as he remarked on the night of 5 July 1941, “Moscow, as the center of the doctrine [Bolshevism], must disappear from the earth’s surface as soon as its riches have been brought to shelter. There’s no question of our collaborating with the Muscovite proletariat”. (5)

From 22 June 1941, had Army Group Centre been directed in a single great thrust towards Moscow, and in doing so protected by Army Group North and Army Group South acting as flank guards, the German Army could well have taken Moscow by the end of August 1941 (6). Top level German commanders like Franz Halder, Heinz Guderian and von Bock recognised Moscow’s importance. Were the capital to fall, the Soviet rail and communications systems would have been shattered. With their centre blown apart, this would have posed enormous difficulties for the Red Army in supplying and bolstering their northern and southern fronts.

German armored column advances on the Moscow front, October 1941 (Licensed under Public Domain)

General Halder stated in a memorandum, of 18 August 1941, that the bulk of the Red Army was being massed in front of Moscow for its defence. If these Soviet divisions were defeated “the Russians would no longer be able to maintain a joined-up defensive front”, Halder wrote. (7)

It is necessary to stress that the Soviet military was not ready for war with Nazi Germany in mid-1941. However, the damage inflicted by Stalin’s purges on the Red Army, from 1937, has routinely been blown out of proportion in the West.

Experienced British scholar Evan Mawdsley, a specialist in Russian history, noted correctly how “The Red Army commanders who were executed were not proven military leaders” in mechanised warfare and “Many able middle-level commanders survived the purges”; but he acknowledged too that “the execution of even a few hundred officers would be a traumatic event in any army” and this “was particularly devastating at the uppermost levels”. (8)

Considerable harm was caused then but it was far from fatal, which events would show, as the Red Army boasted top class commanders such asZhukov, Konstantin Rokossovsky and Aleksandr Vasilevsky. The Soviet military reforms were not close to completion by June 1941, debunking the right-wing fantasy that Stalin was then preparing an attack on Germany. Stalin knew that the conflict with Nazism was approaching, but he hoped to put it off until 1942 or later; Stalin’s close associate Vyacheslav Molotov recalled the former saying shortly after the Fall of France, “we would be able to confront the Germans on an equal basis only by 1943”. (9)

The Germans, therefore, had a huge advantage as they attacked an ill-prepared and static Soviet military in June 1941. By the first week of July 1941 for example, nearly 4,000 Soviet aircraft were destroyed, most of them on the ground (10). Yet with Operation Barbarossa’s strategic design of attacking the entirety of the western USSR at once, the strength of the Nazi blow was ultimately diluted. The Russians were given time to recover, and to their credit they did not collapse like the French the year before.

Two months into the invasion, on 21 August 1941 Hitler compounded the early strategic errors of Barbarossa, by fatefully postponing the advance on Moscow. Mitcham and Mueller describe this decision as “one of the greatest mistakes of the war” as the Soviets’ “most important city [Moscow]” was demoted to secondary stature (11). Hitler ordered that the Wehrmacht instead take the Crimea, the Donbas and the Caucasus while he also demanded “the investment of Leningrad and the linking up with the Finns”.

Three days before, on 18 August 1941, the German high command (OKH) had issued a request for the capture of Moscow post haste, but Hitler replied that “The army’s suggestion for continuing operations in the east does not conform to my intentions” (12). It was to the Wehrmacht’s detriment that Hitler, through his force of personality, had succeeded in gaining complete control over all German military operations. With these new orders of 21 August 1941, Nazi Germany’s defeat in the Second World War was assured. (13)

Donald J. Goodspeed, a military historian who had fought against the Nazi empire with the Canadian Army Overseas, wrote of Hitler’s 21 August directive,

“Thus a clear-cut, feasible, and single military objective [capturing Moscow] was set aside, and for it was substituted a double-headed monstrosity. Hitler was greedy and saw too many things at once. Army Group Center was to be halted, immobile, around Smolensk [240 miles west of Moscow], while rich new territories were to be taken in the south and Leningrad was to be eliminated in the north. Nor was it only that a double objective had been substituted for a single one. In the south Hitler wanted the Crimea, the Donbas and the Caucasus; in the north he wanted both Leningrad and the Karelian Isthmus”. (14)

In late August 1941, Army Group Centre was stripped of its armour which was sent south to the Ukraine. The march into the Ukraine did result in a major German victory as its capital Kiev, the USSR’s third largest city, fell to a giant pincers movement on 19 September 1941. Stalin ignored the advice of among others Zhukov, who had sensed impending danger weeks before by warning on 29 July 1941, “the Red Army should withdraw to the east of the Dnepr river”. (15)

Moscow women dig anti-tank trenches around their city in 1941 (Licensed under Public Domain)

Around Kiev by 26 September 1941, no less than 665,000 Soviet troops were caught within the German pincers and taken prisoner, the biggest surrender of forces in military history. The Soviet prisoners of war (POWs) now had to face the horrors of Nazi captivity.

Mawdsley, in his lengthy analysis of the Nazi-Soviet War, wrote that “In terms of scale, the fatalities among Red Army POWs were second only to the mass murder of the European Jews. Although an important part of the charges at the Nuremberg Trials, the story was far less prominent in the Cold War years. A quarter to a third of all the USSR’s 10 million military deaths were soldiers who died in captivity. The exact figure can never be calculated, but the most commonly accepted German figure is 3,300,300 Soviet POWs dying in captivity, some 58% of the 5,700,000 taken prisoner. The Russians accept a lower figure of Red Army POWs, 4,559,000, and 2,500,000 deaths, but with a similar death rate of 55%”. (16)

Dreadful as the loss of Kiev ranked, September was almost gone and the worst of autumn was closing in fast. The German Army, along with its panzer divisions, was weakened by the hundreds of miles they traversed in the Ukraine. Hitler had issued Directive No. 35 on 6 September 1941, belatedly assigning Moscow as the next principal target. When the Wehrmacht’s claws closed around Kiev on 14 September, the German high command began to reinforce Army Group Centre.

Field Marshal von Bock, leading Army Group Centre, would soon have more than 1.5 million men under his command. Despite efficient German staff work, it was 26 September 1941 before final orders could be relayed for the assault on Moscow, and not until six days later did the offensive begin, hopefully titled Operation Typhoon. Hitler’s interference had resulted in a critical six week delay.

On 2 October 1941, as the Battle of Moscow commenced, it seemed to many outside observers that the Germans would yet prevail. The weather, overall, held good for the time being and the countryside was relatively flat and open, suitable terrain for the panzer formations. During the first three weeks of October 1941, an incredible 86 Soviet divisions were destroyed. Army Group Centre captured 663,000 Soviet soldiers and eradicated 1,200 enemy tanks. The English historian, Geoffrey Roberts, wrote that total Soviet personnel losses in the opening phase of October “numbered a million, including nearly 700,000 captured by the Germans”. (17)

Most of the damage done to the Red Army here came in another massive pincers manoeuvre, which the Germans implemented around the medieval Russian towns of Vyazma and Bryansk, 150 miles apart. The northern pincer at Vyazma was the more effective, as five Russian armies were trapped and annihilated by 13 October 1941. The ring was not so tightly held at the southern pincer around Bryansk, where three Russian armies were caught and wiped out.

German soldiers west of Moscow, December 1941 (Licensed under CC BY 3.0)

Roberts highlighted that, “The encirclements were a devastating blow to the Bryansk, Western and Reserve fronts defending the approaches to Moscow” (18). When the Wehrmacht reached Vyazma on 7 October 1941, they were less than 140 miles from Moscow. On that day, the first snow flurries arrived in western Russia, an ill omen for the lightly-dressed Germans and their Axis allies, such as the Romanians and Italians. The snow was not heavy and quickly disappeared.

On 5 October 1941, the Soviet cause had been given a significant boost, when Stalin telephoned General Zhukov in Leningrad and asked him “can you board a plane and come to Moscow?” Zhukov was being designated with leading the defence of the capital. Zhukov agreed by replying, “I ask for permission to fly out tomorrow morning at dawn” and Stalin said, “Very well. We await your arrival in Moscow tomorrow”. (19)

For now, there was only so much that Zhukov could do. On 12 October 1941 Army Group Centre stormed the Russian city of Kaluga, 93 miles south-west of Moscow (20). A week later, 19 October, the Germans occupied the abandoned town of Mozhaysk, just 65 miles west of Moscow. The road apparently lay open and panic started to grip the capital. It is little wonder that Zhukov considered the dates, between the 10th to the 20th of October 1941, as “the most dangerous moment for the Red Army” in the entire war. (21)

 

Notes

1 Samuel W. Mitcham Jr., Gene Mueller, Hitler’s Commanders (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2nd Edition, 15 Oct. 2012) p. 135

2 Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 April 1985) pp. 396-397

3 Ibid., p. 395

4 Evan Mawdsley, Thunder in the East: The Nazi-Soviet War, 1941-1945 (Hodder Arnold, 23 Feb. 2007) p. 115

5 Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Table Talk, New Foreword by Gerhard L. Weinberg (Enigma Books, 30 April 2008) p. 6

6 Goodspeed, The German Wars, pp. 403-404

7 Volker Ullrich, Hitler: Volume II: Downfall 1939-45 (Vintage, 1st edition, 4 Feb. 2021) Chapter 5, The War Turns, 1941-42

8 Mawdsley, Thunder In The East, p. 21

9 Robert Service, Stalin: A Biography (Pan; Reprints edition, 16 April 2010) p. 406

10 Mawdsley, Thunder In The East, p. 59

11 Mitcham, Mueller, Hitler’s Commanders, p. 37

12 Ullrich, Hitler: Volume II, Chapter 5, The War Turns, 1941-42

13 Goodspeed, The German Wars, pp. 396-397

14 Ibid., p. 396

15 Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s General: The Life of Georgy Zhukov (Icon Books, 2 May 2013) p. 111

16 Mawdsley, Thunder In The East, p. 103

17 Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953 (Yale University Press; 1st Edition, 14 Nov. 2006) p. 107

18 Ibid.

19 Roberts, Stalin’s General: The Life of Georgy Zhukov, pp. 133-134

20 Alexander Werth (Foreword by Nicolas Werth) Russia at War: 1941-1945, A History (Skyhorse Publishing, 30 March 2017) Part Two, Chapter 10, Battle of Moscow Begins – The October 16 Panic

21 Mawdsley, Thunder In The East, p. 105

 


Chapter XII

 The Battle of Moscow, Soviet Counterattack

 

As the Battle of Moscow began eight decades ago on 2 October 1941, the weeks directly preceding and following this date did not seem to augur well for the Soviet Army. Kiev, the USSR’s third largest city, fell two weeks before on 19 September to a vast German pincers movement, and the Red Army lost a staggering 665,000 troops in the process.

Titled Operation Typhoon, the German plan for the capture of Moscow called for a two-stage battle. In the first phase German Army Group Centre, comprising of almost two million men (1), would execute a three-pronged attack; with the German 9th Army and Panzer Group 3 advancing to the north between the towns of Vyazma and Rzhev, both 140 miles west of Moscow.

The German 4th Army, and Panzer Group 4, would drive forward along the Roslavl-Moscow road in the centre; and Heinz Guderian’s Panzer Group 2, now called the 2nd Panzer Army, would attack to the south between Bryansk and Orel to the city of Tula, 110 miles southward of Moscow. Operation Typhoon’s second phase envisaged the final advance on the Russian capital, conducted by two armoured encircling thrusts from the north-west and the south-east.

The weather and terrain suited the Wehrmacht, for the time being. In the first three weeks of October 1941, the Germans captured another 663,000 Soviet soldiers and destroyed 1,200 tanks. Including casualties and prisoners taken, total Red Army losses in the opening stage of October amounted to a million troops (2). In a four week period from 19 September 1941, the Soviets had altogether lost more than 1.6 million men.

Even these terrible reverses did not prove insurmountable to a state whose populace, in 1941, amounted to around 193 million (3), as opposed to a population in Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe of about 110 million.

On 15 October 1941, Joseph Stalin ordered the majority of Soviet government officials to leave Moscow. They relocated 560 miles further east to the city of Kuibyshev on the Volga river. This indicates that the Soviet leadership was not confident that Moscow could be held. Stalin gloomily informed Harry Hopkins, president Franklin Roosevelt’s personal emissary, that if Moscow was lost “all of Russia west of the Volga would have to be abandoned” (4). Nevertheless, Stalin remained in Moscow, believing that his continued presence there would maintain morale and prevent widespread unrest among Muscovites, clearly the correct decision.

While the Wehrmacht closed on Moscow, the Red Army’s resistance appeared to be weakening. On 19 October 1941 the Germans took the abandoned town of Mozhaysk, 65 miles west of Moscow. The following day, Stalin declared martial law as the capital was placed under full military control.

Red Army ski troops in Moscow. Still from documentary Moscow Strikes Back, 1942 (Licensed under CC0)

On 23 October 1941 the Germans crossed the Narva river, and were only 40 miles from Moscow (5). During the next day, however, the famous Russian rainfall (rasputitsa) arrived almost providentially. The Germans were expecting rains to come but the ferocity of it was a shock to them. The unpaved roads and paths quickly turned into rivers of thick, congealed mud. This meant that no wheeled vehicle could move for consecutive days, and the larger panzers advanced at a snail’s pace. The wider-tracked Russian T-34 tanks were more suited to such conditions.

British scholar Evan Mawdsley wrote,

“The defence of Moscow was certainly helped by changes in the weather” and “Unlike the Germans, the Russians had a working railway system behind their front line. Soviet planes were operating from prepared airfields, while the Luftwaffe now had to make do with improvised muddy landing strips”. (6)

By 24 October 1941 as the rains came, the German invasion was four months old (17 weeks) and in serious difficulty. Adolf Hitler had previously expected to conquer the Soviet Union in less than half of that time (8 weeks). When France collapsed the Nazi leader told his military advisers Wilhelm Keitel and Alfred Jodl that “a campaign against Russia would be child’s play” (7). Field Marshal Keitel, often accused of being a lackey, disagreed and he was opposed to attacking the USSR.

The German High Command (OKH) predicted in mid-December 1940 that “the Soviet Union would be defeated in a campaign not exceeding 8-10 weeks”. Such views were strongly shared by the American and British authorities. Why did these predictions prove so wrong?

We can get to the heart of the matter, by briefly examining German blunders regarding grand strategy and, with it, the most important reason: Hitler’s directive of 21 August 1941, that led to a crucial six week postponement in the march on Moscow (21 August-2 October). This came against the wishes of the Wehrmacht’s leadership, who desperately wanted the advance towards Moscow to continue. By the last week of August, Army Group Centre was 185 miles from Moscow, not a great distance by any means. (8)

The capital city was the USSR’s most important metropolis, its power centre and communications line (9). Had it fallen in the autumn of 1941, the repercussions would most probably have been fatal for the Soviets.

English historian Andrew Roberts observed, “Moscow was the nodal point of Russia’s north–south transport hub, was the administrative and political capital, was vital for Russian morale and was an important industrial centre in its own right” (10). As a transportation and administrative hub, Moscow performed a central role in the Red Army’s ability to supply other parts of its front. On 21 August 1941 at his Wolfsschanze headquarters in the East Prussian forests, Hitler put aside one critical objective (Moscow), and substituted it with five targets of lesser importance.

Hitler expounded that they would instead pursue “the capture of the Crimea” and “the industrial and coal mining area of the Donets” along with “the cutting off of Russian oil supplies from the Caucasus” and “the investment of Leningrad and the linking up with the Finns”. When on 22 August Hitler’s orders were forwarded to Field Marshal Fedor von Bock, commanding Army Group Centre and a very experienced officer, he telephoned General Franz Halder and said it was “unfortunate, above all because it placed the attack to the east in question… I want to smash the enemy army and the bulk of this army is opposite my front!” (11)

Von Bock, a monarchist who did not like the Nazis, continued that diverting forces away from the attack on Moscow “will jeopardize the execution of the main operation, namely the destruction of the Russian armed forces before winter”. Halder, a key planner in Operation Barbarossa’s original design, agreed with him. Two days later on 24 August 1941 von Bock reiterated, “They apparently do not wish to exploit under any circumstances the opportunity decisively to defeat the Russians before winter!” (12)

One can note the normally dour von Bock’s use of exclamation marks, as he believes the chance for victory has been taken away from him. Insult was added to injury, as von Bock was compelled to release four of his five panzer corps, and three infantry corps, for the southward and northwards assaults on the Ukraine and Leningrad. Halder felt that Hitler’s directive of 21 August “was decisive to the outcome of this campaign”. (13)

For reasons of megalomania, Hitler had overruled his military commanders on a pivotal military issue. American historians Samuel W. Mitcham and Gene Mueller summarised that Hitler’s 21 August directive “was one of the greatest mistakes of the war” (14). It came on top of the opening strategic errors of 22 June 1941, when the Wehrmacht attacked all of the western USSR simultaneously, ultimately weakening the Nazi blow. Fortunately, the Third Reich’s leadership was strategically inept.

In late August 1941, the German Armed Forces High Command (OKW) were contemplating that the war in the east would drag on until 1942 (15). An early knockout strike had not materialised, and the Soviet Army was fighting with tenacity; while the Russians possessed military hardware of a high standard, like the Katyusha rocket launcher (Stalin’s Organ) and the T-34 tank, which came as a real surprise to the Germans. (16)

An OKW memorandum from 27 August ran, “if it proves impossible to realise this objective completely [the USSR’s destruction] during 1941, the continuation of the eastern campaign has top priority for 1942” (17). Hitler approved the memo, which suggests that he was starting to think the invasion may not be successfully concluded in 1941. Hitler certainly believed this by November of that year.

The Soviet cause was given a major lift when, on 10 October 1941, Stalin officially granted General Georgy Zhukov the leadership over the majority of Red Army divisions (the Western Front and Reserve Front) for the capital’s defence. The 44-year-old Zhukov was an extremely able, energetic, self-confident and ruthless commander, just the sort of man that was needed.

Zhukov pursued a policy of initiating incessant counterattacks, and then withdrawing at the final moment. These tactics succeeded in wearing down the belated German march on Moscow (18). More than any other soldier in the war, Zhukov would play a leading part in the Nazis’ demise. Andrei Gromyko, a prominent Soviet diplomat, wrote that Zhukov was “the jewel in the crown of the Soviet people’s greatest victory”. (19)

At the beginning of November 1941 victory was not yet assured, for the rains disappeared and frost set in. The ground had hardened enough for the panzers to begin rolling again. These colder temperatures were uncomfortable for the German troops, who incredibly were still not supplied with sufficient winter clothing, but the temperature hovered around zero for now and was not unbearable.

In preceding weeks, the Kremlin received intelligence reports from their spy in Tokyo, Dr. Richard Sorge, and also from Soviet agencies, which stated that Imperial Japan was not preparing an immediate attack on the eastern USSR. This time Stalin believed the intelligence accounts and, in the first fortnight of November 1941, he transferred 21 fresh divisions from Siberia and Central Asia to the Moscow front. (20)

The Germans had no such reserve of men to call upon. On the night of 11 November 1941, the temperature dropped suddenly to minus 20 degrees Celsius. Frostbite cases were becoming common among German soldiers, but the Wehrmacht resumed advancing from 15 November. A week later, on 22 November the medieval town of Klin fell, 52 miles north-west of Moscow. (21)

The following day, Panzer Group 4 took Solnechnogorsk, 38 miles from Moscow. On 27 November the 7th Panzer Division established a bridgehead across the Moscow-Volga Canal. Also during 27 November, the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich captured the town of Istra, just 31 miles west of Moscow.

German professor Jörg Ganzenmüller wrote that Hitler now formulated “a special order”, which was sent to SS major Otto Skorzeny of the Das Reich division. Hitler demanded that Skorzeny and his men occupy the locks of the reservoir on the Moscow-Volga canal, and then open the locks so as to “drown” Moscow by turning it into a massive artificial lake (22). These orders were obviously never carried out, due to Skorzeny’s unit being unable to advance much further.

In late November 1941, it was apparent that the German offensive would likely fail. As of 26 November, the Germans had lost 743,112 men on the Eastern front (23). This number does not include frostbite casualties and other soldiers absent due to illness.

Because of ongoing Russian resistance and their fresh resources – which in both cases had been much greater than the Germans anticipated – General Guderian’s panzers had failed to reach the city of Tula, just over 100 miles south of Moscow. Panzer Group 3, which captured the line of the Moscow-Volga Canal on 28 November, could attack no further; and while a division from Panzer Group 4 had proceeded to within 18 miles of Moscow, continued progress for them proved impossible.

On 2 December 1941, a motorcycle reconnaissance unit of the 2nd Panzer Division reached the suburb of Khimki, five miles from Moscow and nine miles from the Kremlin. Isolated, it did not remain for long in this forward position (24). That was as close as the Germans ever got to the spires of Moscow.

On the night of 4 December, the temperature plummeted again to minus 31 degrees Celsius. Twenty four hours later, it sank to minus 36 degrees (25). It was clear that Operation Barbarossa had failed and worse was in store for the Germans. If they could not accomplish the USSR’s overthrow in 1941, they could hardly expect to do so in a weaker condition in 1942.

The writing was on the wall on 5 December 1941, as the Soviet Army counterattacked the static and precariously positioned Germans, by striking Panzer Group 3 near the Moscow-Volga Canal, along with the German 9th Army at the city of Kalinin. The next day, 6 December, General Zhukov’s divisions launched an assault on the 2nd Panzer Army south of Moscow, with both sides suffering serious losses. Yet Zhukov prevailed by forcing the 2nd Panzer Army to retreat over 50 miles.

Field Marshal von Bock, irate at these setbacks, wrote in his diary, “Last August, the road to Moscow was open; we could have entered the Bolshevik capital in triumph and in summery weather. The high military leadership of the Fatherland made a terrible mistake, when it forced my Army Group to adopt a position of defence last August. Now all of us are paying for that mistake”. (26)

In winter weather, the Soviets were a superior fighting force in comparison to the enemy. Soviet divisions were better equipped and had much more experience of adverse conditions. Stalin said shortly after the Red Army subdued Finland in March 1940, “It is not true that the army’s fighting capacity decreases in wintertime. All the Russian Army’s major victories were won in wintertime… We are a northern country”. (27)

With the Soviets continually counterattacking, one must give the Germans substantial credit for managing somehow to avoid a total collapse, which is what had befallen Napoleon’s army in Russia in late 1812. Hitler refused to allow a general retreat, as he ordered on 16 December 1941 that each German soldier display “fanatical resistance”.

By the end of December 1941, the Russians had advanced 100 to 150 miles across a broad front (28). The Red Army did not achieve a truly decisive breakthrough and the fighting would continue into 1942, and indeed well beyond that.

 

Notes

1 Evan Mawdsley, Thunder in the East: The Nazi-Soviet War, 1941-1945 (Hodder Arnold, 23 Feb. 2007) p. 97

2 Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953 (Yale University Press; 1st Edition, 14 Nov. 2006) p. 107

3 S. P. Turin, Some Observations on the Population of Soviet Russia at the Census of January 17th, 1939, published by Wiley for the Royal Statistical Society, p. 1 of 3, Jstor

4 Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 April 1985) p. 399

5 Ibid., p. 400

6 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, pp. 108-109

7 Ian Kershaw, Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis (Penguin, 1st edition, 25 Oct. 2001) Chapter 7, Zenith of Power

8 Samuel W. Mitcham Jr., Gene Mueller, Hitler’s Commanders: Officers of the Wehrmacht, the Luftwaffe, the Kriegsmarine and the Waffen-SS (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2nd Edition, 15 Oct. 2012) p. 37

9 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 395

10 Andrew Roberts, The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War (Harper, 17 May 2011) p. 168

11 Ibid., p. 169

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid., p. 168

14 Mitcham, Mueller, Hitler’s Commanders, p. 37

15 Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels, “Hitler’s Failed Blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union. The ‘Battle of Moscow’, Turning Point of World War II”, Global Research, 12 December 2018

16 Ibid.

17 Kershaw, Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis, Chapter 9, Showdown

18 Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s General: The Life of Georgy Zhukov (Icon Books, 2 May 2013) p. 138

19 Andrei Gromyko, Memories: From Stalin to Gorbachev (Arrow Books Limited, 1 Jan. 1989) p. 216

20 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 400

21 Richard Kirchubel, Peter Dennis (Illustrator), Operation Barbarossa (3): Army Group Center (Osprey Publishing, Illustrated edition, 21 Aug. 2007) p. 85 

22 Jörg Ganzenmüller, “Hunger as a weapon”, Zeit Online, 24 May 2011

23 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 401

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid.

26 Jonathan Trigg, Death on the Don: The Destruction of Germany’s Allies in the Eastern Front, 1941-1944 (Spellmount, 1 Jan. 2014) Chapter 4, The death of the Ostheer, Winter 1941-42

27 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, pp. 107-108

28 Roberts, Stalin’s General: The Life of Georgy Zhukov, p. 145

 


Chapter XIII

Consequences of the November 1941 Orsha Conference

 

On 13 November 1941 a significant conference was convened in Nazi-occupied Belarus, at the city of Orsha, in order to decide whether the Wehrmacht should resume its advance on Moscow, or go over to the defence for the winter.

The German Army Group North and Army Group South commanders, Ritter von Leeb and Gerd von Rundstedt, both wanted to switch to a solid defensive line, and thereby rest on the territorial gains made against the USSR up until mid-November 1941. Hindsight is useful but their views were undoubtedly correct.

Field Marshal von Leeb, who had no fondness for the Nazis being a staunch monarchist and catholic, was also considered a world authority on defensive warfare, and his opinion should especially have been heeded. Some of von Leeb’s early writings on defensive warfare were translated into Russian, and had even been incorporated into the Soviet Army’s Field Service regulations of 1936, according to Samuel W. Mitcham, the American military historian. Von Leeb himself believed, “Defence is mostly the necessary recourse of distress; the defenders are nearly always in a critical position”.

Already on the night of 11 November, the temperature just west of Moscow had dropped to minus 20 degrees Celsius. Because of Nazi arrogance and negligence, Wehrmacht troops were not furnished with winter clothing, nor did they have basic medical and military supplies. They were in no condition to fight a winter war that could succeed. Some German soldiers resorted to stealing the felt boots, fur caps and long great coats from dead Russian troops. Regardless, more and more Germans were exiting the battlefield due to frostbite, severe cases of which were first recorded on 7 November 1941.

The Army Group Center commander, Fedor von Bock, had a different opinion to von Leeb and von Rundstedt. Army Group Center was tasked with capturing Moscow and bringing the war to a successful conclusion. Driven by personal ambition and his hope that the Russians were almost finished, Field Marshal von Bock, ignoring the fierce weather and weakened state of his army, insisted that the march towards Moscow should continue.

Adolf Hitler supported this stance. As did the Army High Command Chief-of-Staff Franz Halder, who said at the Orsha meeting that “the enemy is worse off than we are; he is on the verge of collapse”.

Hitler, Halder and von Bock were influenced too by recollections of the First World War. Haunting the Orsha conference like a ghost was the German memory of the September 1914 Battle of the Marne which, it is no exaggeration to say, cost the German Empire victory in World War I. During the Battle of the Marne in northern France, possible German success was thrown away due to a lack of resolution. Though the past usually has lessons to teach, they can be misunderstood, and the similarities are few between the Battle of the Marne and the German position in the late stages of Operation Barbarossa.

It was agreed, therefore, that the advance on Moscow would resume, as it did on 15 November 1941. In awful conditions the Germans struggled forward, pushing Soviet forces back to the Volga Reservoir, about 75 miles north of Moscow. On 22 November Panzer Group 3 entered Klin and promptly captured it, 52 miles from Moscow. On 24 November the town of Solnechnogorsk fell, 38 miles north-west of the Russian capital.

On 27 November 1941 the 7th panzer division formed a bridgehead over the Moscow-Volga Canal; and also on 27 November, the 2nd SS panzer division Das Reich captured Istra, a mere 31 miles from Moscow. However, as of 26 November the Germans had suffered 743,122 casualties; taking into account illnesses and those unavailable through frostbite, the number would slightly exceed 750,000 German casualties in early December 1941. This total is obviously high but, in comparison, Red Army casualties amounted to almost 5 million by the end of 1941, more than 6 times greater than German losses.

In late November 1941, it was becoming clear that the possibility of the Germans capturing Moscow was a slim one. During the first two weeks of November, Joseph Stalin had dispatched 21 fresh Soviet divisions from Siberia and Central Asia to the Moscow sector. Before on 5 October 1941, Stalin had decided to create a strategic reserve of 10 armies, most of which were retained for the counter-offensive that was soon to come. The Germans had barely any new divisions to throw into the fighting. The weakened Luftwaffe previously failed to eliminate the Trans-Siberian rail line, across which the fresh reserves of Soviet troops had been transported.

On 28 November 1941, Panzer Group 3 established a foothold over the Moscow-Volga Canal, but it could proceed no further. Over 100 miles to the south of Moscow, the 2nd Panzer Army was unable to capture the city of Tula. This meant that the planned German pincers envelopment of Moscow, from the south-east and the north-west, could not now be implemented. In the first week of December 1941, Panzer Group 4 pushed a division to within 18 miles of Moscow but it was halted by Soviet resistance.

With a last throw of the dice Hitler decided, as Moscow could not be taken by encirclement, that he would wipe the city out by flooding it with water. Hitler compiled an order that was sent to the 33-year-old SS Obersturmfuehrer Otto Skorzeny, who would become one of the most famous – or infamous – soldiers of the war. Hitler’s order expounded that Skorzeny’s unit, belonging to the Das Reich panzer division, should advance to capture the sluices of the reservoir on the Moscow-Volga Canal. They would thereafter open the sluices and “drown” Moscow by turning it into a gigantic artificial lake.

By the start of December 1941 Skorzeny and his men, though they could see the spires of Moscow and the Kremlin in their binoculars, were waist deep in snow and could not advance to carry out Hitler’s order. Skorzeny complained how “in spite of the confusion of our logistics and in spite of the bravery of the Russian soldiers, we would have taken Moscow in the beginning of December 1941 if the Siberian troops had not intervened. In the month of December, our Army Group Center did not receive a single division as reinforcement or replacement”.

Image on the right: Nazi Germany invading the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa, June 22, 1941. Source: Contunico © ZDF Enterprises GmbH, Mainz

Watch the launch of Operation Barbarossa, the German Wehrmacht invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941

On the night of 4 December, the temperature near Moscow plunged to minus 31 degrees Celsius and, 24 hours later, the thermometer sank lower still to minus 36. The German soldiers were fighting desperately in the evergreen woods that lay around Moscow, and further progress was impossible. With this halt the truth suddenly hit home.

Army Group Center’s final effort to take Moscow had failed, and the failure left it in a most dangerous position. They were holding a front around 600 miles in breadth, and against an enemy which, though it had suffered unprecedented losses, seemed if anything to be growing stronger. The Soviet counter-attack was launched on 5 December 1941, timed beautifully to strike the Germans at their weakest moment.

For all of the vast extent of front, von Bock’s army had in reserve a single, understrength division. This was military redundancy, the result of German overconfidence along with Hitler and the high command’s willingness to gamble recklessly. Like players who continually doubled their stakes, they faced ruin should the dice fall the wrong way.

With the temperature below minus 30, the panzers and trucks were becoming immobile because the oil in their sumps was freezing solid, and the Germans had very little antifreeze. Their horses were dying from the cold, and the Wehrmacht was still heavily reliant on these animals for transportation. Even the lubricating oil in guns and other weaponry was starting to freeze, rendering them unserviceable. Out of the 26 trains per day, which the German logistics staff calculated were necessary to maintain Army Group Center, only eight to 10 trains were arriving every 24 hours.

So much for the successful eight week campaign envisaged in Barbarossa’s planning. From the German viewpoint, the invasion could only be regarded as a monumental failure. The objective had been to secure a 1,300 mile line from Archangel, in the far north-west of Russia, to the Caspian Sea – running eastwards of Moscow and including nearly all of European Russia. As December 1941 began, the reality was that the depleted German divisions stood outside of Moscow and Leningrad, Soviet Russia’s two largest cities; while to the south, German forces were stopped 300 miles west of the Caspian Sea. Neither had the Caucasus region been penetrated, following the German retirement from Rostov-on-Don on 2 December.

What were the reasons for the inability to accomplish any of these aims? No single cause can be put forward but some are more important than others. Barbarossa’s strategic planning was inadequate and amateurish. It called for an offensive across an extremely broad front, which served to dilute the force of the attack, and give the Soviet Army time to recover from the opening blows. With Hitler’s mark all over it, the German high command had attempted to reach too many targets at the same time (Leningrad, Crimea, Caucasus, Murmansk, Kiev, Moscow, Donbass).

Mitcham observed, “By sending them racing all over Russia, Hitler had contributed greatly to the wear on his panzers. Tank units had less than 50 percent of their authorized strength when Operation Typhoon, the final drive on Moscow, began”.

Moscow ranked as Soviet Russia’s most important city. Apart from being the USSR’s biggest urban area, the capital was its communications, transportation and administrative hub, which enabled each part of the Soviet Army front to be reinforced. Moscow was a vital industrial center and it headquartered the country’s all powerful leader, Stalin.

From the invasion’s outset on 22 June 1941, had Army Group Center been directed towards Moscow in a single great thrust – and protected on the flanks by Army Groups North and South – the capital may well have fallen at the end of August 1941. Such strategic thoughts were beyond the Nazi hierarchy, luckily for the world. Two months into the invasion, on 21 August, previous strategic mistakes could have been rectified by assigning Moscow primary importance on that date; but Hitler compounded the errors by reasserting the plan to capture numerous objectives. The advance on Moscow was postponed for what would be a critical six weeks (until 2 October 1941).

When Hitler’s orders of 21 August were forwarded by telephone on 22 August to Field Marshal von Bock, whose goal had been to capture Moscow, he was very upset. He said it was “unfortunate… All the directives say taking Moscow isn’t important!!… I want to smash the enemy army and the bulk of this army is opposite my front!” On 24 August von Bock continued, “They apparently do not wish to exploit under any circumstances the opportunity decisively to defeat the Russians before winter!”

Note the repeated use of exclamation marks by von Bock, a normally cold and unemotional Prussian not given to hysterics. His views here would prove accurate in every sense. General Halder went so far as to say that Hitler’s 21 August directive “was decisive to the outcome of this campaign”; and in December 1941 von Bock, having seen his prediction come true, again lambasted the 21 August directive, calling it “a terrible mistake”.

There were some other factors, perhaps secondary, behind the German failure. Russian resistance, military capacity, and resources were much greater than the Nazis had anticipated. Overall, the quality of Soviet military hardware was impressive, in particular the T-34 medium tank and KV heavy tank. Yet in 1941 there were, combined, only about 2,000 T-34 and KV tanks available to the Soviets, and most of these had been destroyed before winter by the enemy.

British historian Evan Mawdsley wrote, “In 1941 the Germans were able to cope with the superior number of Soviet tanks, by means of some excellent towed anti-tank guns. The 88mm, which was actually a heavy anti-aircraft gun, gave the Wehrmacht the firepower to knock out even the T-34 and KV”. Consequently, the high standard of Soviet armour, in some instances superior to the German, was not a decisive factor in 1941 when the crucial fighting was unfolding.

The Nazis faced increased resistance, at least in part because of the brutality of their rule in the conquered regions. In the Ukraine, for example, the Wehrmacht had initially been welcomed as liberators by a considerable part of the population. Before long, potential allies would evolve into implacable enemies when the true face of Nazi occupation was revealed, and this certainly did not help the Wehrmacht’s cause.

The size of the Soviet landmass, far larger than western Europe where the Germans were triumphant the year before, is a sometimes overlooked factor in Barbarossa’s failure but it was important. The terrain’s vastness was enhanced by German strategic blunders. The Soviet road network was much inferior when compared to the road system in France. This proved a hindrance to the Germans, especially when the heavy rains arrived in the second half of October 1941, turning the ground into rivers of mud.

 

Sources

Niklas Zetterling, Anders Frankson, The Drive on Moscow 1941 (Casemate Publishers; First Edition, 19 Oct. 2012)

Samuel W. Mitcham Jr., Hitler’s Field Marshals and Their Battles (Guild Publishers, 1988)

Evan Mawdsley, Thunder in the East: The Nazi-Soviet War, 1941-1945 (Hodder Arnold, 23 Feb. 2007)

Ian Johnson, “August 2017: Stalingrad at 75, The Turning Point of World War II in Europe”, Origins, Current Events in Historical Perspective

Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s General: The Life of Georgy Zhukov (Icon Books, 2 May 2013)

Andrew Roberts, The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War (Harper, 17 May 2011)

Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 April 1985)

R. Ording, The Churchill Equation (Dorrance Publishing Co., 3 April 2018)

 


Chapter XIV

Analysis of Germany’s 1942 Offensive

 

Three-quarters of a century ago, on 21 April 1945 the Soviet Army had encircled Berlin and was unleashing its final attack upon Nazi Germany.

With the Germans having killed more than 10 million Soviet troops since their June 1941 invasion, the last remnants of the Wehrmacht and SS were still vastly outnumbered in their defence of Berlin. Soviet ruler Joseph Stalin, on the cusp of celebrating his most important triumph, amassed around 2.5 million Red Army soldiers for this assault on the German capital, supported by over 6,000 tanks and 7,500 aircraft. (1)

For the Battle of Berlin, Stalin’s old nemesis Adolf Hitler managed to gather almost a million troops, but a proportion of them had seen too many winters, or too few. The cream of German armies had either been wiped out by the Soviets over preceding month and years, or were in captivity. By 16 April 1945, the Red Army began their assault towards Berlin, with a massive artillery bombardment on the German defences along the Oder-Neisse river line.

Raising a Flag over the Reichstag, a photograph taken during the Battle of Berlin on 2 May 1945 (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The previous day – 15 April 1945 – Hitler, dressed in full military attire, emerged in the morning from the cramped, overcharged atmosphere of the Führerbunker. Stepping outside into the fresh spring air, he looked about at his surroundings. Everything was still and quiet, the sky clear. Hitler walked the short distance from the Führerbunker to the Reich Chancellory, and he was joined by Hans Baur, his personal pilot since early 1932. During the 1920s, Baur was one of Germany’s most renowned commercial pilots, earning a variety of awards and recognition from the Weimar government.

Writing in his memoirs originally published in 1956, Baur recalled how,

“Hitler had personally taken charge of the defence of the Reich Chancellory, and on 15 April [1945] – it was a beautiful sunny day – he appeared in the garden to give various instructions… A thousand men of his Leibstandarte under the command of General Mohnke were there to defend Hitler’s last stronghold to the end”. (2)

With the Soviets closing in, Hitler rejected the pleas of underlings urging him to flee southwards towards Bavaria. Captain and crew would go down with the ship together. Apart from the Leibstandarte, very few remained in this area during the final days. Even SS commando Otto Skorzeny, the saviour of Benito Mussolini 18 months before and one of Hitler’s favourite soldiers, had since left.

Hitler saw Skorzeny for the last time in the Reich Chancellory in late March 1945, when the Nazi leader awarded him the prestigious Oak Leaves to the Knight’s Cross. Skorzeny got out of Berlin while he could. On 12 April 1945 he was present in Linz, the Austrian town where Hitler spent most of his youth and had planned to remodel. By 15 April Skorzeny moved on and “was drawing up plans for a full-scale guerrilla war should conventional methods fail to halt the Allies”, according to Skorzeny’s recent biographer, English historian Stuart Smith. (3)

That same day, standing outside the Führerbunker on 15 April 1945, Hitler inspected the defences of the Reich Chancellory perimeter. He then made his way into the Reich Chancellory itself, one of the very few large buildings standing in Berlin.

Suddenly appearing in the Reich Chancellory was Magda Goebbels, wife of propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels. Shocked to see her at this late date Hitler said,

“For heaven’s sake Frau Goebbels, what are you doing here in Berlin? You should have gone away long ago. Baur here will fly you to the Berghof whilst there’s still time. You will be safe there with your children”. (4)

Magda Goebbels protested and Hitler’s orders were refused, for once. Instead she saw fit to remain in Berlin to die – before killing herself, she would allow her six children to be poisoned with cyanide as they slept in their beds, drugged with morphine.

Hitler had not foreseen the catastrophe that was engulfing his empire. Only two and a half years before, he was convinced that the Russians were finished. It appeared that way to many at the time. During the summer and early autumn of 1942, this was the period of the great German advance into far-eastern Ukraine, southern Russia and the Caucasus: principally towards the Russian cities of Stalingrad and Astrakhan, along with another drive further south to capture Baku, the capital of energy rich Azerbaijan, or so it was hoped. As Hitler knew, Baku was dripping in oil. This city provided 80% of the oil consumed by the Soviet war machine (5). Taking Baku would constitute a hammer blow to the Soviets.

Reminiscing on developments, the Nazi war minister Albert Speer acknowledged that by August 1942 “there actually no longer seemed to be any resistance to Hitler left in Europe” (6). It should be recognised that, from the summer of 1942, this German advance hundreds of miles into the western and southern Soviet Union was one of the most incredible feats in military history. During Napoleon’s invasion of Russia 130 years before, he was simply unable to progress as far as this, failing to survive the winter even.

Nevertheless the Wehrmacht could not replenish the casualties they suffered from June 1941. In the first six months of their invasion of the USSR, the Germans lost more than 900,000 men, along with being shorn of 6,000 aircraft and over 3,200 panzers and other armoured vehicles. Most German troops partaking in the 1942 offensive, had been involved from the start of Operation Barbarossa the year before.

Jacques R. Pauwels, the veteran Belgian-born historian, wrote that German forces “available for a push toward the oil fields of the Caucasus were therefore extremely limited. Under those circumstances, it is quite remarkable that in 1942 the Germans managed to make it as far as they did”. (7)

The Soviet Union, with almost twice the population of Nazi-occupied Europe, was able to replace much of their losses relating to manpower. The Soviets could also count on their greater industrial strength, and the bigger quantities of raw materials at their disposal.

It can be recalled that large-scale German victories were achieved in the early summer of 1942 – before Hitler’s offensive eastwards, Case Blue, had gained a head of steam in the high summer. Beginning on 12 May 1942, a huge clash unfolded in eastern Ukraine, known as the Second Battle of Kharkov. This city, Kharkov, was the Soviet Union’s third largest metropolis.

At the commencement of fighting in Kharkov, which the Soviets initiated, the Germans and their Axis partners were outnumbered on the ground by more than two to one. However, during the next fortnight, the Wehrmacht inflicted over 200,000 fatalities on the Soviets, along with the capturing of up to 240,000 Red Army soldiers. By comparison, the Axis powers lost less than 30,000 men in the Second Battle of Kharkov, and the city was taken by German-led forces on 28 May 1942.

Five weeks later, on 4 July 1942, the Crimea was in German hands, after they finally eliminated (with Romanian help) Soviet resistance at Sevastopol – the Crimea’s biggest city. Hitler was increasingly impatient for Sevastopol to be taken, and he had said as early as 21 August 1941 that, “the Crimean peninsula has colossal importance for protection of oil supplies from Romania” (8). Soviet bloodletting was again terrible. Since late October 1941 they had suffered over 300,000 casualties during the Battle of Sevastopol. Also on 4 July 1942, Soviet forces retreated from the cities of Kursk and Belgorod further north.

Meanwhile, the fine weather seemed as if it would last forever. On 5 July 1942, German soldiers from the 4th Panzer Army marching under a blazing sun saw water shimmering on the horizon. It was what they hoped to see. They had reached the Don River, just 200 miles west of Stalingrad (9). Ten days after, on 15 July, Soviet forces fled the towns of Boguchar and Millerovo, less than 200 miles from Stalingrad. The way appeared open to advance upon the city.

The following day, 16 July 1942, Hitler relocated hundreds of miles eastwards, settling into new surroundings near the town of Vinnitsa, in central Ukraine. His complex at Rastenburg, East Prussia, was positioned too westward and no longer deemed suitable. Hitler’s headquarters beside Vinnitsa again had the word “wolf” inserted into it, and was called Führerhauptquartier (FHQ) Werwolf. The title was apt here.

Hitler’s chief pilot, Baur, remembered how,

“It sticks in my mind in particular as the place where I first saw wolves outside a zoo. We were taxiing towards the start with Hitler on board, when I spotted a couple of wolves at the edge of the airfield. They didn’t seem much disturbed at our approach, and we got quite close to them before they finally looked at us, and then loped off into the forest. My mechanic had drawn Hitler’s attention to them, and we all saw them very clearly”. (10)

As July 1942 moved on the successes continued, one after another. The German 1st Panzer Army took the city of Voroshilovgrad, in far eastern Ukraine, on 18 July 1942 – followed by the capture of Krasnodon, two days later, another city in the Ukraine’s extreme eastern reaches. Virtually all of the Ukraine was now under Nazi rule.

On July 22nd, the German 6th Army reached the great bend in the Don River, as they approached ever closer to Stalingrad. Rostov-on-Don, a sizable Russian city 250 miles from Stalingrad, fell just hours afterwards to the 1st Panzer Army on July 23rd. The taking of Rostov was a significant victory, as the Wehrmacht was previously driven from this city by the Soviets in early December 1941. Older Rostov inhabitants were familiar with the sight of German troops. Rostov had also fallen to the German Army a quarter of a century before, under the leadership of Erich Ludendorff and Paul von Hindenburg.

Image below: A Soviet KV-1 heavy tank destroyed near Voronezh (1942) (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The day after Rostov’s capitulation, 24 July 1942, another major German success was secured with the conclusion of the Battle of Voronezh, near the Don River. The Soviets lost over 550,000 men during the Battle of Voronezh, while the Wehrmacht and their Hungarian allies had less than 100,000 casualties (11). This battle, lasting for almost four weeks, is little known. Yet Soviet losses during it were comfortably higher than German casualties during all of the fighting at Stalingrad. The Red Army could just about afford to sustain such disasters, while the Germans clearly could not. That same date, July 24th, the city of Novocherkassk was taken by the Wehrmacht in Rostov oblast.

There is little doubt that, overall, German troops were of much superior quality to Red Army soldiers, time and again inflicting a far higher casualty rate on the Soviets. The problem was that, in the end, there were simply not enough German soldiers in existence while, as mentioned, the Soviets could call on a vast reserve of fresh troops to fill in their horrendous casualty list.

Yet the German advance continued relentlessly. German Army Group A marched towards the Caucasus on 25 July 1942, and further victories were clocked up. On July 27th, Bataysk, a city in Rostov oblast was taken. The following day Stalin issued Order No. 227 demanding of his soldiers “Not a step back!” Unfortunately for Stalin, this unrealistic order would be disregarded and had a largely detrimental effect upon morale. There were to be lots of steps back in the days ahead.

From July 30th, the Battle of Rzhev was beginning around 150 miles west of Moscow. Over coming weeks the Soviets would suffer in excess of 300,000 casualties there, about five times as much as the Germans.

On 2 August 1942, a long column of German motorised infantry from the 4th Panzer Army stormed the town of Kotelnikovo, 110 miles south-west of Stalingrad (12). Two days later, the 4th Panzer Army crossed the Askay River in its drive on Stalingrad. A few hours after, the city of Voroshilovsk fell on August 5th. Its airport would be used by the Luftwaffe to execute bombing raids on Soviet oil routes. On August 6th, the southern Russian towns of Tikhoretsk and Armavir, 80 miles apart, were taken within hours of each other in the separate advance towards the Caucasus.

On 9 August 1942, special forces led by Waffen-SS officer Adrian von Fölkersam captured the city of Maikop without a fight, at the base of the Caucasus Mountains. In fear of a major German assault, Soviet forces were fleeing in disarray from Maikop, ignoring Stalin’s order. Quickly following von Fölkersam’s units in the rear, the 1st Panzer Army then occupied Maikop, but found the surrounding area had endured scorched earth tactics. It would prove difficult to exploit Maikop’s famous oil reserves. On reaching Maikop the 1st Panzer Army, commanded by Field Marshal Ewald von Kleist, had advanced more than 300 miles in less than two weeks.

On 10 August 1942, the German 6th Army crossed the lower Don River. German officers, pausing for breath under the sun and looking into their binoculars, could clearly see the outer suburbs of Stalingrad before them. Having been shorn of much of their armour the month before, Hitler now expected the 6th Army to take the whole of Stalingrad by October 1942. This industrial city stretched for 25 miles along the western bank of the Volga River. (13)

Southwards, the march to the Caucasus was indeed advancing as planned. On August 15th, the German 23rd Panzer Division captured the town of Georgiyevsk, deep into south-western Russia (14). They were positioned 1,500 miles from Berlin, and within striking range of the frontiers of Georgia.

At this time, in the middle of August 1942, Speer travelled to see an elated Hitler at the FHQ Vinnitsa Werwolf, and he noticed that “The entire headquarters was in splendid humour”. Speer joined the dictator outside the latter’s modest bungalow, and they sat down on a bench under trees to discuss the next steps.

Hitler explained how they would now “advance south of the Caucasus and then help the rebels in Iran and Iraq against the English. Another thrust will be directed along the Caspian Sea towards Afghanistan and India”. Addressing Speer and several industrialists the next day, Hitler expected that “by the end of 1943 we will pitch our tents in Tehran, in Baghdad, and on the Persian Gulf. Then the oil wells will at last be dry as far as the English are concerned”. (15)

Within a few months, these dreams of conquest would be shattered. Spread out across endless expanses of the western and south-western Soviet Union by the autumn of 1942, the Germans and their Axis allies were under growing strain.

Pauwels, the experienced world war historian, wrote of the Germans that “when their offensive inevitably petered out, in September of that year [1942], their weakly held lines were stretched along many hundreds of kilometres, presenting a perfect target for a Soviet counterattack. This is the context in which an entire German army was bottled up, and ultimately destroyed, in Stalingrad”. (16)

As further noted by Pauwels, the real turning point of the war in Europe did not occur at Stalingrad, but in fact took place a year before in late 1941, when the Germans failed to capture Moscow. By 1942, the Wehrmacht was irreversibly weakened, their aura of invincibility gone, in spite of all of the above victories.

 

 

Notes

1 Warfare History Network, “Doomed: How the Battle of Berlin Ended Nazi Germany for Good”, The National Interest, 7 April 2020, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/doomed-how-battle-berlin-ended-nazi-germany-good-141872

2 Hans Baur, I Was Hitler’s Pilot (Frontline Books, 30 Sep. 2019), p. 174

3 Stuart Smith, Otto Skorzeny: The Devil’s Disciple (Osprey Publishing, 20 Sep. 2018), p. 227

4 Baur, I Was Hitler’s Pilot, p. 175

5 Georg Woodman, 2033-The Century After: How the World Would Look/Be If Nazi Germany & Empire Japan Had Won World War II (Strategic Book Publishing & Rights Agency, LLC (October 18, 2017), p. 128

6 Albert Speer, Spandau: The Secret Diaries, (Fontana, London, 1977) p. 58

7 Jacques R. Pauwels, “75 Years Ago, the Battle of Stalingrad”, Global Research, 5 February 2018, https://www.globalresearch.ca/75-years-ago-the-battle-of-stalingrad/5628316

8 C. Peter Chen, “Battle of Sevastopol”, World War II Database, January 2008, https://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=214

9 Donald A. Bertke, Gordon Smith, Don Kindell, World War II Sea War, Vol 6: The Allies Halt the Axis Advance (Bertke Publications; null edition May 31, 2014), p. 337

10 Baur, I Was Hitler’s Pilot, pp. 134-135

11 David Glantz, Armageddon in Stalingrad, Brad DeLong’s Grasping Reality, 18 November 2012, https://www.bradford-delong.com/2012/11/liveblogging-world-war-ii-november-18-1942.html

12 Jochen Hellbeck, Stalingrad: The City that Defeated the Third Reich (Public Affairs, 11 Oct. 2010)

13 Hellbeck, Stalingrad

14 Robert Forczyk, The Caucasus 1942-43: Kleist’s Race for Oil (Osprey Publishing, 19 May 2015)

15 Speer, Spandau: The Secret Diaries, pp. 58-60

16 Pauwels, “75 Years Ago, The Battle of Stalingrad”, Global Research, https://www.globalresearch.ca/75-years-ago-the-battle-of-stalingrad/5628316

 


Chapter XV

The Allied Firebombing of German Cities

 

Shortly after becoming Britain’s prime minister in May 1940, Winston Churchill said the war will be directed “against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it’s in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest”. Such statements were a warning of what was to come. With the Nazis then rampaging across Europe, it would take time before Britain’s firestorms could be unleashed on the German people.

On 30 June 1940, Hitler’s Luftwaffe chief Hermann Goering, then at the height of his popularity, declared just days after the fall of France,

“The war against England is to be restricted to destructive attacks against industry and air force targets… It is also stressed that every effort should be made to avoid unnecessary loss of life amongst the civilian population”.

By contrast, on 14 February 1942, a British Air Staff directive outlined their bombing campaigns should “be focused on the morale of the enemy’s civilian population”. As Daniel Ellsberg, the veteran former US military analyst, confirms in his recent book The Doomsday Machine, Britain was the first to begin “deliberate bombing of urban populations as the principal way of fighting a war”, starting in early 1942.

The murderous assaults on German civilians, often with incendiary bombs, were specifically to the liking of not just Churchill. Also a vociferous supporter of these methods was England’s Air Marshal, Arthur “Bomber” Harris– or “Butcher” Harris as he was known in the Royal Air Force. Among his first public broadcasts in the beginning of 1942, Harris said the Nazis had “sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind”.

Britain’s unscrupulous intentions were being signaled in even earlier military pronouncements. On 23 September 1941, a British Air Staff paper outlined that:

 “The ultimate aim of an attack on a [German] town area is to break the morale of the population which occupies it… first, we must make the town physically uninhabitable and, secondly, we must make the people conscious of constant personal danger. The immediate aim is therefore twofold, namely, to produce (i) destruction and (ii) fear of death”.

It was only after Britain began their mass targeting of residential areas that the Nazis responded in kind. On 28 March 1942, the RAF firestormed the medieval city of Lubeck, northern Germany, which persuaded Hitler to alter his tactics. During the British night raid on Lubeck, over 60% of all buildings there suffered damage, severe or light. The attacks lasted less than four hours, in which hundreds of Lubeck’s civilians were killed in the lightly-defended city.

“Bomber” Harris was satisfied with the destruction, saying Lubeck “was built more like a fire-lighter than a human habitation… it seemed to me better to destroy an industrial town of moderate importance [Lubeck] than to fail to destroy a large industrial city”.

Lübeck Cathedral burning following the raids (Licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0)

Britain’s outright targeting of German cities enraged Hitler. Just over two weeks after the Lubeck bombing, on 14 April 1942, a command was forwarded at his behest:

“The Fuhrer has ordered that the air war against England be given a more aggressive stamp… preference is to be given to those where attacks are likely to have the greatest possible effect on civilian life”.

It would be unwise to suggest, however, that until April 1942 Hitler was a soft touch in relation to bombardment. For example, in September 1941, as his forces surrounded the Russian city of Leningrad (Petersburg), Hitler relayed the following order:

“The Fuhrer has decided to raze the city of Petersburg from the face of the earth. There is no reason for the future existence of this large city”.

Along with the people in it.

Soon, America willingly joined their British ally in the annihilation of German cities. In July 1943, US and British bombers killed over 40,000 civilians in Hamburg in a 10 day campaign – even more than was killed during the Luftwaffe’s eight month blitz of Britain. An eyewitness account of the Hamburg firestorms noted that

“Some people who tried to walk along, they were pulled in by the fire, they all of a sudden disappeared right in front of you”, while afterwards “Rats and flies ruled the city”.

Royal Air Force Bomber Command, 1942-1945. Oblique aerial view of ruined residential and commercial buildings south of the Eilbektal Park (seen at upper right) in the Eilbek district of Hamburg, Germany. These were among the 16,000 multi-storeyed apartment buildings destroyed by the firestorm which developed during the raid by Bomber Command on the night of 27/28 July 1943 (Operation GOMORRAH). The road running diagonally from upper left to lower right is Eilbeker Weg, crossed by Rückertstraße.

The German historian and author, Jorg Friedrich, outlines that in total   About 600,000 German civilians were killed, including 76,000 children. It led Friedrich to describe Churchill as “the greatest child-slaughterer of all time”, with ample assistance provided by “Butcher” Harris, living up to his other nickname.

Little of these unwanted realities are outlined in Western mainstream records, historical accounts or school books. It seems not to fit with Western leaders’ saintly notion of the war being fought between “good” and “evil”. While Hitler’s Reich was one of the most murderous regimes in world history, Britain and America had hardly been angels of virtue until that point.

During Britain’s long subjugation and plundering of India, beginning in the mid-18th century – the imperial power’s policies were responsible for killing tens of millions of Indian people, mainly due to starvation caused from unnecessary droughts. In the year 1700, India had been one of the world’s richest countries, boasting 27% of global gross domestic product. By the time India finally gained independence from Britain in 1947, it was one of the earth’s poorest nations, while further plagued by widespread illiteracy and disease.

The United States’ foundation was built on settler-colonialism. Its basis was laid after Christopher Columbus, a mass murderer himself, “discovered” the continent in the late 15th century – often overlooked is that the indigenous population of 80 million or more had already long resided there. What followed was the Native Americans being “exterminated” in the words of America’s founding fathers, as the “superior” Anglo-Saxon race moved in and took their lands.

Meanwhile, as the Second World War advanced, one German city after another was incinerated by firestorms. Even small towns like Pforzheim, in southwest Germany, were obliterated by the RAF, killing a third of its 63,000 inhabitants in February 1945. Such atrocities came long after victory in the war was assured, mainly due to the Red Army’s exploits in the east.

It was previously hoped the Allies’ policies would turn Germany’s population against Hitler. It never happened. Not envisaged was that, from the mid-1930s until war’s end, millions of Germans were exposed to Joseph Goebbels‘ daily propaganda methods. Goebbels had, through devious marketing campaigns, ensured increasing numbers had access to radio sets. Through this medium, the virulently anti-Semitic propaganda minister had monopoly over the German mind. Come 1942 sixteen million households, about 70% of the German population, had confirmed radio reception. It should also be noted the dangers in rebelling against a dictatorship protected by Hitler’s personal bodyguard, the genocidal SS.

As the destruction mounted, by 20 April 1944 – Hitler’s 55th birthday – adorning Berlin’s wrecked buildings were hundreds of miniature swastikas and banners, addressed personally to Hitler. Some messages read, “Our walls have broken, but not our hearts”. To avoid seeing the ruins, Hitler’s rare visits to Berlin were made by night. And yet, contrary to popular perception, Albert Speer observed that Hitler did not react to news of the Reich’s bombardment with apoplectic outbursts – rather, he responded to bombing reports with austere, reserved expressions.

The dictator only betrayed pained feelings when he learnt a particular theater or museum was damaged, such buildings being among his most prized possessions before the war. Residential areas were always of secondary importance. As a result, Hitler was oblivious to much of the German people’s suffering.

Indeed, from 23 June 1941, the Nazi leader spent over 800 days at the heavily wooded Wolf’s Lair headquarters, in East Prussia – 700 kilometers east of Berlin. The enormous military compound was built specifically for Hitler’s overseeing of Operation Barbarossa, on the Eastern Front. Remarkably, the heavily guarded headquarters escaped the attention of both Allied and Soviet intelligence. Hitler’s private secretary Traudl Jungesaid “there was never more than a single aircraft circling over the forest, and no bombs were dropped”.

At the Wolf’s Lair, secured from the realities of war, and surrounded by obsequious followers, Hitler eventually entered into a type of fantasy realm, as – despite a string of initial successes – the war slowly closed in around him. On 20 November 1944, Hitler departed the Wolf’s Lair for the final time, with the Soviet Army just 15 kilometers away having reached the small town of Angerburg.


Chapter XVI

Western Allies Terror-bombed 70 German Cities 

 

During late November 1944, the German armaments minister Albert Speer met with his leader, Adolf Hitler, at the Reich Chancellery in Berlin so as to debate the ongoing war effort. Much to Hitler’s incredulity, Speer had been overseeing what seemed like miracles for months on end.

In late 1944 German production of panzers, aircraft and munitions reached an all-time high, in spite of the now almost unchallenged Allied aerial attacks.

While Speer and Hitler convened for discussions, the Nazi leader gestured outside towards the ruins of Berlin. Hitler turned and said jokingly,

“What does all that signify, Speer? In Berlin alone you would have to tear down 80,000 buildings to complete our new building plan. Unfortunately, the English haven’t carried out this work exactly in accordance with your plans, but at least they have launched the project”.

Hitler was in fact shaken by the devastation meted out upon the Reich by British and American aircraft – but what maintained his spirits during the war’s late stages was the great assault he was preparing to unleash mostly through Belgium: The Ardennes Offensive, which would send Allied armies careering back into the English Channel.

The Ardennes itself – with its vast woodlands, rolling valleys and winding rivers – was a magical, mystical place for Hitler, and one he long associated with his crushing victory over France more than four years before; as the panzers and armoured vehicles somehow carved a path through the Ardennes’ “impenetrable” forests. It was no coincidence that in this dense, misty terrain, the dictator would launch a second major land incursion.

The Ardennes Offensive, beginning in December 1944, would not have been possible had Allied leaders directed their pilots more regularly towards bombardment of German industrial plants, communication signals and transportation lines.

Instead, from 1940 British and later American airmen were ordered to implement “area bombing”; in plain English, the destruction of cities and residential areas which entailed, as was known, the deaths of noncombatants like women, children, along with the elderly. This was a particular brand of Anglo-Saxon warfare, which had prior agreement in the highest levels of Allied government circles.

Shortly after becoming Britain’s prime minister in May 1940, Winston Churchill had said,

“this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest”.

By the spring of 1945, Allied aircraft had terror-bombed a remarkable 70 cities across Germany – killing around 600,000 of the Reich’s civilians, the majority of whom were mothers and children, coupled with those too old to fight – along with destroying countless hospitals, schools and historical buildings. In contrast, the Luftwaffe’s Blitz of Britain killed less than 10% of the above total, about 40,000 people.

Of the 70 German cities firebombed, 69 of them endured the obliteration of 50% or more of their urban areas.

Civilians were indeed largely targeted. Over the war’s duration, more than 2.6 million tons of bombs were dropped on Germany or Reich-occupied territory; of this, less than 2% of the total bomb outlay fell upon the Nazis’ war-making factories. The vast majority of the rest were dumped over densely populated quarters and workers’ homes, separately killing large numbers of downtrodden POWs.

The Western media strongly backed the firestorming of German and Japanese cities, even demanding “more bombing of civilian targets”, whilst criticizing the few attacks restricted to military and industrial zones.

In Europe these actions were sometimes justified by claiming that every German was a supporter of Hitler, and therefore deserved their fate. Conveniently forgotten was that Hitler received little more than a third (36.8%) of the popular vote in the spring 1932  presidential elections; while Paul von Hindenburg took home more than half (53%) of all votes. In the July 1932 federal elections the Nazi Party, though now the largest in Germany, still fell far short of a majority, as they claimed just over a third (37%) of the entire vote – and Hitler’s support actually declined slightly to 33% in the November 1932 federal elections.

Later, the desire to smash “the strength of the German people” mostly spared the Nazis’ crucial weapons factories, rail networks and other resource lines. It was a great delusion on the part of Western political and military figureheads, to believe that hitting general populations would bring the enemy to their knees.

As Hermann Goering’s 1940-41 Blitz bore proof of, unloading bombs over heavily populated regions did nothing to break a people’s morale, but in fact bolstered a nation’s resolve. When relatives or friends are killed by enemy shells, the natural human reaction is to seek revenge, while the hardship brings people together.

Unlike British and American statesmen, Hitler recognized not long after the Blitz that aerial demolition of cities would not wreck the endurance of foreign populaces. During November 1944 Hitler was again telling Speer that,

“These air raids don’t both me. I only laugh at them. The less the population has to lose, the more fanatically it will fight. We’ve seen that with the English you know, and even with the Russians. One who has lost everything has to win everything… People fight fanatically only when they have the war at their own front doors. That’s how people are”.

Three months later, at the February 1945 Yalta Conference in the Crimea, Churchill was formulating the massive attack on Dresden with his advisers. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was terribly ill at this stage but he agreed at Yalta to pinpointing Dresden, in which over 500 American heavy bombers would partake, supported by smaller aircraft.

Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1994-041-07, Dresden, zerstörtes Stadtzentrum.jpg

Dresden after the bombing raid (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 de)

As proceedings at Yalta concluded on 11 February 1945, the firestorming of Dresden began two days later against a city whose population had swollen to over one million people, including 400,000 refugees.

Today, it is still unknown how many innocents were killed, with numbers ranging from 100,000 dead up to an extravagant half a million. Hundreds of evacuee children lost their lives, while scores of American Mustang fighter-bombers returned to mow down beleaguered survivors crowding alongside river banks and in gardens. Compounding these war crimes, Dresden contained no significant armament facilities and was an undefended university town.

While Hitler was particularly brutal in the genocide he pursued primarily against Jewish populations, he was not a proponent of systematic annihilation of urbanized places – euphemistically titled “strategic bombing”. He had not prepared for it. Throughout the war, the Germans had no possession at all of four-engine heavy bomber aircraft.

Little known, and of some importance, is that the Luftwaffe’s Blitz of Britain came as a direct response to British aerial attacks over German cities. Initially, Hitler had issued strict orders that no bombs be released on London.

Liverpool city centre after heavy bombing (Licensed under Public Domain)

RAF planes pounded Berlin almost every night from 25 August 1940 until 7 September 1940, the latter date heralding the Blitz’s commencement in riposte to British targeting of German populated regions. There can be little doubt that Britain started the air war against populated centres, and in fact London’s bombers had first attacked Berlin on 15 May 1940, during the Battle of France.

People in London look at a map illustrating how the RAF is striking back at Germany during 1940 (Licensed under Public Domain)

For years before Hitler had come to power, influential Britons were espousing the dropping of bombs over civilian targets – dating to such men asLord Hugh Trenchard, England’s esteemed First World War air commander and military strategist.

As far back as 1916, Lord Trenchard was expounding that, “The moral effect produced by a hostile aeroplane… is out of proportion to the damage it can inflict”. The following year, 1917, he pleaded with Britain’s War Cabinet in allowing him to “attack the industrial centres of Germany”; and in 1918 dozens of tons of British bombs were raining down from the skies over German cities, from Cologne to Stuttgart.

In May 1941, Lord Trenchard outlined to Churchill that the German achilles heel “is the morale of her civilian population under air attacks” and “it is at this weak point that we should strike again and again”.

Two months later, July 1941, Churchill told Roosevelt that “we must subject Germany and Italy to a ceaseless and ever-growing bombardment”. Roosevelt presumably agreed with this assertion, as the US president had reacted positively when hearing plans in November 1940 regarding proposed American firebombing attacks on Japan.

By the early 1940s, fascist Italy fell out of favour in Washington and London. Yet during the 1930s Roosevelt had been quite supportive of Benito Mussolini’s regime, with the new US leader writing in June 1933 that he was “deeply impressed by what he [Mussolini] has accomplished”, describing him as “that admirable Italian gentleman”.

The British and American capitalist business communities were generally benevolent to both Mussolini and Hitler, investing significant sums in the dictatorial states, and viewing them as bulwarks against Bolshevism.

US General Billy Mitchell, an instrumental figure often dubbed “the father of the American air force”, was an ingrained exponent of mass raids over city environments. In 1932, Mitchell wrote in an article relating to Japan that,

“These towns, built largely of wood and paper, form the greatest aerial targets the world has ever seen”.

Also keen supporters of attacking built-up centres were Cordell Hull, Roosevelt’s Secretary of State, and General George Marshall, the US Army Chief of Staff.

One need but glance at the array of four-engine heavy bombers dominating the British and American fleets: Such as London’s Short Stirling (introduced August 1940), the Handley Page Halifax (introduced November 1940) and Avro Lancaster (introduced February 1942); along with Washington’s Boeing B-17 (introduced April 1938) and the B-24 Liberator (introduced March 1941). These airplanes were undergoing design long before Germany’s invasion of Poland in September 1939, or indeed Japan’s December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.

The above aircraft boasted flying ranges of over a thousand miles upwards past two thousand miles; while the Luftwaffe’s most widely known airplane, the one-engine Stuka divebomber, held a roaming distance of just 200 miles. Allied aircraft could fly far and wide so as to inflict widespread damage over concrete landscapes; while they were not created as such to aim at specific military installations or war-making facilities.

Britain’s Stirling and Lancaster bombers were designed to carry over 6,000 kilograms (14,000 pounds) of explosives, compared to the Stuka’s 700 kilograms (1,500 pounds). The Stuka’s most infamous feature was its howling, melancholic siren, which was personally devised by Hitler in order to induce maximum psychological damage on civilians, but not so much physical harm.

The aerial bombardment of German, and Japanese cities, had served to lengthen World War II by many, many months – as the raids often spared not merely industrial hotspots, but also enemy soldiers. The running joke was that the safest place to be is at the front.

Speer outlined, “The war would largely have been decided in 1943” if enemy aircraft “had concentrated on the centres of armaments production”. Yet in their bloodlust, the Allied commanders did not relent in their desire to decimate civilian areas.

Nazi Germany’s ball bearing and fuel depots, pivotal to various armaments in her war machine, were bombed sporadically at times and not at all mostly. From spring 1944, intermittent Allied air raids upon the ball bearing industry abruptly stopped.

Speer remarked that, “the Allies threw away success when it was already in their hands” while “Hitler’s credo that the impossible could be made possible” looked to be running true to form. “You’ll straighten all that out again” the Nazi leader assured Speer when war production was briefly reduced, and as the latter noted, “In fact Hitler was right – we straightened it out again”. Armaments manufacturing remained strong, giving Hitler hope that the German ability to recover from seemingly desperate predicaments could yet turn the war around.

As a consequence of the Allied fixation on turning populated centres into rubble, almost to the end of the war German construction of heavy armour and ammunition rose. Speer revealed “our astonishment” as the enemy “once again ceased his attacks on the ball bearing industry”.

Perhaps it was not as astonishing as it appeared. On 28 July 1942 Arthur “Bomber” Harris, leader of RAF Bomber Command, said that his pilots were bombing one German city after another “in order to make it impossible for her to go on with the war. That is our object; we shall pursue it relentlessly”.

Such was Harris’ desire to wreak vengeance on civilians that he opposed the introduction of other aircraft – like the RAF’s Pathfinder – that could have significantly improved precision of aerial assaults, potentially shifting Bomber Command’s focus towards military-related targets. Harris feared that the Pathfinder, introduced in the autumn of 1942, would lead to calls for an end to terror-bombing of cities, his specialty.

Harris portrayed the firestorming of Hamburg in July 1943 as “a relatively humane method”; raids which killed tens of thousands of people, mostly civilians.

The Western democracies and “defenders of civilization” – in opposition to fascist tyranny – pursued the most destructive and crude of methods in a supposed bid to quickly win the war.

 


Chapter XVII

Fallacy of Terror-bombing Urban Areas

 

Though remaining unmentioned in official texts, the origins of the dubiously titled Cold War can be traced to policies pursued by American leaders during World War II itself. Following Nazi Germany’s calamitous defeat at Stalingrad in early 1943, Washington’s ongoing construction of the atomic bomb was implemented with the Soviets in mind.

Three months before even the D-Day landings US General Leslie Groves, a virulent anti-communist, confirmed in March 1944 that the atomic bomb was being produced in order to “subdue the Soviets”, then an irreplaceable ally of the West.

Aged 46, Groves assumed charge of the US nuclear program in September 1942, and he proved a ruthless, crafty figure who possessed huge power in his new position. Groves in fact held control over every facet of America’s nuclear project, from the technical and scientific aspects, to areas of production and security, along with implementing plans as to where the bombs would be deployed.

Less than six weeks after the atomic attacks over Japan, on 15 September 1945 the Pentagon finalized a list: Through which it expounded strategies to annihilate 66 Soviet cities with 204 atomic bombs, to be executed through synchronized aerial assaults. This ratio averages at slightly more than three bombs discharged upon each city.

However, six atomic weapons apiece were categorized to obliterate 10 of the Soviets’ biggest urban centres, that is 60 bombs combined would be dropped over the following: Moscow (Russian capital), Leningrad, Novosibirsk, Kiev (Ukrainian capital), Kharkov, Koenigsberg, Riga (Latvian capital), Odessa, Ulan-Ude and Tashkent (Uzbekistan capital). This alone would have gone a long way towards destroying the Soviet Union.

Yet it was the mere beginning. Five atomic weapons each (35 altogether) were identified to liquidate another seven large cities in the USSR: Stalingrad, Sverdlovsk, Vilnius (Lithuanian capital), Lvov, Kazan, Voronezh and Nizhni Tagil.

Continuing, four bombs apiece (28 in total) were earmarked to desolate seven more significant urban areas: Gorki, Alma Ata, Tallinn (Estonian capital), Rostov-on-Don, Yaroslavl, Ivanovo, and Chimkent.

In addition, three atomic bombs each (36 combined) were marked down to eliminate 12 other notable cities, ranging from Tbilisi (Georgian capital) and Stalinsk to Vladivostok, Archangel and Dnepropetrovsk.

Of these 36 Soviet cities outlined to be blown up – requiring between three to six atomic bombs per city – 25 of them belong to Russia, while the remaining 11 cities stretch across the Ukraine, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. The process of annihilation was to be directed not simply against eastern Europe and Russia, but extending to Central Asia too.

All of the USSR’s remaining 30 cities were highlighted as needing either one or two atomic weapons each, split down the middle: 15 cities necessitating two bombs apiece and the other 15 designated for one bomb each. Among these are yet more countries and well known places such as Minsk (Belarusian capital), Brest Litovsk, Baku (Azerbaijan capital) and Murmansk. The devastation was once more to spread past eastern Europe, and beyond Russia itself as far as Turkmenistan, where oil and gas rich Neftedag was to be hit with one atomic weapon.

A few of the above cities that the Pentagon was aiming to destroy are located in nations that have since joined NATO, a US-led military organization – like those in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, whose capital cities were listed as requiring 15 atomic bombs combined. The city of Belostok, in now NATO state Poland, was to be struck with two atomic weapons. These programs, if followed through, would have resulted in many tens of millions of deaths, far exceeding the loss of life during the Second World War.

Moreover, in 1945 some of the aforementioned Soviet urban regions were already lying in ruins following years of Nazi occupation, such as Kharkov, Vilnius, Tallinn and Rostov-on-Don. US atomic attacks over these places would largely have been hitting wrecked buildings. The Soviet Union lost more than 25 million people to Hitler’s armies, and was still reeling internally at war’s end.

Three weeks before Groves was completing his atomic plans, a late August 1945 Gallup poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the atomic bomb’s creation was “a good thing”, with just 17% feeling it to be “a bad thing”. It can be surmised these opinions would have altered somewhat, had the public been aware of what was occurring in the corridors of power.

One can but look on aghast at the sheer devious and audacious nature pertaining to the proposed demolition of 66 cities, across land areas spanning thousands of miles. In an age before the Internet and convenient handheld technology, these in depth stratagems would have required months of toil. The schemes may well have begun formulation around the time of Groves’ March 1944 confession to nuclear physicist Joseph Rotblat.

Groves was a driving force behind the plan to eviscerate all Soviet industrial and military capacity, with key assistance coming from Major General Lauris Norstad. Yet high ranking soldiers cannot undertake operations at this level without approval emanating from elite political circles.

As a consequence of America’s nuclear programs dating to World War II, it is grossly and historically inaccurate to suggest that the self-styled Cold War began in 1947 – as likewise are the claims that the Russians were to blame for resumption of hostile attitudes and policies. The masses have been sorely misled on these issues for more than seven decades.

Despite its importance, virtually the entire Western mainstream press (and most alternative media) have continued ignoring the Pentagon’s 1945 plan to incinerate dozens of Soviet cities. In isolation amid commercial media the British Daily Star newspaper, on 8 January 2018, issued a report regarding US proposals “to completely wipe Russia off the map” with “a stockpile of 466 bombs”.

Nonetheless the 466 total was then not a realistic one, and such high bomb estimates were dismissed by Groves himself as “excessive”, in his top secret memorandum to Norstad on 26 September 1945. Groves also outlined in the same letter that, “It is not essential to get total destruction of a city in order to destroy its effectiveness. Hiroshima no longer exists as a city, even though the area of total destruction is considerably less than total”.

Relating to their nuclear designs, Groves and Norstad had a most serious problem before their eyes, and one that would infuriate them both; along with, as we shall see, president Harry Truman. In late 1945, the US military held just two atomic bombs, and thoughts of decimating the USSR at this point were that of a pipe dream.

Accumulation of the necessary weapons was painstakingly slow, even for the world’s wealthiest nation. By 30 June 1946, the stockpile of US atomic bombs had increased to nine. Come November 1947 the arsenal had risen to 13 bombs, still remarkably small.

Seven months previously on 3 April 1947, president Truman, who was privy to proposals in wiping out the USSR, was himself informed of just how diminutive the US nuclear stash was. Truman “was shocked” to learn they had just a dozen atomic weapons, as he presumed the Pentagon had amassed a far greater number. Such was the secrecy of America’s nuclear program, few enjoyed intimate knowledge of the facts.

That same year, 1947, Winston Churchill implored Styles Bridges, a Republican senator visiting London, that an atomic bomb be dropped on the Kremlin “wiping it out”, thereby rendering Russia “without direction” and “a very easy problem to handle”. Churchill was hoping that Bridges would persuade Truman to effectuate this action. During the recent past, Churchill had received a royal welcome at the Kremlin and enjoyed a feast with Stalin there in August 1942, before he returned to Moscow for further meetings in late 1944. Three years later Churchill wished for the Kremlin to be turned into dust.

Meanwhile by 30 June 1948, the US nuclear cache climbed to 50 atomic bombs, and from therein the figures rocketed – come summer 1949, the US military finally held ownership of over 200 atomic bombs, heralding the era of “nuclear plenty”. Groves was since removed from his post, and even more dangerous individuals like General Curtis LeMay became prominent in American nuclear war planning.

In October 1949, LeMay expanded the plans so as to include 104 Soviet urban zones to be destroyed with 220 bombs “in a single massive attack”, and another 72 held back for “a re-attack reserve”. The 292 bombs allocated were available by June 1950.

However, the preceding year in August 1949, the global balance had irrevocably shifted, as Soviet Russia successfully detonated an atomic weapon over a testing ground in north-eastern Kazakhstan. Soviet acquisition of the bomb before 1950 came as a nasty shock to Washington. It would prove a vital deterrent to American nuclear designs, with the Russians having little choice but to follow suit and earmark urban areas in the West, relating to their own nuclear war schemes.

America’s invention of the hydrogen bomb in late 1952, quickly followed by the Soviets, dramatically altered the scope and killing estimates of nuclear war. The humble atomic bomb it seems was no longer of sufficient yield, and underwent an “upgrading” as humanity took a leap towards self-destruction.

The new hydrogen weapon, or H-bomb, was hundreds of times more powerful than its atomic cousin, and by the late 1950s H-bombs were being produced en masse by the Pentagon. Come December 1960 – with the American arsenal now at a staggering 18,000 nuclear weapons – it was calculated that practically every citizen in the Soviet Union would be killed, either from the hydrogen bombs’ blast radius or through resulting fallout. As was known, much of the radioactive poisoning would likely be blown on the wind across Europe, further affecting Warsaw Pact states and NATO allies.

Since 1950, the People’s Republic of China was added to the US nuclear hit list, a country which then consisted of over half a billion people; more than twice that of the USSR’s populace; while the Chinese themselves did not obtain nuclear weapons until the mid-1960s. Communist China and her cities were categorized to be levelled in tandem with Soviet metropolises, bringing an overall predicted death toll to hundreds of millions.

Due to a combination of deterrence, mutually assured destruction (MAD), and hefty portions of luck, no such terrible programs were executed, during what has been described for over 70 years as the “Cold War”. Rather than a cold conflict, the post-1945 years were organized for humanity to witness the hottest war in human history.

Because of Soviet intelligence reports, Stalin knew as early as four years prior to Hiroshima that America was developing “a uranium bomb”. By confirming to the Russians they held a new weapon of unparalleled destructive might Washington would furthermore, as envisaged, hold greater influence in boardroom negotiations with the Soviets.

 


Chapter XVIII

Red Army Winter Counteroffensive

Beginning eight decades ago on 5 December 1941, the Soviet Army’s counterattack against the Wehrmacht, principally along the outskirts of Moscow, was a major event in the Second World War and a significant occurrence in modern history. The Red Army counteroffensive officially lasted from early December 1941 until 7 May 1942.

The counterattack was titled by the Russians as the Winter Campaign of 1941-1942, and it provided evidence, both to themselves and the watching world, that the Wehrmacht was not invincible. The failure of Operation Barbarossa further placed a serious question mark over whether the Germans could win the war at all.

Very thankfully indeed, Moscow, the Soviet Union’s largest and most important city, was saved from Nazi occupation. The commencement of the counterattack brought relief and hope to many people across Europe and beyond, who had despaired at the thought of a Nazi-dominated world.

Yet while the Soviet Army managed to drive the Wehrmacht back from the gates of Moscow, they were unable to turn the counteroffensive into a rout; which, in that event, would most probably have led to the German Army’s disintegration in the winter of 1941-42; and therefore the premature conclusion of the war, in Europe at least. French military leader Napoleon’s armed forces, after all, had crumbled within 6 months of their June 1812 invasion of Russia.

It was for reasons like these that the Russian Marshal Georgy Zhukov, the most celebrated commander of World War II, bluntly termed the Soviet counteroffensive to be a “failure”. Zhukov wrote in his memoirs, “The History of the Great Fatherland War still comes to a generally positive conclusion about the winter offensive of our forces, despite the lack of success. I do not agree with this evaluation. The embellishment of history, one could say, is a sad attempt to paint over failure. If you consider our losses and what results were achieved, it will be clear that it was a Pyrrhic victory”. (1)

Zhukov was not exaggerating; he was a frontline general who could see what was going on before his eyes, and he had the resolve to voice his thoughts. As Zhukov noted, Red Army personnel losses during the counteroffensive were heavy, much higher than German casualties in what is often considered a landmark Soviet triumph. Altogether, during the three months of January, February and March 1942, the Soviet Army lost 620,000 men (2). By comparison, in the same period the Germans lost 136,000 men, well under a quarter of Russian casualties. (3)

The experienced British historian Evan Mawdsley, who focuses for the large part on Russian history, has presented the above casualty figures in his study of the Nazi-Soviet War. Mawdsley also stated, “German losses on the Eastern front, in the three and a quarter months through to the end of September 1941, numbered 185,000” and that “All told, the Red Army lost 177 divisions in 1941, most of them in the June–September period. Soviet military losses, up to the end of September 1941, have been given as at least 2,050,000”. (4)

Joseph Stalin had said shortly after the Wehrmacht’s defeat of France in June 1940, “we would be able to confront the Germans on an equal basis only by 1943” (5). This prediction was a far-sighted and accurate one. The Red Army “would only show great progress with Operation Bagration in Belorussia in June 1944”, Mawdsley highlighted. (6)

Stalin is not recorded as mentioning why the Red Army was trailing the Wehrmacht by such a distance in the early 1940s; and considering that he was in charge of the USSR, for appreciably longer than Adolf Hitler was in power in Germany.

The Soviet military’s shortcomings were at least in part because, as Marshal Zhukov said after the war, of “the enormous damage Stalin had inflicted on the country by his massacre of the top echelons of the army command” (7).

Zhukov’s opinion is backed by others like Leopold Trepper, a leading Soviet intelligence operative and anti-Nazi Resistance fighter, who wrote that with the purges, “The Red Army, bled white, was hardly an army at all now, and it would not be again for years”. (8)

Meanwhile, as the Soviet counteroffensive began the Red Army, between December 1941 and March 1942, would receive 117 new divisions to bolster its ranks. The main opposing force, German Army Group Centre, was supplemented with a meagre 9 divisions during that time. (9)

By 26 November 1941 the Germans had suffered 743,112 casualties, not including the sick or frostbitten – and at the end of February 1942, total German losses on the Eastern front amounted to 1,005,636 men; this equates to about 31% of the original German invasion force, according to military scholar Donald J. Goodspeed, who has provided these various statistics (10). In comparison, the Soviet Army had suffered around 5.5 million casualties come the early spring of 1942. 

Hitler placed immense store in the millions of casualties his divisions had inflicted on the Red Army (11). By late February 1942 he was again confident in ultimate victory. A jovial Hitler declared to his close colleagues at the Wolfsschanze headquarters, “Sunday will be the 1st of March. Boys, you can’t imagine what that means to me – how much the last three months have worn out my strength, tested my nervous resistance”. (12)

During December 1941 and in the months ahead, many German commanders in varying degrees continued to believe in victory. Goodspeed observed that the Wehrmacht hierarchy “reasoned that they were still better summer soldiers than the Russians, and that they should therefore fight in the summertime” in order to “build up their shattered armies for another great drive in 1942”. (13)

Hitler and the generals’ confidence would prove misplaced. The Soviets could afford far greater losses in personnel than the Germans, and this should have been no real surprise. The Soviet Union’s population in 1941 was about 193 million, that is 80 million or so more than the Third Reich’s populace. The Soviet counterattack grand strategy called for an assault along a broad front, 800 miles in width, from Leningrad in the north to the Crimean peninsula in the south (14). Its aim was to deliver a succession of blows that would gravely undermine the Germans and their Axis allies, resulting in the enemy’s swift collapse, or so it was envisaged.

This strategy was formulated with decisive input by Stalin, in conjunction with the Supreme High Command (Stavka). Zhukov was in firm disagreement with the counteroffensive’s strategic design. In his memoirs Zhukov wrote that he alone “dared to voice criticism” about the plan to Stalin and Stavka. (15)

For the counterattack, Zhukov favoured amassing their forces and directing them in a smashing thrust through the middle “against the enemy centre of gravity”. This strategy may well have inflicted a grievous hit, which the Germans would have struggled to recover from. Instead, with the dispersal of Soviet divisions across an extended front, the strength of the blow was diluted. Zhukov felt that he lacked the forces necessary to reach his goals.

Of the Russian counteroffensive strategy Mawdsley realised, “The Stavka made the same mistake that Hitler and his High Command had made in 1941, assuming the enemy to be exhausted and shattered. It also attempted, as the Germans did in Operation Barbarossa, to attack everywhere. Zhukov’s view was that it would have been much wiser to concentrate resources and get to the line Staraia Russa–Velikie Luki–Vitebsk-Smolensk-Briansk”. (16)

Zhukov’s favoured striking line was 350 miles in breadth, as opposed to the 800 miles which Stalin preferred. Despite Zhukov’s misgivings about Soviet strategy, his still significant role in the counterattack got off to an impressive start from 6 December 1941. Zhukov found himself in opposition to one of the Wehrmacht’s most prominent generals, Heinz Guderian, commanding the 2nd Panzer Army.

There was severe bloodshed on both sides but Zhukov’s divisions prevailed over those of Guderian, by forcing the latter to retreat over more than 50 miles of ground (17). Zhukov’s reputation, now already high in the Soviet Union, was deservedly enhanced further.

English historian Chris Bellamy revealed how Zhukov expounded, in a directive of 13 December 1941, that Soviet troops should force the enemy to retreat 130 to 160 kilometres (80 to 100 miles) west of Moscow (18). Once that was accomplished, Zhukov continued that the Red Army should thereafter “spend the rest of the winter driving the Germans back another 150 kilometres (93 miles) or so to the line east of Smolensk [230 miles west of Moscow] from which they had launched Typhoon in early October”. (19)

Zhukov’s scaled-down ambitions for the counteroffensive were realistic, but even then would fall a good distance short. Zhukov complained bitterly that many Soviet units elsewhere had been poorly led and “were continually trying to attack the Germans frontally, rather than being smart and working their way round the sides”. (20)

Mawdsley wrote, “In reality the Red Army was a very weak instrument in the winter of 1941-42, manned by untrained conscripts and poorly equipped. In January 1942, the whole Red Army had only 600 heavy tanks and 800 medium tanks, plus 6,300 light tanks; in contrast, the figure for January 1943 was 2,000 heavies [tanks], no fewer than 7,600 mediums, and 11,000 lights”. (21)

Hitler was aware that Napoleon’s Grand Armée had dissolved in full retreat 129 years before (22). Undeterred by this, in the face of Soviet counterattacks, some senior German commanders wanted a retirement far west of Moscow, to the Berezina or Niemen rivers (stretching across Belarus and Lithuania).

Such a retreat in mid-December, through knee and waist-deep snow, could have resulted in the destruction of the German Army. At a minimum, vast quantities of artillery and other equipment would undoubtedly have been lost – and during a season which “turned out to be one of the most severe winters on record”, a research study noted in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. (23)

By 20 February 1942, the Germans had suffered 112,627 frostbite casualties (24). This problem did not afflict the Russians to anything like the same degree; because the latter were warmly clad and had a working railway system right behind them, while they were used to fighting in winter conditions. Stalin said after the Soviets had finally overcome Finland in March 1940, “It is not true that the army’s fighting capacity decreases in wintertime… We are a northern country”. (25)

In the middle of December 1941 Hitler issued his standfast order. He demanded that German officers, from herein, compel the soldiers under them to hold their ground at whatever cost. Hitler went on that German troops in the field should ignore the danger, when enemy forces have “broken through on the flanks or in the rear. This is the only way to gain the time necessary, to bring up the reinforcements from Germany and the West that I have ordered”. (26)

Hitler had previously interfered fatally in German strategic planning, most notably by postponing the advance on Moscow by six weeks in August 1941; but his hold-at-all-cost order was in all likelihood the correct decision, and it may have rescued the Wehrmacht that winter. (27)

The Germans prudently made no attempt to retain a continuous line from Leningrad to the Crimea. Hitler and the German High Command (OHK) agreed on implementing a series of strongpoints, known as “hedgehogs” (28). These fortified positions were often erected beside large German supply depots, located from north to south, in such urban areas under Nazi occupation as Shlisselburg, Novgorod, Rzhev, Vyazma, Bryansk and Kharkov, etc. Subsidiary strongpoints were then constructed beside the principal strongholds.

The reality on the ground was more complicated than this; for the German hedgehogs were sometimes established in response to local Soviet tactical successes, rather than simply through the will of the Germans (29). Breakthroughs by Russian soldiers on the flanks were deemed acceptable by Wehrmacht commanders, since any Soviet division that proceeded too far was in danger of being cut off, and trapped behind German lines.

In early January 1942, Stalin came to the conclusion that total victory over the Nazis could be achieved that very year. On 10 January Stalin dispatched a directive to his generals outlining, “Our task is not to give the Germans a breathing space, to drive them westwards without a halt, force them to exhaust their reserves before springtime when we shall have fresh big reserves, while the Germans will have no more reserves; this will ensure the complete defeat of the Nazi forces in 1942”. (30)

As events would show, such directives were too ambitious and underestimated the Wehrmacht’s resilience. Mawdsley wrote, “Stalin’s January 1942 strategy of wearing down German reserves before the spring did not work… In fact, however, on much of the front the Germans were able to hold on to the territory they had reached in early December 1941. Even at Rostov and Moscow, they had only had to fall back 50 to 150 miles. They were still very deep in Soviet territory. In the north and centre they would hold this line until late 1943”. (31)

Remarkably, by May 1944 German Army Group Centre was still only 290 miles from Moscow at its closest point; whereas Soviet forces were 550 miles from Berlin in the early summer of 1944. (32)

Notes

1 Evan Mawdsley, Thunder in the East: The Nazi-Soviet War, 1941-1945 (Hodder Arnold, 23 Feb. 2007) p. 127

2 Ibid., p. 147

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid., pp. 85-86

5 Robert Service, Stalin: A Biography (Pan; Reprints edition, 16 April 2010) p. 406

6 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 148

7 Andrei Gromyko, Memories: From Stalin to Gorbachev (Arrow Books Limited, 1 Jan. 1989) p. 216

8 Leopold Trepper, The Great Game: Memoirs of a Master Spy (Michael Joseph Ltd; First Edition, 1 May 1977) p. 67

9 Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 April 1985) p. 407

10 Ibid.

11 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 110

12 Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Table Talk, New Foreword by Gerhard L. Weinberg (Enigma Books, 30 April 2008) p. 257

13 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 405

14 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 120

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid., p. 128

17 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 404

18 Chris Bellamy, Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War (Pan; Main Market edition, 21 Aug. 2009) p. 332

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid., p. 331

21 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 148

22 Ibid., p. 119

23 J. Neumann and H. Flohn, Great Historical Events That Were Significantly Affected by the Weather: Part 8, Germany’s War on the Soviet Union, 1941–45. Long-range Weather Forecasts for 1941–42 and Climatological Studies, Bulletin of the American Meteorological SocietyJstor

24 John Toland, Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography (Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, 3 Feb. 2007) Part 8, The Fourth Horseman

25 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, pp. 107-108

26 Ibid., p. 121

27 Goodspeed, The German Wars, pp. 405-406

28 Ibid., p. 406

29 Ibid., p. 407

30 Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953 (Yale University Press; 1st Edition, 14 Nov. 2006) p. 116

31 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 147

32 Samuel W. Mitcham Jr., Hitler’s Field Marshals and Their Battles (Guild Publishers, 1988) p. 274 


Chapter XIX

Red Army’s Winter Campaign. Part II

 

Six weeks into the Soviet Army’s counteroffensive, on 15 January 1942 Adolf Hitler at last agreed that German Army Group Centre could make a gradual, fighting withdrawal to a straighter and shorter line slightly further west of Moscow.

The Nazi hierarchy hoped that this would fortify the Wehrmacht’s defensive position, and enable them to fend off continued Soviet counterattacks; in order to reconstitute German forces for another major offensive in the summer of 1942.

Hitler attributed the failure of his 1941 campaign to destroy the USSR as largely due to “a surprisingly early outbreak of a severe winter in the East” (1). He did not mention the crucial errors himself and the high command made regarding grand strategy, and neither did he give the Soviets credit for putting up a stronger showing than the Nazis had anticipated.

Nevertheless, the Russian winter of 1941-42 was far colder and longer than normal, and indeed was “one of the most severe winters on record”, as noted in a paper co-authored by prominent climatologists (Jehuda Neumann and Hermann Flohn) with the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. (2)

A table produced in this study reveals that the temperature around Moscow, for the month of November 1941, was on average a remarkable 6.8 degrees Celsius colder when compared to November 1940 (3). For December 1941, the temperature in Moscow was 5.2 degrees Celsius lower than 12 months before; and in January 1942, it was 6 degrees colder than January 1941. Even the month of March 1942 was appreciably colder than March 1941, showing a 3.6 degree lower temperature on average, with the thermometer still well under zero.

Map of the Soviet 1941–1942 winter counteroffensive. (Licensed under Public Domain)

These much colder than typical temperatures are similarly reflected in recordings posted at Leningrad, Soviet Russia’s second largest city (4). However, the appalling weather was not the principal reason behind Operation Barbarossa’s derailing. The Germans were pressed for time, and had been unable to reach their goals, mainly because of the strategic blunders committed by the German high command; such as stretching their forces over too broad a front on 22 June 1941, and two months later when Hitler on his own initiative delayed the advance on Moscow. The Blitzkrieg had slowed in large part because of this.

Military author Donald J. Goodspeed wrote,

“The German high command had attempted too many things at the same time. It had neglected the primary axiom of the single objective [taking Moscow]”. (5)

Considering by late 1941 the Germans were deep inside the western Soviet Union, that they had not been given sufficient warm clothing, were experiencing problems with logistics and supplies, and had received barely any new fighting divisions, their performance that winter was quite incredible. In total during the three months of January to March 1942, the Wehrmacht inflicted 620,000 casualties on the Red Army, according to British scholar Evan Mawdsley; the Germans in that same period lost 136,000 men, equating to 22% of Soviet personnel losses. (6)

It was the ongoing German ability, to exact heavy casualties on the Soviets, which ensured that Hitler and his military command remained confident they would emerge victorious from the war, particularly as the winter progressed and the Wehrmacht’s position solidified. Goodspeed stated,

“It is impossible to withhold admiration from the German achievement in that terrible winter, an achievement much more significant than all the previous German victories. It is impossible to withhold admiration, but it is infinitely sad that men should have been called on to fight so well for so bad a cause”. (7)

On 29 January 1942 General Georgy Zhukov, the Soviets’ top commander, complained that he had so far lost 276,000 soldiers in the winter fighting, and received a mere 100,000 reinforcements (8). In his memoirs, Zhukov unceremoniously labelled the Russian counteroffensive “a Pyrrhic victory”; he criticised how the counterattack is often regarded as a Soviet triumph, calling it an “embellishment of history” and “a sad attempt to paint over failure” (9). The above casualty figures support the arguments of Zhukov.

While Zhukov’s lamentations on not being granted enough replacements also seems justified, in the three months from December 1941 the Soviet Army was bolstered with 117 new divisions, a very high number (10). The leading enemy force, German Army Group Centre, received only 9 fresh divisions from December 1941 to March 1942.

Hitler was relieved to observe that the Germans’ slow retirement of mid-January 1942 was successfully implemented. In the process, the Wehrmacht did suffer considerable losses in men and matériel. By 31 January 1942, total German casualties on the Eastern front came to 918,000, amounting to 28.7% of the original German invasion force of June 1941. (11)

In comparison, the Soviet Army at the end of 1941 had suffered almost five million casualties (12); that is the vast majority of the Red Army’s personnel strength of mid-1941. The halting of the German advance had, meanwhile, breathed new life into anti-fascist guerrilla activities, especially those in Yugoslavia and Greece. The Resistance forces helped to tie down a few German divisions. The Wehrmacht had no such difficulties from the Western European nations under Nazi rule. The French, for example, sent a contingent to fight alongside the Germans against Soviet Russia. (13)

In an unforeseen twist of events, the positive outcome of Hitler’s standfast directive of mid-December 1941 – in which he had ordered German commanders to deploy dynamite and other explosives to blast gaping holes in the frozen ground (14), to be used as defensive strongholds called “hedgehogs” – coupled with the successful action of 15 January 1942, appears to have augmented Hitler’s status as the German Army’s Supreme Commander.

Mawdsley acknowledged,

“Hitler came out better from these winter battles than Stalin did, at least within his own short-range terms. The ‘standfast’ policy saved his Eastern front. Ironically, the disaster at Moscow probably enhanced in the short term his reputation (and his self-estimation), as a war leader, although in a different way from the 1940 campaign in France. He could claim to have saved the German Army from its own errors”. (15)

On 19 December 1941 Hitler appointed himself Supreme Commander, replacing Field Marshal Walther von Brauchitsch. The latter had resigned due to heart trouble and the deteriorating circumstances in the East. Hitler insisted that,

“Anyone can issue a few tactical orders. The task of a Commander-in-Chief is to educate the army in the spirit of National Socialism. I don’t know any general in the army who could do this as I want it done”. (16)

Hitler’s self-assignment as Nazi Germany’s warlord was not at all bad news for the Russians. Having limited military experience, Hitler was bound to commit errors in the time ahead. In reality, the Nazi leader had been de facto Supreme Commander for months before December 1941.

On 10 January 1942, Joseph Stalin informed his generals in a directive that he expected “the complete defeat of the Nazi forces in 1942” (17). The Red Army’s May Day slogan expounded, “In 1942 we will achieve the decisive defeat of the German-fascist forces”. The Soviet leadership continued to state this aim was achievable “until at least late June 1942”, Mawdsley wrote (18); despite the fact by then, the Germans were hundreds of miles deeper in Russian territory than Napoleon’s Grand Armée had been in 1812.

As opposed to Hitler, however, Stalin possessed an extensive background in top military echelons, which would stand him in good stead as the war continued. English historian Geoffrey Roberts realised,

“Stalin was no general but he did have experience of high command in the field, and of serving in the combat zone, although not on the front line. During the Russian civil war he served as a political commissar, a representative of the communist party’s central committee, responsible for securing and maintaining supplies for the Red Army, a job that involved him in high-level military decision-making”. (19)

In January 1942, the Kremlin sought to inflict a fatal blow on the Nazis by executing a gigantic pincers movement, around the Russian towns of Rzhev and Vyazma. Such a move, had it been successful, would have led to the encirclement and destruction of the largest German force, Army Group Centre. Were the Soviets to achieve this, the war would have been virtually over (20). Partly because of the Russian plan, Hitler had reluctantly ordered his step-by-step withdrawal on 15 January.

The Soviets had already recaptured the Russian city of Kalinin (Tver) on 16 December 1941, 100 miles north-west of Moscow, followed by the strongpoint of Kaluga on 26 December, a similar distance south-west of Moscow. With Kalinin and Kaluga back in Soviet hands, Stalin and the Supreme high command (Stavka) now carried out their enveloping manoeuvre further west, focusing on Rzhev and Vyazma. These towns lie just over 130 miles west of Moscow.

Army Group Centre was not destined to be surrounded and destroyed. In bitter fighting the Germans held on to Rzhev. Their formidable commander, Walter Model, launched sustained and vigorous assaults against oncoming Soviet troops. Mawdsley wrote,

“General Walter Model was appointed to take over the 9th Army on the northern face of the German position… An officer of extraordinary abilities, Model began a meteoric rise, and would establish himself as the German Army’s best defensive specialist, Hitler’s ‘fireman’.” (21)

Hitler repeatedly described Model as “the saviour of the Eastern front”. For his successful action at Rzhev, the Führer personally awarded Model the Knights’ Cross with Oak Leaves on 1 February 1942, and promoted him to Colonel-General (22). Model, trusted furthermore by Hitler because of his pro-Nazi stance, was the only commander who could persuade Hitler to sanction retreats, sweetened with a “Shield and Sword” policy.

Through this stratagem Model would suggest a withdrawal to Hitler, with the general then stressing that it be followed by a bold counterstroke, in which the lost territory would swiftly be recaptured, or so they hoped. German military staffs were frequently amazed, to witness how Model’s Shield and Sword policy promptly convinced Hitler to authorise temporary retreats (23). Other generals risked being sacked for proposing as much.

Towards mid-January 1942, the Soviet 29th and 39th armies bypassed Rzhev, and advanced south-westwards in the direction of Vyazma. Further south again, General Zhukov’s divisions approached Vyazma. Despite these threats, Vyazma remained under Nazi occupation, and the Soviet 29th and 39th armies were cut off behind German lines, as General Model closed the Rzhev gap (24). The Russian advance was halted and the pincers never closed.

A Russian attempt to overcome the German 9th Army was stopped in front of Vitebsk, in north-eastern Belarus. South of Leningrad, a Soviet offensive along the Volkhov river failed to reach its objectives, and resulted in the annihilation of the Soviet 2nd Assault Army (25). On 8 February 1942, six German divisions were surrounded by the Russians at the urban locality of Demyansk, 235 miles north-west of Moscow (26). The encircled Germans fought on, and their survival was made possible by Luftwaffe supplies of food and medicine dispatched from the air.

At the Russian town of Kholm, about 200 miles south of Leningrad, a mix of German Army and police units were surrounded in late January 1942, as the Soviet 33rd and 391st rifle divisions tightened the ring around Kholm (the Kholm Pocket). Over this town the besieged Germans were likewise reinforced with Luftwaffe aerial drops. They clung on to Kholm in spite of repeated Soviet assaults, heavy casualties and a sudden upsurge of exanthematic typhus, a lethal bacterial disease. (27)

The success of the Luftwaffe manoeuvres, at Demyansk and Kholm, may have assured Hitler the following winter that it would be possible to safeguard the German 6th Army trapped at Stalingrad (28). Certainly, the Demyansk and Kholm operations lent credence to the Nazi air chief Hermann Göring, who was heartened by the Luftwaffe showing here. Later, Göring was optimistic the same undertaking would be possible at Stalingrad, until the 6th Army could be relieved.

It did not prove so, for the German airfields were further away from Stalingrad than at Demyansk and Kholm. The 6th Army was also multiple times larger, and more mouths would need to be fed to sustain it.

Outbreaks of typhus in late winter, as had afflicted the Germans in the Kholm Pocket, was expected. Such occurrences were predicted accurately by Hitler’s ally, the Romanian autocrat Marshal Ion Antonescu, who said on 13 November 1941, “In my experience exanthematic typhus breaks out in February. We must organize ourselves by then. We must limit the area of the disease, send bath and delousing trains, because otherwise we will have a wide-scale epidemic in February… The disaster will come in February, when a person is weakened by the winter, because he has not fed himself properly”. (29)

In the south-western USSR, on 31 December 1941 the Soviet 302nd Mountain Rifle Division, led by Colonel Mikhail K. Zubkov, liberated the city of Kerch in eastern Crimea. Over four months later, Kerch would be taken by the Germans again on 14 May 1942. In the Crimea’s far south, General Erich von Manstein’s German 11th Army had “occupied the shore of the Black Sea” and the Germans enjoyed “access to the wheat granaries of the Ukraine”, Leopold Trepper wrote, a top level anti-Nazi intelligence agent. (30)

Manstein’s forces were still stuck outside Sevastopol, the Crimea’s biggest city, which resisted heroically. Sevastopol would not fall to the invaders until the high summer (31). The most promising Russian operation took place near Kharkov, the USSR’s fourth largest city, which had been captured by the German 6th Army on 24 October 1941.

In the middle of January 1942, the Soviets launched twin attacks around Kharkov (32). The Germans managed to halt the northern Soviet arm at Belgorod, 45 miles north of Kharkov; but the Russians manufactured a deep wedge in the German lines near Izyum, about 70 miles south-east of Kharkov. Only after extended fighting was the Wehrmacht able to restore the situation, and prevent the Red Army from advancing southward on Kharkov, possibly retaking the city.

 

Notes

1 J. Neumann and H. Flohn, Great Historical Events That Were Significantly Affected by the Weather: Part 8, Germany’s War on the Soviet Union, 1941–45. Long-range Weather Forecasts for 1941–42 and Climatological Studies, June 1987, Jstor, p. 7 of 11

2 Ibid., p. 1 of 11

3 Ibid., p. 4 of 11

4 Ibid.

5 Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 April 1985) p. 403

6 Evan Mawdsley, Thunder in the East: The Nazi-Soviet War, 1941-1945 (Hodder Arnold, 23 Feb. 2007) p. 147

7 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 405

8 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 128

9 Ibid., p. 127

10 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 407

11 Jacques R. Pauwels, The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War (Formac/Lorimer; 2nd Edition, 1 Sept. 2015) p. 73

12 Ian Johnson, Stalingrad at 75, the Turning Point of World War II in Europe, Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective, 15 August 2017

13 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 407

14 Chris Bellamy, Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War (Pan; Main Market edition, 21 Aug. 2009) p. 447

15 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 148

16 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 406

17 Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953 (Yale University Press; 1st Edition, 14 Nov. 2006) p. 116

18 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, pp. 118-119

19 Roberts, Stalin’s Wars, p. 12

20 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 407

21 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 123

22 C. Peter Chen, “Walter Model”, World War II Database, April 2007

23 Samuel W. Mitcham Jr., Hitler’s Field Marshals and Their Battles (Guild Publishers, 1988) p. 319

24 Bellamy, Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War, p. 347

25 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 408

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid.

28 Ibid.

29 Dennis Deletant, Hitler’s Forgotten Ally: Ion Antonescu and His Regime, Romania 1940–1944 (Palgrave Macmillan; 2006th edition,12 Apr. 2006) p. 176

30 Leopold Trepper, The Great Game: Memoirs of a Master Spy (Michael Joseph Ltd; First Edition, 1 May 1977) p. 132

31 C. Peter Chen, “Battle of Sevastopol, 30 Oct 1941 – 4 Jul 1942”, World War II Database, January 2008

32 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 408

 


 

Chapter XX

Nazi-Soviet War Destined to Become a Long War

 

During the fighting in the Soviet Winter Campaign, in mid-February 1942 the German Army had recovered its poise, as the situation stabilised for the invaders. Across the Eastern front, the Germans were able to hold on to most of the territory they had captured by early December 1941.

Astride the Russian cities of Rostov-on-Don and Moscow, where the Germans had received some of the heaviest hits of the Soviet Army’s winter counteroffensive, the Wehrmacht had only fallen back between 50 to 150 miles (1). The Germans avoided the disaster that had struck Napoleon’s invasion force, during their 1812 attack on Russia.

The Grande Armée failed to get through its first winter on Russian terrain, suffering complete defeat in December 1812. The Germans would survive 3 winters of fighting on Russian soil, a remarkable feat of arms. By May 1944 at their closest point the Germans were 290 miles from Moscow, while the Soviets were 550 miles from Berlin at that time. For example the Russian city of Pskov, 160 miles south of Leningrad, was not liberated by the Red Army until 23 July 1944. (2)

Military analyst Donald J. Goodspeed wrote that the German performance, in the winter of 1941-42, proved to be “much more significant than all the previous German victories” (3). This was because the Wehrmacht had prevented a collapse along the front, ensuring that the Second World War was now going to be an extended conflict – it would rumble on for considerably longer than “the Great War” (World War I), resulting in far more bloodshed and destruction than its predecessor.

Though the Nazis would be beaten in 1945 and Germany occupied and dissected, the weight of the blows they inflicted on the Soviet Union were a decisive factor in that state’s eventual demise in 1991. English historian Chris Bellamy wrote that Soviet Russia did not fully recover from the struggle with the German war machine and “was a long-term casualty of the Great Patriotic War” (4). It could be argued, therefore, that the conflict was not an unmitigated defeat for Hitler’s regime. Soviet military journals also state that the victory over the Nazis was achieved at a cost that was too great. (5)

Image on the right: Portrait photograph of Georgy Zhukov (Licensed under Public Domain)

Zhukov-LIFE-1944-1945 cropped.jpg

The Red Army’s counteroffensive of 1941-42 has often been regarded, through the decades, as a watershed Soviet triumph; but as Marshal Georgy Zhukov outlined in his memoirs, the reality on the ground does not support these claims. Between January to March 1942, the Germans inflicted more than four times as many casualties on the Red Army than the Wehrmacht had suffered, 620,000 losses as opposed to 136,000 (6). Zhukov described as “a Pyrrhic victory” the outcome of the Soviet counterattack. (7)

To use a sporting analogy, had the Nazi-Soviet War constituted a boxing match the Germans would have won by some distance on points scored. After 3 months of fighting, at the end of September 1941 the Soviet Army had suffered personnel losses of “at least 2,050,000”, while German manpower losses by then “numbered 185,000”, British historian Evan Mawdsley highlighted. (8)

From September to December 1941 the Soviets suffered 926,000 fatalities while, in the final quarter of the year, from October to December 1941 the Germans lost 117,000 men (9). Mawdsley, who has also presented these figures, revealed that “German losses on the Russian front in the last quarter of 1941, despite the onset of winter and the drama of the drive on Moscow, were lower than those in the summer… These fourth-quarter figures represented a ratio of losses between the Russians and Germans of as much as 8:1”. (10)

In the first six months of 1942, a similar ratio prevailed in the war. From January to June 1942 the Germans inflicted 1.4 million casualties on the Soviets, as opposed to 188,000 casualties for the invaders (11). The great portion of blame, for the disparity in these figures, should not be attached to the frontline Russian (or Soviet) soldier. In both world wars, he proved overall to be a tough and resourceful fighter, capable of fanatical resistance. The responsibility lies ultimately with the state’s long-time ruler, Joseph Stalin, who had taken it upon himself to purge the Soviet military’s officer ranks beginning in May 1937; just when the spectre of war was about to envelop Europe once more, so the timing could hardly have been worse.

As the distinguished Soviet diplomat Andrei Gromyko recalled in his autobiography, Marshal Zhukov spoke bitterly after the war of “the enormous damage Stalin had inflicted on the country by his massacre of the top echelons of the army command” (12). Around 20,000 Soviet military officers and commissars had been arrested “and the greater part were executed”, Mawdsley wrote (13). This is a smaller number than purported in Western propaganda, but it was still significant, and the Red Army’s senior commanders were of course disproportionately targeted.

The worst of the Red Army purges occurred between 1937-1938, but the arrests and executions continued right up to the eve of war with Nazi Germany on 22 June 1941, notably targeting the Soviet Air Force command (14). The result was that the Soviet military, despite lavish spending on armaments for years, was a weak instrument by the time the Germans attacked. The Red Army was desperately short of experienced and capable commanders, when they were needed most.

Mawdsley wrote of those that had been purged,

“These men possessed the fullest professional, educational and operational experience the Red Army had accumulated. They had presided over an extraordinary modernization of doctrine and matériel of the early 1930s. Despite professional and personal rivalries among themselves, these leaders had formed a fairly cohesive command structure. The paradox is that this was precisely why Stalin mistrusted them”. (15)

Had the officers in question been organising a plot to overthrow Stalin, one could at least understand the latter’s actions. Yet a coup does not seem to have been on the horizon. According to Zhukov, who knew some of the Soviet officers in question, those who had been liquidated were “innocent victims” (16). In addition, Zhukov wrote in his memoirs of “unfounded arrests in the armed forces” which were “in contravention of socialist legality” and this had “affected the development of our armed forces and their combat preparedness”. (17)

Of those who remained in the Red Army’s command structure, their initiative and ability to make independent decisions had been paralysed. It was an inevitable byproduct of the psychological damage inflicted by the purges also. Mawdsley realised “a mental state was imposed which was the very opposite of the German ‘mission-oriented command system’”, which encouraged and rewarded independent thinking. (18)

The Red Army purges convinced possible allies and enemies that the Soviet military was in disarray. Exploiting the circumstances, German agencies forwarded details of the purges to British and French intelligence (19). Hitler’s own opinion that the Red Army was of poor quality strengthened in the winter of 1939-40, when he learned of the Soviet forces struggling to overcome a much smaller Finnish Army. The purges were a factor too behind the British and French refusal to sign a pact with Russia, in the late 1930s, which would have aligned those three states against Germany, as during the First World War.

The British and French leaders were, by and large, intensely anti-Bolshevik which can’t be forgotten. The purges served as an excuse to increase their prejudices against communist Russia. Relating to the Anglo-French military hierarchy, Leopold Trepper, a leading former Red Army intelligence agent wrote in his memoirs, “I am inclined to think that the French and English chiefs of staff were less than impatient to seal a military alliance with the Soviet Union, because the weakness of the Soviet Army had become clear to them”. (20)

This weakness was acknowledged not only by Zhukov but other top level Soviet military figures, like Marshal Kliment Voroshilov. In early October 1941 Voroshilov, the pre-war commander of the Red Army, told the Communist International (Comintern) leader Georgi Dimitrov that the situation at the front is “awful”. Voroshilov went on that “our organisation is weaker than theirs. Our commanding officers are less well trained. The Germans succeed usually because of their better organisation and clever tricks”. (21)

Image below: Joseph Stalin (Licensed under Public Domain)

Stalin Full Image.jpg

The Soviet cause had been hindered too, by Stalin’s refusal to believe the intelligence reports warning of an imminent German invasion. The most plausible intelligence material regarding Nazi intentions came from Soviet agents, such as Trepper, Richard Sorge and Harro Schulze-Boysen, all of whom informed the Kremlin about Operation Barbarossa.

The reports converged and showed an obvious pattern, peaking in intensity and accuracy in the first 3 weeks of June 1941; but Stalin continued to discount the intelligence information sent to him personally. A few days before the Germans invaded, in mid-June 1941 Stalin told Zhukov, “I believe that Hitler will not risk creating a second front for himself by attacking the Soviet Union” (22). Also revealing is that when Stalin was awakened and informed of heavy German shelling along the Nazi-Soviet border, he said, “Hitler surely doesn’t know about it”. (23)

The Germans achieved a major element of surprise in their invasion, advancing quicker and inflicting more damage than they would otherwise have been able to. When the Axis forces swarmed over the frontiers, many Soviet troops were either on leave, separated from their artillery, overrun and taken prisoner before they could mount an effective defence. Within a week of the invasion, the Soviets had suffered about 600,000 casualties and the Germans had advanced more than halfway to Moscow.

Three and a half weeks into the attack, by 16 July 1941 the Wehrmacht was more than two-thirds of the way to the Soviet capital, having reached the city of Smolensk in western Russia, 230 miles from Moscow as the crow flies. Robert Service, an historian of Russian history, wrote how “A military calamity had occurred on a scale unprecedented in the wars of the twentieth century” (24). It is conventionally believed, for an offensive to succeed decisively, that the attackers should outnumber the defenders by 3 to 1 (25). This was certainly not the case in the Nazi-Soviet War, and it offers one crucial reason as to why the German invasion would fail.

The Germans and their Axis allies (mainly Romanians and Finns at first) attacked the USSR with 3,767,000 men; the Soviet military’s personnel strength on the eve of war, taking in the whole of the USSR, amounted to 5,373,000, of which 4,261,000 belonged to the ground forces, the remainder to the air force and navy (26). By the end of 1941, the Germans had virtually destroyed the original 5 million strong Soviet military. However, there was a reserve force to be called upon of 14 million Soviet citizens who, it must be said, had only basic military training; among the Red Army reservists were a million women, about half of them present on the frontline in a variety of roles (27). The Soviet Union’s population was more than 190 million in 1941, not far away from being double that of the Reich’s population.

The Soviet military possessed much larger numbers of tanks, airplanes and artillery than the Germans and their allies. Stalin must be given due credit here, because he had overseen the USSR’s armament drive since the early 1930s. Spending on the Soviet defence budget increased by 340% in absolute terms from 1932 to 1937, and expenditure on arms doubled again between 1937 and 1940. (28)

Directly involved in the fighting at the war’s outset were 11,000 Soviet tanks, in opposition to 4,000 Axis tanks, 9,100 Soviet combat aircraft compared to 4,400 Axis combat aircraft, and 19,800 Soviet artillery pieces as opposed to 7,200 Axis artillery pieces (29). The German-led armies, on paper, should have been at a clear disadvantage from the beginning.

The size of the USSR’s landmass was a further critical factor in Barbarossa’s failure. Russia by itself is easily the world’s largest country, but the Germans assailed other states like the Ukraine (Europe’s second biggest country today), and they also entered Belarus and the Baltic nations. Had the Red Army been concentrated in an area the size of France, the Wehrmacht would most probably have been victorious within a reasonably short space of time.

The farther that the Germans advanced into the western Soviet Union, the broader the land became, a vast expanse opening up in front of them. This was increasingly the case when an invading force attacked across the whole front. While the Germans could do nothing about the terrain’s breadth, they could have shortened the distance by directing their 3 Army Groups in a straight thrust towards Moscow, the USSR’s transportation and communications hub.

By the second half of August 1941, forward units of German Army Group Centre were just 185 miles from Moscow (30). The Wehrmacht’s real weakness was its high command’s strategic shortcomings, compounded by Hitler’s interference, most fatefully his directive of 21 August 1941 – when the Nazi leader postponed the advance on Moscow in order to capture Leningrad, Kiev and the Crimea among other goals. (31)

This directive, a pivotal turning point in the entire war, resulted in a 6 week delay in the approach towards Moscow. It meant in the end that the capital went uncaptured by the Nazis, and the Soviet Union as a result would survive the war, though a long and difficult struggle lay ahead.

 

 

Notes

1 Evan Mawdsley, Thunder in the East: The Nazi-Soviet War, 1941-1945 (Hodder Arnold, 23 Feb. 2007) p. 147

2 Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chronology and Index of the Second World War, 1938-1945 (Meckler Books, 1990) p. 278

3 Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 3 April 1985) p. 405

4 Chris Bellamy, Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War (Pan; Main Market edition, 21 Aug. 2009) p. 6

5 Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953 (Yale University Press; 1st Edition, 14 Nov. 2006) p. 10

6 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 147

7 Ibid., p. 127

8 Ibid., pp. 85-86

9 Ibid., pp. 116-117

10 Ibid., p. 117

11 Ibid., p. 147

12 Andrei Gromyko, Memories: From Stalin to Gorbachev (Arrow Books Limited, 1 Jan. 1989) p. 216

13 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, pp. 20-21

14 Ibid., p. 21

15 Ibid.

16 Gromyko, Memories: From Stalin to Gorbachev, p. 216

17 Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s General: The Life of Georgy Zhukov (Icon Books, 2 May 2013) p. 46

18 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 21

19 Leopold Trepper, The Great Game: Memoirs of a Master Spy (Michael Joseph Ltd; First Edition, 1 May 1977) p. 67

20 Ibid., pp. 67-68

21 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 19

22 Ibid., p. 18

23 Robert Service, Stalin: A Biography (Pan; Reprints edition, 16 April 2010) p. 410

24 Ibid., p. 411

25 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 19

26 Ibid., pp. 19 & 30

27 Roberts, Stalin’s Wars, p. 163

28 Roberts, Stalin’s General: The Life of Georgy Zhukov, p. 43

29 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 19

30 Samuel W. Mitcham Jr., Gene Mueller, Hitler’s Commanders: Officers of the Wehrmacht, the Luftwaffe, the Kriegsmarine and the Waffen-SS (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2nd Edition, 15 Oct. 2012) p. 37 

31 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 396

 


 

Chapter XXI

Overview of the Nazi-Soviet War in Early 1942

 

By the beginning of 1942 Adolf Hitler had led Nazi Germany into a desperate situation, from which there was probably no escape. At the time, this was not easily apparent to the Wehrmacht or the German population, nor indeed to the Third Reich’s enemies, particularly those in the West.

The failure of Nazi Germany’s Army Groups to deliver a lethal blow against Soviet Russia in 1941, meant that the Wehrmacht had missed its chance to win the war; and well prior to the defeat at Stalingrad, which confirmed to the world that the Germans were unlikely to emerge victorious. As 1942 began, the sands of time were moving rapidly against the Nazis and their Axis allies, principally Benito Mussolini’s Italy and Ion Antonescu’s Romania, both of whom were dependent on German success to ensure their own survival.

The Soviet Union of Joseph Stalin, with its greater industrial power and much larger population than the Reich, could only strengthen as the conflict continued and the Germans could only weaken. However, the USSR itself would never completely recover from the devastation inflicted by the Wehrmacht on their state, at a minimum 25 million Soviet deaths suffered and tens of thousands of towns destroyed (1); along with the effort simply expended in the struggle against the German war machine.

English historian Chris Bellamy wrote that the Nazi-Soviet War had ongoing implications, not merely for Germany but for Russia too, and was a leading factor which “ultimately broke the Soviet Union” in 1991. The other central cause behind the USSR’s disintegration was “the succeeding struggle against the West – which followed without any respite”. (2)

Bellamy recognised that Soviet Russia “was a long-term casualty of the Great Patriotic War [1941–45]” (3). Had Hitler known this as he raised a pistol to his head in the Führerbunker, and furthermore that the Soviet Union would collapse without a shot fired, he presumably would have gone to his grave in a more serene state of mind. Russian military journals conceded that the Soviet victory over the Germans was achieved at too great a cost. (4)

During the Nazi-Soviet War, the turning of the tide took far longer than Stalin and his regime had expected. From January 1942 until the high summer, the Soviet hierarchy continued to claim complete triumph was achievable over the Wehrmacht that year (5). The Germans proved to be made of sterner material than Napoleon’s army, in their ill-fated 1812 attack on Russia.

The lingering effects of Stalin’s purges of the Red Army high command (1937-41) should not be underestimated. After the war, Marshal Georgy Zhukov said the purges had inflicted “enormous damage” on “the top echelons of the army command” (6). As Zhukov knew, the repercussions were felt strongly in the war with Nazi Germany. The Red Army had a shortage of top class commanders. It was further deprived of the initiative to make independent decisions when needed, especially early in the conflict against Nazism when Stalin was personally caught by surprise with the German invasion.

Moreover, British scholar Evan Mawdsley observed, “the purges made foreign governments – potential allies as well as potential enemies – assume that the Red Army was a broken shell” (7). The British and French presumed it to be so. As did Hitler’s Germany who had taken advantage of the circumstances.

Red Army intelligence agent Leopold Trepper wrote in his memoirs,

“The Germans exploited this situation to the full, instructing their Intelligence Services to convey to Paris and London the alarming facts – and they really were alarming – on the state of the Red Army after the purges”. (8)

It was the case also that the purges were a factor which influenced Hitler to attack the USSR, on 22 June 1941, otherwise he may have held off until 1942 or later. Proof of the damage imparted on the Soviet armed forces was evident in the Winter War with Finland (30 November 1939–13 March 1940), which the Soviet authorities had predicted would last for between 10 to 12 days. (9)

The Nazis were subsequently confident that a war against Soviet Russia would be a routine one. This confidence grew after the German divisions brushed aside French and British forces, during the summer 1940 Battle of France.

With 1942 continuing from its opening weeks the German high command, on paper at least, still had cause for hope. Most of eastern Europe and European Russia was under Nazi occupation, and there was no immediate threat of a large-scale Anglo-American landing in the West. Though by some distance the world’s strongest country, America and its war industry was shifting slowly into gear after the Great Depression, and would not reach its potential until late in the global conflict.

Much to Stalin’s dismay and frustration, it was the Japanese, and not the Germans, who would then endure the brunt of US industrial might. Stalin and his entourage’s growing suspicions, that the Anglo-American powers hoped the Nazi-Soviet War would last for years, were based on well-founded concerns.

This desire had already been expressed in part by Harry S. Truman, future US president, hours after the Wehrmacht had invaded the Soviet Union.

Truman, then a US Senator, said he wanted to see the Soviets and Germans “kill as many as possible” between themselves, an attitude which the New York Times later called “a firm policy” (10). The Times had previously published Truman’s remarks on 24 June 1941, and as a result his views would most likely not have escaped the Soviets’ attention.

The area of landmass conquered by Nazi Germany increased substantially again through 1942. Expanding to its peak, the Third Reich’s territory was equal to the size of terrain conquered by the legendary Macedonian king, Alexander the Great, in the 4th century BC (11). Alexander the Great had ruled over a land area from the eastern Mediterranean all of the way to north-western India. Hitler’s dominion stretched across the entirety of continental Europe, much of north Africa and had breached into the fringes of western Asia.

As early as 18 October 1941, the Germans had taken captive at least 3 million Soviet troops. Bellamy noted,

“The total of 3 million was almost 10 times the figure of 378,000 admitted by Stalin on 6 November [1941], on the eve of the twenty-fourth anniversary of the 1917 October revolution. By the end of 1941, 3.8 million Soviet servicemen and women had surrendered or been captured”. (12)

Stalin was not assuming responsibility for the fall of Kiev, in the middle of September 1941, which had resulted in 665,000 Soviet soldiers taken prisoner by the Germans, an unequalled number in the military annals. By refusing to allow the Ukrainian capital to be abandoned for strategic reasons, Stalin had overruled the pleas of commanders like Zhukov and Semyon Budyonny. The latter was a distinguished cavalryman, but this did not prevent Budyonny from being scapegoated for the Kiev calamity and sacked on 13 September 1941.

Geoffrey Roberts, a specialist in Soviet history, wrote that

“Stalin fully shared these misconceptions and, as Supreme Commander, bore ultimate responsibility for their disastrous practical consequences. As A.J.P. Taylor noted [a British historian], Stalin’s dedication to the doctrine of the offensive ‘brought upon the Soviet armies greater catastrophes than any other armies have ever known’. There were many occasions, too, when it was Stalin’s personal insistence on the policy of no retreat, and of counterattack at all costs, that resulted in heavy Soviet losses”. (13)

Among Hitler’s goals for the 1942 offensive was to deal a devastating blow on the Red Army, by destroying its divisions in the south-western USSR; and thereafter seizing control of the Soviet oil fields of the Caucasus, primarily at Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. The fossil fuel sources there supplied the Soviet Union with almost 90% of its fuel, a remarkable total. Roberts outlined,

“Unlike in 1941, Hitler did not necessarily expect to win the war in the east in 1942” (14). He did expect to place the Reich in an insurmountable position, self-sufficient by enjoying mastery over rich oil deposits and, in doing so, depriving Soviet Russia of those reserves.

Should they fail Hitler acknowledged, “If we do not capture the oil supplies of the Caucasus by the autumn, then I shall have to face the fact that we cannot win this war” (15). German plans for the 1942 summer campaign expounded that the Russian infiltrations, behind Wehrmacht lines, were to be wiped out once and for all. The surrounded German garrisons in the Russian towns of Demyansk and Kholm were to be relieved, and the Soviet pocket at Volkhov, 70 miles east of Leningrad, was earmarked for eradication. (16)

German objectives further stated that the 60 mile Soviet salient near the city of Izyum, in eastern Ukraine, should be cleared of Russian forces; as would the Kerch peninsula in the east of Crimea, while the city of Sevastopol in southern Crimea was to be taken.

The German Army of 1942 was still very powerful, and it remained much stronger than its Soviet counterpart. Between January and June 1942, the Germans would inflict 1.4 million casualties on the Soviet Army, while in those same 6 months the Wehrmacht lost 188,000 men, Mawdsley highlighted (17). The Germans therefore had less than one-seventh (13.4%) of Soviet personnel losses during the first half of 1942.

The German high command had contemplated remaining on the defensive through 1942, so as to build up its strength to something like that of 1941. The primary argument against this once more loomed large, in that the Germans could not afford to let the war drag on indefinitely, and had no alternative but to revert to attack.

The maximum Russian goal in the Winter Campaign was to encircle and annihilate German Army Group Centre, the largest and strongest Wehrmacht force. Were this achieved, the war would have been practically decided in the Russians’ favour in 1942, but it was not to be. By late January 1942 it was clear the operation had failed, largely because of robust counterstrokes launched by the German 9th Army commander,Walter Model, known as Hitler’s “fireman” (18). The less ambitious but realistic Russian aim, supported by Zhukov, of forcing the enemy back to the city of Smolensk, 230 miles west of Moscow, also fell short of being reached.

At the beginning of February 1942, the Eastern front was stabilising, and the threat of a capitulation akin to that suffered by Napoleon had disappeared. The German high command achieved this in part by removing tired commanders when necessary, and replacing them with energetic and skilful officers (19). Perhaps most notably General Model and Field Marshal Günther von Kluge, the new commander of Army Group Centre, who had replaced the disgruntled Fedor von Bock on 19 December 1941. Mawdsley described the 59-year-old von Kluge as “one of Hitler’s most talented and effective leaders”. (20)

In the second week of February 1942, Field Marshal von Kluge issued a positive report about Army Group Centre’s fighting capacity. This account was accurate and warmly received by Hitler and the military staff at the Wolf’s Lair headquarters. The Germans had altogether lost 48,000 men in January 1942, hardly a shattering number (21). In mid-February 1942, Hitler informed his commanders that the “danger of a panic in the 1812 sense” was “eliminated”. (22)

Most senior German officers agreed with Hitler’s wish to instigate another offensive for 1942 but, as the year before, they favoured a major drive through the centre – in order to finally capture Moscow, the heartbeat of Soviet Russia, which had narrowly eluded the invaders at the start of December 1941. The centre of Moscow was just 100 miles from the most advanced German positions (23). If the capital went uncaptured, the Soviet Union would remain in the war beyond 1942. The taking of Stalingrad would not have changed that.

Hitler had recklessly postponed Army Group Centre’s march on Moscow in August 1941, instead dispatching separate panzer formations northward and southward towards Leningrad and Kiev. Undeterred, he intended reverting to this plan for 1942, of holding in the middle and attacking on the flanks; but Hitler accepted (for the time being) that he would have to be less grandiose than in 1941, because his armies were now not as large. The Nazi leader temporarily put to one side capturing Leningrad by storm, so the city would continue to be strangled and bombarded.

In March 1942, after nine months of fighting, the Germans had suffered 1.1 million casualties, a fraction of Soviet losses, but still serious (24). Of the German casualties, by 20 February 1942 about 10% of them (112,627) comprised of frostbite victims (25). This was not surprising in the midst of one of the worst Russian winters ever recorded.

German losses were insufficiently replenished during the winter fighting, with Army Group Centre receiving a modest 9 fresh divisions. Hitler could not restrain himself, however, and he was encouraged by General Erwin Rommel’s victories in North Africa: such as the recapturing in late January 1942 of Benghazi, Libya’s second largest city on the Mediterranean coast.

Before long, Hitler was dreaming not only of advancing through the Caucasus, but of linking up with Rommel’s panzers in North Africa – and then advancing to the oil rich Middle East nations of Iran and Iraq, while another thrust was to be implemented along the Caspian Sea in the direction of Afghanistan and India. (26)

 

 

Notes

1 Geoffrey Roberts, “Last men standing”, The Irish Examiner, 22 June 1941

2 Chris Bellamy, Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War (Pan; Main Market edition, 21 Aug. 2009) p. 6

3 Ibid.

4 Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953 (Yale University Press; 1st Edition, 14 Nov. 2006) p. 10

5 Evan Mawdsley, Thunder in the East: The Nazi-Soviet War, 1941-1945 (Hodder Arnold, 23 Feb. 2007) p. 119

6 Andrei Gromyko, Memories: From Stalin to Gorbachev (Arrow Books Limited, 1 Jan. 1989) p. 216

7 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 21

8 Leopold Trepper, The Great Game: Memoirs of a Master Spy (Michael Joseph Ltd; First Edition, 1 May 1977) p. 67

9 Bellamy, Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War, p. 74

10 Alden Whitman, “Harry S. Truman: Decisive President”, New York Times, 27 December 1972

11 Bellamy, Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War, p. 18

12 Ibid., p. 23

13 Roberts, Stalin’s Wars, p. 100

14 Ibid., p. 119

15 Andrew Roberts, The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War (Harper, 17 May 2011) Chapter 10, The Motherland Overwhelms the Fatherland

16 Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 3 April 1985) p. 446

17 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 147

18 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 407

19 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 123

20 Ibid., p. 128

21 Ibid., p. 147

22 Ibid., p. 124

23 Ibid., p 151

24 Roberts, Stalin’s Wars, p.118

25 John Toland, Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography (Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, 3 Feb. 2007) Part 8, The Fourth Horseman

26 Albert Speer, Spandau: The Secret Diaries (Collins/Fontana, 1 June 1977) p. 56

 


Part II

The Asia-Pacific War


 

Chapter XXII

Pearl Harbor and the Early Japanese Advances

 

From the outset of World War II, the Franklin Roosevelt administration envisaged that America would emerge from the conflict in a position of global dominance. The United States had boasted the world’s largest economy since 1871, surpassing Britain that year, and the gap increased through the early 20th century and beyond.

Diplomatic historian Geoffrey Warner summarised, “President Roosevelt was aiming at United States hegemony in the postwar world”.

From 1939, high-level US State Department officials highlighted which regions of the globe the US would hold sway over, titled by Washington planners as the Grand Area. In the early 1940s, the Grand Area of US dominion was assigned to consist of the following regions: the entire Western hemisphere, the Far East, and the former British Empire which contained most crucially of all, the Middle East’s oil sources.

President Roosevelt made deliberate and significant steps towards war during 1941. On 11 March of that year he signed into law the Lend-Lease Act which, for the majority, would benefit Britain by furnishing her with vast quantities of war matériel, oil and food supplies (amounting to around $30 billion in all); to a much lesser extent, US deliveries of such commodities were sent to the Soviet Union from December 1941, months after the Germans invaded, and it would come to about $10 billion altogether; despite the Soviets bearing the war’s burden from June 1941.

The German Army’s high command, on hearing of the Lend-Lease Act, believed in general that it “may be regarded as a declaration of war on Germany”, and Hitler also “agreed that the Americans had given him a reason for war” with the introduction of Lend-Lease, according to Ian Kershaw, the English historian. Through 1941 a state of almost undeclared hostilities existed between America and Nazi Germany, as their vessels dangerously rubbed shoulders with each other in the Atlantic Ocean. War against America was officially declared by Hitler, a few days after Imperial Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor.

The Japanese militarists viewed the Lend-Lease Act with grave misgivings too. Their opinions were strengthened further when, on 26 July 1941, Roosevelt’s government froze all Japanese assets in America, a cruel and drastic move which immediately eradicated 90% of Japan’s oil imports and 75% of its foreign trade. Britain and the Netherlands followed suit. The date 26 July 1941 was not one “which will live in infamy”, as Roosevelt later described Japan’s bombing of Pearl Harbor, rather it was forgotten, in the West at least but not in Japan.

Roosevelt’s decision to freeze Japanese assets, in response to Tokyo’s occupation of southern French Indochina (over 8,000 miles from Washington), amounted to a virtual declaration of war on Japan. For a resource-poor nation of 73 million people dependent on food and petroleum imports, Japan had for example only an 18 month supply of oil left.

It was no shock, therefore, that when the Japanese cabinet discussed the options open for it, they shifted towards war with America and further conquests. Military author Donald J. Goodspeed wrote, “In the light of the evidence, it seems probable that in the autumn of 1941 Roosevelt wanted war – against Nazi Germany if possible, but if necessary against both Germany and Japan. He maintained the economic stranglehold on Japan, and refused to relax it expect on terms he knew Japan would not meet”.

Already in November 1940, a US military plan to “bomb Tokyo and other big cities” met the warm endorsement of Cordell Hull, the US Secretary of State, and Roosevelt himself was “simply delighted” when informed of the idea. With this intention in mind, from July 1941 increasing numbers of American B-17 heavy bombers were sent to US air bases, like in the Philippines, just over 1,000 miles south of Japan. The Japanese were of course aware of this hostile military build-up, and we can note there was no Japanese military presence in the Western hemisphere.

On 26 November 1941, just 11 days before the Pearl Harbor attack, Roosevelt consciously made war with Japan a certainty. Secretary of State Hull told the Japanese envoys, Saburo Kurusu and Kichisaburo Nomura, that a “general peaceful settlement” between America and Japan could only be reached should Tokyo – among other things – withdraw its armies from China and French Indochina, and effectively revoke its membership of the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy, while recognising the US-backed Chinese government of Chiang Kai-shek. These proposals were totally unacceptable to Japan’s administration and the country’s commanders.

Goodspeed wrote of the Roosevelt government’s offer of 26 November that it “made war inevitable and it was intended to do so. For two days after the receipt of the American reply, the Japanese cabinet debated the issue, but on the 29th [of November] it reached a firm decision to go to war”; while Japan’s resolution to take up arms against America “was also an indirect result of the rapacity of the industrialized West, which had led the way in the exploitation of China and the corruption of Japan”.

On 25 November 1941 the US Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, wrote in his diary that he and colleagues had pondered at a White House meeting on that day “how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot, without allowing too much danger to ourselves”. Stimson continued that Roosevelt “brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked perhaps next Monday [1 December 1941], for the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without warning, and the question was what we should do”.

The Japanese Army was, itself, artificially inculcated with the extreme samurai traditions of the ancient warrior class. The military wielded a huge influence on Japanese policy. Japan’s army leaders were, on the whole, poorly informed of world affairs, and dismissive of the materialism and perceived softness of America. They were also grossly overconfident in their armed forces.

The Japanese Navy leadership were more realistic, because they were regular travellers who had a better understanding of the world before them. The Japanese strategy for war against America was designed by the commander-in-chief of the Combined Fleet, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, an experienced and popular officer aged in his mid-50s. Admiral Yamamoto knew quite clearly that his country could not decisively defeat America in a conflict.

What Yamamoto proposed for Japan was a limited but still ambitious war aim: the establishment of a defensive perimeter in the Pacific Ocean, stretching out in a giant arc from the north-east to the south-west, from the Kuril Islands to the borders of India. This would enhance Japan’s status as a major power, but could not have prevented America from attaining pre-eminence across much of the remainder of the globe.

Within this final Japanese line lay various countries they would take over or retain, including the Philippines, British Malaya (Malaysia), Burma, Indochina and, of greatest significance, oil rich Indonesia (Dutch East Indies). If Japan could secure this area in the first three or four months of their war with America, it should be possible to consolidate a powerful defensive barrier the US would dare not breach. Or so that is what Yamamoto hoped. He advocated a surprise attack on the US military, similar to the Japanese assault which destroyed the Russian fleet at Port Arthur in 1904.

Yamamoto boldly picked out the formidable US naval base at Pearl Harbor in Oahu, Hawaii, 3,865 miles from Tokyo and 2,580 miles from the American mainland coast at Los Angeles, California. Yet in his planning, Yamamoto committed two serious errors – he misjudged how a surprise raid on US forces would be viewed in America, which in the event united the US Congress and the American people firmly behind Roosevelt; and Yamamoto underestimated the true potential of US industry which, within two or three years, would easily outstrip that of Japan.

The 54-year-old Vice Admiral, Chuichi Nagumo, commanded the Japanese fleet which would attack Pearl Harbor. His task force set sail on 18 November 1941. Almost three weeks later at 5.30 am on 7 December, a Sunday, Japan’s assault force neared its launch area. Two Japanese reconnaissance planes flew south to observe the Pearl Harbor base, and reported back that all was quiet.

Despite Washington having cracked Japanese codes in 1940, including Tokyo’s highest diplomatic code, the Purple Cipher, US personnel at Pearl Harbor were not informed of the imminent Japanese attack. This was an incredible occurrence. Neither the direct scramble telephone, nor the US naval radio communications, were used to contact the American officers at Pearl Harbor. A warning message, not marked urgent, was instead sent through a much slower medium, as Kershaw noted via “Western Union’s commercial telegram service, which had no direct line to Honolulu [Hawaiian capital]. It had still not arrived in Hawaii when the attack began”.

From 230 miles north of their target, the opening wave of Japanese warplanes departed from their aircraft carriers shortly after 7 am. As they reached Pearl Harbor, below them were the US Pacific Fleet warships, lined up neatly and close together, as though the world had never been at war. The first group of Japanese aircraft descended at 7:55 am. They bombed and strafed to their hearts content for 30 minutes. A mere 25% of the US anti-aircraft guns at Pearl Harbor had crews to fire the weaponry. Most of them were on shore leave, as previously agreed by Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, commander of the US Pacific Fleet.

 

Within minutes, the US Pacific Fleet was in tatters. The Japanese bombs had set aflame the battleships, ‘Arizona’, ‘Oklahoma’, ‘California’, and the ‘West Virginia‘, all of which were in the process of sinking. Likewise in flames and going under were three US cruisers, three destroyers, and some ships of smaller size. Heavy damage was inflicted upon the American battleships the ‘Nevada’, ‘Maryland’, ‘Tennessee’ and ‘Pennsylvania’.

The second wave of Japanese aircraft arrived over Pearl Harbor at 8:40 am. Along the nearby air fields, Japan’s bombers destroyed 188 US warplanes, most of them on the ground. By the time the Japanese pilots had returned to their aircraft carriers at 11:30 am, 2,403 Americans were dead, while the Japanese had lost 29 planes out of 350 and suffered 64 deaths.

The Pearl Harbor attack was a severe blow to American pride and naval power, but it was not a deadly one. Pearl Harbor’s installations such as the submarine pens were undamaged, as were the large oil tanks in the dockyard. Of major importance, the three American aircraft carriers were by luck out to sea at the time. Their survival would allow the US military to rapidly launch offensive operations. Nevertheless, Japan’s commanders were pleased with the devastation inflicted at Pearl Harbor, which had exceeded their expectations.

The Japanese generals did not rest on their laurels either, and morale was very high among their troops. A few hours before the bombing of Pearl Harbor had even started, the Japanese 25th Army (commanded by Lieutenant-General Tomoyuki Yamashita) landed at British Malaya in south-east Asia. On 8 December 1941, the Japanese 15th Army (Lieutenant-General Shojiro Iida) led the way in invading neutral Thailand, just a few hundred miles north of Malaya. Thailand, which until then had escaped colonisation, capitulated quickly and signed a formal alliance with Japan.

Four hours after the bombing of Pearl Harbor ended, the Japanese 14th Army (Lieutenant-General Masaharu Homma) attacked the Philippines, a south-east Asian country and US colony since the late 19th century. Much to their delight, Japan’s troops destroyed dozens of US aircraft on the ground at Clark Air Base, in the northern Philippines.

On 10 December 1941 Japanese soldiers landed at Luzon, the Philippines’ largest and most populous island in the north of the country. On that same day, 10 December, the Japanese 55th Infantry Division (Major-General Tomitaro Horii) captured the strategically important Pacific island of Guam from the Americans, almost 1,500 miles to the east of the Philippines. So for now ended the four decade US occupation of Guam.

Another 1,500 miles further east again in the Pacific a US territorial possession, Wake Island, was taken comfortably by Japanese marines from the outnumbered Americans on 23 December 1941. Christmas that year was not celebrated with wild enthusiasm in America.

On 16 December 1941 Borneo, the world’s third largest island and less than 1,000 miles south of the Philippines, was attacked by Japanese units comprising mainly of the 35th Infantry Brigade (Major-General Kiyotake Kawaguchi). Landing in north-western Borneo, the Japanese met little resistance from the British, and they swiftly took the coastal towns of Miri and Seria.

Further north, Hong Kong, in south-eastern China, a British colony from the days of London’s drug trafficking wars, was assailed by Japan’s forces on the morning of 8 December 1941, led by the Japanese 23rd Army (Lieutenant-General Takashi Sakai). The Battle of Hong Kong turned into a rout, as the Japanese captured at least 10,000 Allied troops, among them British, Free French and Canadians. The myth of the white man’s invincibility was evaporating like mist in a morning breeze.

On Christmas Day 1941 Mark Aitchison Young, the British Governor of Hong Kong, surrendered in person to Lieutenant-General Sakai, the victorious commander of the Japanese 23rd Army. Much to Winston Churchill’s disappointment, the Allied soldiers at Hong Kong withstood Japan’s rampaging troops for just 18 days. Britain’s century-long rule over Hong Kong was broken.

 

Sources

Ian Kershaw, Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions That Changed The World, 1940-1941 (Penguin Group USA, 31 May 2007) Chapter 8, Tokyo, Autumn 1941 & Chapter 9, Berlin, Autumn 1941

Evgeniy Spitsyn, “Roosevelt’s World War II Lend-Lease Act: America’s War Economy, US ‘Military Aid’ to the Soviet Union”, Global Research, 13 May 2015

J. C. Butow, “How Roosevelt Attacked Japan at Pearl Harbor”, National Archives, Fall 1996, Vol. 28, No. 3

Noam Chomsky, Who Rules The World? (Penguin Books Ltd., Hamish Hamilton, 5 May 2016) Chapter 5, American Decline: Causes and Consequences & Chapter 15, How Many Minutes to Midnight?

Chris Bellamy, Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War (Pan; Main Market edition, 21 Aug. 2009) Chapter 12, Black Snow, The turning point of the war? 7 December 1941

Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 3 April 1985) Book 4 [Section 4]

Peter Chen, “Battle of Hong Kong, 8 Dec 1941 – 25 Dec 1941”, World War II Database, June 2007

 


 

Chapter XXIII

The Japanese Assault on Northern Malaya

 

On 19 January 1942, the British prime minister Winston Churchill was shocked and disturbed to learn, for the first time, and after more than two years of Britain being at war, that absolutely no field defences had been constructed on the landward side of Singapore, in case of enemy attack. The news that reached Churchill seemed incredible, but it was true, nor should it have been news.

The Churchill cabinet’s failure to sufficiently safeguard Singapore, a vitally important island and British colony in south-east Asia, was the latest calamity to afflict Britain’s underwhelming war effort. The British had been outperformed by German troops in Norway, in France, in Greece, and now they were facing further setbacks against Nazi Germany’s Axis partner, Imperial Japan.

The English hierarchy, and Churchill especially, had believed the Japanese would dare not engage in military operations against the Western powers. Such a scenario meant war with the United States, the world’s strongest country. Churchill, in fact, thought Japan would be mad to initiate a conflict against America, and one can understand his reasoning on this point.

Yet the Japanese, hemmed in by US expansionism in the Eastern hemisphere, and with their access to petroleum almost entirely severed by the Roosevelt administration’s provocative policies, was left with scant breathing space in the end. Japanese military personnel with a good knowledge of the world, primarily those in its navy leadership, knew perfectly well they had little chance of winning an outright war with America; but a sense of fatalism and of being trapped drove them on.

By 1939 the city of Singapore had a population of nearly 1.4 million people, a surprisingly high number (1). Singapore was nicknamed “the Gibraltar of the East” and “the key to the Pacific”, and was situated at the southern tip of British Malaya (today consisting mostly of Malaysia), a peninsula over 400 miles long reaching from southern Thailand to Singapore; the latter of which is separated from the Malayan mainland only by the extremely narrow Strait of Johore.

Singapore in 1945 (Licensed under Public Domain)

Before the First World War, Singapore was nothing more than a commercial harbour, but during the interwar years it came to be recognised as a crucial area of operations. From the early 1920s, Singapore was regarded by London as the most visible symbol of its power in the Far East. (2)

Singapore was ideally placed at the strategic chokepoint, from the South China Sea into the Indian Ocean. Prior to 1940, the island was far enough away from the closest Japanese bases to offer it protection from land and air attack. Furthermore, Singapore had become a key Royal Navy dockyard, barracks and communications centre (3). Since the 1920s, London had poured more than £60 million into fortifying Singapore, a considerable sum at the time.

Britain’s wealth across the generations was accumulated by pursuing certain abhorrent actions. The American historian Noam Chomsky said “when nations are out for themselves, that’s what you find. That’s why Britain became very rich. It started in the Elizabethan era with piracy. But then it turned to the most vicious forms of slavery in human history. First in the British Caribbean islands, then the American South. That’s why Britain pretty much supported the Confederacy. When they lost that, Egypt, then India. Then England turned to the largest narco-trafficking operation in human history, conquered more of India to try to monopolise the opium trade. So take a look at British wealth – robbery on the high seas; a hideous system of slavery, narco-trafficking. A very wealthy country”. (4)

After World War I, Britain’s elites had highlighted Japan as a potential threat to their empire. This feeling had strengthened with passing years, as Japan enlarged its dominion through military conquests, primarily in Manchuria and eastern China through the 1930s; which the Western powers viewed as encroachment into their own imperial designs in east Asia. The Japanese military command was well aware this rivalry was occurring quite close to Japan’s frontiers, and that they had no presence at all in the Western hemisphere.

The Nazi routing of France, from May to June 1940, ensured the French possessions in southeast Asia would officially come under the control of the pro-German and pro-Axis Vichy regime. This was of major significance to Japan, as their forces swiftly occupied northern French Indochina in September 1940, and then in July 1941, the southern portion of French Indochina. (5)

From Britain’s viewpoint, Tokyo’s acquisition of all of Indochina massively increased the threat to regions like Malaya and Singapore. The new Japanese air and naval bases, in Indochina, were now within a few hundred miles striking distance of the British colonies to the south. In November 1940 a secret British report, intercepted by the Germans, was forwarded to Tokyo from Berlin, which revealed that Britain would not be able to dispatch strong reinforcements to Singapore in the event of war. (6)

During the weeks after Churchill had assumed power on 10 May 1940, he decided the top priority was the defence of Britain, which was under the spectre of a German invasion. With the Fall of France and rapidly deteriorating situation of the war, Churchill was not in a position to send a large fleet to east Asia, should a crisis strike there (7). Ever since that fateful date of 26 July 1941, when Washington had imposed a punishing oil and trade embargo on Japan – which amounted to a virtual declaration of war in itself – a full blown conflict between the Japanese and Anglo-American states was inevitable.

Britain’s colonialists generally viewed the Japanese with contempt. Military historian Antony Beevor wrote, “A state of emergency was declared in Singapore on 1 December [1941], but the British were still woefully ill prepared. The colonial authorities feared that an overreaction might unsettle the native population. The appalling complacency of colonial society had produced a self-deception largely based on arrogance. A fatal underestimation of their attackers included the idea that all Japanese soldiers were very short-sighted, and inherently inferior to western troops”. (8)

In reality the typical Japanese infantryman was tough, resourceful, brave and sometimes capable of terrible brutality, as the Chinese among others could attest to. In the main, this was because the Japanese Army had been artificially indoctrinated with the extreme samurai traditions of the ancient warrior tribe. (9)

Conventional British thinking held that central Malaya, with its hundreds of miles of thick jungle and rubber plantations, would protect Singapore from attack by land. Unlike the British, Japan’s soldiers proved to be masters of jungle warfare, adapting to the environment by camouflaging themselves, making excellent use of bicycles, and living off what the undergrowth had to offer.

That the Japanese had taken to the jungle like grouse to heather was a remarkable occurrence; their conquest of much of eastern China had not involved jungle fighting, and neither was Japan’s mainland covered extensively with trees. (10)

Since late November 1941, the British in Hong Kong and Malaya had been expecting a Japanese invasion at any moment. The British presence in Hong Kong further north was, at this point, a century in existence, and of the territory’s modern history Chomsky stated, “Hong Kong, of course, had a fair degree of independence, but we should bear in mind that that’s recent. Hong Kong was stolen from China by British savagery, as part of their effort to destroy China in their huge narco-trafficking operations. The West may like to forget that, but I’m sure the Chinese don’t”. (11)

British Malaya was a mineral rich area, with its tin mines and sprawling rubber estates. These natural deposits were essential to a war economy, and coveted by a resource poor nation such as Japan. The British colonial administrator, Shenton Thomas, described Malaya as “the dollar arsenal of the Empire” (12). From their bases in French Indochina, during the early hours of 8 December 1941 Japan’s units audaciously landed on the northern tip of Malaya, at the coastal city of Kota Bharu, and also at the Kra Isthmus in southern Thailand.

Having overall command of Japanese operations in Malaya was Lieutenant-General Tomoyuki Yamashita, the new commander of the Japanese 25th Army. He was personally known to the Axis dictators; in December 1940, the 55-year-old Yamashita had undertaken a clandestine military mission to Europe, where he visited Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini (13). Yamashita was one of the greatest commanders in the history of the Japanese Army. In Malaya, the British and their allies easily outnumbered Yamashita’s troops; but the latter’s fearless generalship would prove pivotal in the weeks ahead.

Military author Mark E. Stille, a retired US Navy commander, acknowledged that, “Both at an operational and tactical level, the Japanese were continually able to gain surprise. Their ‘driving strategy’ kept the British off balance and kept the initiative in Japanese hands. It worked primarily because the British thought it impossible even to attempt. Under the bold leadership of Yamashita, it was a formula for victory”. (14)

The Japanese militarists estimated Malaya to hold almost as much importance as the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) (15). The Dutch East Indies was the world’s 7th largest oil producing country in 1930, and by 1940 it had risen to become the planet’s 5th biggest oil producer, behind America, the USSR, Venezuela and Persia (Iran).

Both the British and Japanese believed Malaya and Singapore as strategically inseparable. British troops would not be able to hold Singapore, should Malaya be overrun by Yamashita’s divisions. As news reached Britain’s commanders, of the amphibious Japanese landings at Kota Bharu in northern Malaya, Japan’s bomber aircraft conducted their first raids over Singapore at 4:30 am on 8 December 1941. Singapore was lit up like a Christmas tree with its city lights on, an easy target for the Japanese pilots who enjoyed air superiority over Malaya.

On 10 December 1941, Tokyo’s bombers dealt a grievous blow to the British Navy, when they destroyed two of its landmark battleships off the east coast of Malaya, the ‘HMS Prince of Wales’ and ‘HMS Repulse’. The loss of these two vessels signalled the end of British sea power in the Far East (16). News of their sinking, which also resulted in 840 sailor deaths, was met with dismay in England.

The British position in Malaya became critical from the beginning of the enemy’s arrival. With the Japanese having secured their bridgehead at Kota Bharu, 125 miles to the west in the northern Malayan town of Jitra occurred “one of the British Army’s most unlikely and complete defeats during the entire war”, Stille wrote (17). A single Japanese battalion, supported by a company of tanks, defeated an entire division of British-led Indian troops in prepared positions in just over a day, by 13 December 1941.

The next serious engagement took place on 30 December 1941 around the town of Kampar, in western Malaya, just over 140 miles south of Jitra. Though the British artillery repulsed several Japanese assaults and inflicted numerous fatalities, Japan’s reinforcements compelled the British to begin withdrawing from Kampar on the night of 2 January 1942. (18)

Among the worst disasters of the Malayan campaign for Britain’s forces (and their allies) occurred along the Slim River, around 40 miles south of Kampar. At 3:30 am on 7 January 1942, 30 Japanese tanks rolled forward with reckless abandon, and went on a 6 hour turkey shoot against the British-trained 11th Indian Division. The British and Indian troops were well armed with anti-tank weapons, artillery and mines, but they were poorly deployed and caught by surprise. By 9:30 am on 7 January, some 3,000 British and Indian soldiers were taken prisoner and hundreds killed. (19)

The Malayan capital city, Kuala Lumpur, situated about 50 miles south of the Slim River in central Malaya, lay ripe for the taking. Four days later, Kuala Lumpur fell unopposed to the advancing Japanese on the evening of 11 January 1942. It was still over a week before Churchill would discover that Singapore, located 200 miles to the south-east of Kuala Lumpur, had no field defences facing landward.

While the British colonialists thought little of the Japanese, this was not often the case with frontline troops. Major Walter Boller, a British officer in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps (RAOC), said of the Japanese soldier almost 30 years after the war, “He hadn’t the mentality I suppose to think for himself. He just obeyed orders, and he came at you with everything he had, even if it meant losing his life. He didn’t care about life”. (20)

Gilbert Collins, a gunner in the British 14th Army, insisted that “The Japanese was a good soldier. He was a good soldier. When he was told to do a job, he would stop there until he died”. (21)

 

 

Notes

1 C. Peter Chen, “Singapore in World War II”, January 2018, World War II Database

2 Mark E. Stille, Malaya and Singapore 1941–42: The Fall of Britain’s empire in the East (Osprey Publishing; Illustrated edition, 20 Oct. 2016) p. 5

3 Andrew Roberts, The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War (Harper, 17 May 2011) Chapter 6, Tokyo Typhoon: December 1941–May 1942

4 Hugh Linehan, “Noam Chomsky: ‘Ireland has robbed poor working people of tens of trillions of dollars’”, 16 October 2021, Irish Times

5 Stille, Malaya and Singapore 1941–42, p. 7

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid., p. 6

8 Antony Beevor, The Second World War (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2012) Chapter 16, Pearl Harbor

9 Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 April 1985) p. 409

10 Roberts, The Storm of War, Chapter 6, Tokyo Typhoon: December 1941–May 1942

11 Jenny Li, “Who Rules Asia? An Interview with Noam Chomsky”, 16 September 2021, New Bloom Magazine

12 Beevor, The Second World War, Chapter 16, Pearl Harbor

13 Clive N. Trueman, “General Tomoyuki Yamashita”, 20 April 2015, History Learning Site

14 Stille, Malaya and Singapore 1941–42, p. 36

15 Beevor, The Second World War, Chapter 16, Pearl Harbor

16 Stille, Malaya and Singapore 1941–42, p. 51

17 Ibid., p. 58

18 Ibid., p. 59

19 Ibid., p. 62

20 The World At War: Complete TV Series (Episode 14, Fremantle, 25 April 2005, Original Network: ITV, Original Release: 31 October 1973 – 8 May 1974)

21 Ibid.

 


 

Chapter XXIV

The Japanese March Through Southern Malaya and Singapore’s Outskirts

 

After the successful Japanese amphibious landings at Kota Bharu, northern British Malaya on 8 December 1941, in the 5 weeks that elapsed Tokyo’s forces had advanced more than 200 miles to capture the Malayan capital city, Kuala Lumpur, on 11 January 1942. This was a remarkable achievement by the Japanese 25th Army, led by the 56-year-old General Tomoyuki Yamashita, who would earn the nickname “The Tiger of Malaya”.

Mark E. Stille, a former United States Navy commander, wrote that “Of all the armies fielded by Japan during the war, the 25th Army was the best led and equipped” (1). On the ground, the distance that Yamashita’s divisions had covered to capture Kuala Lumpur was much greater than 200 miles. They had to take arduous, roundabout routes in the face of substantially larger enemy forces, advancing through the Malayan jungle and along the coastline, before they entered Kuala Lumpur unopposed in central Malaya.

The island of Singapore, another 200 miles to the south-east of Kuala Lumpur, was now very vulnerable. Were Singapore to be taken by the Japanese it would constitute “the worst disaster” in British history, Winston Churchill wrote (2). This calamity for the British did unfold, on 15 February 1942, which will be the subject of the next article.

Almost immediately, the Japanese had gained command of the air over British Malaya (comprising today mostly of Malaysia), and they also dominated the surrounding seas. On 10 December 1941, Japanese aircraft had sunk the famous British warships the ‘Prince of Wales’ and ‘Repulse’, off the east coast of Malaya. News of the battleships’ destruction came as a real blow to prime minister Churchill in London.

English military historian Antony Beevor wrote,

“Churchill, who had exulted in the great ships of the Royal Navy from his times as First Lord of the Admiralty, was stunned by the disaster. The tragedy felt even more personal to him, after his voyage in the Prince of Wales to Newfoundland in August [1941]. The Imperial Japanese Navy was now unchallenged in the Pacific. Hitler rejoiced at the news. It augured well for his declaration of war on the United States, announced on 11 December”. (3)

One indirect result of the early Japanese victories in south-east Asia, was that it had boosted the spirit of the Germans, at a time when their invasion of the Soviet Union was hitting the rocks. Japanese morale itself was very high, and a central factor in their advance through Malaya and elsewhere. The prominent British commander John Dill, in a memorandum to Churchill, had outlined that Singapore held more importance to Britain than the oil rich Middle East; because Singapore was “the most important strategic point in the British Empire” and “a stepping stone to Australia”. (4) (5)

In the final days of 1941 the British had already lost a prized possession, Hong Kong in south-eastern China, which was captured in a rapid Japanese assault. At this time, Japan’s forces were advancing through other Asian states namely British Borneo, the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) and the Philippines.

Like with the Japanese, the British had no rightful claim to territories such as Hong Kong. American intellectual and analyst Noam Chomsky said, “Hong Kong was stolen from China by British savagery, as part of their effort to destroy China in their huge narco-trafficking operations”. (6)

Regarding some of Britain’s other conquests Chomsky wrote,

“In extenuation, it could be noted that fostering drug production is hardly a US innovation: the British empire relied crucially on the most extraordinary narco-trafficking enterprise in world history, with horrifying effects in China and in India, much of which was conquered in an effort to gain a monopoly on opium production”. (7)

On 7 January 1942 the British General and Commander-in-Chief of India, Archibald Wavell, arrived in Malaya. He promptly attributed the Japanese successes, to date, as being due to errors committed by the British, refusing to give Yamashita’s men credit (8). Yet on the very day that General Wavell had landed in Malaya, along the Slim River the British-led divisions had suffered “The single most disastrous engagement of the entire Malaya campaign”, Stille stated (9); which he also described as “one of the most dramatic and significant actions of the entire Pacific War”. (10)

Stille is referring to the Battle of Slim River on 7 January 1942, which took place about 50 miles north of Kuala Lumpur. Thirty Japanese tanks supported by motorised infantry “rumbled down a single road machine-gunning and shooting up everything in their path”, inflicting 500 fatalities and capturing more than 3,000 British and Indian troops. By contrast the Japanese recorded fewer than 80 casualties during this battle.

The consequences were severe. Stille observed,

“It ensured the loss of central Malaya, and reduced the chances of holding southern Malaya long enough to enable the reinforcements flowing into Singapore to become fully effective”. (11)

Not resting on their gains the Japanese resumed their march southward, and 4 days later Kuala Lumpur was taken. In the capital, Japan’s soldiers found large quantities of ammunition and supplies, left behind by the British (12). These reverses compelled Lieutenant-General Arthur Percival – in overall command of British and Commonwealth divisions in Malaya – to order a withdrawal to southern Malaya, towards the Muar District and Johore.

Lt. Gen. Tomoyuki Yamashita (seated, center) insists upon the unconditional surrender of Singapore as Lt. Gen. Percival, seated between his officers, demurs (photo from Imperial War Museum) (Licensed under Public Domain)

Allied to the British, the Australian forces laid a devilish trap at Gemencheh, around 150 miles north-west of Singapore. Soldiers from the Japanese 5th Division were in the process of crossing Gemencheh Bridge, at 4 pm on 14 January 1942. They were unaware that the Australians had mined the bridge with explosives. As the Japanese tanks, trucks and cyclists were traversing the bridge, a huge detonation erupted sending bodies, bicycles and armour hurtling into the air, a surreal and terrible sight.

Australian sources claimed to have inflicted 1,000 casualties on the enemy here; but the tally may have been as few as 70 deaths and 57 wounded, initially at least as the fighting continued (13). The Japanese quickly recovered from the shock at Gemencheh Bridge, and in following hours forced the Australians on to the backfoot. By nightfall on 16 January, the Japanese had captured Muar town and the harbour.

As early as 18 January 1942, Lieutenant-General Percival was mulling over whether to pull out of southern Malaya, and to relocate all of his forces to Singapore slightly further south, in order to bolster that island’s defence. On 20 January, General Wavell instructed Percival to defend the southern Malayan region of Johore for as long as possible.

Also on 20 January, an angry Churchill issued an order demanding,

“I want to make it absolutely clear that I expect every inch of ground to be defended, every scrap of material or defences to be blown to pieces to prevent capture by the enemy, and no question of surrender to be entertained until protracted fighting among the ruins of Singapore city”. (14)

By 24 January, Percival had no choice but to compose an outline plan for a total withdrawal from the Malayan mainland, across the narrow Strait of Johore to Singapore (15). Churchill later expressed some sympathy for his beleaguered commander, writing that a “terrible load” had fallen “upon the shoulders of General Percival” (16). Between the 24th and 31st of January, the Australian troops retreated southward through Johore under Japanese pressure. The 11th Indian Infantry Division withdrew along the Malayan coastline, and was pursued by the Japanese Imperial Guards Division.

By the end of January 1942, some Indian and Australian units successfully reached Singapore, either by bridge or vessel across the Strait of Johore. The only road and rail lines, connecting Malaya to Singapore, was the Causeway at Johore Bahru, a kilometre long, 70 foot wide bridge. At 8:15 am on 31 January, the last British troops were safely over the Causeway and had entered Singapore. The Causeway was then destroyed with depth charges to prevent the Japanese from using it.

Seldom lacking in pride even in the most desperate circumstances, the British had conducted their retirement to Singapore in an orderly fashion. A Japanese lieutenant, Teruo Okada, when asked after the war what he thought of Britain’s forces, had said, “We thought the British officer was a very good fighter, although the ones we captured they always said to me ‘We will win the war, you see’. This I couldn’t understand because here is a man who has surrendered, and he still said ‘We will win the war’.” (17)

There was, amazingly enough, no hint of panic from the British soldiers, and no congestion of armour or infantry over the Causeway to Singapore, a commendable action personally overseen by Percival, who has been much criticised.

Stille wrote that this “was certainly Percival’s best-conducted operation of the campaign, and thwarted Yamashita’s plans to destroy British forces before they could reach Singapore” (18). Yamashita was furious to learn that the Japanese aircraft, for some baffling reason which has never been properly explained, had failed to bomb the Causeway at Johore Bahru – which the British and their allies were pouring across, the most ideal target for enemy planes.

Otherwise, Yamashita should have been exuberant with how the fighting had proceeded. In less than 8 weeks, the Japanese had reached the Strait of Johore on 31 January 1942, a lot sooner than they had expected (19). The battle for the Malayan mainland was now over and the battle for Singapore was imminent. From the second half of January 1942, Singapore had been the primary target of Japanese air raids, which occurred each day and were launched against the British naval base in Singapore, along with the nearby airfields and port. The Japanese air superiority contributed to a sense of futility in defending Singapore for long.

The population of Singapore according to one source was 1,370,300 in 1939 (20); but a detailed study shows that the island’s population in 1931 was 557,745, when the last census was compiled (21). About 75% of those living in Singapore by the 1930s were ethnic Chinese, with the remaining percentage consisting largely of Malays (11.7%) and ethnic Indians (9.1%). (22)

Singapore’s majority Chinese population presumably viewed with alarm the Japanese approach – as they should have, considering how Japan’s soldiers had conquered much of eastern China and sometimes committed dreadful atrocities. Of the approximately 70,000 combat soldiers and 15,000 service troops defending Singapore, only 13 of the 38 battalions in all were British, 17 were actually Indian battalions, and the remainder mostly Australians.

Just one of the 17 Indian battalions was at full strength. They had taken a pounding in the earlier fighting for Malaya. The British-led forces, despite suffering heavy personnel losses on the Malayan peninsula, still outnumbered the Japanese by at least 2-to-1, but the defenders for the most part were poorly trained and under-equipped. (23)

Singapore was a fortress in name only. There were no field defences or fortifications on the northern part of the island. Percival was determined to fight the Japanese on the beaches, and to prevent them from establishing a bridgehead. His plan had little chance of succeeding, due to the terrain’s unsuitability and the lack of depth in defence (24). What’s more, none of the officers subordinate to Percival had confidence in his strategy for defending Singapore, particularly the Australians, who were to endure most of the serious fighting.

 

 

Notes

1 Mark E. Stille, Malaya and Singapore 1941–42: The fall of Britain’s empire in the East (Osprey Publishing; Illustrated edition, 20 Oct. 2016) p. 92

2 Winston S. Churchill, The Hinge of Fate (RosettaBooks, 11 May 2014) p. 81

3 Antony Beevor, The Second World War (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2012) Chapter 16, Pearl Harbor

4 Piers Brendon, The Decline and Fall of the British Empire (Vintage Digital, July 6, 2010) p. 417

5 Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 April 1985) p. 381

6 Jenny Li, “Who Rules Asia? An Interview with Noam Chomsky”, 16 September 2021, New Bloom Magazine

7 America’s Other War: Terrorizing Columbia, Doug Stokes, Foreword by Noam Chomsky, Bloomsbury Collections

8 Stille, Malaya and Singapore 1941–42, p. 68

9 Ibid., p. 62

10 Ibid., p. 67

11 Ibid.

12 Alan Chanter, C. Peter Chen, Thomas Houlihan, Hugh Martyr, David Stubblebine, “Kuala Lumpur in WW2 History”, World War II Database

13 Stille, Malaya and Singapore, 1941–42, p. 71

14 Ibid., p. 72

15 Ibid.

16 Churchill, The Hinge of Fate, p. 82

17 The World At War: Complete TV Series (Episode 14, Fremantle, 25 April 2005, Original Network: ITV, Original Release: 31 October 1973 – 8 May 1974)

18 Stille, Malaya and Singapore, 1941–42, p. 73

19 Ibid.

20 C. Peter Chen, “Singapore in World War II”, January 2018, World War II Database

21 Saw Swee Hock, Population Trends in Singapore, 1819-1967, Journal of Southeast Asian History, Cambridge University Press, March 1969, p. 4 of 14, Jstor

22 Ibid., p. 6 of 14

23 Stille, Malaya and Singapore 1941–42, p. 79

24 Ibid., p. 80

 


 

Chapter XXV

The Japanese Capture of Singapore.

The “Largest Capitulation in British History”

 

The Japanese conquest of Singapore in south-east Asia, on 15 February 1942, is often referred to in Western historical annals as “the Fall of Singapore”, as though a free and unmolested territory had, for the first time, been captured by an imperial power.

In reality, the Japanese takeover of Singapore heralded an exchange from one set of colonial masters (the British Empire) to another (the Empire of Japan). Singapore had long constituted a colony, having been occupied by the British in the early 19th century.

The failure of Britain and its allies, to hold Singapore, was a severe blow to London’s prestige and power in the Far East. Writing in his memoirs Winston Churchill labelled it “the worst disaster and largest capitulation in British history”. As Britain’s prime minister and war leader, Churchill was ultimately responsible for military losses.

Yet at the time Churchill tried to absolve his government of blame, saying that the Singapore defeat was due to Britain having to allocate war resources to Soviet Russia, as part of conditions stipulated in US president Franklin Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease Act of March 1941. Scarcely any British or American matériel had been sent to the Soviet Union by early 1942 – when the crucial fighting in the Nazi-Soviet War had already taken place.

The Anglo-American powers, by December 1941, had dispatched half a million dollars worth of military aid to the Russians, which came to “1 per cent of the amount promised” by London and Washington, historian Chris Bellamy noted. In all, British deliveries of commodities to Moscow amounted to £45.6 million, a tiny fraction of what the Russians themselves spent on military production during World War II.

Of the situation in south-east Asia, Bellamy wrote,

“As early as the beginning of 1942, British politicians used the resources diverted to Russia as an excuse for losing Singapore… Churchill and [Anthony] Eden both said they had given to Russia what they had really needed for the defence of the Malay peninsula. This was untrue. British and Australian ground forces had been poorly trained and equipped for jungle warfare, and were simply outmatched and outfought by aggressive Japanese troops, enjoying superior morale”.

The Japanese 25th Army, tasked with capturing British Malaya and the island of Singapore, comprised of about 30,000 men. The 25th Army was led by one of the most formidable commanders of the entire war, Lieutenant-General Tomoyuki Yamashita; and the force that he commanded was “the best led and equipped army” that Japan had at its disposal, Mark E. Stille stated, a retired US Navy commander. Advancing through difficult terrain including extensive jungle, the 25th Army had captured all of the Malayan mainland against bigger enemy forces in less than 8 weeks, by 31 January 1942.

On that day, 31 January, the last British troops had retreated across the narrow Strait of Johore, traversing the bridge called the Causeway at Johore Bahru, which separated Malaya from Singapore; where Britain’s allies, the Indians and Australians, had now retired to, or at least those who survived the fighting on the Malayan mainland. The British Commonwealth forces still amounted to 85,000 men to defend Singapore, though they were lacking in equipment and training while their morale was not good.

From his position astride the Strait of Johore, Lieutenant-General Yamashita was looking through his binoculars at Singapore and its coastline. He again demonstrated his excellent military brain, by correctly assessing that the most heavily defended part of Singapore was in the north-eastern section of the Strait. Yamashita’s opposite number, Lieutenant-General Arthur Percival, had positioned his strongest force there, the British 18th Division.

Yamashita chose instead to attack a weakly-defended portion of the Strait, held by the 22nd Australian Infantry Brigade, between Tanjong Buloh and Tanjong Murai. The Japanese commander decided to amass 16 of his battalions, to be launched in the first wave across an area of land 4.5 miles in breadth, with 5 battalions held back in reserve along with a tank regiment. Yamashita scheduled the assault on Singapore to begin at 8 pm on 8 February 1942.

To mount his attack across the Strait of Johore to Singapore, Yamashita could call upon many scores of collapsible boats, 30 small landing craft, along with numerous pontoons, the latter consisting of floating platforms used to support temporary bridges. Yamashita went to great lengths to disguise where his main thrust would fall. Churchill acknowledged that the Japanese had undertaken “long and careful planning” for their raid on Singapore. The Japanese Imperial Guards built dummy camps in the north-eastern sector, so as to make the British believe they were preparing to attack in that area.

Percival, in overall command of British and Commonwealth forces, was confident that the weight of the Japanese landing would indeed come there, in the north-east. Pre-attack Japanese artillery raids were also concentrated in the north-east, strengthening Percival’s impression that he would be proved right. The Japanese assault troops were not moved forward until the night prior to the landing. About 24 hours before the attack on Singapore had commenced, the Australians detected extensive enemy activity opposite them, but it was too late for Percival to reconstitute his forces.

Churchill wrote, “The preparation of field defences and obstacles, though representing a good deal of local effort, bore no relation to the mortal needs which now arose… The spirit of the Army had been largely reduced by the long retreat and hard fighting on the peninsula. The threatened northern and western shores were protected by the Johore Strait, varying in width from 600 to 2,000 yards, and to some extent by mangrove swamps at the mouths of its several rivers”.

This is what the Japanese faced in front of them. On the morning of 8 February 1942, Japanese planes and artillery started bombarding the positions held by the 22nd Australian Infantry Brigade. The barrage intensified as the day went on, and at around 8:30 pm on 8 February, after nightfall, the Australians sighted Japanese landing craft nearing their area. Regardless of having no artillery support, the Aussies resisted strongly and sank some Japanese vessels but, even so, the enemy soon broke through their thinly spread rearguard.

By 4 am on 9 February, the Australian forces had all been ordered to fall back, a difficult task in the dark, and they suffered debilitating losses. The Japanese had established a toehold on Singapore and they could not be dislodged.

Percival’s command centre was unable to implement operations in Singapore at any level. On 9 February Percival himself admitted that the “situation is undoubtedly serious”. Yamashita sensed the British confusion, and he ordered a full-blooded drive to take Singapore as quickly as possible. Within 2 days, the Japanese had captured 33% of Singapore’s territory. On just the 3rd day of the offensive, during the evening of 10 February the enemy had penetrated British defences, such as the critically important Jurong Line, before Percival had realised the attempt had been made. Stille recognised, “The loss of this line was the last chance to defend Singapore city”.

British-led counterattacks could either not be executed in time, or were poorly organised. On 10 February Churchill wrote of the position at Singapore, “There must at this stage be no thought of saving the troops or sparing the population. The battle must be fought to the bitter end at all costs… The honour of the British Empire and of the British Army is at stake… With the Russians fighting as they are and the Americans so stubborn at Luzon [northern Philippines], the whole reputation of our country and our race is involved”. This would all prove in vain.

At 6 pm on 11 February, day 4 of the Japanese offensive, the landmark British naval base in Singapore had been abandoned, and explosives were deployed, but the base was merely partially destroyed. Yamashita’s soldiers did not let up on 12 February, as they continued moving down the strategically vital Bukit Timah road towards Singapore city.

Beginning at around noon on 12 February, the British and their allies started withdrawing to a final perimeter around Singapore city. By the morning of 13 February, the defenders held a perimeter stretching 28 miles around Singapore. Their forces were depleted. The British Governor in Singapore, Shenton Thomas, gave orders that the broadcasting station be blown up, and the contents of the treasury burned. The supplies of rubber in Singapore were incinerated, while the tin-smelting plants and a number of other factories were liquidated. At some plants, the attempt to demolish them was prevented by its owners and staff. Other facilities were deemed necessary for the island’s inhabitants.

Some troops at the rear fled their positions from the approaching Japanese, and there were reports of armed deserters looting. A few seized small vessels to escape from Singapore, and others tried to board ships exiting the port area. During the early afternoon of 13 February, Percival held a conference with his principal staff and officers. Those present concurred that a counterattack had no hope of succeeding and the situation was desperate. Later that day, Percival confessed that resistance would probably last for another 24 or 48 hours.

On the night of 13 February, the last ships and other craft were ordered to leave the Singapore coastline, and set sail for the Indonesian islands of Java and Sumatra with 3,000 evacuees on board. Through 14 February, the Japanese pressure on the western part of the Singapore perimeter increased. Late on the 14th, the Japanese 18th Division had advanced to less than 3 kilometres from the southern edge of Singapore city.

In the centre, attacks by the Japanese 5th Division, supported by tanks, made further progress down the Bukit Timah road in central Singapore. They descended on a residential area at the fringes of Singapore city. Compounding Percival’s woes, on the morning of 14 February he had been told, by the Director General of Civil Defence, that the city’s water supplies would be cut off at any moment, with the island’s reservoirs in Japanese hands.

By now, the Japanese artillery and air attacks were raining down at will on the city, leading to widespread civilian casualties and suffering. During a staff meeting that began at 9:30 am on 15 February, Percival was forced to confront the inevitable. There were chronic shortages of fuel and heavy ammunition. At 5:15 pm on 15 February, Percival and his Chief-of-Staff obeyed Japanese instructions to go to the Ford Factory at Bukit Timah, in order to discuss surrender terms with the Japanese officers.

Once the opposing sides had convened at the Ford Factory, Yamashita, as he was entitled to do, repeatedly demanded unconditional surrender from the reluctant Percival, under threat of renewed Japanese attacks. With Yamashita becoming increasingly impatient, Percival at last consented after a 55 minute meeting. The unconditional surrender was signed at 6:10 pm on 15 February 1942, and became effective at 8:30 pm.

Stille wrote, “The 70-day campaign for Malaya and Singapore was over, and the greatest military defeat in British history complete”. Throughout the 10 week fight, the British-led forces suffered 138,708 losses, of which more than 130,000 were prisoners taken by the Japanese, about 80,000 of them in Singapore.

It is seldom mentioned that it was the Indian troops, and not the British, who bore the brunt of fighting. From the total casualties, 67,340 were Indian, 38,496 were British, 18,490 were Australian and the local units suffered 14,382 killed, captured or wounded. Japanese casualties amounted to 9,824, that is just 7% of British Commonwealth losses. Taking into account that the Malayan campaign involved British-led divisions, on paper it entailed the largest surrender of forces in the field in British history; but in the wider context of the world war, especially when compared to casualties at that time in the western Soviet Union, the above losses were inconsequential.

The strategic repercussions for Britain were much more serious than their casualties. The Japanese taking of Malaya and Singapore meant the British Empire was rapidly disintegrating. Japan’s victory on the Malayan peninsula foreshadowed their capture of Burma (Myanmar) and the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) in the spring of 1942. The deep natural resources of Malaya, notably its tin and rubber, were now under Tokyo’s command; which the Japanese leadership calculated to be almost as significant as the petroleum rich Dutch East Indies, the world’s 5th big oil producer in 1940.

The above conquests enabled Japan, an otherwise resource poor country, to prosecute a vast war for nearly another 4 years. How could such a disaster have befallen the British in Mayala? Among the most important factors, as Bellamy alluded to earlier, was that the Japanese infantry were better trained, more determined and utilised superior tactics in comparison to the British and Commonwealth forces. The Japanese Army was not famed for its prowess with tanks and armour but, under Yamashita’s leadership, the 25th Army made ample use of such vehicles on the Malayan peninsula.

By evening on the first day (8 December 1941) of the Japanese landings, northern Malaya had been lost to the enemy almost without a fight. On 10 December, the Japanese further wrested control of the nearby seas having on that day destroyed prominent British warships. Also at this time they were winning command of the skies. Stille observed, “The weak British air force was crippled on the first few days, and never became a factor in the campaign. The Japanese enjoyed air superiority, and all the advantages that this confers, for virtually the entire campaign”.

The British-led units were poorly deployed in Malaya, as they were dispersed over too wide an area, and could not concentrate their forces to repel the Japanese advance. The fighting for central Malaya in early January 1942 was pivotal. A successful stand by the defenders there could have enabled them to launch a counteroffensive against the Japanese, which may have knocked the latter off balance and at least delayed their march.

Once central Malaya and the capital city Kuala Lumpur were lost, it was inevitable that the southern portion of the peninsula would thereafter capitulate, along with Singapore. No further British reinforcements could be sent to Singapore, nor was the island prepared for an attack from the north.

 

Sources

Mark E. Stille, Malaya and Singapore 1941–42: The Fall of Britain’s empire in the East (Osprey Publishing; Illustrated edition, 20 Oct. 2016)

Chris Bellamy, Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War (Pan; Main Market edition, 21 Aug. 2009)

Winston S. Churchill, The Hinge of Fate (RosettaBooks, 11 May 2014)

Andrew Roberts, The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War (Harper, 17 May 2011)

William Anderson, Japanese Invasion of Malaya & Singapore: History and Significance

Antony Beevor, The Second World War (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2012) Chapter 16, Pearl Harbor

Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 April 1985)

 


 

Chapter XXVI

The US Firestorming of Tokyo Rivaled the Hiroshima Bombing

 

In the early hours of 10 March 1945, as America’s heavy aircraft dropped over 1,600 tons of bombs on Tokyo, a firestorm larger and hotter than ever before was brewing. During the firebombings of Dresden and Hamburg, temperatures reached 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit, but in Tokyo it soared to a blinding 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit.

Such was the heat unleashed by US bombers over the Japanese capital, that civilians in their air raid shelters were beginning to suffocate. Rather than be overwhelmed, they fled into the streets, becoming glued to the melting asphalt under their feet. Those now stuck in the roads or pavements were helpless, many of whom were heavily charred by the rapidly growing fires.

Like Venice, the famous northern Italy city, Tokyo is dissected with canals. The people who avoided being rooted to the asphalt in the open, jumped into the many canals, among them numerous women and children. Due to the unprecedented temperatures the canals, particularly the smaller ones, started to boil, cooking to the death further thousands of civilians.

About 280 American B-29 Superfortresses – four-engine heavy bombers – had ignited this unparalleled firestorm. Exiting the scene of destruction, many of the aircraft crews had to quickly attach their oxygen masks; it prevented them from vomiting or passing out, such was the stench of death emanating from about five thousand feet below.

Firebombing of Tokyo.jpg

“Tokyo burns under B-29 firebomb assault.” May 26, 1945. (Source: US Army Air Forces / Wikimedia Commons)

US Major General Curtis LeMay had ordered the firebombing of Tokyo, with maximum casualties in mind, living up to his nickname “Bombs away LeMay”. In a June 1981 interview with the American historian Michael Sherry, LeMay said:

“There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you are fighting a people, you are not trying to fight an armed force anymore. So it doesn’t bother me so much to be killing the innocent bystanders”.

In 1945 Roger Fisher, a First Lieutenant and future Harvard Law professor, was LeMay’s “weather officer” on the island of Guam, in the western Pacific Ocean. Just before the Tokyo firebombing, Fisher revealed that LeMay “asked me a question I’d never heard before”. What LeMay wanted to know was, “How strong are the winds going to be at ground level?” Fisher could not know, informing LeMay that winds can only be predicted (in 1945) “at high altitudes, with reconnaissance flights” and “at intermediate altitudes if we dropped balloons”. LeMay than asked

“How strong does the wind have to be so that people can’t get away from the flames? Will the wind be strong enough for that?”

Fisher stammered and was unable to answer, quickly retiring to his quarters, and saying of LeMay that,

“I didn’t go near him again that night. I had my deputy deal with him. It was the first time it had entered my head that the purpose of our operation was to kill as many people as possible”.

The ground conditions were, as it turned out, exactly to LeMay’s liking, with prevailing winds of up to 28 mph (45 km/h). The blustery weather was akin to a bellows fanning the fires, further aided by the dry atmosphere and Tokyo’s extensive wood-and-paper buildings.

Officially, around 100,000 civilians were said to have died as a result of the bombing raids, which lasted a mere couple of hours. However, noted historians such as Gabriel Kolko, an American-born Canadian academic, estimates the Tokyo body count at 125,000 – which rivals the final death toll from the Hiroshima bombing.

The Tokyo firestorming, code-named “Operation Meetinghouse”, was the single deadliest air raid of World War II by quite some distance. In addition, around one million of Tokyo’s residents suffered injury during the attack, while one million were also left homeless. Over 250,000 of the city’s buildings were destroyed, a quarter of all structures in Tokyo at the time, one of the world’s largest cities. Indeed, the size of the area destroyed (almost 16 square miles) was larger than the destruction wrought by both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

Many of the American aircraft that inflicted the devastation, upon return to their base in the Mariana Islands, were found to be streaked with ashes from Tokyo’s buildings. The Japanese anti-aircraft defenses proved especially inadequate, shooting down only 14 American planes. LeMay was satisfied with the results. After the war he acknowledged that,

“Killing Japanese didn’t bother me very much at that time… I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal… Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you’re not a good soldier”.

Had LeMay been on the German or Japanese side, there is a great probability he would have been tried as a war criminal – along with others, such as his British counterpart Arthur “Bomber” Harris. The brutal air assaults ordered by both LeMay and Harris made those of the Luftwaffe chief, Hermann Goering, appear puny by comparison. After conflict ends, it seems only the defeated are held to account for their crimes. In the months following the war two military tribunals were held, the Nuremberg Trials and Tokyo Trials. There was no clamoring call for similar proceedings to be held in Washington or London.

On 1 September 1939, the day the Nazis invaded Poland, US president Franklin D. Roosevelt made an appeal:

“The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population… has sickened the hearts of civilized men and women and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity… under no circumstances undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations, or of unfortified cities”.

Roosevelt was referring to the Japanese bombing of Shanghai in 1937 – and also the German and Italian bombardment of the Basque and Catalonian cities of Guernica, Barcelona and Granollers, during the Spanish Civil War.

Roosevelt’s words would prove hollow. Less than four years after his address, the American Eight Air Force combined with the Royal Air Force in firebombing Hamburg, Germany’s second largest city. The outright targeting of civilians over Hamburg, lasting just over a week in July 1943, killed over 40,000 people – slightly more than those that died during the Luftwaffe’s eight month blitz of Britain, ending in May 1941. Roosevelt was still in office when large sections of Tokyo were being burned to a cinder, along with great numbers of its civilians. On these occasions, there were no objectives put forth by Roosevelt regarding “the ruthless bombing from the air of civilians”.

Indeed, it was Roosevelt who was a key figure in the formulation of the atomic bomb. He oversaw its continuing development until his death on 12 April 1945, even after it had long become clear to the Allies that Hitler had no nuclear program. Roosevelt had previously said the reason to produce the atomic bomb “was to see that the Nazis don’t blow us up”. Yet, by 1944, this logic was no longer valid, as Roosevelt surely knew.

Hitler had shunned nuclear research for a variety of reasons, on both racial and pragmatic grounds, also foreseeing that these weapons “would force humanity down the road to extinction”. This earth-shattering concern was not expressed by Roosevelt, successor Harry Truman or Winston Churchill. As a result, the shadow of nuclear weapons hovers over humanity to this day.

Meanwhile, in February 1942, Churchill had himself green-lighted the first strategic bombing of urban centers in the war – with the real aim of killing and terrorizing Germany’s civilian population. A British Air Staff directive, dated February 14 1942, outlined that the air war “should now be focused on the morale of the enemy’s civil population”.

Also in February 1942, Britain had launched the famous Avro Lancaster heavy bomber, hundreds of which participated in the murderous firestorming of Hamburg the following year. Already, by 1940 and 1941, the RAF had introduced two other four-engine heavy bombers, the Handley Page Halifax and the Short Stirling – both of which were involved in the “first ever 1,000 bomber raid” over Cologne, in the early hours of 31 May 1942. Almost 1,500 tons of bombs were dropped on Cologne, a city of significant size in western Germany.

The Luftwaffe possessed not a single four-engine bomber aircraft. That is, planes capable of flying extended distances, with large payloads of explosives, thereby inflicting significant damage. The Germans only had two-engine medium and short range bombers. Hitler was not a proponent of strategic bombing and targeting of urban populations en masse, nor had he prepared for it. He only switched focus after the RAF inflicted serious damage upon the medieval city of Lubeck, in late March 1942. Just over a fortnight later, 14 April, Hitler relayed an order declaring that the German air war “be given a more aggressive stamp”, focusing on areas “where attacks are likely to have the greatest possible effect on civilian life”. When it came to terror bombing of civilians, it was something of a British and American specialty.

The German Blitz itself – which began on 7 September 1940 – was Hitler’s direct response to a series of British attacks on Berlin over the previous fortnight. The German capital was bombed for the first time in the early hours of 25 August 1940, a sure sign of things to come. The bombings were a result of Churchill’s increasingly belligerent war strategy.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

  • Posted in English, Mobile, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on History of World War II: Operation Barbarossa, the Allied Firebombing of German Cities and Japan’s Early Conquests

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

The most extensive study yet carried out on COVID-19 vaccines has confirmed their links to serious health problems. Examining the vaccination records of over 99 million people, researchers uncovered significant increases in the occurrence of neurological, blood, and heart-related conditions. The findings seem likely to further fuel the ongoing arguments over the vaccines’ supposed safety.

Conducted by the Global Vaccine Data Network and published in the journal Vaccine, the study looked at data on individuals vaccinated against COVID-19 across eight countries. Researchers identified higher-than-expected cases of thirteen medical conditions deemed “adverse events of special interest.”

Myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) showed a consistent increase in patients receiving mRNA vaccines, with the Moderna version of the injection demonstrating the highest incidence after second doses were given. Cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome, a debilitating neurological condition, saw a significant rise following administration of the viral-vector AstraZeneca vaccine.

Increases in transverse myelitis (inflammation of the spinal cord) were also noted with viral-vector vaccines, while cases of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (inflammation and swelling in the brain and spinal cord) were associated with both mRNA and viral-vector vaccines.

Other conditions for which increases were found include pericarditis (inflammation of the lining around the heart) and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (a rare form of stroke).

A Growing Mountain of Evidence

The study adds to a growing mountain of evidence regarding the risks of COVID-19 vaccines. In a previous analysis published in 2022, for example, researchers found that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA injections are more likely to cause serious adverse events than they are to prevent hospitalization from COVID-19. As such, it is now clear that mRNA vaccines are associated with more serious harms than was originally claimed.

While still essentially ignored by the mainstream media, the full list of adverse effects reported in connection with mRNA vaccines is already long and includes very low platelet counts (thrombocytopenia); high rates of severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reactions (anaphylaxis); severe liver damage; and even death.

In November 2021, as their potentially devastating side effects became clear, Dr. Matthias Rath called for the immediate suspension of RNA- and DNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. His intervention followed the publication of game-changing research in the journal Viruses which found that the coronavirus spike protein is able to reach the cell core (nucleus) and significantly inhibit DNA damage repair. The effective repair of DNA – the biological software of each cell – is essential for maintaining a strong immune defense and protecting against a multitude of diseases, including cancer.

While Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has at least made a step in the right direction and openly linked COVID-19 vaccines to cardiovascular deaths, the vast majority of the world’s other political leaders essentially remain in a state of denial. But with the scientific facts becoming increasingly clear, their public statements on this subject will inevitably come under increased scrutiny in future.

The bottom line here is that having previously coerced people into accepting COVID-19 vaccines – and, in some cases, even mandated their use – politicians are beginning to realize that the vaccine injured cannot be silenced. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is acutely aware of this, having recently been confronted by a COVID-19 vaccine injury victim on live television. Following publication of the world’s largest study into COVID-19 vaccines, Sunak’s counterparts in other countries will doubtless now be desperate to avoid such situations themselves.

*

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

This article was originally published on Dr. Rath Health Foundation.

Executive Director of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation and one of the coauthors of our explosive book, “The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU’”, Paul is also our expert on the Codex Alimentarius Commission and has had eye-witness experience, as an official observer delegate, at its meetings. You can find Paul on Twitter at @paulanthtaylor

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from DHRF


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu below the author’s name or on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

aa

Can’t spell CKUW without ‘YOU’!

WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!

aa

a

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

It’s that time of year again!

As with public television, your weekly visit to a precious radio experience is interrupted by appeals for financial support.

Now the Global Research News Hour’s conversation with our loyal listeners is plagued by a simple request that can be summed up in a single word…

HELP!

The Global Research News Hour is a show which is not only indebted to the Centre for Research on Globalization, but also to radio station CKUW in Winnipeg, Manitoba – the small broadcasting centre out of which the show is produced week after week.

The station, located on campus gets most of its funding from university students via the University of Winnipeg Student Association. But it must also appeal to listeners for support. Fundrive is the annual event by which we pitch for funding during the week.

This week’s show is dedicated to raising funds for the station. It is a bit of a drag in a way to have to focus efforts in this direction. On the other hand, it gives the host a chance to have more of a connection with listeners in the local community … and beyond!

So this week, alongside the pitching for donations, we have a set of clips from some of the better shows over the last couple of years. It is hoped that catching excerpts will remind listeners what keeps bringing them back!

But in addition, it will also remind them of the importance of what we do! In the war for the mind, our weapon of choice, as independent media – is the TRUTH! When Big Tech giants and algorithms are successfully reducing our audiences and pushing to the side all alternatives to the master-media narratives behind the Ukraine War, the Israeli Genocide of Gaza, the Global War on Terrorism, the bombing of Syria, Libya and Yemen, “Russiagate”, and other debacles, Global Research and Global Research News Hour need all the help they can get from the bedrock of solidarity that is out there.

We encourage listeners to make a donation to CKUW at Donate – CKUW 95.9 FM. Many interesting incentives are available to Canadian listeners.

Additionally, or alternatively, you can donate to the show through the Global Research portal below.

Please Identify your Donation to the GRNH: Donation to CKUW-GRNH. 

 

Click to view our membership plans

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

Thanks to all listeners for their generosity! If you want to do more, tell your local broadcaster about the show, and send copies and links to friends and family. It is our high hope that, while the task is daunting and the future seems to be grim, through correcting state and corporate narratives, we will eventually PULVERIZE war propaganda and bring about genuine peace and social justice in our world!

People appearing on the show this week:

Dr. Naomi Wolf is a former political consultant and Co-Founder of the DailyClout, a platform that empowers democracy-building. She is the author of the best-selling The Beauty Myth, which launched her reputation as a leading voice within Third Wave feminism, and she authored the 2023 book Facing the Beast: Courage, Faith and Resistance in a New Dark Age (Chelsea Green Publishing.)

John Shipton if the father of Julian Assange, and has traveled abroad to promote his son’s release.

John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He blew the whistle on the CIA’s use of torture and ended up serving 23 months in prison.

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and has been a correspondent for the Boston Globe, The Sunday Times of London, and the Wall Street Journal among other publications.

Tamara Lorincz is a member of Canadian Voice of Women for Peace, a PhD candidate, Balsillie School of International Affairs, Wilfrid Laurier University, and a fellow with the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute .

Michael Connett is the lead attorney for Food & Water Watch, Fluoride Action Network, Moms Against Fluoridation and other advocacy groups and individuals suing the EPA  in a bid to force the agency to prohibit water fluoridation in the U.S. due to fluoride’s toxic effects on children’s developing brains.

Khal Shariff is the founder and CEO of Project Whitecard, a company dedicated to using technology for good. They use game technology for education, and the latest project is all about driver training in BC, where Project Whitecard is using AI extensively during development.

Robert J Sawyer is, according to multiple press organizations, the leading science fiction author in Canada. The only Canadian to receive all 3 of the world’s top science fiction awards for best novel of the year, he is also the first writer to receive the Lifetime Achievement Aurora Award. His now fourteen year old series, Wake, Watch and Wonder (WWW), was his in-depth look at Artificial Intelligence and received the Hugo Award and three Aurora Awards.

(Global Research News Hour Fundraiser show) 

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.

Il Silenzio dei Colpevoli

February 24th, 2024 by Manlio Dinucci

L’Occidente all’unisono accusa Putin di aver ordinato l’assassinio di Navalny. Il tempismo della sua morte è però più che sospetto: Navalny muore il 16 febbraio, nello stesso giorno in cui apre la Conferenza di Monaco sulla Sicurezza, una settimana dopo il successo della intervista di Putin a Tucker Carlson, un mese prima delle elezioni presidenziali in Russia in cui Putin è candidato. In altre parole, Putin avrebbe ordinato di uccidere Navalny nel momento più adatto a provocare il massimo danno a se stesso.

Allo stesso tempo, il mainstream politico-mediatico dell’Occidente cala una cortina di silenzio sul fatto che Navalny era stato formato in uno speciale corso all’Università di Yale e che il suo movimento Narod di suprematismo bianco era stato finanziato dal “Fondo Nazionale per la Democrazia”, potente “fondazione privata non-profit” statunitense che finanzia migliaia di organizzazioni non-governative in un centinaio di paesi per “far avanzare la democrazia”. Il Fondo è lo stesso che ha sostenuto in Ucraina quella che esso definisce “la Rivoluzione di Maidan che ha abbattuto un governo corrotto che impediva la democrazia”, ossia il colpo di Stato del 2014 che ha innescato la successione di eventi in funzione anti-Russia che ha portato alla guerra attuale.

Mentre sul fronte ucraino le forze di Kiev, sostenute da USA, NATO e UE, si stanno ritirando in modo caotico sotto il contrattacco russo da zone del Donbass che avevano conquistato, gli Stati Uniti stanno allargando il fronte di guerra in Medioriente, continuando a sostenere Israele nella sua strategia di genocidio del popolo palestinese.

Su questo sfondo si colloca l’ultimo capitolo del processo politico a Julian Assange: la Corte di Londra ha preso la sua decisione sull’estradizione del giornalista australiano negli USA, dove può essere condannato a 175 anni di carcere per aver portato alla luce crimini di guerra USA, ma non ha annunciato la decisione, cosa che verrà fatta il prossimo mese. In questa puntata di Grandangolo il servizio di Berenice Galli da Londra con interviste a Jeremy Corbyn, Partito Laburista Britannico; Kristinn Hrafnsson, condirettore di Wikileaks; Gabriel Shipton, fratello di Julian Assange.

Manlio Dinucci

 

VIDEO :

Youtube :

 

Byoblu : https://www.byoblu.com/2024/02/23/il-silenzio-dei-colpevoli/ 

The Destabilization of Haiti: Anatomy of a Military Coup d’Etat

February 24th, 2024 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

In Solidarity with the People of Haiti 

On the 29th of February  2024, we commemorate in solidarity with the people of Haiti, the 20th anniversary of the coup d’Etat against Haiti’s elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

This is what I wrote 20 years ago: 

“Washington seeks to reinstate Haiti as a full-fledged US colony, with all the appearances of a functioning democracy. The objective is to impose a puppet regime in Port-au-Prince and establish a permanent US military presence in Haiti.

The US Administration ultimately seeks to militarize the Caribbean basin.

(Michel Chossudovsky, The Destabilization of Haiti, Global Research, February 29, 2004)

The article –written in the last days of February 2004 was published on February 29th, 2004– on the same day as the US- Canada- France  sponsored coup d’Etat, which led to the kidnapping and deportation of the country’s elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

The Coup d’Etat had been prepared well in advance. Following consultations behind closed doors in Ottawa, the US, with the support of France and Canada took the necessary step including the training of paramilitary unit integrated by former members of Le Front pour l’avancement et le progrès d’Haiti (FRAPH).  

Barely two weeks following the February 2004 coup d’Etat, a puppet regime was installed by the “international community”.

In April 2004 , following an agreement between G. W. Bush and Luis (Lula) Inàcio da Silva, a contingent of over 8000 UN “peace-keeping”  forces under Brazilian command entered Haiti.

Lula acting on behalf of Washington in the aftermath of the February 2004 Coup d’Etat has endorsed the militarization of Haiti in the name of democracy.

Haiti has been under foreign military occupation for the last twenty years. 

Moreover, the January 2010 earthquake provided Washington with a justification to bring in an additional 10,000 foreign forces into the country: 

While presidents Obama and Préval spoke on the phone, the deployment of US troops was taken and imposed unilaterally by Washington. The total lack of a functioning government in Haiti was used to legitimize, on humanitarian grounds, the sending in of a powerful military force (Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, February 2010)

This influx of US and allied combat troops into Haiti in 2010 contributed to reinforcing MINUSTAH’s “peacekeeping” contingent bringing total occupation forces to more than 20,000.

The Multinational Security Support Force (MSS)

In October 2023, pressured by Washington, the United Nations Security Council voted to authorize a so-called “security mission” to Haiti led by Kenya to help “fight heavily armed gangs that have overrun the capital”. 

In late January 2024, A Kenyan High court in an action challenging the government of William Ruto prohibited the deployment of 1,000 Kenyan police officers to Haiti on behalf of the U.S. generously funded by Washington. The Force was declared unconstitutional. The deployment of Kenyan police in Haiti required a bilateral agreement between the two governments.

The deployment of Kenyan military and police forces on behalf of the U.S. is an illegal act tantamount to  a de facto invasion of Haiti on behalf of the U.S. the ultimate objective is the militarization of Haiti.  

While Haiti is commemorating the 20th anniversary of the February 2004 Coup d’Etat against the elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Brazil’s President Luis Inàcio da Silva, acting as a U.S. proxy is slated to lead the implementation of the MSS consisting in the dispatch of both police and military troops to Haiti, on behalf of Uncle Sam.

In a bitter irony, Canada  and France (who led the Coup d’Etat together with the US) will be participating in a renewed process of militarization, together with Benin and Guyana. 

Lula met President Biden in the Oval Office on February 10, and on February 21, he met up with U.S. Secretary of State Blinken in Brazilia prior to the G-20 Ministerial Meeting in Rio de Janeiro.

On February 20th, on the sideline of the G-20, a closed door session entitled “Meeting the Challenge in Haiti” was held

While at the time of writing, there has been no public announcement or media coverage of this important meeting. What has been intimated by a senior Biden administration official is that the military mission will be led by Brazil, under the helm of President Luis (Lula) Inacio da Silva.

The Multinational Security Support Force (MSS) will be funded by Washington with a modest budget of $515 million to $600 million over a two year period.

“For now, the mission is expected to include 2,500 troops from Kenya, Jamaica, the Bahamas and other countries in the Caribbean and Africa”.

Lula is a Faithful U.S. Proxy

President Luis Inacio da Silva stated recently at the African Union Summit

“What is happening in the Gaza Strip with the Palestinian people has no parallel in other historical moments. In fact, it did exist when Hitler decided to kill the Jews,”

Lula is a Double Speak and an opportunist: what he fails to acknowledge is that both Palestine and Haiti are impoverished nations, they are in solidarity with one another in fighting for their sovereignty against U.S. aggression.

Lula not only supported the February 2004 Coup d’Etat against the duly elected government of Jean Bertrand Aristide, he was instrumental in leading a 13 years military occupation of Haiti by Brazilian troops (2004-2017) on behalf of the U.S. as a means  to allegedly “protecting democracy”.

According to the New York Times (August 1, 2004): 

“One American administration after another has tried and failed to maintain order and restore democracy in Haiti. Now, with Washington’s enthusiastic support, Brazil has stepped in at the head of a United Nations mission, and is using unconventional diplomacy to complement the usual military show of force.

… Brazil is not sending just troops. The national soccer team is scheduled to play an exhibition match in Port-au-Prince in mid-August against Haiti’s squad, and President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has promised to attend.

  ”It is a symbol, a gesture to show that we want the world to live in peace, not at war,” Mr. da Silva, of the left-wing Workers Party, said publicly this month [August 2004] after a meeting with the leader of the Brazilian soccer federation.

Initially, Mr. da Silva had also suggested that the awarding of tickets to the soccer game be linked to surrendering weapons, an important concern in a country where armed bands still exercise power. … 

Despite ideological differences with Mr. da Silva, the Bush administration has been quick to express gratitude for Brazil’s willingness to venture into Haiti.

In 1994, the Clinton administration, working with the United Nations, intervened in Haiti to restore President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power after he had been toppled in a military coup. But in February, an armed rebellion drove Mr. Aristide into exile, and he now accuses the United States of forcing him to step down.

”Brazil really did take a leadership role at a crucial moment, and that’s a big deal,” …. 

The Brazilian government, in contrast, seems more concerned with guaranteeing that a full deployment of 5,000 troops, down from an initial call for 6,500, is achieved in August. …

Dr. Jaguaribe, one of Brazil’s leading foreign policy theorists, said. ”Haiti offers a chance for them [Brazil and the US] to act together in a unified, articulated way in defense of democratic values, multilateralism and the principle of peaceful resolution of conflicts.” (emphasis added. Larry Richter, NYT, August 1, 2004)

What is required at this juncture is to:

1) support the people of Haiti in their longstanding quest for sovereignty and real democracy,

2) demand that the MSS mission be cancelled. Call for the withdrawal of all foreign troops,

3) Confront President Luis Inàcio da Silva –who is leading the process of militarization on behalf of Washington–, as well as the heads of State and heads of government involved in sending troops to Haiti including Canada, France, Kenya, Benin and Jamaica. 

4) endorse the peaceful resistance of the Haitian people to foreign military occupation,

5) support genuine reconstruction initiatives at the grassroots level, which bypass the stranglehold of international creditors and foreign investors.

 

The detailed and lengthy article below largely focusses on the history of the February 2004 US led coup d’Etat.

A  summary is provided

 

Michel Chossudovsky,  February 24, 2024

.

The Destabilization of Haiti,

Anatomy of a Military Coup d’Etat 

by

Michel Chossudovsky

 

Global Research, February 29, 2004

Summary 

The armed insurrection which contributed to unseating President Aristide on February 29th 2004 was the result of a carefully staged military-intelligence operation.

The Rebel paramilitary army crossed the border from the Dominican Republic in early February.

It constitutes a well armed, trained and equipped paramilitary unit integrated by former members of Le Front pour l’avancement et le progrès d’Haiti (FRAPH), the “plain clothes” death squadrons, involved in mass killings of civilians and political assassinations during the CIA sponsored 1991 military coup, which led to the overthrow of the democratically elected government of President Jean Bertrand Aristide

The self-proclaimed Front pour la Libération et la reconstruction nationale (FLRN) is led by Guy Philippe, a former member of the Haitian Armed Forces and Police Chief. Philippe had been trained during the 1991 coup years by US Special Forces in Ecuador, together with a dozen other Haitian Army officers. 

The two other rebel commanders and associates of Guy Philippe, who led the attacks on Gonaives and Cap Haitien are Emmanuel Constant, nicknamed “Toto” and Jodel Chamblain, both of whom are former Tonton Macoute and leaders of FRAPH.

The FLRN led by Guy Philippe had the support of G-184 (“The Group of 184 Civil Society Organizations”) led by Andy Apaid who was in liaison with Secretary of State Colin Powell in the days prior to the kidnapping and deportation of President Aristide by US forces on February 29, 2004

Apaid’s umbrella organization of elite business organizations and religious NGOs, is supported by the International Republican Institute (IRI).

In the weeks leading up to the Coup d’Etat, the media had largely focused its attention on the pro-Aristide “armed gangs” and “thugs”,  without providing an understanding of the role of the U.S. supported FLRN Rebels.

Deafening silence: not a word was mentioned in official statements and UN resolutions regarding the nature of the FLRN. 

The FLRN rebels are extremely well equipped and trained forces. The Haitian people know who they are. They are Tonton Macoute of the Duvalier era and former FRAPH assassins covertly supported by the U.S.

The Western media is mute on the issue, blaming the violence on President Aristide. When it acknowledges that the Liberation Army is composed of death squadrons, it fails to examine the broader implications of its statements and that these death squadrons are a creation of the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Extreme Poverty. Famine. Destabilization of Agriculture

Haiti is the poorest country in the Western hemisphere and among the poorest in the world. The World Bank estimates unemployment to be of the order of 60 percent.

More than 75 percent of the Haitian population is engaged in agriculture, producing both food crops for the domestic market as well a number of cash crops for export. With the adoption of the IMF-World Bank sponsored trade reforms, the agricultural system, which previously produced food for the local market, had been destabilized. With the lifting of trade barriers, the local market was opened up to the dumping of US agricultural surpluses including rice, sugar and corn, leading to the destruction of the entire peasant economy. Gonaives, which used to be Haiti’s rice basket region, with extensive paddy fields had been precipitated into bankruptcy.

In matter of a few years, Haiti, a small impoverished country in the Caribbean, had become the World’s fourth largest importer of American rice after Japan, Mexico and Canada.

In turn, the IMF had demanded, despite the dramatic increase in the cost of living, a freeze on wages as a means to “controlling inflationary pressures.” The IMF had pressured the government to lower public sector salaries (including those paid to teachers and health workers).  It has also demanded the phasing out of the statutory minimum wage of approximately 25 cents an hour. “Labour market flexibility”, meaning wages paid below the statutory minimum wage would, according to the IMF, contribute to attracting foreign investors. The daily minimum wage was $3.00 in 1994, declining to about $1.50- 1.75 (depending on the gourde-dollar exchange rate) in 2004, shortly before the coup d’Etat. 

The Drug Trade 

While the real economy had been driven into bankruptcy under the brunt of the IMF reforms, the narcotics transshipment trade continues to flourish.  According to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Haiti remains [2004] “the major drug trans-shipment country for the entire Caribbean region, funneling huge shipments of cocaine from Colombia to the United States.”

It is estimated that  Haiti is now [2004] responsible for 14 percent of all the cocaine entering the United States, representing billions of dollars of revenue for organized crime and US financial institutions, which launder vast amounts of dirty money. The global trade in narcotics is estimated to be of the order of 500 billion dollars.

Much of this transshipment trade goes directly to Miami, which also constitutes a haven for the recycling of dirty money into bona fide investments, e.g. in real estate and other related activities.

The US-Canada-France sponsored coup d’Etat, had been prepared well in advance. Following consultations behind closed doors in Ottawa, the US, with the support of France and Canada took the necessary steps to carry out a Coup d’Etat and forcefully abduct President Aristide. 

Barely two weeks following the February 2004 coup d’Etat, a puppet regime was installed by the “international community”.

The U.S. sponsored Coup d’Etat with the support of Canada and France, seeks to reinstate Haiti as a full-fledged US colony, with all the appearances of a functioning democracy.

The objective is to impose a puppet regime in Port-au-Prince and establish a permanent US military presence in Haiti.

The US Administration ultimately seeks to militarize the Caribbean basin.

***

Introduction

The armed insurrection which contributed to unseating President Aristide on February 29th 2004 was the result of a carefully staged military-intelligence operation.

The Rebel paramilitary army crossed the border from the Dominican Republic in early February.

It constitutes a well armed, trained and equipped paramilitary unit integrated by former members of Le Front pour l’avancement et le progrès d’Haiti (FRAPH), the “plain clothes” death squadrons, involved in mass killings of civilians and political assassinations during the CIA sponsored 1991 military coup, which led to the overthrow of the democratically elected government of President Jean Bertrand Aristide

The self-proclaimed Front pour la Libération et la reconstruction nationale (FLRN) (National Liberation and Reconstruction Front) is led by Guy Philippe, a former member of the Haitian Armed Forces and Police Chief. Philippe had been trained during the 1991 coup years by US Special Forces in Ecuador, together with a dozen other Haitian Army officers. (See Juan Gonzalez, New York Daily News, 24 February 2004).

The two other rebel commanders and associates of Guy Philippe, who led the attacks on Gonaives and Cap Haitien are Emmanuel Constant, nicknamed “Toto” and Jodel Chamblain, both of whom are former Tonton Macoute and leaders of FRAPH.

In 1994, Emmanuel Constant led the FRAPH assassination squadron into the village of Raboteau, in what was later identified as “The Raboteau massacre”:

“One of the last of the infamous massacres happened in April 1994 in Raboteau, a seaside slum about 100 miles north of the capital. Raboteau has about 6,000 residents, most fishermen and salt rakers, but it has a reputation as an opposition stronghold where political dissidents often went to hide… On April 18 [1994], 100 soldiers and about 30 paramilitaries arrived in Raboteau for what investigators would later call a “dress rehearsal.” They rousted people from their homes, demanding to know where Amiot “Cubain” Metayer, a well-known Aristide supporter, was hiding. They beat people, inducing a pregnant woman to miscarry, and forced others to drink from open sewers. Soldiers tortured a 65-year-old blind man until he vomited blood. He died the next day.

The soldiers returned before dawn on April 22. They ransacked homes and shot people in the streets, and when the residents fled for the water, other soldiers fired at them from boats they had commandeered. Bodies washed ashore for days; some were never found. The number of victims ranges from two dozen to 30. Hundreds more fled the town, fearing further reprisals.” (St Petersburg Times, Florida, 1 September 2002)

During the military government (1991-1994), FRAPH was (unofficially) under the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces, taking orders from Commander in Chief General Raoul Cedras. According to a 1996 UN Human Rights Commission report, FRAPH had been supported by the CIA.

Under the military dictatorship, the narcotics trade, was protected by the military Junta, which in turn was supported by the CIA. The 1991 coup leaders including the FRAPH paramilitary commanders were on the CIA payroll. (See Paul DeRienzo,  See also see Jim Lobe, IPS, 11 Oct 1996).

Emmanuel Constant alias “Toto” confirmed, in this regard, in a CBS “60 Minutes” in 1995, that the CIA paid him about $700 a month and that he created FRAPH, while on the CIA payroll. (See Miami Herald, 1 August 2001). According to Constant, the FRAPH had been formed “with encouragement and financial backing from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency and the CIA.” (Miami New Times, 26 February 2004)

The Civilian “Opposition”

The so-called “Democratic Convergence” (DC) is a group of some 200 political organizations, led by former Port-au-Prince mayor Evans Paul. The “Democratic Convergence” (DC) together with “The Group of 184 Civil Society Organizations” (G-184) has formed a so-called “Democratic Platform of Civil Society Organizations and Opposition Political Parties”.

The Group of 184 (G-184), is headed by Andre (Andy) Apaid, a US citizen of Haitian parents, born in the US. (Haiti Progres, http://www.haiti-progres.com/eng11-12.html) Andy Apaid owns Alpha Industries, one of Haiti’s largest cheap labor export assembly lines established during the Duvalier era.

His sweatshop factories produce textile products and assemble electronic products for a number of US firms including Sperry/Unisys, IBM, Remington and Honeywell. Apaid is the largest industrial employer in Haiti with a workforce of some 4000 workers. Wages paid in Andy Apaid’s factories are as low as 68 cents a day. (Miami Times, 26 Feb 2004). The current minimum wage is of the order of $1.50 a day:

“The U.S.-based National Labor Committee, which first revealed the Kathie Lee Gifford sweat shop scandal, reported several years ago that Apaid’s factories in Haiti’s free trade zone often pay below the minimum wage and that his employees are forced to work 78-hour weeks.” (Daily News, New York, 24 Feb 2004)

Apaid was a firm supporter of the 1991 military coup. Both the Convergence démocratique and the G-184 have links to the FLRN (former FRAPH death squadrons) headed by Guy Philippe. The FLRN is also known to receive funding from the Haitian business community.

In other words, there is no watertight division between the civilian opposition, which claims to be non-violent and the FLRN paramilitary. The FLRN is collaborating with the so-called “Democratic Platform.”

The Role of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)

In Haiti, this “civil society opposition” is bankrolled by the National Endowment for Democracy which works hand in glove with the CIA. The Democratic Platform is supported by the International Republican Institute (IRI) , which is an arm of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Senator John McCain is Chairman of IRI’s Board of Directors. (See Laura Flynn, Pierre Labossière and Robert Roth, Hidden from the Headlines: The U.S. War Against Haiti, California-based Haiti Action Committee (HAC), haitiprogres.com/ ).

G-184 leader Andy Apaid was in liaison with Secretary of State Colin Powell in the days prior to the kidnapping and deportation of President Aristide by US forces on February 29. His umbrella organization of elite business organizations and religious NGOs, which is also supported by the International Republican Institute (IRI), receives sizeable amounts of money from the European Union.(haitisupport.gn.apc.org).

It is worth recalling that the NED, (which overseas the IRI) although not formally part of the CIA, performs an important intelligence function within the arena of civilian political parties and NGOs.

It was created in 1983, when the CIA was being accused of covertly bribing politicians and setting up phony civil society front organizations. According to Allen Weinstein, who was responsible for setting up the NED during the Reagan Administration:

“A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” (‘Washington Post’, Sept. 21, 1991).

The NED channels congressional funds to the four institutes:

  1. The International Republican Institute (IRI),
  2. the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI),
  3. the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), and
  4. the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS).

These organizations are said to be “uniquely qualified to provide technical assistance to aspiring democrats worldwide.” (IRI)

In other words, there is a division of tasks between the CIA and the NED. While the CIA provides covert support to armed paramilitary rebel groups and death squadrons, the NED and its four constituent organizations finance “civilian”  political parties and non governmental organizations with a view to instating American “democracy” around the World.

The NED constitutes, so to speak, the CIA’s “civilian arm”. CIA-NED interventions in different part of the World are characterized by a consistent pattern, which is applied in numerous countries.

The NED provided funds to  the “civil society” organizations in Venezuela, which initiated an attempted coup against President Hugo Chavez. In Venezuela it was the “Democratic Coordination”, which was the recipient of NED support; in Haiti it is the “Democratic Convergence” and G-184.

Similarly, in former Yugoslavia, the CIA channeled support to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) (since 1995), a paramilitary group involved in terrorist attacks on the Yugoslav police and military. Meanwhile, the NED through the  “Center for International Private Enterprise” (CIPE) was backing the DOS opposition coalition in Serbia and Montenegro. More specifically, NED was financing the G-17, an opposition group of  economists responsible for formulating (in liaison with the IMF) the DOS coalition’s  “free market” reform platform in the 2000 presidential election, which led to the downfall of Slobodan Milosevic.

The IMF’s Bitter “Economic Medicine”

The IMF and the World Bank are key players in the process of economic and political destabilization. While carried out under the auspices of an intergovernmental body, the IMF reforms tend to support US strategic and foreign policy objectives.

Based on the so-called “Washington consensus”, IMF austerity and restructuring measures through their devastating impacts, often contribute to triggering social and ethnic strife. IMF reforms have often precipitated the downfall of elected governments. In extreme cases of economic and social dislocation, the IMF’s bitter economic medicine has contributed to the destabilization of entire countries, as occurred in Somalia, Rwanda and Yugoslavia. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, Second Edition, 2003)

The IMF program is a consistent instrument of economic dislocation. The IMF’s reforms contribute to reshaping and downsizing State institutions through drastic austerity measures. The latter are implemented alongside other forms of intervention and political interference, including CIA covert activities in support of rebel paramilitary groups and opposition political parties.

Moreover, so-called “Emergency Recovery” and “Post-conflict” reforms are often introduced under IMF guidance, in the wake of a civil war, a regime change or “a national emergency”.

In Haiti, the IMF sponsored  “free market” reforms have been carried out consistently since the Duvalier era. They have been applied in several stages since the first election of president Aristide in 1990.

The 1991 military coup, which took place 8 months following Jean Bertrand Aristide’s accession to the presidency, was in part intended to reverse the Aristide government’s progressive reforms and reinstate the neoliberal policy agenda of the Duvalier era.

A former World Bank official Mr. Marc Bazin was appointed Prime minister by the Military Junta in June 1992. In fact, it was the US State Department which sought his appointment.

Bazin had a track record of working for the “Washington consensus.”  In 1983, he had been appointed Finance Minister under the Duvalier regime, In fact he had been recommended to the Finance portfolio by the IMF: “President-for-Life Jean-Claude Duvalier had agreed to the appointment of an IMF nominee, former World Bank official Marc Bazin, as Minister of Finance”. (Mining Annual Review, June, 1983). Bazin, who was considered Washington’s “favorite”, later ran against Aristide in the 1990 presidential elections.

Bazin, was called in by the Military Junta in 1992 to form a so-called  “consensus government”. It is worth noting that it was precisely during Bazin’s term in office as Prime Minister that the political massacres and extra judicial killings by the CIA supported FRAPH death squadrons were unleashed, leading to the killing of more than 4000 civilians.

Some 300,000 people became internal refugees,  “thousands more fled across the border to the Dominican Republic, and more than 60,000 took to the high seas” (Statement of Dina Paul Parks, Executive Director, National Coalition for Haitian Rights, Committee on Senate Judiciary, US Senate, Washington DC, 1 October 2002). Meanwhile, the CIA had launched a smear campaign representing Aristide as “mentally unstable” (Boston Globe, 21 Sept 1994).

The 1994 US Military Intervention

Following three years of military rule, the US intervened in 1994, sending in 20,000 occupation troops and “peace-keepers” to Haiti. The US military intervention was not intended to restore democracy. Quite the contrary: it was carried out to prevent a popular insurrection against the military Junta and its neoliberal cohorts.

In other words, the US military occupation was implemented to ensure political continuity.

While the members of the military Junta were sent into exile, the return to constitutional government required compliance to IMF diktats, thereby foreclosing the possibility of a progressive “alternative” to the neoliberal agenda. Moreover, US troops remained in the country until 1999. The Haitian armed forces were disbanded and the US State Department hired a mercenary company DynCorp to provide “technical advice” in restructuring the Haitian National Police (HNP).

“DynCorp has always functioned as a cut-out for Pentagon and CIA covert operations.” (See Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn,  Counterpunch, February 27, 2002) Under DynCorp advice in Haiti, former Tonton Macoute and Haitian military officers involved in the 1991 Coup d’Etat were brought into the HNP. (See Ken Silverstein, Privatizing War, The Nation, July 28, 1997, 

In October 1994, Aristide returned from exile and reintegrated the presidency until the end of his mandate in 1996. “Free market” reformers  were brought into his Cabinet. A new wave of deadly macro-economic policies was adopted under a so-called Emergency Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) “that sought to achieve rapid macroeconomic stabilization, restore public administration, and attend to the most pressing needs.” (See IMF Approves Three-Year ESAF Loan for Haiti, Washington, 1996

The restoration of Constitutional government had been negotiated behind closed doors with Haiti’s external creditors. Prior to Aristide’s reinstatement as the country’s president, the new government was obliged to clear the country’s debt arrears with its external creditors. In fact the new loans provided by the  World Bank, the  Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), and the IMF were used to meet Haiti’s obligations with international creditors. Fresh money was used to pay back old debt leading to a spiraling external debt.

Broadly coinciding with the military government, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) declined by 30 percent (1992-1994). With a per capita income of $250 per annum, Haiti is the poorest country in the Western hemisphere and among the poorest in the world. (see World Bank, Haiti: The Challenges of Poverty Reduction, Washington, August 1998)

The World Bank estimates unemployment to be of the order of 60 percent. (A 2000 US Congressional Report estimates it to be as high as 80 percent. See US House of Representatives, Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources Subcommittee, FDHC Transcripts, 12 April 2000).

In the wake of three years of military rule and economic decline, there was no “Economic Emergency Recovery” as envisaged under the IMF loan agreement. In fact quite the opposite: The IMF imposed  “stabilization” under the “Recovery” program required further budget cuts in  almost non-existent social sector programs.  A civil service reform program was launched, which consisted in reducing the size of the civil service and the firing of “surplus” State employees. The IMF-World Bank package was in part instrumental in the paralysis of public services, leading to the eventual demise of the entire State system. In a country where health and educational services were virtually nonexistent, the IMF had demanded the lay off of “surplus” teachers and health workers with a view to meeting its target for the budget deficit.

Washington’s foreign policy initiatives were coordinated with the application of the IMF’s deadly economic medicine. The country had been literally pushed to the brink of economic and social disaster.

The Fate of Haitian Agriculture

More than 75 percent of the Haitian population is engaged in agriculture, producing both food crops for the domestic market as well a number of cash crops for export. Already during the Duvalier era, the peasant economy had been undermined. With the adoption of the IMF-World Bank sponsored trade reforms, the agricultural system, which previously produced food for the local market, had been destabilized. With the lifting of trade barriers, the local market was opened up to the dumping of US agricultural surpluses including rice, sugar and corn, leading to the destruction of the entire peasant economy. Gonaives, which used to be Haiti’s rice basket region, with extensive paddy fields had been precipitated into bankruptcy:

“By the end of the 1990s Haiti’s local rice production had been reduced by half and rice imports from the US accounted for over half of local rice sales. The local farming population was devastated, and the price of rice rose drastically ” ( See Rob Lyon, Haiti-There is no solution under Capitalism! Socialist Appeal, 24 Feb. 2004

In matter of a few years, Haiti, a small impoverished country in the Caribbean, had become the World’s fourth largest importer of American rice after Japan, Mexico and Canada.

The Second Wave of IMF Reforms

The presidential elections were scheduled for November 23, 2000. The Clinton Administration had put an embargo on development aid to Haiti in 2000. Barely two weeks prior to the elections, the outgoing administration signed a Letter of Intent with the IMF. Perfect timing: the agreement with the IMF virtually foreclosed from the outset any departure from the neoliberal agenda.

The Minister of Finance had sent the amended budget to the Parliament on December 14th. Donor support was conditional upon its rubber stamp approval by the Legislature. While Aristide had promised to increase the minimum wage, embark on school construction and  literacy programs, the hands of the new government were tied. All major decisions regarding the State budget, the management of the public sector, public investment, privatization, trade and monetary policy had already been taken. They were part of the agreement reached with the IMF on November 6, 2000.

In 2003, the IMF imposed the application of a so-called “flexible price system in fuel”, which immediately triggered an inflationary spiral. The currency was devalued. Petroleum prices increased by about 130 percent in January-February 2003, which served to increase popular resentment against the Aristide government, which had supported the implementation of the IMF economic reforms.

The hike in fuel prices contributed to a 40 percent increase in consumer prices (CPI) in 2002-2003 (See Haiti—Letter of Intent, Memorandum of Economic and Financial Policies, and Technical Memorandum of Understanding, Port-au-Prince, Haiti June 10, 2003,  ).

In turn, the IMF had demanded, despite the dramatic increase in the cost of living, a freeze on wages as a means to “controlling inflationary pressures.” The IMF had in fact pressured the government to lower public sector salaries (including those paid to teachers and health workers).  The IMF had also demanded the phasing out of the statutory minimum wage of approximately 25 cents an hour. “Labour market flexibility”, meaning wages paid below the statutory minimum wage would, according to the IMF, contribute to attracting foreign investors. The daily minimum wage was $3.00 in 1994, declining to about $1.50- 1.75 (depending on the gourde-dollar exchange rate) in 2004.

In an utterly twisted logic, Haiti’s abysmally low wages, which have been part of the IMF-World Bank “cheap labor” policy framework since the 1980s, are viewed as a means to improving the standard of living. In other words, sweatshop conditions in the assembly industries (in a totally unregulated labor market) and forced labor conditions in Haiti’s agricultural plantations are considered by the IMF as a key to achieving economic prosperity, because they “attract foreign investment.”

The country was in the straightjacket of a spiraling external debt. In a bitter irony, the IMF-World Bank sponsored austerity measures in the social sectors were imposed in a country which has 1,2 medical doctors for 10,000 inhabitants and where the large majority of the population is illiterate. State social services, which were virtually nonexistent during the Duvalier period, have collapsed.

The result of IMF ministrations was a further collapse in purchasing power, which had also affected middle income groups. Meanwhile, interest rates had skyrocketed. In the Northern and Eastern parts of the country, the hikes in fuel prices had led to a virtual paralysis of transportation and public services including water and electricity.

While a humanitarian catastrophe is looming, the collapse of the economy spearheaded by the IMF, had served to boost the popularity of the Democratic Platform, which had accused  Aristide of “economic mismanagement.” Needless to say, the leaders of the Democratic Platform including Andy Apaid –who actually owns the sweatshops– are the main protagonists of the low wage economy.

Applying the Kosovo Model

In February 2003, Washington announced the appointment of James Foley as Ambassador to Haiti . Foley had been a State Department spokesman under the Clinton administration during the war on Kosovo. He previously held a position at NATO headquarters in Brussels. Foley had been sent to Port au Prince in advance of the CIA sponsored operation. He was transferred to Port au Prince in September 2003, from a prestige diplomatic position in Geneva, where he was Deputy Head of Mission to the UN European office.

It is worth recalling Ambassador Foley’s involvement in support of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in 1999.

Amply documented, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was financed by drug money and supported by the CIA. ( See Michel Chossudovsky, Kosovo Freedom Fighters Financed by Organized Crime, Covert Action Quarterly, 1999,

The KLA had been involved in similar targeted political assassinations and killings of civilians, in the months leading up to the 1999 NATO invasion as well as in its aftermath.  Following the NATO led invasion and occupation of Kosovo, the KLA was transformed into the Kosovo Protection Force (KPF) under UN auspices. Rather than being disarmed to prevent the massacres of civilians, a terrorist organization with links to organized crime and the Balkans drug trade, was granted a legitimate political status.

At the time of the Kosovo war, the current ambassador to Haiti James Foley was in charge of State Department briefings, working closely with his NATO counterpart in Brussels, Jamie Shea. Barely two months before the onslaught of the NATO led war on 24 March 1999, James Foley had called for the “transformation” of the KLA into a respectable political organization:

We want to develop a good relationship with them [the KLA] as they transform themselves into a politically-oriented organization,’ ..`[W]e believe that we have a lot of advice and a lot of help that we can provide to them if they become precisely the kind of political actor we would like to see them become… “If we can help them and they want us to help them in that effort of transformation, I think it’s nothing that anybody can argue with..’ (quoted in the New York Times, 2 February 1999)

In the wake of the invasion “a self-proclaimed Kosovar administration was set up composed of the KLA and the Democratic Union Movement (LBD), a coalition of five opposition parties opposed to Rugova’s Democratic League (LDK). In addition to the position of prime minister, the KLA controlled the ministries of finance, public order and defense.” (Michel Chossudovsky, NATO’s War of Aggression against Yugoslavia, 1999)

The US State Department’s position as conveyed in Foley’s statement was that the KLA would “not be allowed to continue as a military force but would have the chance to move forward in their quest for self government under a ‘different context'” meaning the inauguration of a de facto “narco-democracy” under NATO protection. (Ibid).

With regard to the drug trade, Kosovo and Albania occupy a similar position to that of Haiti: they constitute “a hub” in the transit (transshipment) of narcotics from the Golden Crescent, through Iran and Turkey into Western Europe. While supported by the CIA, Germany’s Bundes Nachrichten Dienst (BND) and NATO, the KLA has links to the Albanian Mafia and criminal syndicates involved in the narcotics trade.( See Michel Chossudovsky, Kosovo Freedom Fighters Financed by Organized Crime, Covert Action Quarterly, 1999,

Is this the model for Haiti, as formulated in 1999 by the current US Ambassador to Haiti James Foley?

For the CIA and the State Department the FLRN and Guy Philippe are to Haiti what the KLA and Hashim Thaci are to Kosovo.

In other words, Washington’s design is “regime change”: topple the Lavalas administration and install a compliant US puppet regime, integrated by the Democratic Platform and the self-proclaimed Front pour la libération et la reconstruction nationale (FLRN), whose leaders are former FRAPH and Tonton Macoute terrorists. The latter are slated to integrate a “national unity government” alongside the leaders of the Democratic Convergence and The Group of 184 Civil Society Organizations led by Andy Apaid. More specifically, the FLRN led by Guy Philippe is slated to rebuild the Haitian Armed forces, which were disbanded in 1995.

What is at stake is an eventual power sharing arrangement between the various Opposition groups and the CIA supported Rebels, which have links to the cocaine transit trade from Colombia via Haiti to Florida. The protection of this trade has a bearing on the formation of a new “narco-government”, which will serve US interests.

A bogus (symbolic) disarmament of the Rebels may be contemplated under international supervision, as occurred with the KLA in Kosovo in 2000. The “former terrorists” could then be integrated into the civilian police as well as into the task of “rebuilding” the Haitian Armed forces under US supervision.

What this scenario suggests, is that the Duvalier-era terrorist structures have been restored. A program of civilian killings and political assassinations directed against Lavalas supporter is in fact already underway.

In other words, if Washington were really motivated by humanitarian considerations, why then is it supporting and financing the FRAPH death squadrons? Its objective is not to prevent the massacre of civilians. Modeled on previous CIA led operations (e.g. Guatemala, Indonesia, El Salvador), the FLRN death squadrons have been set loose and are involved in targeted political assassinations of Aristide supporters.

The Narcotics Transshipment Trade

While the real economy had been driven into bankruptcy under the brunt of the IMF reforms, the narcotics transshipment trade continues to flourish.  According to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Haiti remains “the major drug trans-shipment country for the entire Caribbean region, funneling huge shipments of cocaine from Colombia to the United States.” (See US House of Representatives, Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources Subcommittee, FDHC Transcripts, 12 April 2000).

It is estimated that  Haiti is now responsible for 14 percent of all the cocaine entering the United States, representing billions of dollars of revenue for organized crime and US financial institutions, which launder vast amounts of dirty money. The global trade in narcotics is estimated to be of the order of 500 billion dollars.

Much of this transshipment trade goes directly to Miami, which also constitutes a haven for the recycling of dirty money into bona fide investments, e.g. in real estate and other related activities.

The evidence confirms that the CIA was protecting this trade during the Duvalier era as well as during the military dictatorship (1991-1994). In 1987, Senator John Kerry as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Narcotics, Terrorism and International Operations of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee was entrusted with a major investigation, which  focused  on the links between the CIA and the drug trade, including the laundering of drug money to finance armed insurgencies. “The  Kerry Report” published in 1989, while centering its attention on the financing of the Nicaraguan Contra, also included a section on Haiti:

“Kerry had developed detailed information on drug trafficking by Haiti’s military rulers that led to the indictment in Miami in 1988, of Lt. Col. Jean Paul. The indictment was a major embarrassment to the Haitian military, especially since Paul defiantly refused to surrender to U.S. authorities.. In November 1989, Col. Paul was found dead after he consumed a traditional Haitian good will gift—a bowel of pumpkin soup…

The U.S. senate also heard testimony in 1988 that then interior minister, Gen. Williams Regala, and his DEA liaison officer, protected and supervised cocaine shipments. The testimony also charged the then Haitian military commander Gen. Henry Namphy with accepting bribes from Colombian traffickers in return for landing rights in the mid 1980’s.

It was in 1989 that yet another military coup brought Lt. Gen. Prosper Avril to power… According to a witness before Senator John Kerry’s subcommittee, Avril is in fact a major player in Haiti’s role as a transit point in the cocaine trade.” ( Paul DeRienzo, Haiti’s Nightmare: The Cocaine Coup & The CIA Connection, Spring 1994,

Jack Blum, who was Kerry’s Special Counsel, points to the complicity of US officials in a 1996 statement to the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Drug Trafficking and the Contra War:

“…In Haiti …  intelligence “sources” of ours in the Haitian military had turned their facilities over to the drug cartels. Instead of putting pressure on the rotten leadership of the military, we defended them. We held our noses and looked the other way as they and their criminal friends in the United States distributed cocaine in Miami, Philadelphia and New, York.” (totse.com)

Haiti not only remains at the hub of the transshipment cocaine trade, the latter has grown markedly since the 1980s. The current crisis bears a relationship to Haiti’s role in the drug trade. Washington wants a compliant Haitian government which will protect the drug transshipment routes, out of Colombia through Haiti and into Florida.

The inflow of narco-dollars –which remains the major source of the country’s foreign exchange earnings– are used to service Haiti’s spiraling external debt, thereby also serving the interests of the external creditors.

In this regard, the liberalization of the foreign-exchange market imposed by the IMF has provided (despite the authorities pro forma commitment to combating the drug trade) a convenient avenue for the laundering of narco-dollars in the domestic banking system. The inflow of narco-dollars alongside bona fide “remittances” from Haitians living abroad, are deposited in the commercial banking system and exchanged into local currency. The foreign exchange proceeds of these inflows can then be recycled towards the Treasury where they are used to meet debt servicing obligations.

Haiti, however, reaps a very small percentage of the total foreign exchange proceeds of this lucrative contraband. Most of the revenue resulting from the cocaine transshipment trade accrues to criminal intermediaries in the wholesale and retail narcotics trade, to the intelligence agencies which protect the drug trade as well as to the financial and banking institutions where the proceeds of this criminal activity are laundered.

The narco-dollars are also channeled into “private banking” accounts in numerous offshore banking havens. (These havens are controlled by the large Western banks and financial institutions). Drug money is also invested in a number of financial instruments including hedge funds and stock market transactions. The major Wall Street and European banks and stock brokerage firms launder billions of dollars resulting from the trade in narcotics.

Moreover, the expansion of the dollar denominated money supply by the Federal Reserve System , including the printing of billions of dollars of US dollar notes for the purposes of narco-transactions constitutes profit for the Federal Reserve and its constituent private banking institutions of which the most important is the New York Federal Reserve Bank. See (Jeffrey Steinberg, Dope, Inc. Is $600 Billion and Growing, Executive Intelligence Review, 14 Dec 2001)

In other words, the Wall Street financial establishment, which plays a behind the scenes role in the formulation of US foreign policy, has a vested interest in retaining the Haiti transshipment trade, while installing a reliable “narco-democracy” in Port-au-Prince, which will effectively protect the transshipment routes.

It should be noted that since the advent of the Euro as a global currency, a significant share of the narcotics trade is now conducted in Euro rather than US dollars. In other words, the Euro and the dollar are competing narco-currencies.

The Latin American cocaine trade –including the transshipment trade through Haiti– is largely conducted in US dollars.  This shift out of dollar denominated narco-transactions, which undermines the hegemony of the US dollar as a global currency, largely pertains to the Middle East, Central Asian and the Southern European drug routes.

Media Manipulation

In the weeks leading up to the Coup d’Etat, the media has largely focused its attention on the pro-Aristide “armed gangs” and “thugs”,  without providing an understanding of the role of the FLRN Rebels.

Deafening silence: not a word was mentioned in official statements and UN resolutions regarding the nature of the FLRN.  This should come as no surprise: the US Ambassador to the UN  (the man who sits on the UN Security Council) John Negroponte.  played a key role in the CIA supported Honduran death squadrons in the 1980s when he was US ambassador to Honduras. (See San Francisco Examiner, 20 Oct 2001  

The FLRN rebels are extremely well equipped and trained forces. The Haitian people know who they are. They are Tonton Macoute of the Duvalier era and former FRAPH assassins.

The Western media is mute on the issue, blaming the violence on President Aristide. When it acknowledges that the Liberation Army is composed of death squadrons, it fails to examine the broader implications of its statements and that these death squadrons are a creation of the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency.

The New York Times has acknowledged that the “non violent” civil society opposition is in fact collaborating with the death squadrons, “accused of killing thousands”, but all this is described as “accidental”. No historical understanding is provided. Who are these death squadron leaders?  All we are told is that they have established an “alliance” with the “non-violent” good guys who belong to the “political opposition”. And it is all for a good and worthy cause, which is to remove the elected president and “restore democracy”:

“As Haiti’s crisis lurches toward civil war, a tangled web of alliances, some of them accidental, has emerged. It has linked the interests of a political opposition movement that has embraced nonviolence to a group of insurgents that includes a former leader of death squads accused of killing thousands, a former police chief accused of plotting a coup and a ruthless gang once aligned with Mr. Aristide that has now turned against him. Given their varied origins, those arrayed against Mr. Aristide are hardly unified, though they all share an ardent wish to see him removed from power.” (New York Times,  26 Feb 2004)

There is nothing spontaneous or “accidental” in the rebel attacks or in the “alliance” between the leader of the death squadrons Guy Philippe and Andy Apaid, owner of the largest industrial sweatshop in Haiti and leader of the G-184.

The armed rebellion was part of a carefully planned military-intelligence operation. The Armed Forces of the Dominican Republic had detected guerilla training camps inside the Dominican Republic on the Northeast Haitian-Dominican border. (El ejército dominicano informó a Aristide sobre los entrenamientos rebeldes en la frontera, El Caribe, 27 Feb. 2004, 

Both the armed rebels and their civilian “non-violent” counterparts were involved in the plot to unseat the president. G-184 leader Andre Apaid was in touch with Colin Powell in the weeks leading up to the overthrow of Aristide;  Guy Philippe and “Toto” Emmanuel Constant have links to the CIA; there are indications that Rebel Commander Guy Philippe and the political leader of the Revolutionary Artibonite Resistance Front Winter Etienne were in liaison with US officials. (See BBC, 27 Feb 2004).

While the US had repeatedly stated that it will uphold Constitutional government, the replacement of Aristide by a more compliant individual had always been part of the Bush Administration’s agenda.

On Feb 20, US Ambassador James Foley called in a team of four military experts from the U.S. Southern Command, based in Miami. Officially their mandate was “to assess threats to the embassy and its personnel.” (Seattle Times, 20 Feb 2004). US Special Forces are already in the country. Washington had announced that three US naval vessels “have been put on standby to go to Haiti as a precautionary measure”. The Saipan is equipped with Vertical takeoff Harrier fighters and attack helicopters. The other two vessels are the Oak Hill and Trenton.  Some 2,200 U.S. Marines from the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, at Camp Lejeune, N.C. could be deployed to Haiti at short notice, according to Washington.

With the departure of President Aristide, Washington, however, has no intention of disarming its proxy rebel paramilitary army, which is now slated to play a role in the “transition”. In other words, the Bush administration will not act to prevent the occurrence of killings and political assassinations of Lavalas and Aristide supporters in the wake of the president’s kidnapping and deportation.

Needless to say, the Western media has not in the least analyzed the historical background of the Haitian crisis. The role played by the CIA has not been mentioned. The so-called “international community”, which claims to be committed to governance and democracy, has turned a blind eye to the killings of civilians by a US sponsored paramilitary army. The “rebel leaders”, who were commanders in the FRAPH death squadrons in the 1990s, are now being upheld by the US media as bona fide opposition spokesmen. Meanwhile, the legitimacy of the former elected president is questioned because he is said to be responsible for “a worsening economic and social situation.”

The worsening economic and social situation is largely attributable to the devastating economic reforms imposed by the IMF since the  1980s. The restoration of Constitutional government in 1994 was conditional upon the acceptance of the IMF’s deadly economic therapy, which in turn foreclosed the possibility of a meaningful democracy. High ranking government officials respectively within the Andre Preval and Jean Bertrand Aristide governments were indeed compliant with IMF diktats. Despite this compliance, Aristide had been “blacklisted” and demonized by Washington.

The Militarization of the Caribbean Basin

Washington seeks to reinstate Haiti as a full-fledged US colony, with all the appearances of a functioning democracy. The objective is to impose a puppet regime in Port-au-Prince and establish a permanent US military presence in Haiti.

The US Administration ultimately seeks to militarize the Caribbean basin.

The island of Hispaniola is a gateway to the Caribbean basin, strategically located between Cuba to the North West and Venezuela to the South.  The militarization of the island, with the establishment of US military bases, is not only intended to put political pressure on Cuba and Venezuela, it is also geared towards the protection of the multibillion dollar narcotics transshipment trade through Haiti, from production sites in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia.

The militarisation of the Caribbean basin is, in some regards, similar to that imposed by Washington on the Andean Region of South America under “Plan Colombia’, renamed “The Andean Initiative”. The latter constitutes the basis for the militarisation of oil and gas wells, as well as pipeline routes and transportation corridors. It also protects the narcotics trade.


All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

Meet Chloe Leanne Brookes: an intelligent and amazingly positive 18-year-old girl in the UK. She is bedridden with many chronic, debilitating conditions, but she wasn’t always this way.

At the age of 12, Chloe was a typical child. She loved hiking, mountain biking, rollerblading and dancing, and she was looking forward to a dancing career. Chloe was healthy, had a busy, active lifestyle and was a straight-A student. That all changed with the HPV vaccine, Cervarix. Chloe says, “I was injured by Cervarix and I’m not scared to tell the world about it.”

The vaccine only lasts 3 years and doesn’t protect against all the strains of cervical cancer. Some teens and now adults have been diagnosed with cervical cancer despite the vaccine.

There were 21,156 total reactions to the drug, 8,599 official filed reports and 8 fatal outcomes as reported from 2006 to 2016. See page 43 of this MedDRA report (HPV-DAP-020616), obtained under FOI: Human Papillomavirus Drug Analysis. [As a side note, much of the time vaccine injury is dismissed by doctors as “coincidence” or “normal” or ignored altogether, and in those instances, usually go unreported.]

Chloe’s diagnoses include:

HPV vaccines can cause dysautonomic issues by attacking the immune system, and affecting the central and autonomic nervous systems, or by the vaccine ingredients (notably aluminum) crossing the blood-brain barrier. [see 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5]

Chloe’s symptoms became noticeable after her second dose of the three-dose course.

“The adverse reaction and the conditions I have developed over the years have had a huge impact on my life. My life is complicated and my future uncertain. Tomorrow is another day but I never know what tomorrow or even the next hour will bring; I can’t predict and I can’t plan ahead.”

 

Chloe-6-body-720

For the first three years, Chloe struggled on through worsening symptoms: muscle weakness, tingling and shooting pains, blurred and double vision, a rapid heart rate and chest pains, poor circulation leading to cold muscles and bones, and light and noise sensitivity. Chloe says medical professionals were insensitive and dismissive and they often told her, “It’s all in your head,” or “Your pain’s not real: you need psychological help,” and “You don’t look sick.”

“For me, and thousands of others, the hardest thing of all, ironically, wasn’t and still isn’t the poor situation of our health: it’s fighting, repeatedly for some family, friends, doctors, the public, the media and society in general, to understand and be educated about invisible illnesses.”

However, Chloe’s invisible symptoms didn’t stay invisible for long. Eventually,

“I was wheelchair dependent for over a year before I became completely bed-bound.” By 2015, “I could not sit, stand or walk and spent months bedbound and living life lying down in severe pain and paralysis, with no control over my body.

“After months of just getting worse, with a resting heart rate of 130 beats per minute, palpations, dizziness, blood pooling, poor temperature control, fainting, limited oxygen and blood flow to the brain, bladder retention and gastrointestinal dysfunction, I met a doctor who diagnosed me with POTS, which I knew I had, but no medical professional had believed me.”

In early 2016, “due to [medical] neglect, malnutrition and deterioration of my situation,” Chloe’s heart rate reached 200 bpm and she was raced to hospital by ambulance with arrhythmia and poor vital signs. Chloe says her cardiologist stated she would have died within 24 hours if she stayed home and he was amazed she did not have a heart attack or stroke because Chloe’s sodium, potassium and magnesium levels were non-existent.

Halfway through last year, life became

“Basically, a daily living hell including near death experiences, multiple daily injections, vitamin, iron, and sodium infusions, seven tubes, feeds, allergic reactions, fits, 21 cannulas, burst veins, procedures, scans, daily bloods, fentanyl, ketamine and heavy duty pain relief or medication, infections, odd turns/fits, vomit and a ton of pain. I lost the ability to swallow, therefore I can’t drink or eat anything due to developing a severe form of gastroparesis-paralysis of the gastrointestinal tract, which is common in those who have severe ME. ME destroys the autoimmune system leading to autonomic dysfunction or complete failure and therefore causes more incurable, complex diseases.

I now have two nasal tubes (one in each nostril): the NJ feeds directly to the small bowel, bypassing the stomach, and the other, NG, drains my stomach content out to relieve and reduce nausea and vomiting. I also have a PICC line, which is a long tube inserted along an artery to the tip of my heart and gives me access to IV fluids and IV vitamins and blood infusions. I can’t even hold a mint or sweet in my mouth without having severe sensitivities or an allergic reactions and saliva pooling out of my mouth because I’m unable to swallow it. I’m now struggling with tube feeds as my stomach and bowel are both giving up on me. Unfortunately, I manage to still puke with my NJ tube; vomiting it up should not happen apparently…”

 

Chloe-4-eyes-closed-644

In October 2016, during the operation to have feeding tubes put into her abdomen, Chloe aspirated vomit into her lungs, her body went into shock, her oxygen sats flat-lined and her heart stopped. She died. It took the medical team four hours to stabilise her.

“I was intubated, ventilated and put in an induced coma to help my internal organs recover. Doctors and my family didn’t know if or how I’d wake up. Forty-eight hours later I was conscious but sedated as I still couldn’t breathe on my own. The ventilator slowly reduced and I began to breathe stably enough with normal oxygen. ICU discharged me with a severe lung infection and a few memory and speech problems but no major damage done. I can’t believe I bounced back that quickly despite the intensity of the trauma. I’m very luck indeed.”

Chloe’s body has become hypersensitive to everything – including medications – and she now reacts to acetaminophen (Tylenol) as though on opioids.

“Recently, the diazepam oral solution I’d had for 10 months was changed to oral suspension. When the diazepam got down the tube, I started having seizures, which the diazepam is meant to prevent or stop. My body continued to be tight and fit for hours, this time it was different to my normal fits. I couldn’t hear my mum speaking to me and I struggled to breathe. I had eight back-to-back seizures: occasionally I had 30-second intervals where I was gasping for breath and going in and out of consciousness due to the amount of pain, movement and total utter exhaustion. I was delusional and hallucinating: I knew who I was but didn’t know where I was or what happened to me. The left side of my face went funny, my speech slurred, I felt trapped in my body and the seizures continued. After 8 hours, it all stopped. We presumed it was just an extreme seizure episode because I hadn’t had a severe one for a while, but then I had another dose of diazepam and the attacks returned… I then read the ingredients and realised it was not the exact same ingredients as my original one. My body is extremely hypersensitive inside and out. The next day, I had more uncontrollable seizures after refusing the diazepam. This time I wasn’t delusional, the fits were just violent, but the jerking of my NG and NJ tubes made it feel like I’d had the [tube] surgery all over again.”

After being in hospital for 11 months because of the HPV vaccine, Chloe is finally home. She has been fully tube-fed for a year. Chloe lives with her mother and her 16-year-old brother and her mother is trained in how to care for her at home.

“My family are incredibly supportive and strong but it has shaken theirs as well as my entire world upside down. My brother would rather be ill so I could have a life. My mum had to stop her full-time work to be my 24/7 carer and she has nobody to take over the night shifts. The whole house is awake if I’m awake struggling with severe pain and the neighbours often hear me screaming, crying and begging the agony to stop. I can’t be left alone, not only because I’m highly dependent for everything and Mum needs to administer my medications, but because the risk of me having an allergic reaction or a seizure is very high and also potentially fatal. It’s as if I’m a newborn baby again needing around the clock care.

Every inch of my body hurts so bad every day. My stomach cracks and pops: it’s my natural alarm clock meaning ‘Drain that bile now before you explode with vomit and scream for hours on end because it’s built up too much.’ I’m swollen all over, my nerve endings are as hyperactive as someone persistently being tasered by the police, and it feels as if I have barbed wire wrapped around my muscles and it’s tangled so with every move I make it embeds deeper into my lifeless limbs. It’s a tearing sensation, an intense throb all over and this keeps me awake. I feel as if I’ve been left out in the pouring rain with nowhere to go. I can’t hide. I’m a prisoner of my own body. There’s no effective treatment. There’s no cure: I can’t escape from this.

There’s no antidote for [this] vaccine damage. I’m trying to help parents and their children make the right choice and showing them a strong reason to be wary about the HPV vaccine. I want to help other girls avoid ending up like me.”

Unfortunately, Chloe is not alone. Many, many girls worldwide have been injured by the HPV vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix. For current information and research HPV vaccine adverse reaction statistics, visit www.sanevax.org.

Chloe says,

I may have a broken body which persistently disobeys me, however I am lucky enough to be a mentally strong individual who’s managed to build up her own coping mechanisms and psychological techniques despite negligence and terrible past experiences. Despite hardship I find happiness. Despite pain I find inner peace. Mindfulness may help others in my situation, and yes it will keep the demons of depression and anxious thoughts away. However, no amount of mindfulness and positivity will change the immense pain I endure and magic the mobility and loss of sensation back into my once healthy, sporty, dancing body of mine.

 

Chloe-smile-600square

“I guarantee my future won’t be how I planned it, but it will be full of determination and dedication to continue raising much needed awareness.

“A successful person is a person that can build a firm foundation with the bricks that life has thrown at them.” ~Chloe

Chloe is smart, has a strong spirit and is determined to share her truth with the world. Let’s help her do exactly that: please share this post everywhere you can on social media, and let’s also pray for her healing and wellbeing, and feel free to reach out and post words of encouragement on her Facebook Page dedicated to raising awareness about her HPV vaccine injury, and that of everyone who has had their lives wronged by vaccines.

Chloe’s Facebook Page: www.facebook.com/ChloesVaccineInjuryJourney

Chloe’s Blog: www.chloeleanne03.wordpress.com

CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO CHLOE To Help Her Fund Alternative Therapies

You can also donate via PayPal: www.paypal.me/ChronicallyChloe

(by Lyn Fattorini, March 10, 2017)

***

My Take…

VAERS search for HPV Vaccines and “PERMANENT DISABILITY”: 2049 cases

VAERS search for HPV Vaccines and “DEATH”: 152 cases

VAERS 2635801 – 13 year old girl had Gardasil HPV Vaccine administered in school, had an anaphylactic reaction and died same day on April 28, 2023.

VAERS 2429111 – 13 year old girl had Gardasil HPV Vaccine on June 23, 2022. 4 days later she had seizure, cardiac arrest, spent 37 days in hospital and died Aug. 3, 2022.

VAERS 2105427 – 12 year old girl had HPV and TDAP vaccines, and died suddenly the next day. “Autopsy was performed and the findings suggested that the death could possibly be related to the vaccine”

Would I give the HPV Vaccine to my children?

Absolutely NOT!

*

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

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

Featured image is from COVID Intel

History of Art, The Power Ballads: Don’t Catch You Slippin’ Up!

February 23rd, 2024 by Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

Of all art forms the ballad has the benefit of expediency. From event, to composition, to broadcast: no art form can compete with the efficacy and proliferation of a good song. The reach and emotional impact of a ballad, “a form of verse, often a narrative set to music” allows for any event affecting individuals or groups to rapidly become popularised and understood globally. While historically ballads tended to be sentimental, their descendant, the protest song, sits alongside modern ballads with ease.

While both the ballad and the protest song can have as their basis socio/political narratives, their differences are more in the formal qualities of tempo. Ballads still tend to be slower than protest songs, but conveying in emotion what they lose in excitement.

While the ballad may satisfy with its unhurried melody and storytelling, the protest song has an immediacy of lyric and beat that gives vocal power to mass events like concerts and demonstrations.

History of  the Ballad

Ballads have a long history in European culture. They started out as the “medieval French chanson balladée or ballade, which were originally ‘dance songs’. Ballads were particularly characteristic of the popular poetry and song of Britain and Ireland from the Late Middle Ages until the 19th century. They were widely used across Europe, and later in Australia, North Africa, North America and South America.” In the nineteenth century they were associated with sentimentality which led to the word ballad “being used for slow love songs from the 1950s onwards.”

In Ireland ballads have been a very important part of the nationalist struggle against British colonialism since the seventeenth century. They reached the zenith of their popularity in the 1960s with the Dubliners, and the Clancy Brothers and Tommy Makem. Ballad folk groups are still in demand today in Europe and the USA.

Ballads tend to have a slower tempo that allows the audience to experience the nuances of the lyrics. An early and powerful example of this is ‘Strange Fruit’, a song written and composed by Abel Meeropol (under his pseudonym Lewis Allan) and recorded by Billie Holiday in 1939. A ballad and a protest song, ‘Strange Fruit’ “protests the lynching of Black Americans with lyrics that compare the victims to the fruit of trees. Such lynchings had reached a peak in the Southern United States at the turn of the 20th century and the great majority of victims were black.” ‘Strange Fruit’ has been described as a call for freedom and is seen as an important initiator of  the civil rights movement. The lyrics are full of horror and bitter irony:

“Southern trees
Bearing strange fruit
Blood on the leaves
And blood at the roots
Black bodies
Swinging in the Southern breeze

Strange fruit hangin’
From the poplar trees
Pastoral scene
Of the gallant south”

Woodie Guthrie, ‘Dust Bowl Ballads’ (1940)

Woodrow Wilson Guthrie (1912–1967) was an American singer-songwriter and composer who was one of the most important figures in American folk music. His songs focused on themes of American socialism and anti-fascism. As a young man he migrated to California to look for work and his experiences of the conditions faced by working class people. This led him to produce Dust Bowl Ballads, an album of songs grouped around the theme of the Dust Bowl storms that destroyed crops and intensified the economic impact of the Great Depression in the 1930s. ‘Dust Bowl Ballads’ is thought to be one of the earliest concept albums.

The songs lyrics tell of the storms and their apocalyptic effect on the local farmers:

“On the 14th day of April of 1935
There struck the worst of dust storms that ever filled the sky
You could see that dust storm comin’, the cloud looked deathlike black
And through our mighty nation, it left a dreadful track

From Oklahoma City to the Arizona line
Dakota and Nebraska to the lazy Rio Grande
It fell across our city like a curtain of black rolled down
We thought it was our judgement, we thought it was our doom

[…]

The storm took place at sundown, it lasted through the night
When we looked out next morning, we saw a terrible sight
We saw outside our window where wheat fields they had grown
Was now a rippling ocean of dust the wind had blown”

Pete Seeger, ‘We Shall Overcome’ (1967)

Peter Seeger (1919–2014) was a popular American folk singer who was regularly heard on the radio in the 1940s, and in the early 1950s had a string of hit records as a member of The Weavers, some of whom were blacklisted during the McCarthy Era. In the 1960s, Seeger became “a prominent singer of protest music in support of international disarmament, civil rights, counterculture, workers’ rights, and environmental causes.”

‘We Shall Overcome’ is believed to have originated as a gospel song known as ‘I’ll Overcome Some Day’. In 1959, the song began to be associated with the civil rights movement as a protest song, with Seeger’s version focusing on nonviolent civil rights activism. It became popular all over the world in many types of protest activities.

The song is a very understated (both musically and lyrically) declaration of protest and unity in the face of oppression:

“We shall overcome
We shall overcome
We shall overcome some day

Oh, deep in my heart
I do believe
We shall overcome some day”

Special A.K.A., ‘Free Nelson Mandela’ (1984)

In contrast, the  lively anti-apartheid song ‘Free Nelson Mandela’ written by British musician Jerry Dammers, and performed by the band the Special A.K.A. was a hugely popular song in 1984 that led to the global awareness of the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela by the apartheid South African government:

“Free Nelson Mandela
Twenty-one years in captivity
Shoes too small to fit his feet
His body abused but his mind is still free
Are you so blind that you cannot see?
I said free Nelson Mandela”

Rage Against The Machine, ‘Sleep Now in the Fire’ (1999)

Rage Against the Machine  was an American rock band from Los Angeles, California. Formed in 1991, “the group consisted of vocalist Zack de la Rocha, bassist and backing vocalist Tim Commerford, guitarist Tom Morello, and drummer Brad Wilk.”

The video for ‘Sleep Now in the Fire’ turned a protest song into an actual protest when the band played on Wall Street in front of the New York Stock Exchange:

“The music video for the song, which was directed by Michael Moore with cinematography by Welles Hackett, features the band playing in front of the New York Stock Exchange, intercut with scenes from a satire of the popular television game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? which is named Who Wants To Be Filthy Fucking Rich. […] The video starts by saying that on January 24, 2000, the NYSE announced record profits and layoffs, and on the next day New York mayor Rudy Giuliani decreed that Rage Against the Machine “shall not play on Wall Street”. The shoot for the music video on January 26, 2000 caused the doors of the New York Stock Exchange to be closed.”

The lyrics are spartan, yet cover many topics: bible-belt conservatism, the corrupting aspects of wealth and its connection with right-wing politics. The second verse gives a potted history of the USA: ‘I am the Nina, the Pinta, the Santa Maria’ (Columbus’ three ships), ‘The noose and the rapist, the fields overseer’ (the slave system), The agents of orange (the Vietnam war), The priests of Hiroshima’ (Oppenheimer’s fascination with mysticism). Any shorter and these lines could almost be described as a haiku embedded within the song. The third verse deals with the future: ‘For it’s the end of history, It’s caged and frozen still, There is no other pill to take, So swallow the one That makes you ill’ referencing Francis Fukuyama’s argument “that the worldwide spread of liberal democracies and free-market capitalism of the West and its lifestyle may signal the end point of humanity’s sociocultural evolution and political struggle, and become the final form of human government”, ‘caged’ because there is no alternative, and will continue this way (of making us ‘ill’) with no viable socio/political alternative vision:

“The world is my expense
The cost of my desire
Jesus blessed me with its future
And I protect it with fire
So raise your fists and march around
Dont dare take what you need
I’ll jail and bury those committed
And smother the rest in greed
Crawl with me into tomorrow
Or i’ll drag you to your grave
I’m deep inside your children
They’ll betray you in my name

Hey!
Hey!
Sleep now in the fire

The lie is my expense
The scope with my desire
The party blessed me with its future
And i protect it with fire
I am the Nina, the Pinta, the Santa Maria
The noose and the rapist, the fields overseer
The agents of orange
The priests of Hiroshima
The cost of my desire
Sleep now in the fire

For it’s the end of history
It’s caged and frozen still
There is no other pill to take
So swallow the one
That makes you ill
The Nina, the Pinta, the Santa Maria
The noose and the rapist, the fields’ overseer
The agents of orange
The priests of Hiroshima
The cost of my desire
Sleep now in the fire.”

Bill Callahan, ‘America!’ (2011)

In Bill Callahan’s (born 1966) song and video ‘America!’ he contrasts the symbols and perception of America globally with its darker past. He mentions legendary American songwriters and performers Mickey Newbury, Kris Kristofferson, George Jones and Johnny Cash and their past roles in the army, showing the deep connection between culture and the military in the USA. Callahan lists countries where the USA has been: Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iran, and ends with Native America, turning its colonialism and imperialism back on itself. There is also an oblique reference to the system of haves and have-nots (‘Others lucky suckle teat’) ending with the slight change ‘Ain’t enough to eat’ emphasizing the growing poverty in the richest country on earth:

“America!
You are so grand and golden
Oh I wish I was deep in America tonight

America!
America!
I watch David Letterman in Australia
America!
You are so grand and golden
I wish I was on the next flight
To America!

Captain Kristofferson!
Buck Sergeant Newbury!
Leatherneck Jones!
Sergeant Cash!
What an Army!
What an Air Force!
What a Marines!
America!
[Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iran, Native America]
Well, everyone’s allowed a past
They don’t care to mention

Well, it’s hard to rouse a hog in Delta
And it can get tense around the Bible Belt
Others lucky suckle teat
Others lucky suckle teat

America!”

Childish Gambino, ‘This Is America’ (2018)

In his video, ‘This Is America’, Childish Gambino (Donald Glover, born 1983) shocked his viewers, who were not used to seeing the cinematic realism of gun violence in a music video. Gambino focuses more on the present than the past, while using cars from the 1990s probably as a symbol of poverty. The violence and drugs scene behind pleasure-seeking party-goers is emphasised with an execution at the start and followed up by a mass murder of a gospel choir. His demeanor constantly changes very suddenly, from dancing one moment, to exhorting his clients another, then cold-blooded killing, yet despite it all, running for his life in the end as his life style catches up with him:

“We just wanna party
Party just for you
We just want the money
Money just for you
I know you wanna party
Party just for me
Girl, you got me dancin’ (yeah, girl, you got me dancin’)
Dance and shake the frame
We just wanna party (yeah)
Party just for you (yeah)
We just want the money (yeah)
Money just for you (you)
I know you wanna party (yeah)
Party just for me (yeah)
Girl, you got me dancin’ (yeah, girl, you got me dancin’)
Dance and shake the frame (you)

This is America
Don’t catch you slippin’ up
Don’t catch you slippin’ up
Look what I’m whippin’ up
This is America (woo)
Don’t catch you slippin’ up
Don’t catch you slippin’ up
Look what I’m whippin’ up”

Bob Dylan, ‘Murder Most Foul’ (2020)

In 2020, Bob Dylan (born 1941) released this seventeen-minute track, “Murder Most Foul”, on his YouTube channel, based on the assassination of President Kennedy. It is a long, slow ballad that intertwines culture and politics, contrasting the optimism of the one with the stark brutality of the other. It is the poetry of America re-examing its past at its best, the detail and condemnation in its lyrics reflecting a political undercurrent that refuses to accept modern myths, a murder ‘most foul’:

“It was a dark day in Dallas, November ’63
A day that will live on in infamy
President Kennedy was a-ridin’ high
Good day to be livin’ and a good day to die
Being led to the slaughter like a sacrificial lamb
He said, “Wait a minute, boys, you know who I am?”
“Of course we do, we know who you are!”
Then they blew off his head while he was still in the car
Shot down like a dog in broad daylight
Was a matter of timing and the timing was right
You got unpaid debts, we’ve come to collect
We’re gonna kill you with hatred, without any respect
We’ll mock you and shock you and we’ll put it in your face
We’ve already got someone here to take your place
The day they blew out the brains of the king
Thousands were watching, no one saw a thing
It happened so quickly, so quick, by surprise
Right there in front of everyone’s eyes
Greatest magic trick ever under the sun
Perfectly executed, skillfully done
Wolfman, oh Wolfman, oh Wolfman, howl
Rub-a-dub-dub, it’s a murder most foul

[…]

Don’t worry, Mr. President, help’s on the way
Your brothers are comin’, there’ll be hell to pay
Brothers? What brothers? What’s this about hell?
Tell them, “We’re waiting, keep coming,” we’ll get them as well
Love Field is where his plane touched down
But it never did get back up off the ground
Was a hard act to follow, second to none
They killed him on the altar of the rising sun
Play “Misty” for me and “That Old Devil Moon”
Play “Anything Goes” and “Memphis in June”
Play “Lonely at the Top” and “Lonely Are the Brave”
Play it for Houdini spinning around in his grave
Play Jelly Roll Morton, play “Lucille”
Play “Deep in a Dream”, and play “Driving Wheel”
Play “Moonlight Sonata” in F-sharp
And “A Key to the Highway” for the king of the harp
Play “Marching Through Georgia” and “Dumbarton’s Drums”
Play darkness and death will come when it comes
Play “Love Me or Leave Me” by the great Bud Powell
Play “The Blood-Stained Banner”, play “Murder Most Foul””

Hope for the Future…

These songs show us that, despite the music industry’s continuing avalanche of industrial pop, composers and bands are still able to produce music that as an art form can combine melody and criticism, that can look behind facades and describe the reality they see – which we hear only as background noise. It shows the way to other art forms that take so much time and energy and money to get up and running, that a fight for more radical content is possible and necessary.

*

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

Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin is an Irish artist, lecturer and writer. His artwork consists of paintings based on contemporary geopolitical themes as well as Irish history and cityscapes of Dublin. His blog of critical writing based on cinema, art and politics along with research on a database of Realist and Social Realist art from around the world can be viewed country by country here. Caoimhghin has just published his new book – Against Romanticism: From Enlightenment to Enfrightenment and the Culture of Slavery, which looks at philosophy, politics and the history of 10 different art forms arguing that Romanticism is dominating modern culture to the detriment of Enlightenment ideals. It is available on Amazon (amazon.co.uk) and the info page is here

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image: Abel Meeropol cited this photograph of the lynching of Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith, August 7, 1930, as inspiring his poem. Meeropol published the poem under the title “Bitter Fruit” in January 1937 in The New York Teacher, a union magazine of the New York teachers union. Though Meeropol had asked others (notably Earl Robinson) to set his poems to music, he set “Strange Fruit” to music himself.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

Abstract

Background

The Global COVID Vaccine Safety (GCoVS) Project, established in 2021 under the multinational Global Vaccine Data Network™ (GVDN®), facilitates comprehensive assessment of vaccine safety. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of adverse events of special interest (AESI) following COVID-19 vaccination from 10 sites across eight countries.

Methods

Using a common protocol, this observational cohort study compared observed with expected rates of 13 selected AESI across neurological, haematological, and cardiac outcomes. Expected rates were obtained by participating sites using pre-COVID-19 vaccination healthcare data stratified by age and sex. Observed rates were reported from the same healthcare datasets since COVID-19 vaccination program rollout. AESI occurring up to 42 days following vaccination with mRNA (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273) and adenovirus-vector (ChAdOx1) vaccines were included in the primary analysis. Risks were assessed using observed versus expected (OE) ratios with 95 % confidence intervals. Prioritised potential safety signals were those with lower bound of the 95 % confidence interval (LBCI) greater than 1.5.

Results

Participants included 99,068,901 vaccinated individuals. In total, 183,559,462 doses of BNT162b2, 36,178,442 doses of mRNA-1273, and 23,093,399 doses of ChAdOx1 were administered across participating sites in the study period. Risk periods following homologous vaccination schedules contributed 23,168,335 person-years of follow-up. OE ratios with LBCI > 1.5 were observed for Guillain-Barré syndrome (2.49, 95 % CI: 2.15, 2.87) and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (3.23, 95 % CI: 2.51, 4.09) following the first dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis showed an OE ratio of 3.78 (95 % CI: 1.52, 7.78) following the first dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine. The OE ratios for myocarditis and pericarditis following BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and ChAdOx1 were significantly increased with LBCIs > 1.5.

Conclusion

This multi-country analysis confirmed pre-established safety signals for myocarditis, pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. Other potential safety signals that require further investigation were identified.

*

1. Introduction

Since declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020 [1] more than 13.5 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered worldwide [2]. As of November 2023, at least 70.5 % of the world’s population had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine [2]. This unparalleled scenario underscores the pressing need for comprehensive vaccine safety monitoring as very rare adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines may only come to light after administration to millions of individuals.

In anticipation of this unprecedented global rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, the Safety Platform for Emergency vACcines (SPEAC) initiative formulated a list of potential COVID-19 vaccine adverse events of special interest (AESI) in 2020 [3]. AESI selection was based on their pre-established associations with immunization, specific vaccine platforms or adjuvants, or viral replication during wild-type disease; theoretical concerns related to immunopathogenesis; or supporting evidence from animal models using candidate vaccine platforms [3].

One flexible approach for assessing AESI is the comparison of observed AESI rates following the introduction of a vaccine program with the expected (or background) rates based on historical periods pre-vaccine roll out [4], [5]. Such comparisons can be executed rapidly and can play a key role in early detection of potential vaccine safety signals or when regulatory and public health agencies need rapid assessment of an emerging safety signal [4], [6]. Observed versus (vs.) expected (OE) analysis was integral in identifying thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) as a safety signal, prompting the suspension of use of the ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine) on March 11, 2021, in Denmark and Norway [7], [8].

These evaluations are not only valuable early-on in large-scale vaccine deployment, but also as the vaccination program matures, especially if they can be conducted in a multi-country context. We conducted a global cohort study following the Observed vs. Expected Analyses of COVID-19 Adverse Events of Special Interest Study Protocol [9] with data from 10 sites across eight countries participating in the unique Global COVID Vaccine Safety (GCoVS) Project [10] of the Global Vaccine Data Network™ (GVDN®) [11]. The GCoVS Project, initiated in 2021, is a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded global collaboration of investigators and data sources from multiple nations for the purpose of COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring.

2. Methods

2.1. Study design

This retrospective observational study was designed to estimate the OE ratios of selected AESIs after COVID-19 vaccination in a multi-country population cohort.

2.2. Data source and study population

The GCoVS Project compiled electronic healthcare data on AESI related to COVID-19 vaccines from participants across multiple sites within the GVDN network, including Argentina, Australia – New South Wales, Australia – Victoria, Canada – British Columbia, Canada – Ontario, Denmark, Finland, France, New Zealand, and Scotland [10]. The healthcare data comprised of either individual- or population-level data, depending on the availability in the study sites (Supplementary Table 1).

Immunization registers containing individual-level vaccination data were utilized by the majority of study sites. These registers covered the same population and geographic region as the data sets used to calculate background rates. We also examined population-level data on vaccination uptake using regularly updated dashboards from the study sites. If the number of individuals vaccinated in specific age and gender groups was available, we converted those numbers into person-years based on the post-vaccination risk period. Unlike the registers with individual-level data, the age and sex strata used in this approach might not have matched the strata used in the background rates calculations.

Participants were individuals vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines in the populations represented by the sites. To the extent possible, standardized methods were applied across sites. Patient types included hospital inpatients (Australia – New South Wales, France, New Zealand, Scotland), and combinations of inpatient and outpatient emergency department patients (Argentina, Australia – Victoria, Canada, Denmark, Finland). In countries without clearly defined patient types, hospital contact duration was used as a proxy for patient types. As an example, a contact duration of five hours or longer was used as a proxy for inpatients in Denmark. Site-specific characteristics of data sources and data are presented in Supplementary Table 1.

2.3. Study period and follow-up

The study periods varied across countries, commencing on the date of the site-specific COVID-19 vaccination program rollout, and concluding at the end of data availability (Table 1). In general, the study periods spanned from December 2020 until August 2023. The shortest study period observed occurred in Australia – New South Wales, including 11 months from February 2021 to December 2021. Argentina had the longest study period, from December 2020 to August 2023, encompassing a total of 32 months.

Table 1. Population summary by site. (Only Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2, Moderna mRNA-1273, and Oxford/Astra Zeneca/Serum Institute of India ChAdOx1 vaccines and doses 1–4 included).

Vaccines: Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273), and Oxford/Astra Zeneca/Serum Institute of India (ChAdOx1). Click here for larger view.

The risk intervals used after each dose were 0–7 days, 8–21 days, 22–42 days, and 0–42 days. For each vaccination dose, day 0 was denoted the day of vaccine receipt. For this manuscript, we present results for the risk interval of 0–42 days only. More data are presented on the GVDN dashboard with all latest updates from participating sites [12]. Outcome events that occurred outside the study period were not included. A 365-day washout period for outcome events was used to define incident outcomes. Outcome events were considered incident if there was no record of the same outcome event during the preceding 365-day washout period. An individual may have contributed several outcome events on the condition they were separated in time by at least the washout period of 365 days.

2.4. Study variables and outcomes

2.4.1. Adverse events of special interest (AESI)

Thirteen conditions representing AESI of specific relevance to the current landscape of real-world vaccine pharmacovigilance were selected from the list compiled by the Brighton Collaboration SPEAC Project [3] and in response to the safety signals of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome [7], [8] (Supplementary Table 2). The conditions chosen matched the AESI for which background rates were recently generated by GVDN sites [13]. AESI were identified using harmonized International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes. Neurological conditions selected included Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), transverse myelitis (TM), facial (Bell’s) palsy, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM), and convulsions (generalized seizures (GS) and febrile seizures (FS)) as potential safety signals have been identified for some of these conditions [14], [15], [16]. Hematologic conditions included cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE); the unusual site thromboses (CVST and SVT) were selected as markers of potential TTS that could be accurately identified using diagnostic codes [17], [18]. Thrombocytopenia and immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) were also included due to their association with TTS and reports of ITP as an independent safety signal [7], [19], [20]. Myocarditis and pericarditis were included as cardiovascular conditions and the OE ratios were evaluated separately for each condition [21], [22], [23].

2.4.2. COVID-19 vaccines

As of November 2023, multiple vaccines against COVID-19 were in use by the GCoVS sites representing multiple platform types such as inactivated, nucleic acid-based (mRNA), protein-based, and non-replicating viral vector platforms (Table 2). For this manuscript, we focused on three vaccines that recorded the highest number of doses administered, Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2, Moderna mRNA-1273, and Oxford/Astra Zeneca/Serum Institute of India ChAdOx1 vaccines. The cumulative number of doses of other vaccines administered (n) across study sites were relatively low, with exceptions for the inactivated Sinopharm (n = 134,550) and Sinovac (n = 31,598) vaccines, the protein-based Novavax (n = 66,856) vaccine, and the adenovirus-vector Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (n = 1,137,505) and Gamaleya Research Institute/Sputnik (n = 84,460) vaccines. The total number of doses of each vaccine brand administered are outlined in Table 2. Exposure to COVID-19 vaccine by platform/type, brand, and dose data were available at the individual level to determine the number of observed cases by vaccine type/brand and dose profile and within the 0–42 days post-vaccination risk interval.

Click here to read the full article.

*

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

Featured image is from Mercola

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

In my previous article, concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict in Gaza, I discussed the trajectory of the First Stage of WW3, based on the reactions, rhetoric and sabre-rattling of Israel, USA, Hezbollah, Iran, Yemen and Hamas.

Israel is not bluffing:

“The world must know and Hamas leaders must know: If by Ramadan [March 10] the hostages are not home, the fighting will continue everywhere to include the Rafah area.”

Benny Gantz, a retired Israel Defence Forces (IDF) chief of staff, told a conference of American Jewish leaders in Jerusalem on Sunday, February 18,

“We will do so in a coordinated manner, facilitating the evacuation of civilians in dialogue with American and Egyptian partners and to minimize the civilian casualties as much as possible.”

There is nowhere for the 1.5 million displaced Palestinians in Rafah to go, except to flee into the deserts of Egypt—a death sentence.

The other options that Israel may be considering is allowing aid vessels into the Gaza port to remove the Palestinians, though it is unclear which countries would take them. Or even more sinister, considering Israel has not announced its future plans, the only other option is for the IDF to continue bombing them to ashes.

 

The casualty count, according to Palestinian sources, is over 29,000 dead and 7800 missing, with a further 69,000 wounded. Repeated attempts to reach the Palestine Ministry of Health website failed—their Twitter account has also disappeared:

 

Israel has dropped 29,000 shells and bombs on Gaza since October 7, 2023. This greatly exceeds the 3,678 bombs dropped by the United States between 2004 and 2010 during its Invasion of Iraq.

More than half of all buildings in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed as of February 14, according to analysis of satellite imagery by a team of researchers at Oregon State University and the City University of New York. Somewhere between 156,000 and 190,000 buildings were destroyed.

 

Israel has broadened its theatre of operations and is conducting extensive airstrikes in Lebanon, targeting Hezbollah ammunition dumps, according to a recent report in Israel Radar:

“The IDF is amassing troops in the northern sector, while authorities are preparing for severe war scenarios behind closed doors. Intelligence expert Danny Citrinowicz warns that the risk of military escalation is extremely high. The former high-ranking IDF officer wrote that Hezbollah attacks on Israel will persist while the Gaza war continues, and that prospects for a diplomatic resolution are dim. A broader conflict appears almost inevitable as both sides escalate their strikes, he said.”

The IDF are amassing troops along the northern border due to a February 13 speech by Hezbollah leader, Nasrallah, where he defiantly stated that Hezbollah would only stop its exchanges of fire if a full ceasefire was reached for Gaza.

“On that day, when the shooting stops in Gaza, we will stop the shooting in the south,” he said in a televised address.

Hezbollah has vowed it will retaliate in its own time, and in this conflict, timing is everything. If Hezbollah were to launch a full-scale invasion of Israel, with an adjacent full-scale missile launch, it would trigger an immediate response from Israel’s parter-in-crime, the United States.

It cannot be over stressed the extreme danger of this situation. If the USA responds to Hezbollah’s assault, Iran could be dragged into the conflict which would, in turn, trigger possible nuclear weapons strikes by the USA. China gets 90% of its oil from Iran and any interruption of delivery would shut down the Chinese economy virtually overnight.

Russia has a defence agreement with Iran, signed in 2019, with cooperative military exercises between the two countries and China. In 2016, Russia completed delivery of the S-300 air defence missile system to Iran, concluding an $800 million deal signed between the two states in 2007, state-run Russian press agency RIA Novosti reported. The S-300 mobile surface-to-air missile system can counter multiple aircraft at a range of 195 kilometers and ballistic missiles at a range of up to 50 kilometers. 

These weapons are no doubt specifically reserved for defence against US aircraft. The ace in the hole that Iran holds is the potential to shut down the Strait of Hormuz which handles a third of the world’s liquefied natural gas and almost 25% of total global oil consumption passes through the strait, making it essential for global trade. The devastation to the global economy would be unparalleled and increase tensions between East-West relations enormously.

 

The US military has reported that it is aware that Iran could produce a crude nuclear bomb within 12 days if needed. From a CNN article from February of last year:

“Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl offered one of the most striking US government assessments to date of Iran’s “breakout time” as efforts to try to restore the Iran nuclear agreement remain halted and Tehran continues to breach the restrictions set out by the deal.”

Family Feud

After sorting through the lengthy list of models of how the world system operates, the most basic and plausible one is also the most accurate. In this hyper-complicated world, the simplest explanation to account for the facts is indeed correct. The generally accepted models are interesting, but fail to fully explain what we are experiencing at this moment in history. 

However, whether you are religious or not, the world is a global family. Even a scientific atheist will concede that human beings evolved from the same primordial ooze in shallow inland seas. We have the same common biological ancestors in the primate family. Atheists agree we are brothers and sisters, but reject the notion we have a spiritual parent.

The spiritual explanation is that we share the same Creator, mother-father and we are all brothers and sisters. This is the reality of mortal life in a universe of space and time.

Some of the brothers and sisters have been very bad boys and girls.

The heads of the global family preside over 194 sub-families, comprised of nation-states. They are all agreed on a variety of mostly nefarious self-serving goals:

  • UN Sustainable Goals
  • Climate Change Agenda
  • Mass Vaccination Campaign
  • Digital Currencies
  • Mass Surveillance
  • Financial management goals
  • International taxation
  • Over control of WHO, IMF, World Bank, UN and the WEF

At the last G20 summit, in Delhi, India, The New Delhi Declaration was adopted, according to India’s G20 Sherpa Amitabh Kant, with “100% consensus on all developmental and geo-political issues.” I don’t know which is worse, when the global leaders are all fighting with each other, or when they are all agreeing.

The only real bone of contention among the G20 leaders was disagreement over Russian’s invasion of Ukraine, which “most leaders” condemned.

The truth is the larger more powerful nations like USA, Israel, Russia, China, Iran are fighting over resources and control of territory. The number one most sought-after and fought-over commodity is oil.

 

All the nations of the world are very aware that the current major restructuring of the global economic, political and social infrastructure is going to have winners and losers. They all want to guarantee their slice of the New World Order pie.

The Ukraine War and the Gaza War are just two fronts of the same long term project of the Western elites to rule the world, no matter what the consequences. On February 11th, it was announced that Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania will construct an “extensive network of fortifications” along the borders with Russia to deter Putin invading their countries. The total cost of the project is estimated at €60million ($65 million USD). This is a long term project, comparable to Nazi Germany building fortifications in Northern France.

 

The defence ministers of the three countries also signed a Letter of Intent for HIMARS multiple rocket launchers, aiming to create a framework for the joint use of the weapon system in both peace and wartime. Estonia and Latvia also signed a cooperation agreement to conduct NATO Air Policing from Latvia’s Lielvarde air base. “Air Policing” is a euphemism for invading Russia’s airspace with American F-35 jets.

*

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

Rick Thomas is a musician, activist and the author of How to Defeat the New World Order. For social activism: VictoryCanada.today and for all articles: Substack. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source; all images in this article are from the author

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

It’s long been known that the vast majority of the Kiev regime’s “victories” on the battlefield are pure PR and optics. From the “Ghost of Kiev” and “the last stand of the Snake Island defenders” to pickle jar air defenses and the “Goat of Kiev”, there have been many mindless tropes aiming to present the Russians as supposedly “inferior” or at the very least “incompetent”. By now, it should be more than obvious such claims serve as an IQ test of sorts. And yet, here we are.

The Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) are particularly targeted in this massive smear campaign, most likely designed to not only present Moscow as “weak”, but also to hurt its foreign arms sales. Namely, Russian fighter jets have always been a very lucrative business for the Kremlin, as much of the world has been buying them for well over half a century. The United States has been trying to deny Moscow the ability to export its weapons through sanctions, blackmail and other forms of pressure through coercive measures.

So far, this was met with mixed success and it can even be argued that it serves as a sort of litmus test for actual sovereignty. Thus, what Washington DC really needs is some good old war propaganda. Prior to and in the immediate aftermath of its disastrous defeat at Avdeyevka, the Neo-Nazi junta and its mainstream propaganda machine allies launched an effort to discredit the VKS through ludicrous claims such as the one that at least three Russian jets were downed “in a single last shot” at Avdeyevka, supposedly “slowing down” Moscow’s forces. Up until recently, it seems that three was the “magical number” for the Kiev regime, as they made a lot of similar claims last year as well. However, they’ve decided to take it up a notch, so the new one is seven. Namely, the Neo-Nazi junta forces claim to have shot down seven Russian jets in five days only. The supposed “culprit”? Mere three American-made “Patriot” SAM (surface-to-air missile) batteries provided by the US and other NATO member states.

It’s rather peculiar how this air defense system suddenly became “so good” after over 30 years of humiliating failures against far less technologically advanced opponents. Unless someone actually believes that the Iraqi military and Houthis are ahead of the Russian military. After all, it makes “perfect sense” that Iraqi “Scud” knock-offs and Houthi $500 drones are more advanced than Moscow’s hypersonic missiles. Jokes aside, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates learned of the “Patriot’s” capabilities the hard way, as the overhyped American SAM system failed to intercept cheap Houthi drones and missiles, resulting in billions of dollars of damage to companies such as Aramco. And yet, as soon as they were deployed in Ukraine, “Patriots” supposedly started “shooting down” Russian hypersonic missiles such as the now legendary “Kinzhal”. How did this happen? Well, once again, “magic” called war propaganda. When one side in a conflict thinks they control the narrative, “anything’s possible”.

According to Forbes, in just five days, the Kiev regime forces, “likely ‘Patriot’ crews firing 90-mile-range PAC-2 missiles”, allegedly “shot down seven Sukhoi glide-bombers: five twin-seat Su-34s and two single-seat Su-35s”. It should be noted that the Su-35S is not a “glide-bomber”, but a world-class air superiority fighter jet with significant multirole capabilities, while the Su-34 is a fighter-bomber or a tactical strike aircraft. But who am I to ever question Forbes? They certainly know this better than I do. However, in all seriousness, any proof for such claims is sorely lacking. Still, they insist that “in getting more aggressive with its ‘Patriots’, the Ukrainian air force has tipped the air-defense scales in its favor”. Pretty strong claims, given the aforementioned lack of battlefield evidence. And yet, Forbes concludes that “the Russian air force is losing its best fighter-bombers at a rate it cannot sustain”, insisting that “seven shoot-downs in five days points to a monthly loss rate of more than 40 jets”.

Fabulously enough, Forbes even managed to do some math and came to the conclusion that the VKS has “only 250 or so Su-34s and Su-35s left”, meaning that “at this rate, both types could go extinct in six months”. The report then blames the Neo-Nazi junta’s defeat at Avdeyevka on Russian usage of glide bombs, particularly the KABs (without specifying the exact type). According to Forbes, hundreds of these bombs were “instrumental in Russia’s successful conquest of the eastern city”. The obvious question arises, if the Kiev regime is shooting down so many Russian “glide-bombers”, how come they lost Avdeyevka? But, let’s ignore this. After all, it’s way too much logic for the mainstream propaganda machine. Now, where were we? Ah, yes. Russia is losing and its Aerospace Forces will soon go extinct. Forbes says that “losing Avdiivka lit a fire under the Ukrainian air force”, supposedly pushing them to “fight harder” and take “more risks” by deploying at least 26 “Patriot” launchers along the frontline.

The report gives the impression that the Kremlin is “shaking in fear” because it “knows it has a ‘Patriot’ problem”, as Forbes claims. However, there’s a problem preventing the Neo-Nazi junta from achieving “complete victory” – Republicans. According to the report, Washington DC was “the biggest donor of ‘Patriot’ missiles, and Russia-aligned Republicans in the US Congress blocked further aid to Ukraine starting in October”. And indeed, the news about all these supposed “shootdowns” show the timing is perfect for giving more “aid” to the Kiev regime. In reality, so far, there has been evidence for only one loss of a Russian Su-35S and the grossly overhyped “Patriot” can’t even claim that one, as Moscow already established it was lost in a friendly fire incident. Namely, it’s possible that the jet’s IFF (if friend or foe) system malfunctioned, causing Russian air defenses to shoot it down. Still, it can only be expected we will hear much more of the war propaganda, as the Neo-Nazi junta claims it shot down hundreds of Russian jets.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

The “Human Rights Industry” and Nicaragua

February 23rd, 2024 by John Perry

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

Why do United Nations human rights bodies focus on some countries, but not others? Why do organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International appear to ignore important evidence presented to them? And why do the media repeat stories of human rights abuses without questioning their veracity?

The Human Rights Industry

These issues and more are examined in one of 2023’s most remarkable books: The Human Rights Industry by Alfred de Zayas. It is remarkable for two reasons. One is that it brings together the insights of de Zayas and other experts into the ways in which “human rights” have been distorted to serve the interests of Western governments, principally those of the United States.

But it is also remarkable because it is not the view of an outsider, but that of someone who is perhaps more immersed than anyone of his generation in the whole field of human rights, bringing 50 years of experience to his analysis. His conclusions are damning, but de Zayas is far from pessimistic, offering a multi-point plan as to how questions of human rights could be better addressed globally, with the real interests of ordinary citizens paramount, not subservient to those of Washington, the European Union or other centers of power.

As a reader, one whose work is very briefly referenced, what struck me forcefully is how much of the book rings true for the country where I live, Nicaragua. It does not receive the same attention as countries like Venezuela or Syria, but almost all of the analysis in the de Zayas book applies to the abuse and manipulation of human rights issues in the Nicaraguan context.

This article identifies some of the key insights in The Human Rights Industry, and shows how they fit, in many cases remarkably closely, with experience in Nicaragua, focusing on the period before, during and after the coup attempt against the Sandinista government in 2018. The subject matter ranges from the macro-level of Nicaragua’s treatment by the United Nations and its human rights mechanism, through its treatment by regional bodies, by individual governments and by international human rights organizations, right down to the behavior of the handful of so-called human rights bodies in Nicaragua itself.

Nicaragua’s “Human Rights” Bodies

The base of the “human rights industry” consists of small, local organizations which, as de Zayas points out, may in some cases do excellent work. However, he qualifies this by saying: “There are few fields that are as penetrated and corrupted by intelligence services as the human rights NGOs.”

De Zayas estimates that perhaps 30% are so penetrated—a remarkable assertion that must be taken seriously given his knowledge of the sector. He goes on to warn specifically against those funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) or George Soros’s Open Society Foundation.

Image: Source: dagobertobelluci.wordpress.com

A close-up of a logo Description automatically generated

The NED’s website shows that, between 2016 and 2020, it spent almost $1.2 million in funding “human rights” bodies in Nicaragua, in addition to funding many other activities. In 2018, Nicaragua had three main “human rights” NGOs, known for their initials in Spanish as the CPDH, ANPDH and CENIDH, as well as several smaller organizations, most receiving foreign funding. Both CPDH and ANPDH were financed by the NED. CPDH also received more than $7 million from an offshoot of the Organization of American States (OAS).

The ANPDH was originally set up by the Reagan administration at the time of the Contrawar in Nicaragua, to whitewash Contra atrocities (the funding of these bodies by the NED in the 1980s, through an intermediary called Prodemca, was reported at the time by TheWashington Post). CENIDH is not known to have received NED funding but in the build-up to the coup attempt was awarded a staggering $23 million by various European institutions, some with government connections. Over $10 million of this was allocated for staff salaries alone, an astonishing amount in a low-income country.

De Zayas warns that human rights assessments by such bodies may be compromised and should be treated with skepticism. In Nicaragua’s case, their biased coverage and one-sided assessments, especially in terms of killings and other abuses during the 2018 coup attempt, have been documented in detail. The most extreme example is that of the ANPDH, which actively accompanied violent opposition activists and even attempted to cover up their worst atrocities.

As The Grayzone reported in 2019, when the ANPDH broke up in 2018 and its employees left for Costa Rica, they accused the former director, Álvaro Leiva, of appropriating funds from U.S. bodies such as the NED. Worse, they revealed that Leiva ordered them to inflate ANPDH’s casualty counts during the coup attempt, because he believed padding the death tolls would help secure extra U.S. funding.

One of the enduring myths of the coup attempt was that hundreds of people were killed by the police. Within ten days of the start of the violence, The New York Times was already reporting “…the deaths of dozens of people this month, many at the hands of the police, human rights groups say.” The Guardian later said that “At least 322 people have been killed and 2,000 others injured—mostly by the police and pro-government paramilitary groups.”

According to ANPDH, the figure reached 561, although the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) said the “crackdown” led to 325 deaths. Detailed analysis by the Nicaraguan National Assembly’s Truth Commission put the real death toll at 270. Most importantly, a minority were protesters; most were bystanders or people trying to pass through opposition roadblocks, Sandinista supporters or police officers (22 of the latter were killed, and more than 400 injured).

A lawyer and analyst, Enrique Hendrix, showed in detail how the “human rights” NGOs inflated their figures. De Zayas concludes that “foreign-funded NGOs built up a completely distorted picture…in which all violence was blamed on the government.”

Protests in Managua, Nicaragua, April 18, 2018.

The violence of the anti-Ortega protesters during the country’s 2018 U.S.-backed coup attempt was obscured in the U.S. media and by the human rights industry. [Source: ticotimes.net]

 

Not surprisingly, all three “human rights” bodies were closed down by the government after 2018, having exhausted its patience with their blatant propaganda activities. Similar bodies now operate from Costa Rica: For example, CENIDH was reborn as El Colectivo de Derechos Humanos Nicaragua Nunca Más; it gives no indication of its funding source on its website, but it received a “democracy award” from the NED in 2021. It continues to offer poorly evidenced reports, for example, that, by the end of 2023, one in every nine Nicaraguans had been forced to leave the country.

El Colectivo de Derechos Humanos Nicaragua Nunca Más as featured on NED website. [Source: ned.org]

 

ANPDH reopened in Costa Rica and received more than $700,000 from USAID in 2020-2021. U.S. agencies such as the NED and USAID are still actively working with many organizations linked to Nicaragua, and the Open Society Foundation has just contracted a prominent opponent of the Sandinista government to administer a $25 million fund to promote women’s political leadership.

The Corrupt Role of the OAS and IACHR

“At international level,” Alfred de Zayas writes, referring specifically to Nicaragua, “numerous institutions relied on unverified reports to advance a caricature of a despotic regime that kills its citizens, white-washing opposition violence.” He goes on to name the OAS, the IACHR and even the United Nations as echoing “the same biased narratives.” All of these bodies fed on the information provided by local NGOs and still do so now that many are based abroad. Yet soon after the start of the violence, these bodies were all invited by the Nicaraguan government to visit and conduct their own appraisal of events.

This is where it went wrong. Various human rights experts such as the Chilean lawyer Antonia Urrejola (later foreign minister in Boric’s government) came on such official missions, were presented with detailed evidence by the government and allowed to make a range of visits (e.g., to prisons). However, they then presented extremely biased reports which largely ignored the government’s evidence and omitted accounts by victims of opposition violence, in many cases having refused even to meet them. Understandably, after months of showing considerable patience, in December 2018 the government rescinded its agreement to allow delegations from these international bodies.

Here are two of the worst examples of IACHR bias. One was the result of a group of “experts” visiting the country with the government’s approval during a six-month mission.

The GIEI-Nicaragua (Grupo Interdisciplinario de Expertos Independientes) provided a 468-page report to the IACHR, focused particularly on deaths that occurred on May 30, 2018, when two large marches were held in Managua, one by the opposition and one by Sandinista supporters. The report examined deaths among government opponents, and only briefly referred to Sandinista deaths and injuries to police officers.

Crucially, it was shown to have ignored and manipulated evidence from its own experts. It ignored evidence of the use of firearms by the opposition, manipulated the analysis of its own weapons expert, and omitted any evidence that contradicted its findings. As a result of the report’s gross distortion of the May 30 events, a large number of organizations and individuals wrote to the IACHR and separately to the OAS, but received only a peremptory reply.

In another example from March 2021, the IACHR held an open session on Indigenous people’s rights in Nicaragua, to which no democratically elected representatives of Indigenous communities were invited, only spokespeople from two opposition-oriented NGOs. One was CEJUDHCAN, a recipient of USAID finance. The other, CALPI, has accused the Nicaraguan government of genocide. Four NGOs from outside Nicaragua also spoke, including the Oakland Institute in California, which is funded (inter alia) by the Howard G. Buffett Foundation.

The U.S.-based Alliance for Global Justice, a supporter of the Nicaraguan revolution, made a submission to the IACHR before the hearing, but this was ignored and no one from AFGJ was called to give evidence. In fact, of several witnesses, the only support for the government’s excellent record in serving Indigenous communities came from Nicaragua’s attorney general. She successfully rebuffed the opposition arguments, and the IACHR pursued them no further, but of course it was the false accusations made at the hearing which received publicity.

Alfred de Zayas specifically notes the tendency for the IACHR to make “politically sensitive petitions disappear.” At the IACHR, he remarks, “politically incorrect” victims have “little or no chance of being heard.” These are just two of the more egregious examples of the IACHR doing exactly that.

The Bias Shown by United Nations Human Rights Institutions

De Zayas points out that UN bodies often “capriciously decide to target one country but not another,” especially picking on countries which “oppose the Western unipolar vision.” This can lead to “demonizing a particular country in furtherance of other countries’ foreign policies.” This has repeatedly happened with the OAS and IACHR in relation to Nicaragua, but is now also the regular practice of UN bodies. Typically, the Human Rights Council or the Human Rights Commissioner will issue a report based largely on “evidence” from opposition spokespeople or NGOs, many now based outside of Nicaragua. The Nicaraguan government will oppose the report, but their representations or those of pro-government bodies will be ignored.

A group of people sitting at tables in a circular room Description automatically generated

Source: youtube.com

 

Only a year ago, the UN Human Rights Council established a “Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua” (GHREN) which, in February 2023, published a highly biased report. It went so far as to claim that Nicaragua’s government had committed “crimes against humanity.” The “experts” even went beyond their mandate and recommended further economic sanctions. A ”collective” of small opposition NGOs had open access to the GHREN, and clearly had a strong influence on their work. The pro-revolutionary Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition quickly prepared a detailed critique of the report. For example, it showed how the GHREN’s chronology of events in the city of Masaya during the coup attempt omitted almost all opposition violence, including murders, torture and destruction of municipal buildings and Sandinista homes.

Alfred de Zayas joined other human rights specialists in condemning the report as being unprofessional, biased, incomplete and concocted to justify further coercive sanctions to damage Nicaragua’s economy (such unilateral coercive measures have been condemned by the UN General Assembly, most recently in Resolution 77/214 of December 2022 and by the Human Rights Council in Resolution 49/6). Yet when the Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition sent the lengthy petition and supporting evidence to the UN Human Rights Council and to the “group of experts,” there was no response. After multiple emails containing further evidence, only a single, one-line reply was received, pointing the Coalition to the material on the GHREN’s website.

In The Human Rights Industry, de Zayas concludes that the real purpose behind such expert groups or commissions is “to denigrate and destabilize the targeted government to facilitate undemocratic ‘regime change’ as desired by one or more powerful countries.” They are part of the “hybrid war arsenal” which such countries employ. He goes on to refer specifically to the GHREN’s report on Nicaragua, labeling it a “political pamphlet” and saying that its accusations of crimes against humanity are undeserving of detailed comment.

Needless to say, the GHREN’s judgment was reported widely in the international media; none investigated the GHREN’s work or how its conclusions were reached.

Since the report was published, opposition figures have often been invited to address the UN. Félix Maradiaga, recipient of U.S. funding via the NED and other bodies, spoke at a UN human rights summit in May 2023. Medardo Mairena, found guilty in Nicaragua of organizing an attack on a police station in 2018 which left five people dead, but released under a 2019 amnesty, spoke at a UN Human Rights Council event in December 2023, decrying Nicaragua’s “grave human rights violations.”

The Role of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International

Neither Human Rights Watch (HRW) nor Amnesty International (AI) escapes the attention of The Human Rights Industry. De Zayas points out that HRW can be “instrumentalized as an arm of U.S. pressure against independent states” and that it often “discredits governments seeking socialist alternatives.” On Nicaragua (as on China and Venezuela) HRW “seems to follow the State Department line,” especially in its endorsement of sanctions (known more precisely as “unilateral coercive measures”) and has even taken credit for the new sanctions imposed by Trump in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic.

De Zayas is critical of AI’s dependence on sources of funding aligned with U.S. foreign policy, its likely penetration by the U.S. security services and its reliance on poorly sourced information from local NGOs. In fact, AI paid particular attention to Nicaragua during and immediately after the 2018 coup attempt, issuing two major reports that were based overwhelmingly on opposition sources—whether local NGOs or so-called “independent” media that were heavily funded by U.S. agencies.

A group of activists working with the Alliance for Global Justice was so alarmed at the obvious bias in AI’s work that it prepared a detailed response to the second report, which AI pejoratively titled Instilling Terror. AFGJ’s Dismissing the Truth showed in detail the bias, omissions and errors in AI’s report. For example, it unraveled the story of a police officer who, according to AI, was killed by his fellow officers. This unlikely explanation had been offered by his estranged mother, an opposition supporter, via a local NGO. In reality there was convincing evidence, including from his partner (also a police officer), that he was killed by an opposition sniper.

Several attempts were made to engage with AI about its report, including a formal complaint via their published procedures and the offer to discuss it at their London headquarters. There was never anything more than a peremptory response.

“Human Rights Industry” Reports Are Endorsed by Corporate Media

Alfred de Zayas says of the mainstream media that, when aggressive action is taken against countries like Nicaragua that have governments not favored by Washington, their response is to demonize the leaders of such countries. Nicaragua could hardly be a clearer example, with its elected leader Daniel Ortega regularly referred to as a “dictator” running an “authoritarian regime” and of course—as we saw earlier—committing “crimes against humanity” or even “genocide.”

Nicaragua has suffered from a succession of concocted stories, relating to its alleged “failure” to tackle Covid-19 to the accusation that Nicaraguan migrants are fleeing “repression.” One that originated from a local “human rights” group attempted to label U.S. meat imports from Nicaragua as “conflict beef” because cattle ranches were allegedly displacing Indigenous people protecting Nicaragua’s forests. The story, shown by Revealand the PBS NewsHour and then picked up by other news outlets such as the BBC, was shown to have glaring gaps and falsehoods by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting). The NGOs promoting the “conflict beef” story, including the journalists involved, were shown by Rick Sterling, writing in CovertAction Magazine to be linked back to bodies such as USAID and Soros’s Open Society Foundation.

The Government Tightens Up on Foreign-Funded NGOs

Having tolerated dozens of NGOs that received U.S. money to promote “human rights” and “democracy” in the period before 2018, only to see them play key roles in the attempted coup, it was inevitable that the government would clamp down on their activities. It did so by passing legislation comparable to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which the U.S. has had in place since the 1930s and has since strengthened on various occasions. De Zayas points out the irony: “When Nicaragua passed legislation comparable to FARA, when they started enforcing the law and some U.S. allies and funding recipients…were punished, the US media sent out howls of outrage.”

Nicaragua was in the unusual position, for a small country with only seven million people, of having thousands of NGOs, many set up in the 1980s, of which a proportion were still active but many were redundant. As well as affecting the few dozen NGOs actively engaged in U.S. regime-change activities, the result of applying the new law to all NGOs was that many closed, in some cases because they were already defunct, and in others because they could not meet the new, stringent requirements, or refused to do so. The media labeled this as a “crackdown” which was “laying waste to civic society”; The Washington Post said the country is “a dictatorship laid bare.”

As I pointed out for FAIR, none of the media reports asked basic questions, such as what these non-profits have done that led to the government taking this action, whether other countries follow similar practices, or what international requirements about the regulation of non-profits Nicaragua is required to comply with.

Nicaragua’s reality is that it is the subject of continuing U.S. aggression. The local “human rights” NGOs, rightly closed down after their role in the coup attempt, are like the hydra-headed monster, springing up afresh in Costa Rica and still fostered not only by Washington directly but also by its allies in the international “human rights” industry. If there is less space for dissent in Nicaragua than there was before 2018, this is evidently what Washington wants. Decrying “human rights” abuses, imposing unilateral coercive measures on a country with one of the lowest incomes per head in the continent, refusing to recognize a popularly supported election and expressing alarm about Nicaragua’s ties to Russia and China, all help to sustain the myth that (as claimed by Presidents Trump and Biden) the country is an “extraordinary threat” to U.S. security.

Washington’s regime-change plans failed in 2018, but it has not given up.

*

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

John Perry is based in Masaya, Nicaragua and writes for the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, London Review of Books, FAIR and elsewhere. John can be reached at [email protected] or by his twitter handle @johnperry21.

Featured image source

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

There were probably many reasons why Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky fired Ukraine’s popular commander in chief of the armed forces, Valerii Zaluzhny, on February 8, but one of the biggest seems to have been a disagreement over how to go forward in a war that seemed to have overwhelmingly turned against them. Zelensky spoke of a need for “the same vision of the war,” and Zaluzhny said “a decision was made about the need to change approaches and strategy.”

When the war began, Zelensky said that Ukraine “will definitely win” but stressed life over land. “Our land is important, yes, but ultimately it’s just territory.” He said that “Victory is being able to save as many lives as possible. Yes, to save as many lives as possible, because without this nothing would make sense.”

But actions speak louder than words. Zelensky began to define victory as the reclamation, not only of land lost during the war, but of Crimea and all of Ukraine’s pre-2014 territory. Zelensky insisted that Ukraine stay on the offensive. He insisted on moving forward, “Whether it’s by a kilometer or 500 meters, but forward every day.”

Zaluzhny saw Zelensky’s strategy of fighting for Bakhmut and Avdiivka at any cost as a strategic disaster that was costing Ukraine too much in weapons and in lives. Zaluzhny argued for preserving lives over forfeitable territory, lest Ukraine lose its land and its army.

In General Oleksandr Syrsky, Zelensky found the commander who would execute his vision and carry out his orders. Syrsky fought the Battle of Bakhmut. His performance there, and in other battles, gave him the reputation of a commander who is willing to give orders that lead to little real gain and lots of real loss of life. “Some soldiers say his orders are unreasonable, at times sending men to their obvious deaths,” The Washington Post reports. According to The Economist, he “has a reputation for being willing to engage the enemy, even if the cost in men and machines is high.” His reported willingness to put “his men in danger to reach his military goals” has earned him the nicknames “Butcher” and General 200, 200 being the code for a soldier’s corpse. Syrsky is also seen as being a commander who is close to Zelensky and who will not question his orders.

The replacement of Zaluzhny by Syrsky signals Zelensky’s intent to push ahead with the suicidal war of attrition and fight for every inch of land despite the cost in lives.

Aware of the optics of the choice in the public and, perhaps especially in the armed forces, Kiev assuaged the perception of Syrsky as “being indifferent to military casualties.” In his first statement as commander in chief, Syrsky said, “The lives and well-being of our servicemen have always been and remain the main asset of the Ukrainian army.”

But, again, actions speak louder than words. General Syrsky’s first words were about protecting the lives of his men, but his first actions were about fighting for every inch of territory.

On February 11, just three days after the change in command, Syrsky ordered the reinforcement and defence of Avdiivka, a strategic town that faced imminent loss to the Russian army and enormous loss of Ukrainian lives. Zaluzhny would have withdrawn his troops, preserved lives and moved the front to more defensible positions.

Syrsky deployed the 3rd Separate Assault Brigade, one of the best armed and trained and most successful brigades in the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

It did not go well. It went exactly as Zaluzhny said it would, and Syrsky was forced to respond exactly as Zaluzhny had said they should. But now the response was carried out in disarray instead of in an orderly, planned fashion. Perhaps Zelensky should have stuck with Zaluzhny.

In sending in reinforcements instead of retreating, Syrsky said the “goal of our operation is to exhaust the enemy, inflict maximum losses on him.” The opposite happened.

Less than a week later, on February 17, Syrsky announced the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Avdiivka. “Based on the operational situation around Avdiyivka, in order to avoid encirclement and preserve the lives and health of servicemen,” he said, “I decided to withdraw our units from the city and move to defense on more favorable lines…The life of military personnel is the highest value.” That’s exactly what Zaluzhny advised Zelensky to do.

But the situation was worse than at first reported. Zaluzhny would have preplanned the retreat and executed it according to a plan. Zelensky and Skysky’s stubbornness turned the already costly loss into a disaster.

CNN at first reported that “Ukrainian forces are currently conducting a relatively controlled withdrawal from Avdiivka.” There were “indications,” though, “that not all Ukrainian units were able to escape an ever-tightening noose.” Though “the withdrawal was carried out in accordance with the plan that had been developed…a number of Ukrainian servicemen were taken prisoner at the final stage of the operation, under pressure from the enemy’s superior forces.”

Three days later, the situation was becoming clearer. Senior Western officials, The New York Timesreported, now say that “Hundreds of Ukrainian troops may have been captured by advancing Russian units or disappeared during” what they now call, “Ukraine’s chaotic retreat from the eastern city of Avdiivka.” The Times was now calling it “a devastating loss.”

And hundreds may have been an understatement. Further down in the article, the Times reports that “soldiers with knowledge of Ukraine’s retreat estimated that 850 to 1,000 soldiers appear to have been captured or are unaccounted for.” There are unconfirmed reports of even higher numbers of dead and wounded.

That may not have happened under Zaluzhny, who long ago conceded that Avdiivka would fall and would have preplanned the retreat. Some Ukrainian soldiers and Western officials say “the Ukrainian withdrawal was ill-planned and began too late,” according to the Times. They say that “a failure to execute an orderly withdrawal, and the chaos that unfolded Friday and Saturday as the defenses collapsed, was directly responsible for what appears to be a significant number of soldiers captured.”

Suddenly, the 3rd Separate Assault Brigade was not assaulting but desperately trying “to cover the retreat.” The retreat was chaotic: “…some units pulled back before others were aware of the retreat. That put the units left behind at risk of encirclement by the Russians.”

But the true story may be even worse. Military analyst Stephen Bryen reports that the disaster may have begun before the reinforcements even arrived at Avdiivka. Some of the brigades Syrsky brought in gathered and organized in the nearby town of Selydove. Bryen says the Russian military discovered they were there and struck with missiles. Between 1,000 and 1,500 Ukrainian soldiers were reportedly killed.

Bryen says that when the 3rd Separate Assault Brigade arrived in Avdiivka, they found a desperate situation. They reportedly discarded Syrsky’s orders and retreated. Some reportedly surrendered. Syrsky then announced the troop withdrawal and the fall of Avdiivka.

Zelensky’s choice of Syrsky over Zaluzhny was, in part, the choice to maintain the course of a war of attrition to hold and retake all Ukrainian territory. Syrsky’s first orders fulfilled that choice in Avdiivka. It went exactly as Zaluzhny said it would but worse because Zelensky and Syrsky tried to defy the battlefield reality that Zaluzhny recognized. Perhaps Zelensky should have stuck with Zaluzhny.

*

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

Ted Snider is a regular columnist on U.S. foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets. To support his work or for media or virtual presentation requests, contact him at [email protected]

Featured image: Bucha, Ukraine. April 4, 2022. President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy visit Bucha town after liberation it from Russian occupiers during Russian Ukrainian war. (Source: TLI)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

Last Saturday, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken told the Munich Security Conference that the post-Gaza war scenario provides an “extraordinary opportunity” for Arab governments to open relations with Israel. After stressing the “urgent” need for establishing a Palestinian state without spelling out how this could be done, he stated,

“Virtually every Arab country wants to integrate Israel into the region, to normalise relations if they haven’t already done so, to provide security assurances and commitments so that Israel can feel more safe and more secure.”

This was an amazing statement which reflects the Biden administration’s stupendous willful disconnect from reality. “Israel” and its needs were featured in each of his three sentences, but Arab concerns were ignored. He refused to admit Israel had become the aggressor in the Gaza war by employing massively disproportionate force to retaliate for Hamas attack on southern Israel. Blinded by Israel’s losses, Blinken totally ignored the sea change Israel’s deadly and devastating onslaught has wrought among Arabs and citizens of the globe.

Blinkered Blinken clearly did not tune into news of well-organised pro-Palestinian mass protests which erupted in 120 cities across the world on Saturday, including London where 250,000 rallied to demand an immediate ceasefire and freedom for Palestine. Protesters in Madrid, Istanbul, Vienna, Paris, Amsterdam, Jakarta and Stockholm condemned Israel’s threat to invade Rafah where 1.4 million Gazans have taken refuge from Israel’s devastating war.

This is an Israeli war like no other. Israel’s 1948 war of establishment and successor wars have not gripped and traumatised millions of Arabs, Europeans, Africans and Asians as has the ongoing war on Gaza. Newspapers are filled with articles on the gory results of Israeli carpet bombing of Gazan neighbourhoods, refugee camps, hospitals, schools and shelters.

For tens of millions the war has invaded their homes as satellite television channels broadcast real-time images of the suffering of Gazan families digging children from the rubble of destroyed homes. Relatives carry weeping wounded children to besieged hospitals where amputations are performed without anaesthetics. Watchers become witnesses who are both captured and traumatised by horrors unfolding before their eyes and pounding in their ears, by the blood and tears, the body count and fears for the wounded and disappeared.

The war is deeply personal because daily coverage also invades social media with images of suffering, experts’ commentaries, and politicians’ justifications for doing nothing to half the carnage. People cannot escape the war on mobile phones tucked into their pockets.

The latest poll commissioned by the Washington-based Arab Centre reveals how the Gaza war has impacted Arab attitudes toward Israel and the US. The survey of 8,000 respondents was conducted between December 12th, 2023, and January 5th, 2024. The 16 Arab countries included were Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, the Palestinian West Bank and Yemen, representing “more than 95 per cent of the population across the Arab region”.

Blinken clearly did not bother to acquaint himself with this survey. If he had he would have learned that 59 per cent of respondents “had become certain there would be no possibility for peace with Israel”, 14 per cent said they had “serious doubts” peace with Israel could be achieved, and 9 per cent did not believe in peace with Israel “in the first place”. This left 13 per cent clinging to the hope that peace with Israel was possible.

The pollsters reported that among those surveyed 59 per cent followed the news daily and 20 per cent several times a week; 54 per cent relied on satellite television, 36 per cent favoured social media. Fifty-one per cent rated the US as the largest threat to the stability of the region, Israel 26 per cent; 76 per cent said their opinion of US policy has “become more negative than before the war”. Forty-two per cent said US policies during the war would “very much” harm US regional interests and 23 per cent “somewhat” harm US interests. Ninety-two per cent believed Palestine is an Arab cause and 89 per cent were against Arab recognition of Israel, up from 84 per cent in 2022.

The latest Gaza war is the culmination of 75 years of near constant warfare with Israel and three-quarters of a century of trauma inflicted upon generations of Palestinians and Arabs. Israel’s 1948 war of establishment, known by Palestinians as Al Naqba (The Debacle), ended with Israel’s conquest of 78 per cent of Palestine. This war inflicted the 20th century’s first major defeat and psychological trauma on the Arabs. The West regarded the emergence of Israel as a triumph at a time the US and Europe were recovering from revelations of the Holocaust. The Arab world refused to recognise Israel and pretended it did not exist. The war was well covered in newspapers and cinema newsreels and on radio in the region and the West.

The 1956 war on Egypt mounted by Britain, France, and Israel in response to Cairo’s nationalization of the Suez Canal was a desperate attempt to overthrow President Gamal Abdel Nasser. He not only survived but was hailed as a hero across the region. This war of aggression was seen in the West as the last gasp of European colonialism and was covered by newspapers, radio, and television, which had emerged as a key media outlet.

Israel’s second successful war of conquest in 1967 dealt another deep psychological shock to the Arab world, which vowed, “No peace with Israel, no relations with Israel and no negotiations with Israel.” The West, including media, celebrated Israel’s victory while the Arabs were embittered and alienated.

The October 1973 war was the first to be initiated by the Arabs — Egypt and Syria — against Israel and provided a boost to the Arab public opinion although Israel — after receiving the usual infusion of US weapons – regained territory recaptured by Egypt and Syria. Since Israel’s military was caught napping, Israelis reeled from the shock of the surprise. Western media coverage was biased in favour of Israel, as usual.

This changed in June 1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon while scores of foreign correspondents were based in Beirut and reported on Israel’s blitz on cities and Palestinian camps in the south. Israel’s sustained, indiscriminate bombing of Beirut compelled US President Ronald Reagan to order a halt in August. Mature global public opinion has never recovered from massive media coverage of the massacre of hundreds of Palestinian civilians by Israel’s local Christian proxies while the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps were surrounded by the Israeli forces. Israel’s 2006 war on Lebanon was closely covered by Arab media which reflected popular feelings and Western media which no longer adored Israel.

International as well as Arab media were able to report reasonably on Israel’s Gaza wars in 2008-2009, 2012, 2014 and 2021 but only courageous Palestinian reporters have been able to cover the current all-out Israeli onslaught. At least, 126 have lost their lives. For a change we see and hear their war as it unfolds and partake of their trauma despite Israel’s mainly uunconvincing efforts to influence our perceptions in its favour.

*

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

Featured image: US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. February 17, 2024 (Source: Iran International)

Globalists to Start WWIII Over Russian Spy Navalny?

February 23rd, 2024 by Howell Woltz

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

The Conference of Warmongers (a.k.a. Munich Security Conference) is in full-swing next door in Germany, but their sole focus—other than spending billions of our money on war toys—is a dead spy.

For those who’ve never heard of Alexei Navalny, he is the man Britain claimed was poisoned by Putin (in England, somehow) using Novichok, a chemical so deadly one touch kills you, but it made its way somehow into his underpants.

Sounds like an inside job to me, but it did not kill him, strangely enough. Instead, he died in a Russian prison this week while serving a sentence for being a traitor to his country.

“Putin did it”, the High Priests and Priestesses of Globalism are screaming from their war toy bazaar in Munich. “Let’s sanction Russia and say Russia sponsors terrorism!”

That war cry is emanating from Josep Borrell, High Commissioner of the EU, all the way to Joseph Biden, the White House resident in America with Hillary Clinton singing tenor.

But As Always, We Prefer to Show You the Facts

This is the undercover tape of Alexei Navalny asking MI6 Officer James William Thomas Ford for $10-20 million to overthrow the Russian government in a U.S. sponsored ‘Colour Revolution’— and you’ll never guess who wrote the book on that topic. [authenticity yet to be confirmed]

Navalny was a traitor to his nation—recruited by then U.S. Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul I read just today—who is calling for war against Russia because his spy, Navalny, is dead.

Who killed him? “Putin, of course!,” says his mentor McFaul on Andrea Mitchell’s show.

How do they know that? They don’t, but who needs truth when you have a war to start!

To me, Navalny’s  death seems planned to coincide with their European arms bazaar, as his grieving widow was ready in make-up (in Munich) at the convention, with a prepared speech, just hours later. 

In other words, this looks like the CIA’s work, cleaning up loose ends, with their spy’s Missus dressed to the nines to take up where hubby left off as his replacement ‘opposition’ to Putin.  Coincidence?  Not with this crowd of Global Gangsters.

They are in a hurry to kick off their war and needed the theatre.

But let’s slow down for a minute—Color Revolution—who did write the book on that?

Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Under O’biden, Michael Mcfaul Wrote the Book

The guy who literally wrote the 7-step plan to foment a ‘colour revolution’ in a foreign nation, also recruited Alexei Navalny as a spy in Russia when he was ambassador.

Russia caught Navalny trying to raise “10 to 20 million” from an MI6 operative, Agent Ford, as you saw in the clip above.  The money was to be used to overthrow the Russian government on behalf of the CIA and MI6. 

But get this—Putin let Navalny go, perhaps because of this. Why keep a known operative trying to overthrow your country inside it?

So Navalny then moves to England, claims he’s poisoned—by the man who let him leave Russia—but voluntarily returns to Russia where he’s tried as a traitor and jailed.  None of this makes any sense, until you understand who he works for–the CIA and MI6.

This week, Europe is on fire—though you won’t hear that on Lamestream Media—but I’m here watching it and very happy to report that fact! 

From Spain to Czech Republic and everywhere in between, farmers and truckers are shutting things down to force the corrupt EU tyrants and their puppets running member nations to drop the Green Graft that is killing Europe.

We joined the strike today here in Warsaw, Poland and all  border crossings from Ukraine are closed down by the farmers to prevent more EU dumping of grain and corn (under EU mandate!)—-which is destroying prices with inferior quality poisoned grain.

 

The Poles are pissed! Not only is the corrupt EU dumping grain from Ukraine to fund their NATO war—destroying prices and Polish farmers in the process—but the grain was treated with dangerous chemicals not allowed in this nation.  They’re poisons.

It occurred to me that this  may be part of the EU/WEF depopulation scheme so I’m glad the farmers are dumping and destroying it rather than doing what the Brussels bandits demand.

Meanwhile in Munich, every fibre of every NATO Globalist is screaming for a direct war with Russia because their proxy war in Ukraine is well….out of Ukrainians.

So Their Destroy America Project Now Goes Into Hyperdrive

Bleeding out the U.S. Treasury and destroying America with never-ending wars is working, but it is taking too long, so former Ambassador McFaul and crew are calling for the U. S. to unilaterally steal roughly $600 billion in U.S. Treasuries owned by Russia and give that money to Zelenskyy to launder in his Oligarch war in Ukraine.

This nutso idea accomplishes several things like prolonging the war, selling billions more in war toys and giving the Uniparty in the U.S. all the money it needs to rig the 2024 election, but it also acts to destroy the source of U.S. strength abroad–its dollar.

If McFaul and his motley crew get Biden Administration fools and the Congressional idiots to approve such a thing, no other sensible nation on earth would ever buy a U.S. Treasury or finance America’s crippling debt again–ever.  Did I mention ‘ever’?

Message to the world? “All it takes is a dispute with us over anything and we’ll steal your money and give it to your enemies.”

In short, this one braindead move by Globalists whose goal is not only ‘our’ depopulation but killing my home nation, would accomplish both things in one move.

And this morning, everyone from former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan’s wife to Ambassador McFaul on Mitchell’s talking head show were all in on this immediate act of self-destruction because a Russian spy (working for them) died in a Russian prison.

As if Putin needed another excuse besides NATO surrounding Russia with missiles and building 47 illegal bioweapon labs to kill his people (and all of us in the neighbourhood as well)–that just might be the straw that merits a test drive of his new orbiting nuke.

These evil characters just told us last week they want to ‘peacefully’ kill 7 billion of us, and they’ve been tellling us how they intend to do it since 1968 (Limits to Growth, published by The Club of Rome).

Sir Alexander King and Aurelio Peccei were clear.  They would use war, disease, and a knowingly false narrative of fear they called Global Warming to scare us into being willing to die without a fight.

None of this has to be.

So wake up.  Stand up, and tell the bastards ‘No’.

*

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

All images in this article are from the author/Richardson Post

Biden Moving to Send Long-Range Ballistic Missiles to Ukraine

February 23rd, 2024 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

In one sense the Ukraine conflict is over. In another sense it is dangerously expanding.

Biden and Putin are taking the path to nuclear war. Biden by providing long range missiles to Ukraine, and Putin by refusing to use sufficient force to bring the conflict to an end before it spins out of control.  

To again repeat my warning, by allowing the war to drag on, Putin is inviting more provocations and more dangerous provocations. Putin’s way of fighting the conflict has cost far more lives than a quick and total military victory which would have been over before Western involvement could be organized.

The Kremlin should have seen the Maidan Coup in the works and stopped it. Failing this, the Kremlin should have accepted the request of Donbass in 2014 to be reincorporated into Russia like Crimea. Instead, the Kremlin sat on its hands for 8 years with a totally unrealistic belief in the Minsk Agreement  while the US built an army for Ukraine, the Kremlin itself making little, if any, preparation. When the Kremlin finally was forced to intervene in Donbass, the bulk of the fighting was done by a small private military force, the leader of which was disgusted by the Kremlin’s defeatist restraint. Putin broke up this superb fighting force, and its leader died in a suspicious airplane crash.

It seems the Kremlin is always caught off guard and unprepared. This is a certain road to nuclear war. See this.

*

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

Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Carbon Dioxide Climate Hoax: The Big Reveal

February 23rd, 2024 by Dr. Lewis Coleman

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

Among the most visible geopolitical controversies of our age is planetary climate. The idea goes that earth’s temperature is rising, that this rise is becoming catastrophic, that its cause is manmade carbon emissions, and that only reductions in those emissions will save the planet and, by extension, humanity. But is any of this true? The American Geopolitical Institute will be exploring these questions through the eyes of our lead investigator, Dr. Lewis Coleman. In his initial article, Dr. Coleman takes a hard look at the much-maligned atmospheric gas, CO2.

*

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most misunderstood of all atmospheric gases, but also the most interesting. It is benign, beneficial, and essential for both plant and animal life, but it is vociferously vilified as toxic waste, like urine, that must be expelled from the body by breathing, and as a “greenhouse gas” that threatens human existence with excessive heat and melted polar ice.

Given overwhelming evidence to the contrary, these fractured fairy tales are flabbergasting. They can only be explained by prevailing ignorance plus the power, politics, privilege, and persuasion that perpetually prevails and perturbs human endeavor and prevents progress.1

CO2 is essential for life on the earth’s surface. Multicellular plants convert carbon dioxide into carbohydrates for food and cellulose for structural support. In multicellular vertebrates, carbon dioxide is as essential as oxygen, because it enables the mechanism of oxygen transport and delivery that captures oxygen from the atmosphere (or water) and delivers it to cells deep within the body.2

CO2 is also the major component of hydroxyapatite, which forms bone. The human body contains some 20 liters of gaseous carbon dioxide that is mostly dissolved in bodily fluids, as compared to 1 L of nitrogen and 1 L of oxygen. The CO2 leaks from the skin and equilibrates with atmospheric CO2, which slowly fluctuates over eons within a narrow range. Respiratory drive mechanisms adapt to this equilibrium and stimulate breathing to sustain it.

If CO2 was a narcotic, we would all be drunk, and if it were toxic, we would all be dead. Instead, CO2 has powerful therapeutic properties that were revealed by medical research at the turn of the 20th century. This is because breathing or bathing in CO2 stimulates respiratory drive, reduces microvascular flow resistance, speeds the transport of oxygenated blood from the lungs to organs and tissues, and releases oxygen from blood into tissues.2

Carbon dioxide is one of the most beneficial substances on planet earth. Why then do the madmen who control society want to get rid of it?

It wasn’t always this way.

A century ago, the nurse-anesthetists who dominated anesthesia service in operating rooms after WWI embraced physician research and supplemented ether anesthesia with morphine analgesia to prevent harmful nervous activity induced by surgery.1 They also supplemented ether with carbon dioxide to speed anesthetic induction and emergence; counteract morphine respiratory depression; optimize cardiorespiratory function, tissue oxygenation, and organ protection; and prevent heart attacks, strokes, atelectasis, pneumonia, nausea, vomiting, and unexpected postoperative respiratory arrest.

The success of these heroic nurses inspired physicians to use Carbogen, a therapeutic mixture of oxygen and carbon dioxide in pressurized tanks, to treat strokes, heart attacks, drowning, alcohol inebriation, drug overdose, asthma, pneumonia, smoke inhalation, cardiopulmonary arrest, and bacterial infections, and to assist newborn babies with breathing problems. Soon Carbogen became standard equipment on fire trucks in major cities, and it saved countless lives. All this came close to revolutionizing medicine in the 1930s.3

Carbogen has largely been forgotten, though with today’s modern machines, monitors, and medications it could be more useful than ever. For example, it could cure or facilitate the treatment of interstitial cystitis, ulcerative colitis, regional enteritis, rheumatoid diseases, cancer, heart disease, and life-threatening critical illnesses such as eclampsia and multi-organ failure syndrome. CO2 remains FDA-approved, but its therapeutic properties and even the mechanism of oxygen transport and delivery have been banished from medical literature and awareness, so it is almost never used anymore.

What happened was that, disastrously, organized medicine became envious of the success of the nurse-anesthetists and conspired to control this profitable medical specialty.4 In 1897 Dr. Charles Bardeen, the son of a New York publishing magnate, became the first graduate of Johns Hopkins Medical School. He was immediately appointed as a professor of anatomy at the University of Wisconsin Medical School, and then elevated to the position of Dean in 1907.

In 1927 he selected Dr. Ralph Waters to be the first chairman of a university department of anesthesia in the world. He later said, “Ralph Waters was the first person the university hired to put people to sleep, but instead he awakened a worldwide interest in anesthesia.”This anointed Dr. Waters with priceless prestige, and he knew how to use it. He was a shrewd salesman, who had acquired prominence in medical circles by dunking his anesthetized and intubated pet dog named “Airway” into a tank of water to demonstrate the effectiveness of Arthur Gudel’s endotracheal tubes, which are inserted into the trachea to prevent airway obstruction and support breathing.6,7

Dr. Waters immediately joined forces with Dr. Chauncey Leake, the chairman of the Department of Pharmacology at Wisconsin, whose specialty was war gas research, to devise specious animal experiments that deliberately confused CO2 asphyxiation with anesthesia. Dr. Waters also confabulated clinical reports of anonymous anesthetists that dramatically described fictitious disasters caused by overenthusiastic CO2 supplementation, which he characterized as “CO2 toxicity” instead of asphyxiation.1,8,9 This confusion has been subsequently sustained by rigged research and specious publications.10-13

As chairman, Dr. Waters introduced his practical new anesthetic technique that used intravenous barbiturate induction and paralysis to enable elective endotracheal intubation. This secured the airway against aspiration and obstruction, facilitated breathing, and enabled surgery in the prone position and in the oral cavity. These procedures were impossible with the mask management technique used by the nurses. Furthermore, the paralysis promoted surgical convenience by preventing untoward muscle tension and unexpected movements due to uncontrolled surgical stimulation.

Waters thus had devised a powerful political strategy to wreck the reputation of the nurses, replace them with his MD anesthesiology trainees, and promote the sales of his patented “Waters Canister” that absorbed carbon dioxide from gas mixtures. This created a powerful hoax that frightened physicians into avoiding both CO2 and narcotics that has been abetted ever since by professional medicine, medical corporations, and “climate change” hucksters.4

He also indoctrinated his residents with the notion that carbon dioxide is “toxic waste, like urine,” that must be “rid from the body” to prevent mythical “CO2 toxicity” by using mechanical hyperventilation during anesthesia.9,14 This was cleverly consistent with entrenched orthodox CO2 beliefs, but it is scientific insanity, because hyperventilation is inherently dangerous, confers no benefits, and is incompatible with therapeutic narcotics. It also dangerously depletes CO2 body reserves, which exaggerates narcotic respiratory depression and invites heart attacks, strokes, and unexpected postoperative respiratory arrest.

These effects, however, didn’t become problematic until several years later when defective “closed circuit” anesthesia machines, which were designed to conserve expensive anesthetic gases, were replaced with “open circuit” anesthesia machines that were designed to eliminate any possibility of CO2 accumulation within the machines.15 By that time, the therapeutic and life-sustaining characteristics of carbon dioxide were forgotten, so the consequent postoperative respiratory depression problems were blamed on narcotics.

Why? Because CO2 is cheap, safe, effective, and easy to use, not all that far removed from a “home remedy.” And because the combination of carbon dioxide and narcotics prevented lingering manifestations of the “surgical stress syndrome” including cancer, heart disease, and chronic illnesses, all of which promote professional and corporate profits at the price of public health.

Dr. Waters next took care to place his graduates in prominent positions in hospitals and university medical schools. Having successfully displaced the nurses, founded the anesthesiology profession on false science, and created a deadly hoax that has confused anesthesia practice ever since, he mysteriously retired at the age of 65 and refused further contact with the monstrous profession he had created.4,16-18 Meanwhile, Dr. Chauncey Leake enjoyed prestigious appointments at UC San Francisco, the University of Texas, the Ohio State University, and as chairman of the Board of Science Journal.19

Seldom have so few caused so much harm to so many.1 Their acts of wholesale mischief have reversed medical progress; derailed medical research; and killed and maimed countless patients ever since. Their endeavors are replete with the cloven hoofprints of organized medicine, powerful medical corporations, and the Wellcome Trust.

Back to CO2

CO2 is a “trace gas” in the earth’s atmosphere that couldn’t possibly cause “global warming,” which is a cyclical phenomenon that occurs at intervals of hundreds of years. The most recent prior episode occurred during the early 1400s, when a fleet of massive Chinese junks sailed through the melted North Pole passage and mapped the world, soon followed by Western explorers.20 But the ice froze again before Admiral Byrd and his contemporaries searched for the mysterious polar passage. Now it has melted again, and commercial shipping prefers it to the Panama Canal.

What, then, is the source of CO2? The fact is that it is continuously produced by the vast mass of microbial life that thrives in the hellishly hot environment deep beneath the earth’s surface, where the nuclear core provides abundant chemicals that serve as food. This explains the high CO2 concentrations found in caves and why volcanic eruptions belch forth vast quantities of carbon dioxide. Its high molecular weight causes atmospheric CO2 to hover near the earth’s surface, where photosynthetic bacteria and multicellular plants avidly consume it and constrain its concentration to only 0.03% of the atmospheric gas mix, so that plant and animal life on the earth’s surface thrive at the brink of CO2 starvation.

Multicellular life cannot survive at higher altitudes such as the “dead zone” near the top of Mt. Everest where CO2 is virtually absent, which explains why the top of Mt. Everest is littered with lemming-like Darwin Award winners and why their guides suffer hypoxic brain damage.

CO2 is also an ideal refrigerant with a revealing history. It was patented in Britain as a refrigerant in 1850, and in 1870 an American businessman installed CO2 refrigeration in a cargo ship to transport beef from Texas to New York City. It is devoid of toxicity, but its low cost undermines its commercial viability.21 CO2 was soon supplanted by ammonia, but consumers feared ammonia toxicity, and preferred ice deliveries to ammonia refrigerators.

For example, tour guides at California’s Hearst Castle were sickened by ammonia leaking from its damaged antique refrigerators after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The German division of the international General Electric cartel retained Albert Einstein and Moshe Szilard to invent safe refrigeration technologies during the interval between WWI and WWII. They patented several commercially impractical ideas,22 but their efforts were rendered moot by Thomas Midgely, Jr., the infamous inventor of leaded gasoline, who dramatically inhaled Freon, a fluorinated hydrocarbon developed by DuPont, to demonstrate its safety before a crowded engineering convention.23 The DuPont Corporation then promoted Freon, whereupon Freon refrigerators were enthusiastically embraced after WWII.

However, Freon was never safe. When exposed to open flame it degenerates to phosgene gas, which killed more soldiers than any other “war gas” during WWI. This was particularly problematic because refrigeration repairmen routinely used propane torches to detect Freon leaks.24 This explains the fakery of the “Ozone Hole” hysteria, which enabled DuPont to replace dangerous Freon with hydrocarbon alternatives that likewise cannot compare to the safety of carbon dioxide.

Freon also explains the pulmonary illness suffered by firemen and policemen during the 9/11 demolition of the World Trade Center towers, which exposed massive quantities of Freon to thermite flame.24 Thankfully, the European Union has introduced regulations to restrict toxic chemicals, so Mercedes Benz and other European corporations are now developing safe CO2 air conditioning systems for cars and homes.

So, the next time a “climate change” fanatic starts ranting at you about the horrors of CO2 you can tell them to hold on until they hear “the rest of the story.” Meanwhile, must we await the arrival of our great-great grandchildren before the therapeutic blessings of carbon dioxide, surgical narcotics, and stress theory can be realized? Why not us? Why not now?

*

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

Dr. Lewis S. Coleman is Chair of the Science and Education Board of the American Institute of Stress. He is a board-certified anesthesiologist who completed his BS degree in biology at the Ohio State University, obtained his MD degree from New York Medical College, and completed his surgical internship and anesthesiology residency at UCLA, followed by 40 years in private practice. Coleman’s basic sciences instruction at NYMC miraculously coincided with the two-year sojourn of Dr. Johannes Rhodin, who was retained by the school to reform its curriculum. Dr. Rhodin was a famous researcher and expert on the stress theory of Dr. Hans Selye. His lectures devastated the dogma of classical physiology and convinced Coleman that stress theory represented the future of medicine. Many years later, these lectures enabled Coleman to identify Selye’s long-sought stress mechanism. It promises to revolutionize medicine and provide a new era of health, longevity, and freedom from the eternal scourge of disease and premature death. Coleman sets forth his ideas in his important new book, “50 Years Lost in Medical Advance: The Discovery of Hans Selye’s Stress Mechanism.”

Notes

1 Coleman, L. S. Four Forgotten Giants of Anesthesia History. Journal of Anesthesia and Surgery 3, 1-17 (2015). <http://www.ommegaonline.org/article-details/Four-Forgotten-Giants-of-Anesthesia-History/468>.

2 Coleman, L. S. Oxygen Transport and Delivery. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efi9v86isSw&t=117s (2022). <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efi9v86isSw&t=117s>.

3 Henderson, Y. Resuscitation with Carbon Dioxide. Science 83, 399-402 (1936). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.83.2157.399

4 Coleman, L. S. The Great Medical Hoax of the 20th Century.  (2022). <https://www.amazon.com/Great-Medical-Hoax-20th-Century/dp/B09X4BCTWG/ref=sr_1_1?crid=8A8KBG2F26D7&keywords=the+great+medical+hoax+of+the+20th+Century&qid=1659205157&sprefix=the+great+medical+hoax+of+the+20th+century%2Caps%2C153&sr=8-1>.

5 Morris, L. E., Schroeder, M. E., Warner, M. E. & Wood Library-Museum of Anesthesiology (Park Ridge Ill.). Ralph Milton Waters, M.D., mentor to a profession : proceedings, the Ralph M. Waters International Symposium on Professionalism in Anesthesia, Madison, Wisconsin, 2002.  (Wood Library-Museum of Anesthesiology, 2004).

6 Waters, R. M. Ltr Waters to Guedel Re: intention tremors, ET tube durability. https://calisphere.org/item/784c2d71-bb93-4c73-af85-2ce6faf9f8d6/ (1929, March 19).

7 Waters, R. M. Waters reports one-lung anesthesia with new ET tubes. https://calisphere.org/item/f8195ad6-f577-4a0e-8f9f-aa9dbfaf1ae1/ (1931, June 10).

8 Leake, C. D. W., R.M. The Anesthetic Properties of Carbon Dioxid. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 33 (1928).

9 Waters, R. M. Toxic Effects of Carbon Dioxide. J.A.M.A 100:519, 1933, 219-224 (1933).

10 Eisele, J. H., Eger, E. I., 2nd & Muallem, M. Narcotic properties of carbon dioxide in the dog. Anesthesiology 28, 856-865 (1967).

11 Cullen, D. J. & Eger, E. I., 2nd. Cardiovascular effects of carbon dioxide in man. Anesthesiology 41, 345-349 (1974).

12 Cullen, D. J., Eger, E. I., 2nd & Gregory, G. A. The cardiovascular effects of carbon dioxide in man, conscious and during cyclopropane anesthesia. Anesthesiology 31, 407-413 (1969).

13 Eckenhoff, J. E. Carbon Dioxide and Man. Anesthesiology 21, 585-586 (1960).

14 Waters, R. M. Carbon Dioxide. Can Med Assoc J 38, 240-243 (1938).

15 Jackson, D. E. Anesthesia Equipment From 1914 to 1954 and Experiments Leading To Its Development. Anesthesiology 16, 953-969 (1955).

16 Overdyk, F. J. postoperative Opioids Need System-Wide Overhaul. Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation Newsletter (2010). <http://www.apsf.org/newsletters/html/2010/winter/11_opioids.htm>.

17 Coleman, L. S. Intraoperative Hyperventilation May Contribute to Postop Opioid Hypersensitivity. apsf Newsletter Winter 2009-2020 (2010). <https://www.apsf.org/article/intraoperative-hyperventilation-may-contribute-to-postop-opioid-hypersensitivity/>.

18 Coleman, L. S. A call for standards on perioperative CO(2) regulation. Can J Anaesth (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-011-9469-7

19 Shimkin, M. B. Chauncey D. Leake, president-elect. Science 129, 468-469 (1959). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.129.3347.468

20 Menzies, G. 1421 : the year China discovered the world.  (Bantam, 2002).

21 Nguyen, O. a. Carbon Dioxide as a Refrigerant, <https://www.rsi.edu/blog/hvacr/carbon-dioxide-refrigerant/> (2016).

22 Dannen, G. The Einstein-Szilard Refrigerators, <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-einstein-szilard-refrigerators/> (1997).

23 Knight, L. The Fatal Attraction of Lead. BBC News Magazine (2014). <https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29568505>.

24 Shawn. Burning freon can produce phosgene gas, <https://honda-tech.com/forums/honda-civic-del-sol-1992-2000-1/burning-freon-can-produce-phosphene-gas-229557/> (2002).

Featured image is from VTFP

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

On February 21, the Royal Courts of Justice hosted a second day of carnivalesque mockery regarding the appeal by lawyers representing an ill Julian Assange, whose publishing efforts are being impugned by the United States as having compromised the identities of informants while damaging national security. Extradition awaits, only being postponed by rearguard actions such as what has just been concluded at the High Court.

How, then, to justify the 18 charges being levelled against the WikiLeaks founder under the US Espionage Act of 1917, an instrument not just vile but antiquated in its effort to stomp on political discussion and expression?

Justice Jeremy Johnson and Dame Victoria Sharp got the bien pensant treatment of the national security state, dressed in robes, and tediously inclined. Prosaic arguments were recycled like stale, oppressive air. According to Clair Dobbin KC, there was “no immunity for journalists to break the law” and that the US constitutional First Amendment protecting the press would never confer it. This had an undergraduate obviousness to it; no one in this case has ever asserted such cavalierly brutal freedom in releasing classified material, a point that Mark Summers KC, representing Assange, was happy to point out.

Yet again, the Svengali argument, gingered with seduction, was run before a British court. Assange, assuming all the powers of manipulation, cultivated and corrupted the disclosers, “soliciting” them to pilfer classified government materials. With limping repetition, Dobbin insisted that WikiLeaks had been responsible for revealing “the unredacted names of the sources who provided information to the United States,” many of whom “lived in war zones or in repressive regimes”. In exposing the names of Afghans, Iraqis, journalists, religious figures, human rights dissidents and political dissidents, the publisher had “created a grave and immediate risk that innocent people would suffer serious physical harm or arbitrary detention”.

The battering did not stop there. “There were really profound consequences, beyond the real human cost and to the broader ability to the US to gather evidence from human sources as well.”  Dobbin’s proof of these contentions is thin, vague and causally absent: the arrest of one Ethiopian journalist following the leak; unspecified “others” disappeared. She even admitted the fact that “it cannot be proven that their disappearance was a result of being outed.” This was certainly a point pounced upon by Summers.

The previous publication by Cryptome of all the documents, or the careless publication of the key to the encrypted file with the unredacted cables by journalists from The Guardian in a book on WikiLeaks, did not convince Dobbin. Assange was “responsible for the publications of the unredacted documents whether published by others or WikiLeaks.” There was no mention, either, that Assange had been alarmed by The Guardian faux pas and had contacted the US State Department of this fact. Summers, in his contribution, duly reminded the court of the publisher’s frantic efforts while also reasoning that the harm caused had been “unintended, unforeseen and unwanted” by him.

With this selective, prejudicial angle made clear, Dobbin’s words became those of a disgruntled empire caught with its pants down when harming and despoiling others. “What the appellant is accused of is really at the upper end of the spectrum of gravity,” she submitted, attracting “no public interest whatsoever”. Conveniently, calculatingly, any reference to the enormous, weighty revelations of WikiLeaks of torture, renditions, war crimes, surveillance, to name but a few, was avoided. Emphasis was placed, instead, upon the “usefulness” of the material WikiLeaks had published: to the Taliban, and Osama bin Laden.

This is a dubious point given the Pentagon’s own assertions to the contrary in a 2011 report dealing with the significance of the disclosure of military and diplomatic documents by WikiLeaks. On the Iraq War logs and State Department cables, the report concluded “with high confidence that disclosure of the Iraq data set will have no direct personal impact on current and former US leadership in Iraq.” On the Afghanistan war log releases, the authors also found that they would not result in “significant impact” to US operations, though did claim that this was potentially damaging to “intelligence sources, informants, and the Afghan population,” and intelligence collection efforts by the US and NATO.

Summers appropriately rebutted the contention about harm by suggesting that Assange had opposed, in the highest traditions of journalism, “war crimes”, a consideration that had to be measured against unverified assertions of harm.

On this point, the prosecution found itself in knots, given that a balancing act of harm and freedom of expression is warranted under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. When asked by Justice Johnson whether prosecuting a journalist in the UK, when in possession of “information of very serious wrongdoing by an intelligence agency [had] incited an employee of that agency to provide information… [which] was then published in a very careful way” was compatible with the right to freedom of expression, Dobbin conceded to there being no “straightforward answer”.

When pressed by Justice Johnson as to whether she accepted the idea that the “statutory offence”, not any “scope for a balancing exercise” was what counted, Dobbin had to concede that a “proportionality assessment” would normally arise when publishers were prosecuted under section 5 of the UK Official Secrets Act. Prosecutions would only take place if one “knowingly published” information known “to be damaging”.

Any half-informed student of the US Espionage Act knows that strict liability under the statute negates any need to undertake a balancing assessment. All that matters is that the individual had “reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the US,” often proved by the mere fact that the information published was classified to begin with.

Dobbin then switched gears. Having initially advertised the view that journalists could never be entirely immune from criminal prosecution, she added more egg to the pudding on the reasons why Assange was not a journalist. Her view of the journalist being a bland, obedient transmitter of received, establishment wisdom was all too clear.  Assange had gone “beyond the acts of a journalist who is merely gathering information”. He had, for instance, agreed with Chelsea Manning on March 8, 2010 to attempt cracking a password hash that would have given her access to the secure and classified Department of Defense account. Doing so meant using a false identity to facilitate further pilfering of classified documents.

This was yet another fiction. Manning’s court martial had revealed the redundancy of having to crack a password hash as she already had administrator access to the system. Why then bother with the conspiratorial circus?

The corollary of this is that the prosecution’s reliance on fabricated testimony, notably from former WikiLeaks volunteer, convicted paedophile and FBI tittle-tattler Sigurdur ‘Siggi’ Thordarson. In June 2021, the Icelandic newspaper Stundin, now publishing under the name Heimildin, revealed that Assange had “never asked him to hack or to access phone recordings of [Iceland’s] MPs.” He also had not “received some files from a third party who claimed to have recorded MPs and had offered to share them with Assange without having any idea what they actually contained.” Thordarson never went through the relevant files, nor verified whether they had audio recordings as claimed by the third-party source. The allegation that Assange instructed him to access computers in order to unearth such recordings was roundly rejected.

The legal team representing the US attempted to convince the court that suggestions of “bad faith” by the defence on the part of such figures as lead prosecutor Gordon Kromberg had to be discounted. “The starting position must be, as it always is in these cases, the fundamental assumption of good faith on the part of those states with which the United Kingdom has long-standing extradition relationships,” asserted Dobbin. “The US is one of the most long-standing partners of the UK.”

This had a jarring quality to it, given that nothing in Washington’s approach to Assange – the surveillance sponsored by the Central Intelligence Agency via Spanish security firm UC Global, the contemplation of abduction and assassination by intelligence officials, the after-the-fact concoction of assurances to assure easier extradition to the US – has been anything but one of bad faith.

Summers countered by refuting any suggestions that “Mr Kronberg is a lying individual or that he is personally not carrying out his prosecutorial duties in good faith. The prosecution and extradition here is a decision taken way above his head.” This was a matter of “state retaliation ordered from the very top”; one could not “focus on the sheep and ignore the shepherd.”

Things did not get better for the prosecuting side on what would happen once Assange was extradited. Would he, for instance, be protected by the free press amendment under US law? Former CIA director Mike Pompeo had suggested that Assange’s Australian citizenship barred him from protections afforded by the First Amendment. Dobbin was not sure, but insisted that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that nationality would prejudice Assange in any trial. Justice Johnson was sharp: “the test isn’t that he would be prejudiced. It is that he might be prejudiced on the grounds of his nationality.” This was hard to square with the UK Extradition Act prohibiting extradition where a person “might be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained, or restricted in his personal liberty” on account of nationality.

Given existing US legal practice, Assange also faced the risk of the death penalty, something that extradition arrangements would bar. Ben Watson KC, representing the UK Home Secretary, had to concede to the court that there was nothing preventing any amendment by US prosecutors to the current list of charges that could result in a death sentence.

If he does not succeed in this appeal, Assange may well request an intervention of the European Court of Human Rights for a stay of proceedings under Rule 39. Like many European institutions so loathed by the governments of post-Brexit Britain, it offers the prospect of relief provided that there are “exceptional circumstances” and an instance “where there is an imminent risk of irreparable harm.”

The sickening irony of that whole proviso is that irreparable harm is being inflicted on Assange in prison, where the UK prison system fulfills the role of the punishing US gaoler. Speed will be of the essence; and the government of Rishi Sunak may well quickly bundle the publisher onto a transatlantic flight. If so, the founder of WikiLeaks will go the way of other prestigious and wronged political prisoners who sought to expand minds rather than narrow them.

*

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

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

The Trials of Julian Assange: A Death Sentence for Democracy

February 23rd, 2024 by Belén Fernández

This Week’s Most Popular Articles

February 23rd, 2024 by Global Research News

France’s Draft Law: Citizens Who Speak out against the Covid-19 Vaccine. “3 Years Prison and €45,000 Fine”?

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 18 , 2024

British Prime Minister Confronted Over COVID-19 Vaccine Injuries on Live Television

Paul Anthony Taylor, February 16 , 2024

Alexei Navalny’s Death and Curious Well-Timed Coincidences

Edward Curtin, February 20 , 2024

French “Democracy” Establishes Medical Tyranny

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, February 19 , 2024

UCSF Chair of Medicine Dr. Bob Wachter (6x COVID-19 Vaccinated) Collapsed in the Shower

Dr. William Makis, February 16 , 2024

Navalny’s Death – A Western-Instigated “False Flag”?

Peter Koenig, February 20 , 2024

Article 4, France’s Senate: Up to 3 Years Prison Sentence for “Speaking Out against the Toxic Jabs.” “With this Bill we Defend Science”

Mathew Aldred, February 16 , 2024

Video: “Wiping Gaza Off The Map”: Big Money Agenda. Confiscating Palestine’s Maritime Natural Gas Reserves

Felicity Arbuthnot, December 31 , 2023

American Strategists Fearing War with Russia. Rand Corporation Report

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, February 18 , 2024

Defusing the Derivatives Time Bomb: Some Proposed Solutions. Ellen Brown

Ellen Brown, February 19 , 2024

Creating Invisible Enemies – Timeline to Launch of the COVID-19 Deception

Mark Keenan, February 20 , 2024

Russian President Vladimir Putin Bursts the Bubble of Western “Perception Managers”

Mark Taliano, February 19 , 2024

It Is Dark Before the Dawn, but Israeli Settler Colonialism Is at an End

Ilan Pappe, February 20 , 2024

Turbo Brain Cancer Due to University COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates in the United States

Dr. William Makis, February 15 , 2024

What Was COVID Really About? Triggering A Multi-Trillion Dollar Global Debt Crisis. “Ramping up an Imperialist Strategy”?

Colin Todhunter, February 15 , 2024

Selected Articles: Warning: This Website May Harm Your Preconceptions

February 23rd, 2024 by Global Research News

Warning: This Website May Harm Your Preconceptions

By Walter Gelles, February 22, 2024

The Powers-that-be do not like websites that question or contradict the Official Narratives, whether those narratives pertain to the Covid plandemic, the “safe and effective” Covid clot-shots that are actually quite harmful, climate change alarmism, the US/NATO war against Russia via proxy Ukraine, the subservience of the US Democrat/RINO Uniparty to globalist forces, or the ongoing US-backed Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people.

Future of Sport Lies in Emerging Countries

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, February 23, 2024

Due to pressure from the gender lobby, the distinction between the sexes in competitions is increasingly blurred, which threatens the survival of sport as a whole, but even more particularly of women’s sport.

The Mongol Eurasian Empire 1206−1405: The Greatest Continental State in World History

By Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović, February 22, 2024

History remembers the Mongols as a pastoral nomadic people from Central Asia who made a significant impression on the world’s history. In essence, the Mongol territorial occupation was of a scope and range never equaled as stretching from Central Europe to the Korean Peninsula and from the middle of Siberia to Asia Minor and the Persian Gulf.

Google Rolls Out ‘Pre-Bunking’ Censorship Regime to Rig EU Elections

By Ben Bartee, February 22, 2024

With each step, with each successive advancement in weaponized technology — which come faster and faster as the rate of development skyrockets — the corporate state inches closer to achieving its ultimate objective of totalitarian control.

African Americans and the Cold War from Civil Rights to Black Power

By Abayomi Azikiwe, February 22, 2024

In the North African state of Algeria thousands of people went into the streets on May 8, 1945 celebrating the defeat of the German military while at the same time demanding an immediate end to French colonialism.

Identifying Imperial Venality: Day One of Julian Assange’s High Court Appeal

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, February 22, 2024

The appeal to the High Court, comprising Justice Jeremy Johnson and Dame Victoria Sharp, challenges the extradition order by the Home Secretary and the conclusions of District Judge Vanessa Baraitser who, despite ordering his release on risks posed to him on mental health grounds, fundamentally agreed with the prosecution.

After Two Years of War in Ukraine, It’s Time for Peace. The U.S. Sabotage of Peace Talks

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, February 22, 2024

As we mark two full years since Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukrainian government forces have withdrawn from Avdiivka, a town they first captured from the self-declared Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) in July 2014.

Future of Sport Lies in Emerging Countries

February 23rd, 2024 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

As the 2024 Olympics approach, it is necessary to reflect on some sensitive topics. The future of the Olympic movement is uncertain. The constant ideologization of sports, driven by a myriad of factors from the attempt to “isolate Russia” to the promotion of the “woke agenda”, has led to the gradual end of fair and inclusive competitions.

Due to pressure from the gender lobby, the distinction between the sexes in competitions is increasingly blurred, which threatens the survival of sport as a whole, but even more particularly of women’s sport. A political-ideological impasse is also created to marginalize and criminalize any criticism of the presence of trans-athletes (biological males) in the female categories, accelerating the decline of competitions.

More than that, pressure from the trans lobby has also caused problems in conventional doping control systems, there now being a huge discussion about who should or should not be covered by special doping rules according to gender identification.

Added to all this is the pressure from certain lobbyists to convert practices that have never been associated with sports into Olympic categories – such as pole dancing, for example. Also, there is still a lack of real solutions for a fair and definitive inclusion of electronic sports in competitions, with little dialogue about the necessary adaptations.

In parallel, it is necessary to remember that the politicization of sport by regulatory organizations has led to international embarrassment and tension. The banning of Russian and Belarusian athletes from international competitions due to the conflict in Ukraine has established a negative milestone in the history of sports, something that will not be reversed anytime soon.

We should also mention the more “classic” problems of the sports industry. Big Media companies strive to obtain exorbitant profits through broadcasts of major events, turning the sporting spectacle into a mere commodity.

From a geopolitical point of view, it is possible to see that this phenomenon is somehow related to the decline of the Western unipolar order. Sports federations, like any other international organizations, work according to certain ideological ties and political agendas. In a Westernized and liberal world, sporting competitions are organized to serve the interests of Western elites – and, as such a geopolitical order collapses, the quality of sporting events is also affected.

There is a solution to this problem growing from the emerging world. The non-Western world is organizing to propose alternatives to conventional sporting events. Events such as the BRICS Games show that it is possible to create fair, de-ideologized competitions with a true sporting spirit, which do not act as mere pieces of propaganda for the liberal establishment.

Furthermore, the growth of the Phygital Movement in emerging countries has led to heavy investment in this area, as can be seen with the planning of the “Games of the Future” in Kazan, Russia. These are competitions that mix elements of physical and electronic sports, overcoming conventional barriers, providing inclusive sporting experiences that combine the traditional with the modern.

Between February 21st and March 3rd, more than 260 international delegations will be in Kazan to compete in the Games of the Future. Even traditional Russian games such as Russian billiards and sambo, which have no place in competitions organized by the West, will be released. The event tends to be a milestone in the history of the Phygital Movement.

In 2024, TV broadcasters will profit billions from the conventional Olympics – which, interestingly, could not be placed in a better place than today’s France, whose health problems (such as bedbug and rat infestations) and social problems (such as farmers’ protests for better living conditions) tend to make the Olympics at least “messy”. However, what we are seeing now is the end of the Western monopoly on sports.

With the growth of intra-BRICS international cooperation and the self-isolation of the West due to its own agendas, the future of sport will certainly be decided in the emerging countries.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on X (ex-Twitter) and Telegram. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

[This article was originally published in November 2023.]

Israel possesses the world’s largest skin bank, a medical facility that stores human skin for later use in treating burns and skin cancers. This bank was established in 1986 under the supervision of the military medical sector of the occupying army, which provides its services internationally, especially to requests from Western countries.

Israeli occupation authorities been stealing organs from the bodies of dead Palestinian, a heinous criminal practice that has been revealed in several reports and through testimonies of Israeli doctors who participated in this gruesome practice, violating professional ethics and constituting a crime against humanity, Al-Ghad reported.

In contrast, this Israeli bank differs from other banks worldwide in that its supply of these vital organs does not come solely from voluntary donors. Instead, documented cases of stealing skin from the bodies of Palestinians have been recorded, individuals whose organs are also stolen.

There is compelling evidence of Israelis engaging in trafficking these stolen organs, making the entity the largest market for organs in the Middle East.

Where Did Israel Get This Inventory From?

Expert in Israeli affairs Anas Abu Arqoub says,

“The Israeli skin bank is the largest in the world, surpassing the American skin bank that was established 40 years before it, noting that Israel’s population is much smaller than the United States.”

Arqoub emphasizes that the theft of organs from Palestinian bodies is not just suspicions, stating,

“Even the Israeli media acknowledges that it is an extraction process without the knowledge of the dead’s families.”

The reserve of human skin held by the Israeli occupation state, equivalent to 170 square meters, stored within the Israeli skin bank, confirms Arqoub’s account. The number is considered unreasonable since Israel ranks third in its population’s refusal to donate organs, attributed to Jewish religious beliefs.

Handing over Palestinian bodies to their families without organs!

The details of the story date back to 2001 when Swedish investigative journalist Donald Boström published an investigation exposing the theft of organs from the bodies of Palestinian martyrs and their trafficking by Israeli entities. This was the first time this crime was revealed to the international public.

Boström did not stop at this point but published another investigation on the same subject in 2009 in the pages of the Swedish magazine “Aftonbladet.” The investigation mentions that the Israeli Ministry of Health launched a national campaign to encourage organ donation in 1992. However, despite that, a significant gap persisted between the demand and the supply of donations.

Coinciding with that campaign, cases of the disappearance of several Palestinian youth began, only to return afterward in closed coffins. The Israeli authorities imposed on their families to bury them at night without funerals.

Boström says,

“I was in the region at that time, and on several occasions, UN employees contacted me concerned about the developments. The individuals who contacted me said that organ theft certainly happened, but they were prevented from doing anything about it.”

These contacts prompted the journalist to delve further into the issue, so he went to interview the families of the dead who confirmed the theft of their sons’ organs before their killing. Among them was the son of the martyr Bilal Ahmed Ghannan, who was 19 years old when the Israeli army arrested him in the village of Um al-Tut in the West Bank in 1992. He returned with a body without internal organs, from the neck to below the abdomen.

The Israeli medical authorities did not deny the torture and theft of Bilal’s organs. At that time, the director of the Israeli Institute of Forensic Medicine, Chen Kugel, said that Bilal’s family could be right because they “took everything that could be taken from all the bodies that came to the Institute of Forensic Medicine,” without the family’s consent. His family did not receive any explanation, apology, or compensation for what happened.

Israeli Confessions of Organ Theft from Palestinians

In a 2009 documentary on the issue, there are admissions from the former director of the Israeli Institute of Forensic Medicine, Yehuda Hiss, confirming the theft of organs from the bodies of Palestinian in the institute. Hiss stated,

“We took corneas, skin, heart valves, and bones … Almost everything was done unofficially to a large extent… and permission was not sought from the families.”

In her study on dealing with the bodies of Palestinians at the Abu Kabir Forensic Medicine Center in Tel Aviv, published in a book titled “On Their Bodies,” anthropologist Meirav Feis stated that she witnessed “how they take organs from the bodies of Palestinians. In return, they leave the bodies of soldiers intact.”

The researcher added,

“They take corneas, skin, and heart valves in a way that makes the absence of those organs unnoticed by non-specialists. They replace corneas with plastic bodies and remove the skin from the back so that the family does not see it. In addition, the bodies of the dead are used in medical schools in Israeli universities for research purposes.”

Feis said,

“In the first intifada, the army effectively allowed the institute to extract organs from Palestinians under a military procedure that required dissecting the bodies of Palestinian prisoners. The autopsy procedure was accompanied by the removal of organs used by the Israeli skin bank, established in 1985 to treat burns suffered by Israeli soldiers.”

Trafficking in the Organs of Palestinian Casualties

Israel is one of the largest markets for trafficking in human organs in the world, and the largest in the Middle East. Media reports revealed that the Israeli entity is involved in killing Palestinians to steal their internal organs illegally and trade them within an illegal international network.

In 2009, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) arrested an Israeli settler named Levy Izhak Rosenbaum. After investigating him, it was revealed that he played the role of a broker in organ-selling operations in the United States for the benefit of a criminal cell led by rabbis, politicians, and government officials in Israel.

Journalist Donald Boström, in his mentioned investigation, suggests a connection between this network and the theft of organs from Palestinian martyrs taking place in “Israel.” Boström said,

“Half of the kidneys transplanted to Israelis since the beginning of the first decade of the 21st century were illegally purchased. The Israeli health authorities have full knowledge of this activity but do nothing to stop it.”

In a report published by the Israeli newspaper “Haaretz” in 2016, Israel admitted to losing dozens of bodies of Palestinians. The newspaper quoted statements from sources in the Israeli judicial and security apparatuses about the loss of 121 bodies of Palestinians held by the occupation authorities since the 1990s.

Continued Organ tTheft

Following the explosion of the organ theft scandal in 2009, the Israeli government tried to evade the proven charges against it. The spokesperson for the Israeli Ministry of Health at that time, Einav Shimron Greenboim, issued a statement saying,

“The practice mentioned in the investigation is an old story that ended years ago.”

Doubts persist about the continuation of these unethical practices that violate human rights, as indicated by the Israeli authorities’ continued detention of dozens of bodies of Palestinian dead, justifying it as a punitive measure.

According to Abdel Nasser Farwana, the head of the Studies and Documentation Unit at the Palestinian Prisoners and Ex-Prisoners Affairs Commission, Israel still holds more than 370 bodies of Palestinian and Arab bodies who died in different circumstances and years apart. He added,

“The list of these detained martyrs includes individuals who died from the 1970s until around 2023.”

*

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

Featured image source

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

 

 

 

 

The White House is closing in on a decision to send missiles to Ukraine with a range of nearly 200 miles. The Biden administration is discussing the potential weapons shipment but lacks funding to finance the transfer. President Biden is pressing House Republicans to approve a massive war spending bill that includes $61 billion for Ukraine. 

The US has provided Ukraine with short and medium-range missiles for its HIMARS missile launchers. Biden is now close to deciding to provide Kiev with the long-range Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) that can hit targets at 190 miles. 

The potential change in White House policy comes after Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba met with Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

“I just came here from a meeting with Secretary Blinken,” Kuleba told a small group of reporters in Munich on Saturday. “I spent a very good part of the time arguing in favor of ATACMS.”

The US official who spoke with NBC News about the White House discussions explained that ATACMS “would allow Ukraine to strike farther inside the Russian-held Crimean Peninsula.” Moscow annexed Crimea in 2014, and often responds to attacks on the Peninsula with massive attacks on Ukrainian cities. 

A defense official told NBC News that the Pentagon could not send the arms without Congressional funding. The Senate passed a nearly $100 billion supplemental defense spending bill that included $61 billion for Ukraine, $14 billion for Israel, and funding for Washington’s military build-up in the Pacific targeting China. 

President Biden has pressed the House to pass the bill, but Speaker Mike Johnson allowed the body to go into recess. Even if House Republicans relent and pass the aid package, Kiev is struggling to field enough soldiers. 

Ukraine has suffered recent losses on the battlefield, including Adviivka, the critical Donbas city. During the retreat, as many as 1,000 Ukrainian soldiers were captured or are missing.

Additionally, the West is struggling to produce enough weapons to send to Ukraine. The defense official speaking with NBC News admitted the Pentagon had a limited supply of long-range ATACMS. 

“It took Europeans too much time to start ramping up or waking up or dusting off their defense industries,” Kuleba said. “We will pay with our lives throughout 2024 to give your defense industries time to ramp up production or new lines.”

*

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

Kyle Anzalone is news editor of the Libertarian Institute, opinion editor of Antiwar.com and co-host of Conflicts of Interest with Will Porter and Connor Freeman.

Featured image: The M57A1 Army Tactical Missile System missile is fired over the cab of an M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System launcher. New battle conditions call for the Army to have precision lethal and nonlethal fires that can be fired from land to produce effects in all domains, as joint, multidomain operations are expected to be increasingly common. (U.S. Army photo)


All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

History remembers the Mongols as a pastoral nomadic people from Central Asia who made a significant impression on the world’s history. In essence, the Mongol territorial occupation was of a scope and range never equaled as stretching from Central Europe to the Korean Peninsula and from the middle of Siberia to Asia Minor and the Persian Gulf.

The Mongols even attempted seaborne military invasions of Japan (in 1273−1274 and 1281) and Java (1292−1293). The Mongol invasion during two centuries (from the beginning of the 13th century to the beginning of the 15th century) was, in fact, the last but at the same time most violent, assault on pastoral tribes with its effects being considerable for the world history of the time. 

As a direct consequence of the Mongol military invasion, the political-social organization of a bigger part of Asia followed by East and part of Central Europe was changed. Some human groups were exterminated, some were removed and dispersed, and some of the regions suffered tremendous changes of the ethnic features. It became followed by the fact that both the distribution and influence of the most numerous world religions became tremendously changed.

In addition, the trade and other traffic links between Europe and Asia were broken for a longer time as traveling was not safe.

Nevertheless, from an ethnic viewpoint, the focal outcome of the Mongol invasion in Asia and Europe was the wide dispersal of the tribes of Turkic origin over the region of West Asia.

It had to be said that Mongol native land was, in fact, barren and, therefore, not supporting a large population. The Mongols, actually, had been no numerous people which was the reason why their most prominent leader and unifier, Genghis Khan (real name Temujin, 1162/7−1227) augmented his armies from loyal Turkic tribes.

The name/title Genghis Khan means “ruler of all”.

Consequently, soon, the Turkic people outnumbered the native Mongols, and the Turkish language became spread out in Asia with the Mongol armies.

Naturally, the minority of Mongol speakers became absorbed by the Turkic mass and the Mongol language survived only in the original Mongol homeland – Mongolia.

The Turks even before the Mongol conquest were prominent with their Seljuk sultanate of Rum in Asia Minor but by breaking up this sultanate, Mongols cleared the way for the creation and existence of the greatest of the Turkish empires – the Ottoman. 

During the Mongol military invasions in Asia and Europe, they faced three religions and their associated cultural products: Islam (both Sunni and Shia), Buddhism, and Christianity (both Catholic and Orthodox).

However, the Mongol attitude towards the three of them was in practice different. The Mongols, actually, professed a traditional shamanism that was embodied in the Law of Genghis Khan (Yasa). Nevertheless, they felt the powerful attraction of the new faiths by occupation of the lands around Mongolia which, in fact, have been associated with higher levels of civilization compared to Mongols one.

Islam at first was unfavorable: Baghdad as the administrative Islamic center was both captured and sacked in 1258 and the Islamic caliph was killed.

Nevertheless, the historical destiny was that Islam slowly occupied the souls of the Mongol/Turkic conquerors and a powerful revival began. In fact, this revival was directly connected with the collapse of the Christian religion in Asia in general. Before, the Mongol/Turkic invasion, Christianity in (West) Asia looked very prosperous as Christianity was present throughout Asia but mostly in its western portions. 

Buddhism, as well as Islam, emerged from the Mongol/Turkic experience stronger than it entered it. Buddhism had little success westward Altai Mts., however, in the eastern portions of the Asian continent the Mongol dynasty gave Buddhism a superior place within the society of China (in both Chin Empire and Sung Empire). 

The early life of Temujin (later Genghis Khan) is covered in the clouds of legend due to the lack of relevant historical sources. As a matter of fact, Mongol-speaking tribes lived for centuries generally within the territory of present-day Mongolia.

Nonetheless, they need an extraordinary person who would politically and nationally unite all Mongol tribes and furthermore transform them into the biggest land empire in the world history. Temujin, born either in 1162 or 1167 was the son of a Mongol tribal leader.

Up to 1206 he united all the Mongol tribes and established a single unified Mongolia. After the unification of Mongolia, his first political task was to subdue other non-Mongol neighboring tribes and in 1211 to invade the northern Chinese Empire of Chin which was finally conquered in 1234 (after his death) many years after the breaking of the Great Chinese Wall.

The southern Chinese Empire of Chin became totally destroyed. Peking (Khanbalik) was taken by the Mongols in 1215.

However, Temujin turned their army to the west in the military attack on the Kara-Khitai Empire (a state between the Aral Sea and the Uighurs).

The next to be attacked was the Empire of the Khwarizm Shah (from the land between the Aral Sea and the Caspian Sea to the Indian Ocean). That became the first Islamic state to be conquered and barbarically plundered by the Mongols. The Mongols did not face any bitter resistance from the peoples of Central Asia and quickly reached the Caucasus Mts. In 1221 (southern) and 1223 (northern).

Map of the Mongol tribes c. 1207

The tribal polities united by Temüjin to found the Mongol Empire (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

Temujin died in 1227 leaving his empire extended from the Pacific to the Black Sea. However, his military conquests have been prolonged by his successors. Nevertheless, before he died, he made a rule for his succession to the throne of the Mongol Empire. By this provision, Temujin divided the whole empire among his four sons/relatives.

Therefore, Batu (a grandson of Temujin) organized a Mongol military invasion of East and Central Europe.

Consequently, the principalities of North Russia became occupied in a quick (Blitzkrieg) winter action of 1237/1238.

The capital of the Kievan Rus’ – Kiev, was taken in 1240 (and razed to the ground) ending consequently the first independent state of the East Slavs.

The Mongols of Batu in 1240 started a two-directional military action on Poland and Hungary. During the assault, the Oder River was passed at Racibórz in Poland and the army of Batu quickly swept northwards down the river valley.

The city of Breslau in German or Wrocław in Polish became bypassed but on April 9th, 1241 combined German/Polish army was heavily defeated at Liegnitz/Legnica on the very border with the Holy Roman Empire. Only several days later, another Mongol army defeated the Hungarian army at Mohi in North Hungary. However, Europe became saved from further successful Mongol military raids only by the death of the Great Khan Ogedei (December 1241) as disputes over the throne between the successors arose and, therefore, Batu led his European army back to the lower Volga River (that was old Mongol military base) during the winter of 1242/1243. Kublai Khan, a grandson of Genghis Khan, succeeded in completing the occupation of China.

Christian Europe was saved from the Mongol military attacks for the reason of the death of Ogedei in 1241, the death of the Great Khan Möngke in 1259 saved the Islamic territories and peoples in Asia. The Mongol Great Khan Möngke decided to extend the boundaries of the Mongol empire to the east and west but in principle against the Chinese Empire of Sung as well as against the Assassins and the Islamic Caliphate up to Egypt. By himself, Möngke took charge of the war against China. The Western military campaign was in the charge of his younger brother, Hülegü. The Order of Assassins was conquered and Baghdad fell in 1258.

After the death of Möngke in 1259, armed conflict took place between rival groups that was causing Hülegü to concentrate his main forces in Trans-Caucasus leaving only weak forces in the Middle East. However, such development became soon known by the Egyptian authority of the Mameluke Empire/Sultanate (existing from 1250 to 1517). In other words, the Mameluke sultan took the opportunity to attack the Mongol army in Palestine (of pagan enemies of the faith). It was a famous battle near Nazareth at Ain Jalut on September 3rd, 1260 in which better armed and more numerous Mameluke army decisively defeated the Mongols. This battle, in fact, became a turning point of the time as the Mongol advance in the West was never again renewed to some serious degree. More important, the legends of their invincibility on the battlefield disappeared forever. 

The death of the Mongol leader Möngke (1259) ended the short-lived political unity of the Mongols and their huge empire.

The succession was for the first time decided by armed conflict. Kublai became ultimately successful in the struggle for the throne. The direct authority of succeeding Great Khans was in the eastern portion of the empire.

However, the western territories of the khanates of Chagatai (from Altai Mts. to the River of Amu Darya), Il-Khan (Persia), and Golden Horde (from the River of Yenisei to behind the River of Dnieper) gradually became independent states. Kublai ruling the Empire of the Great Khan stretching from the River of Amur up to the Himalayas Mt. became involved in the stubborn struggle with the southern Chinese Sung Empire up to 1279 and by unsuccessful efforts to conquer Japan in 1281 (due to terrible sea-storm).

Nonetheless, it was obvious that such a vast territory of the Eurasian Mongol Empire could not be administered by only one ruler.

In Persia and China, the Mongol ruling dynasties came to an end in less than a century.

In both khanates of Chagatai and Golden Horde society was of the lesser level of urbanization while the population was partly nomadic. As a matter of direct consequence, on these territories the Mongol rule lasted longer: for instance, on the lands of ex-Kievan Rus’, it lasted for more than two centuries. Nonetheless, the time of Tamerlane (Timur, 1336−1405) marked the ultimate end of the Mongol age of conquests.   

It has to be especially underlined that the Mongol appearance at the top of the world stage from 1206 to 1405 was both very sudden but extremely devastating too.

Several old states (kingdoms and empires) disappeared due to the Mongol conquest, destruction, plundering, and extermination of the citizens. The question, nevertheless, arose what was the reason for their quick and successful military success in Eurasia?

The answer is the result of the superior military strategy at the time, an excellent and very mobile cavalry, physical endurance, discipline, as well as coordinated way of military actions. The horsemanship of the Mongol cavalry was the most effective in military history.

It is usually not a very known fact that the Mongols had a military institution that we can call today a modern general staff. Nonetheless, on the other hand, the opposing armies either in Asia or (especially in) East Europe have been in the majority of cases uncoordinated, bulky, and therefore not so maneuverable on the battlefield.

Probably, the military invasion and quick occupation of the Kievan Rus’ in 1240 was the best example of the Mongol tactics and methods. As a result, the biggest part of the Kievan Rus’ became occupied for only several months during the winter campaign when the Mongol cavalry was moving across the frozen rivers with great speed. Historically, that was the only successful winter military invasion of Russia. 

As a matter of fact, the Mongols did not make any innovations concerning the old traditions of living as the nomads of the Central Asian steppes. Simply, the Mongols used both the methods and strategy of the earlier cavalry armies of the steppe nomads. However, under several masterminded military and political leaders (starting with Temujin and finishing with Tamerlan), these have been brought to the top of military efficiency producing the most terrible instrument of war of the time. 

Nonetheless, regarding the history of the Mongol Empire from 1206 to 1405 military deeds are best studied and known while, on the other hand, the social or cultural legacy is very difficult to discover and follow due to the lack of relevant sources.

The Mongol lordship was comparatively short and they did not succeed in establishing some distinctive and longtime civilization.

By 1368 the Mongols were expelled from China and in 1372 a Chinese army burned Karakorum.

The Mongol conquests, in fact, are understood as the end of an epoch. Historically it is quite known that city dwellers and peasants have been constantly in danger by attacks from both the fierce riders from the steppes and highlanders from the mountains. However, during the time of the Mongol Empire both gunpowder and firearms were invented that meant no longer the battle was going to be decided by endurance and manpower. Russia and China had suffered very much from nomad aggression by the people from the steppes which was the reason that during the succeeding centuries after the Mongol Empire, both nations firmly executed the policy of the pacification of wild and warmongering steppes’ herdsmen. 

The Mongol Empire before 1259 was the greatest land empire in history that was established by the ruthless and capable cavalry armies of Temujin and his direct successors.

The empire was composed of loosely related nomadic tribesmen who have been living in felt huts (yurts) and subsisted on meat and fermented mares’ milk (koumiss).

The empire stretched from the Korean Peninsula and Java to Poland and from the Tungus’ land to the Persian Gulf and Asia Minor. The Mongol armies were experts at siege warfare, learning from the Chinese.

The Byzantine Empire (the East Roman Empire) as well as West Europe became saved from further Mongol invasion only by the death of Ogedei in December 1241 just as his advance guard reached the Adriatic littoral (Dalmatia) while Japan was not invaded just due to kamikaze – sacred wind that destroyed the navy of Kublai Khan. 

Timur/Tamerlane or Tamburlaine, born Timur Lenk, (in power from 1369 to 1405) was the last great Mongol conqueror ruling his empire from Samarkand. He was leading an army combined by Mongols and several Turkic tribes and conquered a vast land which included Persia, North India, and Syria in the Middle East. Timur defeated the Ottoman army in the 1402 battle near Ankara (Angora), but died during an invasion of China. However, his, paradoxically, destroyed what remained of the Mongol Empire (Khanate of the Golden Horde and Chagatai Khanate). 

The Chagatai Khanate ended with the death of Timur while the Khanate of Golden Horde, which became reduced in territory and weakened in power due to his attacks, survived up to 1480 when the power of the Tartars was broken by Ivan III (the Great, 1462−1505).

The word horde is derived from the Mongol ordo (camp). The word golden recalls the splendid of the central camp of the khan Batu. He as the grandson of Genghis Khan invaded 1238 the Kievan Rus’ with the army composed of Mongol-Kipchaks. Batu burned Moscow and in 1240 occupied Kiev – the capital of the state. Golden Horde existed from 1242 to 1480 ruled by the Tartars of the Mongol Khanate of the Western Kipchaks. The army of Batu quickly swept through East Europe (including the Balkans) and after this military campaign, Batu founded his camp at Sarai on the Lower Volga River. The Mongol destruction of Kiev led to the rise of Moscow where in the course of time resistance to the Golden Horde started. Nevertheless, Timur defeated the Golden Horde in 1391 which tremendously weakened the Horde and its military power. Consequently, independent khanates emerged in Crimea and Kazan. 

Finally, as the last Mongol political inheritance, Timur was an ancestor of the Mogul dynasty in India. 

Contemporary Map on Mongolia

*

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

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a former university professor in Vilnius, Lithuania. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

Two weeks ago, I wrote an article about a horribly one-sided “analysis” published by The Telegraph. The author, Andrew Lilico, made a number of laughable claims about Russia and its military, insisting that it could never defeat the United Kingdom or the European Union, combined or separately. At that moment, London’s forces were going through at least two humiliating episodes. This is particularly true for the UK’s Navy, the very cornerstone of its military power projection capabilities. Two weeks ago, the situation was quite bad, as the Royal Navy was already in disarray. One of its two aircraft carriers, HMS “Queen Elizabeth”, broke down, missing a major NATO naval exercise. Then the Type 45 (also known as the Daring-class) destroyer HMS Diamond was forced to withdraw from the Red Sea after suffering “technical difficulties” (London refused to acknowledge if the Houthis had anything to do with “encouraging” the said “difficulties”).

And yet, this was nowhere near the end of the British military’s troubles. Namely, only a few days later, the second Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, failed to depart for the largest NATO exercise in 2024 due to a “minor fuel leak” that was reportedly detected on February 10. However, reports didn’t link this “minor leak” to the delay in the ship’s departure, meaning there might as well be other major problems with the aircraft carrier, infamous for numerous instances of breaking down or experiencing “minor technical difficulties” in barely half a decade of service. HMS Prince of Wales was to replace her sister ship HMS Queen Elizabeth as the lead ship of the Nordic Response 2024 naval drills, part of the wider Steadfast Defender 2024 exercise slated to take place in March. This would mean that the UK’s entire fleet of aircraft carriers is effectively out of service. And yet, its strategic planners want to go to war with Russia, an actual military superpower.

Worse yet, Moscow quite literally pioneered the modern concept of anti-ship warfare, with a plethora of missiles (including hypersonic) and torpedoes that are absolutely unmatched. And the UK’s most important military branch, the Royal Navy, is breaking down without coming anywhere near a Russian ship. Still, this isn’t even the icing on the cake when it comes to London’s “minor technical difficulties”. Namely, in the aforementioned analysis I wrote two weeks ago, I questioned whether the UK’s strategic arsenal is functioning properly. Although such information is certainly a state secret, it seems that my hypothesis was just confirmed, as London admitted that one of its UGM-133A “Trident II” (also known as “Trident D5”) missiles failed during a recent launch test. According to British media, this was the second time in a row that the troubled SLBM (submarine-launched ballistic missile), a weapon of strategic importance, has failed.

The previous test, conducted back in 2016, also failed. The last successful launch was in 2012, when HMS Vigilant, a Vanguard-class SSBN (nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine), fired a “Trident II” during a test. This means that the UK hasn’t had a successful SLBM launch in well over a decade, but it still believes that it can go up against Russia, a country with the world’s largest and most powerful strategic arsenal. The latest “Trident II” test was from the lead ship of its class, the HMS Vanguard, with reports indicating that London’s Defense Secretary Grant Shapps was overseeing it. The SLBM’s booster rockets failed and it fell into the sea “close to the launch site”, as the Sun reported (the “launch site” being the HMS Vanguard submarine itself). And yet, Secretary Shapps insists that he has “absolute confidence in ‘Trident’s’ submarines, missiles and nuclear warheads”. Perhaps he should recheck the definitions of the words “absolute” and “confidence”.

The UK relies solely on these submarines and missiles for its strategic capabilities. Had “Trident II” damaged the HMS Vanguard, it would’ve taken one-quarter or 25% of London’s strategic arsenal out of service, as the “Perfidious Albion” has only four such vessels, each armed with up to 16 SLBMs. It should be noted that HMS Vanguard just finished a seven-year-long overhaul and refueling. However, to make matters even worse, Secretary Shapps and the Head of the Royal Navy Admiral Sir Ben Kay were both on board the submarine during the launch test. The failures are also an embarrassment for the United States, as the missiles are manufactured by Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon’s premier military supplier. Still, all this didn’t prevent Secretary Shapps from adding to the general embarrassment by saying that “an anomaly did occur during the test on 30 January this year,”, but that “Trident II” SLBM is still “the most reliable weapons system in the world”.

According to his assessment, the test “reaffirmed the effectiveness of the UK’s nuclear deterrent” and that the “anomaly was event specific”, with “no implications for the reliability” of the UK’s strategic arsenal. London’s Ministry of Defense (MoD) made similar statements, insisting that HMS Vanguard and its crew had been “proven fully capable in their operations and that “the test had reaffirmed the effectiveness of the UK’s nuclear deterrent”, reaffirming Secretary Shapps’ statement that “Trident II” is the “most reliable weapons system in the world”. These sorts of dangerous self-delusions show just how out of touch the political West is when it comes to its assessments of starting a thermonuclear war against not one, but multiple global and regional superpowers, be it Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc. For instance, Pyongyang is often the first target of Western propaganda and ridicule, but its strategic arsenal has been proven to work flawlessly.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

COVID-19 Vaccination: Doctors Dying Suddenly Around the World

February 22nd, 2024 by Dr. William Makis

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccinated doctors continue to die suddenly around the world, although the deaths have slowed down slightly.

Feb. 9, 2024 – BRAZILIAN DOCTOR DEAD – 52 year old Cardiologist Dr. Gilmar Do Nascimento collapsed while exercising at a health club and died suddenly on Feb. 9, 2024.

 

Image

 

Feb. 5, 2024 – NSW, Australia – Dr.Mike Davis died unexpectedly from a brain aneurysm on Feb. 5, 2024. He leaves behind 3 children.

Image

Feb. 4,2024 – Brescia, Italy 26 year old Dr.Sofia Filippini had a “sudden illness” at her home on Feb. 4, 2024 and died unexpectedly in the hospital.

Image

Click here to read the full article.

*

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

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

Featured image is from COVID Intel


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warning: This Website May Harm Your Preconceptions

February 22nd, 2024 by Walter Gelles

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

According to Wikipedia and other CIA-controlled Establishment media, you are currently visiting:

an extremist website
a far-right website
a conspiracy theory website
a misinformation website
a far-left conspiracy website
or something of that nature.

In other words, you are visiting an independent website that searches for the truth, wherever the trail of evidence may lead.

The Powers-that-be do not like websites that question or contradict the Official Narratives, whether those narratives pertain to the Covid plandemic, the “safe and effective” Covid clot-shots that are actually quite harmful, climate change alarmism, the US/NATO war against Russia via proxy Ukraine, the subservience of the US Democrat/RINO Uniparty to globalist forces, or the ongoing US-backed Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people,

Silicon Valley traitors like Google and Facebook do NOT want you to share any such information, facts, opinions, reports, interviews, or documents.

Visiting any truth-telling independent website could disorient persons who have been brainwashed by the Mainstream Media (MSM) into believing the MSM’s lies and propaganda.  As former CIA Director William Casey said,

“We shall know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American people believes is false.” 

And CIA ex-Director William Colby observed: “The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” 

So scrap everything you think you’ve learned from the New York Times, the Washington Post, your city newspaper, and the major TV networks.

Important Takeaways

  • President John F. Kennedy, his brother Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr. were all assassinated by US Government-orchestrated plots.  These murders laid the groundwork for today’s belligerent US Empire run by a power-hungry, corrupt Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-

Academia-Think-Tank complex.

  • The three aforementioned murders were all the result of conspiracies.  The CIA popularized the term “conspiracy theory” to discredit anyone who questions the nonsensical official explanation for JFK’s murder.  Today the CIA-controlled Mainstream Media uses the term reflexively to smear and marginalize anyone who questions the Official Narratives regarding the Covid scamdemic, the lethal Covid genetic “vaccines,” the stolen elections of 2020 and 2022, the demonization of Vladimir Putin, or any other issue.
  • The three World Trade Center towers in New York were destroyed on September 11, 2001 by carefully planned controlled demolition and other technologies, NOT by 19 Muslim terrorists in planes.  Was it an inside job or an Israeli job?  You decide. See here.
  • Joseph Biden stole the 2020 Presidential election.  Trump won by a big margin.  Biden, though senile, confused, and mentally unfit for the job, knows he is an illegitimate usurper.
  • The Covid “vaccines” are NOT “safe and effective.”  They’re not effective—they don’t stop infection or prevent transmission.  And they most definitely are NOT safe.  These dangerous, untested genetic cocktails have already killed and severely injured millions of people in the US and around the world.  They should all be taken off the market immediately.
  • The “Covid-19 pandemic” was a globally orchestrated scam based on:
    • fraudulent PCR diagnostic tests designed to yield false-positives up to 97% of the time
    • mountains of junk data of nonexistent “Covid cases”
    • wholly unscientific and counterproductive lockdowns, mask mandates, and absurd social-distancing rituals
    • 24/7 fear-porn propaganda generated by the Pharma-controlled Mainstream Media, the government, and the World Health Organization which is largely owned by billionaire vaccine fanatic Bill Gates, a college dropout with no medical training
    • an alleged virus that has been shown to exist ONLY as a computer simulation supplied to the US by a Chinese Communist Party-directed bioweapons lab
    • There was no apocalyptic killer virus.  If any “novel” coronavirus does exist, it was milder than the seasonal flu according to the heavily padded official data
  • There is no climate emergency.  “Climate change,” formerly known as man-made “global warming,” is a hoax designed to advance a globalist cabal’s agenda. (See References below.)  The same globalist cabal was behind the Covid scamdemic.

In conclusion, do NOT believe anything you read or hear in the corporate-controlled, CIA-massaged establishment media.  Be skeptical of everything in the self-styled “liberal” and “progressive” media as well, since most of them support censorship, self-censorship, and the globalist cabal’s agenda on many key issues.

Question everything.  You should also question what you read and hear in the online independent news media, which may be the only place these days where the truth can emerge.

The truth will out.

This has been a Public Service Announcement.

 

*

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

This article was originally published on LewRockwell.com.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

“Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.”
-George Orwell, 1984

With each step, with each successive advancement in weaponized technology — which come faster and faster as the rate of development skyrockets — the corporate state inches closer to achieving its ultimate objective of totalitarian control.

Soon, barring effective resistance, suppressing information counter to approved narratives ex post facto will become unnecessary because verboten information will never make it out of the womb into the public consciousness in the first place.

In the end, of course, the social control will descend to the level of the individual mind itself, with neurological implants or other tools rendering the very act of wrongthink impossible.

We’re now on Step #2 of this three-part descent into techno-hell.

Via Reuters:

Google (GOOGL.O) is preparing to launch an anti-misinformation campaign across five countries in the European Union (EU), the company told Reuters ahead of the bloc’s parliamentary elections and tougher new rules tackling online content.”

In June, EU citizens will elect a new European Parliament to pass policies and laws in the region and lawmakers fear the spread of misinformation online could sway voters.

France, Poland and Germany accused Russia on Monday of putting together an elaborate network of websites to spread pro-Russian propaganda.

Europe’s Digital Services Act, which comes into force this week, will require very large online platforms and search engines to do more to tackle illegal content and risks to public security.

From this spring, Google’s internal Jigsaw unit which operates to tackle threats to societies, will run a series of animated ads across platforms such as TikTok and YouTube in five EU countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, and Poland.

Building on previous campaigns the company has tested in Germany and central Europe, Jigsaw said the new project was an opportunity to reach citizens in countries with some of the largest number of voters in the EU, utilising the company’s local expertise in these regions.

The ads will feature so-called ‘prebunking’ techniques, developed in partnership with researchers at the Universities of Cambridge and Bristol, aimed at helping viewers identify manipulative content before encountering it

‘We’ve spent so much time having these really polarised debates. Our democracy is at stake, and the temperature just keeps getting higher and higher,’ said Beth Goldberg, head of research at Jigsaw.”

Via Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review:

“It has been shown that debunking and fact-checking can lack effectiveness because of the continued influence of misinformation: once people are exposed to a falsehood, it is difficult to correct (De keersmaecker & Roets, 2017; Lewandowsky et al., 2012). Overall, there is a lack of evidence-based educational materials to support citizens’ attitudes and abilities to resist misinformation (European Union, 2018; Wardle & Derakshan, 2017). Importantly, most research-based educational interventions do not reach beyond the classroom (Lee, 2018).

Inoculation theory is a framework from social psychology that posits that it is possible to pre-emptively confer psychological resistance against (malicious) persuasion attempts (Compton, 2013; McGuire & Papageorgis, 1961). This is a fitting analogy, because ‘fake news’ can spread much like a virus[1] (Kucharski, 2016; Vosoughi et al., 2018). In the context of vaccines, the body is exposed to a weakened dose of a pathogen—strong enough to trigger the immune system—but not so strong as to overwhelm the body. The same can be achieved with information by introducing pre-emptive refutations of weakened arguments, which help build cognitive resistance against future persuasion attempts. Meta-analyses have shown that inoculation theory is effective at reducing vulnerability to persuasion (Banas & Rains, 2010).”

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Armageddon Prose.

Ben Bartee, author of Broken English Teacher: Notes From Exile, is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Note

[1] Well-trained liberals go wild for any such virus analogy, in which an alleged social ill is turned magically by a snap of the fingers and a propaganda blitzkrieg into a pseudo-Public Health™ issue.

US Government Arrogance Unparalleled in History

February 22nd, 2024 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

The Roman Emperor who allegedly appointed his horse to the Roman Senate has long been a hallmark of arrogance. The US State Department has now exceeded it by declaring that Russian President Putin’s gift of a car to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un violated “international sanctions.” Washington’s sanctions are “international” sanctions that prohibit the President of Russia, an independent country, from giving a present to the leader of another independent country. There you have it. I wouldn’t be surprised if Washington were to tell Putin that brushing his teeth violates international sanctions.

Russia should never have honored such a charge with a reply. Instead, Putin should have given Kim Jong-un another car. But if a reply was made, it should have ridiculed Washington’s assumption that the US controlled Putin’s gift-giving. Instead, the usually astute Maria Zakharova fell into the trap and disputed that Russia had violated “international” sanctions, thus placing Russia on the defensive about the power Washington wields over Putin’s personal decisions.

Now the President of Russia has committed a new crime. He gave a present disapproved by Washington to another head of state.

What image does Washington’s attempt to micro-manage Putin’s personal behavior create of the United States? Is Washington going to further emphasize its impotence by imposing more ineffectual and pointless sanctions?

Will Washington ever stop making a fool of America?

*

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

Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

When the Red Army seized control of Berlin in early May 1945 hoisting the Soviet flag on the Reichstag building within the besieged city, jubilations erupted across Europe and around the world.

The European phase of the Second Imperialist War cost the lives of tens of millions of people in the fight against fascism.

In the North African state of Algeria thousands of people went into the streets on May 8, 1945 celebrating the defeat of the German military while at the same time demanding an immediate end to French colonialism. Instead of joining in with the people of Algeria, a country which had been subjected to imperialist rule since 1830, the French police and military opened fire killing thousands in one of the largest massacres of the colonial period.

Details related to this horrendous act of repression ordered by the French military and government were suppressed and then denied by the officials in Paris. Algeria, as a result of the German occupation of France after 1940, had become the de facto capital of the European state.

In one account of the massacre, it emphasizes that:

“Panic ensued and clashes between the Algerians and French quickly led to violence with the French using all attempts to control the population. The colonial forces launched an air and ground offensive against several eastern cities, particularly in Setif and Guelma. The head of the temporary government of France at the time, General De Gaulle, ordered for farmers and villagers from surrounding areas to be killed in what quickly became lynching operations and summary executions. Thousands of bodies accumulated so quickly that burying them was impossible, so they were often dumped in wells or surrounding ravines. The violence would continue until 22 May when the tribes surrendered. By then, 45,000 Algerian men, women and children in and around the region of Setif, Guelma and Kherrata had been killed along with 102 French casualties.” 

The May 8 massacre and subsequent events in Algeria fueled nationalist sentiment which eventually created the conditions for the initiation of an armed struggle nine years later in November 1954. The war of liberation lasted until 1962 when the French imperialists were forced to grant independence to Algeria after 132 years of occupation.

These events in Algeria during the post-war period were by no means isolated incidents. The following year beginning on August 12, 1946, thousands of African miners struck in the Union of South Africa. The strike was led by J.B. Marks of the Communist Party and the African National Congress (ANC).

The mine bosses and police responded to the strike with brute force. At least 9 miners were killed and more than 1,200 were wounded and injured. Although the strike was ruthlessly suppressed, the degree of militancy exemplified by the African Miners Union would have an impact on the overall struggle for national liberation led by the ANC and its allies during the subsequent years during the 1950s.

In the Gold Coast, later known as Ghana, the African military veterans were angered over the failure of the British colonial forces to pay benefits for their service during the Second Imperialist War. On February 28, 1948, during a demonstration by the ex-servicemen in the capital Accra, the British security forces opened fire on the march killing three people. In response, strikes and rebellions erupted throughout various regions of the country.

According to one account of these developments:

“The people’s protests lasted five days. By 1st March the colonial governor had declared a state of emergency and put in place a new Riot Act. On 12th March the governor ordered the arrest of ‘The Big Six,’ leading members of the UGCC, which included Kwame Nkrumah, as he believed they were responsible for orchestrating the disturbances. The Big Six were incarcerated in remote northern parts of the country. It was around this time that Nkrumah and the other five began to have significant disagreements over the direction of the movement for independence. By 1949 Nkrumah had broken away from the UGCC to form the Convention People’s Party (CPP) taking the masses of the people with him. The CPP, through a campaign of ‘Positive Action,’ achieved an end to the Gold Coast colony and brought the new dawn of independent Ghana on 6th March 1957.” 

Impact of the Cold War on the African American Struggle

These events in Africa had a tremendous impact on people of African descent in the U.S. Even prior to the Rand Miners’ strike of 1946, the Council on African Affairs (CAA) led by Dr. William A. Hunton, Paul Robeson and others held a solidarity rally with the South African movement at Madison Square Garden in New York City on June 6, mobilizing tens of thousands. The CAA was founded in 1937 by Robeson, Hunton, Max Yergen and many others.

However, after the conclusion of World War II, the CAA would come under fire by the U.S. government which labelled the organization as a “communist front.” Similar attacks were also carried out against the Civil Rights Congress (CRC) since both organizations were supported by the Communist Party.

Robeson, Du Bois and his wife, Shirley Graham Du Bois, were targeted for their support of the socialist states and national liberation movements in Africa. After they attended the Paris Peace Conference of 1949 their passports were confiscated, and Du Bois was later charged with being an “agent of a foreign power” due to his opposition to the Cold War which threatened the commencement of another global conflagration this time involving the socialist states and U.S. imperialism.

Although the case against W.E.B. Du Bois collapsed, many others were indicted between 1948 and 1951 on numerous charges including failure to register as a foreign agent and conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government. The Smith Act, which outlawed the advocacy of the violent overthrow of the government, was utilized in the indictments and prosecutions of more than 100 members of the Communist Party. Lawyers which provided legal assistance to the defendants were held by the judge in contempt of court and faced disbarment and jail sentences.

The Cold War and the Mass Civil Rights Movement

In May 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its Brown v. Topeka ruling which declared that the “separate but equal” decision in the Plessy v. Ferguson case of 1896 was inherently unconstitutional. The following year with the lynching of 14-year-old Emmett Till in Mississippi and the quest for justice in the case by his mother, Mamie Till Mosby, created an atmosphere of discontent among the African American people.

Although the Mississippi courts refused to convict the two murderers of Till, by December of 1955, the Montgomery Bus Boycott erupted sparked by the arrest of Mrs. Rosa L. Parks of the NAACP who had worked closely with E.D. Nixon, an organizer for the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a Baptist minister in Montgomery, became the spokesperson for the movement.

After the successful conclusion of the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1956 when the Supreme Court ruled against segregation in the municipal transportation service, King and his comrades founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1957. Although a Civil Rights Bill was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1957 aimed at strengthening the capacity of the Justice Department to enforce the right to vote among African Americans, progress remained extremely slow for the remainder of the decade.

However, by 1960, student demonstrations erupted across the South against legalized segregation involving public accommodations and private businesses. During April, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) was formed at an SCLC sponsored conference held at Shaw University in Raleigh, North Carolina. Ella Baker, who had served as the executive secretary of SCLC, encouraged the students to form their own independent organization.

SNCC moved throughout various areas of the South to organize local communities and students to advance the struggle against segregation and later for voting rights. The Mississippi Summer Project of 1964 brought together numerous Civil Rights groups in the state where they engaged in voter registration and the formation of the Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP).

Other important developments in 1964 would prove highly significant. Malcolm X broke with the Nation of Islam forming the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU) on June 28 after a tour of the African continent and several countries in West Asia. Malcolm’s emphasis on armed self-defense, Black Nationalism and Pan-Africanism had a monumental influence on SNCC and other young people.

By 1966, when Stokely Carmichael, later known as Kwame Ture, became SNCC chairman, Black-led urban rebellions had increased in their frequency across the U.S. It was the work of SNCC in Lowndes County, Alabama in 1965-66 which led to the creation of the original Black Panther Party. The Black Panther concept rapidly spread to other regions of the U.S. In October 1966, the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense was founded in Oakland, California under the leadership of Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale.

Black Panther Party march

The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Congress continued their repressive campaigns against the leadership of social movements under the guise of fighting communism and subversion.

Many people were killed during the more than 200 urban rebellions which took place between 1964 and 1970. More than twenty members of the Black Panther Party were murdered by police and those operating in their interest. Hundreds of Panthers and members of other revolutionary organizations were framed on trump-up charges and sent to jails and prisons.

Therefore, the attempted suppression of national liberation movements in Africa coincided with the efforts to overthrow the socialist countries while simultaneously targeting Black-led social movements in the U.S. These developments further exposed the falsehood that the U.S. political system was based upon democratic practice and the right to due process.

*

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

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Algerian massacres during May 1945; All images in this article are from the author

Der gebildete Erzfeind

February 22nd, 2024 by Peter Koenig

Alle Artikel von Global Research können in 51 Sprachen gelesen werden, indem Sie die Schaltfläche Website übersetzen unterhalb des Namens des Autors aktivieren (nur in der Desktop-Version verfügbar).

Um den täglichen Newsletter von Global Research (ausgewählte Artikel) zu erhalten, klicken Sie hier.

Klicken Sie auf die Schaltfläche “Teilen”, um diesen Artikel per E-Mail an Ihre Freunde und Kollegen weiterzuleiten. Folgen Sie uns auf Instagram und Twitter und abonnieren Sie unseren Telegram-Kanal. Sie können die Artikel von Global Research gerne weiterveröffentlichen und mit anderen teilen.

***

Vorab gebührt Tucker Carlson und Wladimir Putin große Anerkennung dafür, dass sie sich bereit erklärten, miteinander zu sprechen — oder besser gesagt, dass Präsident Putin mit Tucker Carlson gesprochen hat, war es doch eine Lektion in russischer Geschichte, Kultur und Seele, die Präsident Putin nicht nur Tucker erteilt hat, sondern dem Rest der westlichen Welt, die mehrheitlich keine Ahnung davon hat, was Russland ist und wie es tickt.

Tucker teilte unmittelbar nach seinem Interview seine Überlegungen dazu mit …

„Man muss schon verrückt sein, zu glauben, dass Russland die Krim aufgeben wird.“

„Man muss schon ein Idiot sein, wenn man dächte, Russland sei eine Expansionsmacht — es ist bereits riesig und braucht kein zusätzliches Territorium.“

„Man muss schon ein Idiot sein, zu glauben, Russland könne mit Panzern in Wien einmarschieren. Für solche Absichten gibt es keine Beweise.“

Und bezüglich des Wunsches der US-Führung nach einem Regimewechsel in Russland: „Wir werden von Irren regiert.“

Hier ist das gesamte Interview mit Transkript zu finden.

Nach diesem mit hoher Spannung und Erwartungen angekündigten Interview wurde Tucker Carlson von westlichen Medien und Politikern umfassend dämonisiert — „Wie können Sie es wagen, mit unserem Hauptfeind zu sprechen!“, lautete der allgemeine Tenor.

Frau von der Leyen, nicht gewählte Präsidentin der Europäischen Kommission, sprach davon Tucker Carlson durch ein Einreiseverbot in die EU zu „sanktionieren“. Das ist mehr als lächerlich und wird niemals geschehen. Das schiere Ausmaß der Propaganda einer solchen Äußerung zeigt, wie verzweifelt die EU ist, in die Fußstapfen der USA zu treten — fallen doch die EU sowie die Herren in Washington rapide auseinander.

In den USA wurde lauthals gefordert, Tucker die US-Staatsbürgerschaft zu entziehen und ihm die Wiedereinreise in die USA zu verbieten. Und diese Stimmen waren sogar lauter als jene, die den von der Biden-Regierung verantworteten Immigrationsskandal an der texanischen Grenze anprangerten, von dem viele fürchten, er könne sich von einer Destabilisierung der US-Gesellschaft zu einem regelrechten Bürgerkrieg auswachsen.

Dies ist der Stand der Dinge in einer nicht verrückten, sondern untergegangenen Welt. Wie kommt man da wieder raus?

Tucker Carlson versuchte eine Öffnung dem Osten, Russland, gegenüber; er bereitete damit ein Friedensangebot vor und appellierte damit an das Gewissen von US-Politikern. Wird es funktionieren? Das bleibt abzuwarten.

All jenen, die noch immer der Verleumdung Wladimir Putins durch den Mainstream Glauben schenken, jedoch immer mehr Zweifel hegen und die Wahrheit erfahren wollen, erzählt Putin eine außergewöhnliche wahre Geschichte über Russland — bis zurück ins 8. Jahrhundert — und legt dabei sehr deutlich dar, dass nicht nur die östliche, sondern auch die westliche Ukraine — Kiew — historisch ein Teil Russlands sind.

Vergleicht man diese russische Kenntnis der Geschichte mit dem zionistischen Anspruch auf Palästina, weiß man, wer die Wahrheit spricht und wer für Größe, Dominanz und Macht lügt wie gedruckt — um ein Groß-Israel zu schaffen, das aus dem Nichts gestampft wird, und um sich der Welt als „das auserwählte Volk“ zu präsentieren.

Glücklicherweise wird das Licht schließlich über die Dunkelheit siegen und die Zionisten werden ihre niederträchtigen Ziele nicht erreichen. Unglücklicherweise jedoch könnte ihre Niederwerfung wegen der krankhaften Unterstützung durch westliche Führer jahrelang dauern — und die Zahl der Todesopfer während dieser Zeit könnte astronomisch hoch werden.

Und wer sagt oder glaubt überhaupt, dass das Ganze mit Groß-Israel aufhören wird?

Nach dem, was heute zu sehen und auch in den Aussagen von Präsident Putin zu lesen ist, ist der Westen wild entschlossen, in einen Krieg gegen den Iran zu ziehen — wegen dessen Reichtümern und weil er durch seine Verbindung zu Russland und China eine Störung für den Westen darstellt.

Dieser Westen ist eine Kombination aus dem sterbenden Imperium USA und der Marionette Europa mit ihrer nicht gewählten Führung sowie den einzelnen EU-Ländern mit Implantaten des Weltwirtschaftsforums wie den Young Global Leaders (YGL), also Tyrannen, die privilegiert genug waren, Klaus Schwabs Akademie für Diktatur und Faschismuslehre zu durchlaufen, wie Trudeau, Macron, Von der Leyen, Scholz, Rutte und andere.

Der Iran ist ein Machtzentrum für die neuen BRICS. Ein Angriff gegen den Iran vonseiten des Westens wäre so selbstmörderisch wie ein Angriff gegen Russland oder China. Russland hat derzeit die Führung der BRICS inne. Unter Wladimir Putin wird dies eine starke Führung sein.

Nichts hiervon hat Präsident Putin in Worte gefasst — aber sowohl das, was er nicht gesagt hat und zwischen den Zeilen gelesen werden kann, als auch das, was er gesagt hat, macht Präsident Putin zu einem beeindruckenden Diplomaten und führenden Staatsmann. Der Westen hat niemanden seiner Art vorzuweisen. Dieses Interview könnte ein herausragender Meilenstein (in) der Geschichte werden.

Obwohl er jahrelang ununterbrochen mit westlichen Beleidigungen und Sanktionen überschüttet wurde, kam Putin kein einziges beleidigendes Wort gegen westliche Führer über die Lippen — im Gegenteil: Als er von Tucker gefragt wurde, wie Putins Amtskollegen auf dessen Annäherungen, Gespräche oder Verhandlungsvorschläge beispielsweise zur Ukraine reagierten, sagte Putin, dazu würde er sich nicht äußern, und der gute Journalist, der Tucker sei, solle doch besser direkt an der Quelle nachfragen.

Es ist auch klar, dass Russland keinerlei Expansion anstrebt und auch nicht in mindestens den letzten 300 Jahren. Russlands Territorium von etwa 17,1 Millionen Quadratkilometern — davon etwa 16,4 Millionen Quadratkilometer Landmasse, die etwa 11 Prozent der gesamten Landmasse der Erde darstellen — mit den Reichtümern der dort befindlichen Rohstoffe ist so riesig, dass kein Bedarf an noch mehr besteht, wie Putin früher bereits mehrfach betont hat.

Es gibt überhaupt keinen Grund, warum die skandinavischen Länder, die kürzlich der NATO beigetreten sind, eine russische Invasion fürchten sollten. Die hässliche Wahrheit ist, dass die Führung dieser Länder dies weiß, aber dennoch bei der Russland-Russland-Russland-Dämonisierung der US, EU und NATO mitspielt.

Glauben sie, dass das gut für sie ist? Oder wurden sie gezwungen, sogar bedroht, mitzuspielen? Was bekommen sie im Gegenzug für die von ihnen verbreiteten Lügen und die Angst, die sie den Menschen einpflanzen? Für das Verbrechen, das sie begehen? Als Putin über die vom Westen sogenannte „Invasion“ der Ukraine am 22. Februar 2022 sprach, stellte er klar, dass der Krieg bereits 2014 begonnen hatte, als am 21. Februar 2014, fast auf den Tag genau acht Jahre zuvor, der demokratisch gewählte und russlandfreundliche Präsident Janukowitsch durch einen Putsch gestürzt wurde und aus der Ukraine fliehen musste.

NATO-Generalsekretär Stoltenberg sagte kürzlich dasselbe — dass der Krieg bereits 2014 begann.

Der große Diplomat Präsident Putin sagte nicht, dass dieser Staatsstreich von den USA mithilfe der Europäischen Union inspiriert und von langer Hand geplant wurde — erinnern Sie sich an Victoria Nulands berüchtigtes „f*ck the EU“ —, aber für die meisten Zuhörer und natürlich auch den Interviewer Tucker Carlson war dies offensichtlich.

Präsident Putin war sichtlich tief enttäuscht und beunruhigt, als er herausfand, dass das Minsk-Abkommen von September 2014 und „Minsk II“ von März 2015, die beide von Frankreich und Deutschland unterstützt wurden und nach denen die Ukraine im Wesentlichen abrüsten, neutral werden und ihre Gesellschaft entnazifzieren sollte, nie eingehalten werden sollten.

Im Dezember 2022 sagte die damalige Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel gegenüber der Zeit:

„Das Minsker Abkommen von 2014 war ein Versuch, der Ukraine Zeit zu verschaffen; sie nutzte dies auch, um stärker zu werden, wie man heute sehen kann.“

Das war eine Ohrfeige — nicht nur für Wladimir Putin. sondern für den Großteil der „unschuldigen“ — noch immer gläubigen — Welt.

Die brillante und möglicherweise beste Zusammenfassung des 2 Stunden und 7 Minuten langen Interviews vom 9. Februar 2024 erfolgte in einem sechsminütigen Video von Scott Ritter im Gespräch mit Sputnik auf „X“:

Herr Ritter lobte sowohl Präsident Putin als auch Tucker Carlson für ihren Mut und ihre Kühnheit in vielerlei Hinsicht sowie vor allem für ihre Professionalität, sich zusammenzusetzen und über die Ukraine zu sprechen. Wie wir inzwischen jedoch wissen, war das Interview viel mehr als ein Austausch von Ansichten, Fragen und Antworten über die Ukraine. Das Interview war vielmehr eine Lektion für die Welt über die gemeinsame Vergangenheit von Russland und der Ukraine und — unausgesprochen — über die westliche Einmischung in eine eindeutig interne Angelegenheit.

Scott Ritter bezeichnete das Interview als eine „Tour de Force“, bei der der russische Präsident ein US-Publikum in die Nuancen russischer Geschichte und die Komplexität der russischen Seele einführte. Wenn man nämlich nicht einmal die Grundlagen der russischen Geschichte und die Funktionsweise Russlands versteht, unternimmt man laut Scott Ritter eine Reise ohne Landkarte. Er glaubt, dass dies vielleicht den eigentlichen Wert dieses Interviews darstellt — eine Landkarte zu zeichnen.

Scott Ritter meint, Putin habe nicht nur für Tucker Carlson eine Landkarte erstellt, damit er versteht, was Russlands Herz und Seele ausmacht, sondern für die gesamte westliche Welt, die nun beginnen kann, dies zu begreifen.

Erneut versuchte Präsident Putin, den Westen verstehen zu lassen, worum es Russland geht — nämlich nicht um Aggression und Expansion, sondern um das Streben nach Harmonie und Frieden bei gleichzeitiger Verteidigung der Ostukraine — und hier vor allem den Donbass — vor den Nazi-Aggressionen Kiews. Er weiß genau, wovon er spricht.

Die Nazi-Streitkräfte des Stepan Bandera kämpften Seite an Seite mit Hitlers Nazi-Armee gegen die Sowjetunion und verursachten unzählige Tote und Elend.

Herr Putin sprach in diesem Interview eindeutig von einer unbedingten Entnazifizierung der Ukraine und wies auch auf die drei anderen Hauptziele der russischen Intervention hin: Die Ukraine zu einem neutralen Staat zu machen, keine NATO in der Ukraine und zuvorderst die Verteidigung der russischen Gemeinden, vor allem in der Ostukraine, vor den Nazi-Aggressionen Kiews.

Tucker Carlson öffnete die Tür zu einem modernen Russland, dazu, Präsident Putin zu verstehen, zur Geschichte Russlands und zur russischen Seele. Präsident Putins unermüdliches Bemühen um Harmonie und Zusammenarbeit ist vielleicht einer der wichtigsten Eckpunkte, der sich durch das gesamte Interview zieht.

Herr Putin weiß natürlich, dass der Westen bis jetzt keinerlei Interesse an einem Bemühen um Kooperation und ein harmonisches Zusammenleben mit Russland hat. Im Gegenteil — der Westen möchte Russland schwächen, daher der sinnlose Krieg, der mit Billionen von Dollars und Euros an Steuergeldern der USA und der EU finanziert wird, um Russland zu beherrschen und sich seiner Rohstoffe zu bemächtigen.

Trotz dieser Erkenntnis könnten Putins positive Signale und Schwingungen eines Tages Früchte tragen. Das ist der Sinn der Bemühungen um Frieden, von Zusammenarbeit und Freundschaft — und es ist ein Hauptziel der Philosophie des Tao.

Laut RT (Russia Today) vom 10. Februar 2024 wurde das zweistündige Interview in den ersten Stunden nach seinem Erscheinen am Freitag, dem 9. Februar mehr als 46 Millionen Mal auf Carlsons „X“-Account (früher Twitter) und knapp eine Million Mal auf YouTube aufgerufen.

In einem früheren Beitrag auf „X“ Anfang der Woche beschuldigte Carlson die westlichen Medien, „ihre Leser und Zuschauer“ anzulügen, indem sie Kiews Standpunkt verbreiteten und den Russlands ignorierten.

„Das ist falsch“, sagte er. „Die US-Amerikaner haben das Recht, alles über einen Krieg zu erfahren, in den sie verwickelt sind.“

Marija Sacharowa, Pressesprecherin des russischen Außenministeriums, sagte in einem Gespräch mit der russischen Zeitung Izvestia:

„Das ist phänomenal. Ihre Reaktion entlarvt die Verlogenheit ihrer Ansätze so sehr, dass man es, offen gesagt, nicht glauben kann.“

Laut Frau Sacharowa „erlitten sie einen hysterischen Anfall — das Weiße Haus, das Außenministerium, all die Mainstream-Medien schreien lauthals nur eines: Dass man es (Präsident Putins Video) nicht ansehen solle und dass ein US-Journalist dieses Interview nicht führen sollte.“

Sie fügte hinzu, dass ein solches Verhalten den Bemühungen Washingtons, sich als Leuchtturm der Moral, der Menschenrechte, der Demokratie (Anmerkung des Autors: wenn es denn je eine „Demokratie“ gab) und der Meinungsfreiheit zu präsentieren, den Wind aus den Segeln nimmt.

Frau Sacharowa hat mehr als Recht, und was sie sagt, gilt auch für die rückgratlose EU. Bleiben wir dran und warten auf weitere Folgen dieses Interviews — und hoffentlich wenden sich diese vom Negativen ins Positive.

*

Hinweis an die Leser: Bitte klicken Sie auf die obigen Schaltflächen zum Teilen. Folgen Sie uns auf Instagram und Twitter und abonnieren Sie unseren Telegram-Kanal. Fühlen Sie sich frei, Artikel von Global Research erneut zu veröffentlichen und zu teilen.

Redaktionelle Anmerkung: Dieser Text erschien zuerst unter dem Titel „Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin Interview: What President Putin Really Said”. Er wurde von Gabriele Herb ehrenamtlich übersetzt und vom ehrenamtlichen Manova-Korrektoratteam lektoriert.

Dank an das Manova Magazin.

Peter Koenig ist geopolitischer Analyst und ehemaliger leitender Wirtschaftswissenschaftler bei der Weltbank und der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO), wo er über 30 Jahre lang in der ganzen Welt tätig war. Er ist Autor von Implosion – Ein Wirtschaftsthriller über Krieg, Umweltzerstörung und Konzerngier und Co-Autor von Cynthia McKinneys Buch “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter ist wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter des Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Er ist auch ein nicht ansässiger Senior Fellow des Chongyang Instituts der Renmin Universität in Peking.

Foto: Ververidis Vasilis/Shutterstock.com

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

From inside the Gaza Strip, Ibtisam Madhi, a Gazan freelance journalist, who specializes in reporting on social issues for The Intercept and +972 Magazine, recently reported how Zionist Israel’s war has intentionally, methodically, perpetrated ruin against thousands of years of rich heritage in Gaza that Palestinian experts decry as cultural genocide.

   Left: 13th Century Qasr al-Basha (Pasha Palace) in Gaza City; Right: Omari Mosque, Oldest in Northern Gaza

 

Left: Ruins of Qasr al-Basha; Right: Ruins of Omari Mosque

 

The Great Omani Mosque (al-Masjid Ghazza al-Kabir), the largest and oldest mosque in Northern Gaza’s ‘Old City’, originally was an ancient temple, believed to stand on the site of a Philistine temple going back some 2,500 years, that, originally, was dedicated to Marnas – god of rain and grain. Local legend has it that it once was used by Samson who is said to be buried under the once existing mosque.

Carved on the upper tier of the temple’s columns, that were originally brought from a 3rd century Jewish synagogue in Caesarea Meritina, the columns depicted Jewish cultic objects – a menorah, a shofar, a lulav and etrog – surrounded by a decorative wreath with the inscription “Hananyah Son of Jacob”, in both Hebrew and Greek. 

Eventually, the temple was later transformed into a Byzantine church in the 5th century and in the 7th century was converted into an Arabic mosque during the historical period of the Islamic conquests. In the 10th century, the Arab geographer Ibn Battuta described it as “exquisitely beautiful”.

Though later destroyed by the Mongols in 1260, it was then restored again, following a major earthquake, by the Ottomans in the 15th century that, in turn, was severely damaged by the British during WWI yet, again, restored in 1925, by the Supreme Muslim Council, 

Before it was utterly destroyed by the Zionists in 2023, this Jewish symbol had passed through the centuries as a testament to demonstrate peaceful co-existence between Arabs and Jewish peoples. since turned it into virtual rubble.

In Terms of Degrees of Savagery, Zionism Puts ISIS to Shame

By now, after nearly five months of incessant, indiscriminate, methodical, genocidal pounding of the Palestinians total way of life in their former homelands of Palestine by the conquering Zionists, if not the previous seventy-five years of the same ill-treatment by these new Jewish barbarians of literally every last remnant trace of anything that remotely smacks of the memory or former existence of the Palestinians, in what the Zionists now call Ersatz Israel, the stark reality of it all should be blatantly obvious to anyone who has given what all is happening so much as even half-a-moment of conscious thought to it all. 

For this is one of the worst examples in living memory of mass extermination ever committed against the human race by the human race upon itself.

Courtesy, for sure, of not just the tyrant Bibi Netanyahu and entire invading population of Zionist Jewry’s Settler Colonial Project; but especially of President Biden, one of its main architects, if not its chief architect and conqueror, as well as every: American politician; American citizen, politicians and citizenry, as well as , those of Canada, England, France, Germany, and every other so-called one-time Western politician and nation of the world. Especially if they all still pride themselves on being, or aspiring to becoming, truly democratic, freedom-loving peoples and political states; rather than just the pawns, dupes and cannon fodder of yet the 21st century’s new insidious brand of fascism the world has yet to witness; especially with the impending return of Trumpism and his/its in-coming hordes of MAGA-ITES. Or should one more correctly label them as a new species of human MAGGOTS that feed on dead or dying carrion?

But does anyone, or enough of everyone’s, really care, or is the world simply sleep-walking towards some eventual monumental world, AI-induced conflict that will end up becoming a 1,000 X’s 1,000 ‘Gaza’s’ or ‘Ukraine’s?

Yes, Ukraine another one of those hideous way station stops along the way by the MAGGOTS that feed on America’s and the world’s dead or dying body, intent upon leading us all to hell and damnation.

Keeping up with all the constant carnage is almost too much for the sanity of the human mind to bear; or as Aussie’s, who have such a knack for always slipping in a bit of humorous wisdom in the most dreadful of circumstances, would say in such instances, “How much can a Koala Bear? Or, as still many other so wise humorists among them might also say to all the megalomaniacal war monger politicians and militarists who persist in spewing out so much crap that is leading the world to the edge of the precipice, “Hey mate! Why don’t you finally give your other end a chance for a change?”

Persisting scary images of a future filled with the barbarian ISIS hordes of the recent past returning en masse immediately come to mind.

*

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

Jerome Irwin is a Canadian-American writer who, in previous lives, has been involved in a wide range of diverse and varied worlds, including the Criminology profession with an American police department, and later for a brief-time in the capacity of clandestine communications with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. For decades, in various professional capacities as an educator, researcher, geo-political analyst, and writer. Irwin has sought to call attention to a broad spectrum of world problems pertaining to the degradation and unsustainability caused by a host of environmental-ecological-spiritual-ideological issues that exist between the conflicting world philosophies of indigenous and non-indigenous peoples.

Irwin is the author of the book, “The Wild Gentle Ones; A Turtle Island Odyssey” (www.turtle-island-odyssey.com), a spiritual odyssey among the native peoples of North America that over the decades has produced numerous articles pertaining to: Ireland’s Fenian Movement; native peoples Dakota Access Pipeline Resistance Movement; AIPAC, Israel & the U.S. Congress anti-BDS Movement; the historic Battle for Palestine & Siege of Gaza, as well as; the many violations constantly being waged by industrial-corporate-military-propaganda interests against the World’s Collective Soul. To examine a portion of the eclectic body of his work goggle: “Jerome Irwin, writer” The author and his wife are long-time residents on the North Shore of British Columbia.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: The oldest mosque in Gaza, the Omari Mosque, was severely damaged in Israeli bombardment, 2 January 2024 (Mohammed al-Hajjar/MEE)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

Valentine’s Day in the Arab world is called, Eid al Hob, translated into ‘Love Holiday’. When Former Prime Minister, Saad Hariri, returned to Beirut recently, his followers clearly showed their love of him in the hundreds as he prayed at his father’s grave on February 14.

Hariri’s father, Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, was assassinated on February 14, 2005 in Beirut.  

Hairi founded the Future Movement party in 2007, and served as Prime Minister from November 9, 2009 to June 13, 2011.  After three years abroad, he returned to Lebanon on August 8, 2014 and served a second term as Prime Minister from December 18, 2016 to January 21, 2020.

Hariri endorsed Michel Aoun as President in 2016, and this demonstrated Hariri was willing to make big compromises to ensure short-term political stability.

In November 2017, while on a visit to Saudi Arabia, he was detained by Saudi officials and forced to resign. However, Arab and Western leaders stepped in to negotiate his release and return to Lebanon. This was apparently a message from the Saudi leadership to Hariri of their displeasure at his compromise with the Iranian-backed resistance group, Hezbollah.

In 2019, protests began in Lebanon against the corrupt ruling elite. Lebanese currency has lost more than 90 percent of its value, leaving Lebanese families below the poverty line. A huge explosion in the port of Beirut in August 2020 killed more than 200 people, and most people blame the political elite for the reason no one has been held to account.

Hariri had a working relationship with Hezbollah as he balanced the views of the Sunni sect in Lebanon with the Shite sect, two of the three largest sects in Lebanon, but was never able to address the fundamental problems facing Lebanon.

On January 24, 2022 he announced that he had suspended his involvement in political activities and he did not run in the parliamentary elections on May 15, 2022. 

“I am convinced that there is no room for any positive opportunity for Lebanon in light of Iranian influence, international confusion, national division, flaring sectarianism and the withering of the state,” Mr. Hariri said on TV.  Since then, he has been living a private life in UAE.

Like his father, Hariri had a leadership vision that encouraged business, stayed close to the US and France, and maintained good relations with Saudi Arabia, where he was born, raised and holds citizenship.

On February 18, Mufti of the Lebanese Republic, Sheikh Abdul-Latif Derian, met with Hariri at Dar al-Fatwa, where they discussed the current situation in Lebanon, and ways of promoting the national morale.

At the Maison du Centre, Hariri met with former Parliamentary Vice-President Elie Ferzli, Aounist MP Alain Aoun, Marada leader and presidential candidate Sleiman Frangieh and his son, MP Tony Frangieh.

“In my opinion, Hariri’s return to political work has begun, and will be decisive,” said Ferzli. 

Hariri also met privately with Speaker of the House Nabih Berri.  Previously, he had met separately with the US Ambassador, Lisa Johnson, and Najib Mikati, the caretaker Prime Minister. Hariri also received other ambassadors based in Lebanon, including France’s Herve Magro and Egypt’s Ala’ Moussa.

Lebanon is a small country, but has been used as a place for regional powers to fight for control. From one side there is the US Embassy which tries to protect the interests of Israel, the neighbor to the south. Iran flexes its muscles through the support of Hezbollah, which provides the security of Lebanon’s southern border.  Israel has invaded and occupied Lebanon in the past which left thousands dead, injured and imprisoned in the south. Israel continues to occupy Shebaa Farms in the south. The Lebanese Army is too weak to protect Lebanon from Israel because the US government refuses to give them the weapons and training they need.  Also, there is the influence from France which has historical ties in Lebanon, including linguistic commonalities.

Can Hariri return to Lebanon and solve its many woes?  It will take more than just one man to repair the economic scene, banking reforms, sectarian strife, and competing foreign pressures. Band-aids and stop-gap fixes will not be enough. Lebanon needs a vast systemic rehabilitation, and doesn’t even have an elected President yet.

While Hariri was in Beirut, groups marched in Tarik Jdeideh, a Sunni district of Beirut. Since then, he has traveled back to his home in UAE. His followers dubbed their support as the “March of the Return”, and perhaps Hariri will return in March, fulfilling their hopes and wishes for a new beginning.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from MD

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

Bleak economic prospects further hurt France’s fragile economy, but President Emmanuel Macron still insists on prioritising assistance for Ukraine and pursuing anti-Russia agendas rather than dealing with the ever-increasing problems in his own country.

French Economy and Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire reduced the country’s economic growth forecast to 1% in 2024 and announced that the Macron government would cut spending, estimated to be about €10 billion, in all ministries and in some programs to compensate for the drop in productivity and to meet obligations to reduce France’s budget deficit by 4.4% in 2024.

“The principle of responsibility is to act at the right time with rigour, but without brutality, to maintain control of our public finances, deficits and debts,” said Le Maire in an interview with channel TF1 on February 18.

“I am committed to not increasing taxes…We have cut them and won’t deviate from this line. French people can’t bear any more tax,” he added.

As France’s economic outlook worsened, Macron tried to improve finances by introducing unpopular labour reforms and without resorting to austerity or tax increases, but spending soared amid the COVID-19 pandemic and the energy crisis instigated following sanctions on Russia after the country’s launch of the special military operation on Ukraine in February 2022.

France’s public debt has risen from €1 trillion in 2003 to €3 trillion in 2023, with most of this increase occurring under Macron’s leadership. At the same time, debt servicing costs have soared due to inflation. Although the French government has already cut €16 billion in an attempt to reduce its deficit from 4.9% in 2023 to 4.4% of economic production this year, Macron is in a dilemma as he only has unpopular options to try and improve the country’s current economic predicament.

Le Maire tried to justify the bad economic prospects by saying,

“It is still positive growth, but it takes into account the new geopolitical context,” referring to the Gaza-Israel and Ukraine wars.

Sanctions imposed on Russia due to the conflict in Ukraine have caused energy prices and general inflation to soar, but Paris still increased the military budget by an astronomical 40%, to €413 billion, for 2024 to 2030, compared to the previous seven-year cycle.

Yet, amongst this economic chaos, the French president not only increased the military budget but also signed on February 16 in Paris with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky a bilateral agreement, valid for ten years, on security guarantees for Ukraine, including €3 billion in military aid to Kiev in 2024.

“This is a sign of our determination to support Ukraine in the long term,” Macron declared at a press conference following the meeting with Zelensky, which was broadcast on the Elysee Palace’s official X platform account.

Also, according to Macron, the agreement encompasses the commitments made in the G7 format on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Vilnius in July 2023. In addition to supplying military equipment compatible with weapons provided by NATO, the aid will be used to train Ukrainian soldiers and strengthen Ukraine’s defence industry, including joint production of weapons in Ukraine with French companies.

After postponing his visit to Ukraine, then scheduled for February 13-14, Macron announced that he would go to Kiev in mid-March. This was Zelensky’s third visit to the French capital since the start of the conflict in Ukraine, demonstrating how he is nothing more than a proxy for the Western elites in Paris, London, Berlin, Brussels, and Washington. 

Earlier, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg commented that he is already seeing the consequences of the US’s failure to make a decision on continued support for Ukraine. At the same time, the Ukrainian president, after meeting with Macron in the French capital, reinforced the search for ammunition and travelled again to Germany for the Munich Security Conference to hold a series of bilateral meetings with global leaders.

Ukraine is already effectively rationing its artillery, as ammunition supplies from allies are insufficient, and its biggest ally, the US, is experiencing an impasse in Congress over a new shipment of military aid to Kiev.

However, what is beyond doubt is the fact that Macron is prioritising an anti-Russia agenda to ultimately serve US interests, a far cry from his bold announcement of a Europe stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok and call for European sovereignty. Macron pursues this agenda without relenting in support for Ukraine, even at the expense of his own suffering citizens and economy.

*

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

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

Republican Representative Andy Ogles told activists who were calling for a ceasefire at Congress that “I think we should kill them all”, in reference to Palestinian children in Gaza.

The shocking response, experts have said, clearly indicates the extent of the United States’ responsibility for the crime of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

Social media activist user Saira Rao responded on X:

“Andrew Ogles, a sitting member of Congress, says the quiet part out loud ‘I think we should kill ‘em all.’ He states WE (America) are responsible for killing all Palestinians (genocide),” adding that “Congress + Biden + Entire Cabinet are ALL WAR CRIMINALS.”

Many questions have been raised about the personal and professional life of the Republican representative from the state of Tennessee, as he said that he has earned a higher educational degree even though his transcripts show that he failed in every subject. Newspapers have also wondered about the source of the mysterious funds for his election campaign, as he received $320,000 without having a reasonable explanation for the source of these funds.

The controversial representative had previously proposed a draft law prohibiting those holding Palestinian citizenship from entering the US.

*

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

Featured image is from Al Jazeera

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

On February 20, it was clear that things were not going to be made easy for Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder who infuriated the US imperium, the national security establishment, and a stable of journalists upset that he had cut their ill-tended lawns. He was too ill to attend what may well be the final appeal against his extradition from the United Kingdom to the United States.  Were he to be sent to the US, he faces a possible sentence amounting to 175 years arising from 18 venally cobbled charges, 17 spliced from that archaic horror, the Espionage Act of 1917.

The appeal to the High Court, comprising Justice Jeremy Johnson and Dame Victoria Sharp, challenges the extradition order by the Home Secretary and the conclusions of District Judge Vanessa Baraitser who, despite ordering his release on risks posed to him on mental health grounds, fundamentally agreed with the prosecution. He was, Varaitser scorned, not a true journalist. (Absurdly, it would seem for the judge, journalists never publish leaked information.)  He had exposed the identities of informants. He had engaged in attempts to hack computer systems. In June 2023, High Court justice, Jonathan Swift, thought it inappropriate to rehear the substantive arguments of the trial case made by defence.

Assange’s attorneys had informed the court that he simply could not attend in person, though it would hardly have mattered. His absence from the courtroom was decorous in its own way; he could avoid being displayed like a caged specimen reviled for his publishing feats. The proceedings would be conducted in the manner of appropriate panto, with dress and procedure to boot.

Unfortunately, as things chugged along, the two judges were seemingly ill versed in the field they were adjudicating. Their ignorance was telling on, for instance, the views of Mike Pompeo, whose bilious reaction to WikiLeaks when director of the Central Intelligence Agency involved rejecting the protections of the First Amendment of the US Constitution to non-US citizens. (That view is also held by the US prosecutors.) Such a perspective, argued Assange’s legal team, was a clear violation of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

They were also surprised to be informed that further charges could be added to the indictment on his arrival to the United States, including those carrying the death penalty. To this could be added other enlightening surprises for the judicial bench: the fact that rules of admissibility might be altered to consider material illegally obtained, for instance, through surveillance; that Assange might also be sentenced for an offence he was never actually tried for.

Examples of espionage case law were submitted as precedents to buttress the defence, with Edward Fitzgerald KC calling espionage a “pure political offence” which barred extradition in treaties Britain had signed with 158 nation states.

The case of David Shayler, who had been in the employ of the British domestic intelligence service MI5, saw the former employee prosecuted for passing classified documents to The Mail on Sunday in 1997 under the Official Secrets Act. These included the names of various agents, that the agency kept dossiers on various UK politicians, including Labour ministers, and that the British foreign intelligence service, MI6, had conceived of a plan to assassinate Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. When the UK made its extradition request to the French authorities, they received a clear answer from the Cour d’Appel: the offence charged was found to be political in nature.

Mark Summers KC also emphasised the point that the “prosecution was motivated to punish and inhibit the exposure of American state-level crimes”, ample evidence of which was adduced during the extradition trial, yet ignored by both Baraitser and Swift. Baraitser brazenly ignored evidence of discussions by US intelligence officials about a plot to kill or abduct Assange.

For Summers, chronology was telling: the initial absence of any prosecution effort by the Obama administration, despite empanelling a grand jury to investigate WikiLeaks; the announcement by the International Criminal Court that it would be investigating potential crimes committed by US combatants in Afghanistan in 2016, thereby lending gravity to Assange’s disclosures; and the desire to kill or seek the publisher’s extradition after the release of the Vault 7 files detailing various espionage tools of the CIA.

With Pompeo’s apoplectic declaration that WikiLeaks was a hostile, non-state intelligence service, the avenue was open for a covert targeting of Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.  The duly hatched rendition plan led to the prosecution, which proved “selective” in avoiding, for instance, the targeting of newspaper outlets such as Freitag, or the website Cryptome.  In Summer’s view, “This is not a government acting on good faith pursuing a legal path.”

When it came to discussing the leaks, the judges revealed a deep-welled obliviousness about what Assange and WikiLeaks had actually done in releasing the US State Department cables.  For one thing, the old nonsense that the unredacted, or poorly redacted material had resulted in damage was skirted over, not to mention the fact that Assange had himself insisted on a firm redaction policy.   No inquiry has ever shown proof that harm came to any US informant, a central contention of the US Department of Justice.  Nor was it evident to the judges that the publication of the cables had first taken place in Cryptome, once it was discovered that reporters from The Guardian had injudiciously revealed the password to the unredacted files in their publication.

Two other points also emerged in the defence submission: the whistleblower angle, and that of foreseeability.  Consider, Summers argued hypothetically, the situation where Chelsea Manning, whose invaluable disclosures WikiLeaks published, had been considered by the European Court of Human Rights.  The European Union’s whistleblower regime, he contended, would have considered the effect of harm done by violating an undertaking of confidentiality with the exposure of abuses of state power.  Manning would have likely escaped conviction, while Assange, having not even signed any confidentiality agreements, would have had even better prospects for acquittal.

The issue of foreseeability, outlined in Article 7 of the ECHR, arose because Assange, his team further contends, could not have known that publishing the cables would have triggered a lawsuit under the Espionage Act.  That said, a grand jury had refused to indict the Chicago Times in 1942 for publishing an article citing US naval knowledge of Japanese plans to attack Midway Island.  Then came the Pentagon Papers case in 1971.  While Summers correctly notes that, “The New York Timeswas never prosecuted,” this was not for want for trying: a grand jury was empanelled with the purpose of indicting the Timesreporter Neil Sheehan for his role in receiving classified government material.  Once revelations of government tapping of whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg was revealed, the case collapsed.  All that said, Article 7 could provide a further ground for barring extradition.

February 21 gave lawyers for the US the chance to reiterate the various, deeply flawed assertions about Assange’s publication activities connected with Cablegate (the “exposing informants” argument), his supposedly non-journalistic activities and the integrity of diplomatic assurances about his welfare were he to be extradited.  The stage for the obscene was duly set.

*

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

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

Featured image is from 21st Century Wire

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

The Kiev regime’s inability to use air power effectively means that the only way for its forces to get indirect fire support is with NATO-sourced long-range missiles. What’s more, the belligerent alliance also provides all the necessary ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) data to target Russian troops and assets. It can even be argued that the Neo-Nazi junta’s overlords also keep choosing which targets should be hit, effectively making them a party to the conflict.

NATO supplied both the tracked M270 MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) and wheeled M142 HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System). These systems can fire a plethora of short-range rockets and missiles, including the MGM-140 ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System), a US-made tactical/theater ballistic missile system with a maximum engagement range of approximately 300 km and a supersonic speed of up to Mach 3.

While the MGM-140’s capabilities are far from Russian counterparts, such as the now legendary “Iskander” with a hypersonic speed (up to Mach 8 while also maneuvering) and a range of approximately 500 km, this is still enough to jeopardize logistics, as well as civilian settlements deeper within Russian territory. Pairing the ATACMS with adequate ISR, which NATO fields extensively, particularly in the vicinity of Russian borders, can make it quite a challenge.

Namely, its battlefield performance can be significantly amplified through the effective usage of real-time ISR data that essentially acts as a major force multiplier. This is where the legal “grey areas” of warfare get even more complicated. Namely, Moscow is doing its best to keep the scope of the SMO localized, but NATO continues to escalate, as evidenced by the resurgent presence of its ISR platforms around Russia’s borders.

This is particularly concerning in the Black Sea, where the Russian military already shot down some of NATO’s ISR assets, resulting in several months of pause in flights close to the SMO (special military operation) zone. However, the belligerent alliance restarted this highly destabilizing practice in the last half a year or so. In the meantime,

ATACMS has already been delivered and used in combat, with Russian military sources reporting that several have been shot down back in October. And yet, this isn’t enough for the United States and NATO. Namely, Washington DC wants to provide an enhanced ATACMS variant that could be used against targets “beyond Crimea”, implying that the political West is ready to target Moscow’s undisputed territory. According to NBC News, this is already underway, with their latest report claiming new ATACMS deliveries include the unnamed longer-range version of the missile.

NBC blamed former US President Donald Trump and “his Republican allies in Congress” for delays to American arms shipments for the Kiev regime, lamenting over the Senate’s $95 billion “aid” bill that is yet to be approved by the House of Representatives. However, NBC admitted that unnamed Pentagon officials told them that the US has a limited inventory of ATACMS and that it is not likely to send them to the Neo-Nazi junta without money to replenish its own stockpiles first. Considering the fact that the ATACMS version Washington DC is yet to deliver has a longer range and is in limited supply even in the American arsenal, it’s very likely that the M57E1 is the variant in question. It’s the latest iteration of the missile, delivered to the Pentagon no sooner than 2017. It could also be the older M57, which has been in production from 2004 to 2013. Both of these have a maximum firing range of approximately 300 km.

Pentagon officials say that if Congress approves more funding, the US could provide the longer-range ATACMS immediately. However, if this doesn’t happen, the officials stated that they do not rule out asking other US vassals and satellite states to provide the missiles, indirectly suggesting that it could request Poland and Romania to do so, as both countries operate ATACMS and are geographically closest to Ukraine. If this happens, Russia certainly has ways to respond immediately.

However, it will be very difficult to do so without escalating the conflict. Moscow is approximately 650 km away from Kharkov, meaning that weapons such as ATACMS could theoretically reach not too far from the areas around the Russian capital. This region has been the industrial heartland of Russia for centuries, meaning that protecting it is a top priority for the Kremlin, while this is just another proxy war for the US.

Moscow has many ways to respond to this sort of escalation and it certainly won’t hold back. This includes the possibility of shooting down all of NATO’s ISR assets in the vicinity of Russian borders, most likely unmanned ones first, which could serve as a warning shot to the world’s most aggressive military alliance. In many ways, this would be a step toward ending the Kiev regime’s NATO-backed terror bombing tacticsthat already killed thousands of civilians in Donbass and elsewhere in former Ukrainian regions that joined Russia.

Although President Vladimir Putin offered the possibility of a peaceful settlement (for God knows which time) in his recent interview with Tucker Carlson, he most certainly won’t allow the political West to (ab)use his goodwill as a weakness. Moscow’s patience with the ever-escalating belligerence of the US and its vassals and satellite states is certainly unmatched. However, it’s not endless.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign


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

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

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


 

 

 

The Worldwide Corona Crisis 

Global Coup d’État Against Humanity 

by

Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, 2022


 

About the Author

 

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research.

He has undertaken field research in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific and has written extensively on the economies of developing countries with a focus on poverty and social inequality. He has also undertaken research in Health Economics (UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC),  UNFPA, CIDA, WHO, Government of Venezuela, Johns Hopkins International Journal of Health Services (1979, 1983)).

He is the author of 13 books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005),  and The Globalization of War, America’s Long War Against Humanity (2015).

He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than 20 languages. In 2014, he was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on NATO’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia. He can be reached at [email protected].


Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

 仕組まれたコロナ危機:「世界の初期化」を目論む者たち

Reviewed in Japan 🇯🇵 on November 18, 2022

“It’s a great book that I want people all over Japan to read. When I read this book, the various events explained in chronological order all fall into place and context, and they came close with a sense of reality. It’s terrifying. My heart became pounding and painful as I read on. We must carefully determine the reverse side of the goodwill of the people who organized the COVID-19 pandemic. What can we do as a grassroots person? It’s a tough question.

… そのあとに本書を読むと、時系列に説明されている様々な出来事が、ことごとく腑に落ち、現実味をもって迫ってきました。恐ろしいです。読み進めるうちに胸がドキドキ苦しくなりました。コロナ禍を仕組んだ人びとの善意の裏の顔をしっかりと見極めなければなりません。私自身はワクチンを一度も打ちませんでしたが、だから良かったという単純な話ではありません。個人的には、打った仲のよい友達との話に断絶を感じていますし、多くの方々が不幸を味わっています。これこそ、コロナ禍を仕掛けた人々の狙いなのです。草の根の一人として、何ができるでしょうか?難しい問題です。

 


 

This book is dedicated to my life-long partner Micheline Ladouceur, who is acting in solidarity with the future of all humanity

 


Acknowledgements

I am indebted to Jezile Torculas for her support and advice pertaining to the editing and production of the book. My thanks to Tatuo Uwama who took the initiative of translating the manuscript into Japanese. Credits also to Teresa Balisacan for assisting in the layout and design of the book cover.

A debt of gratitude to Felicity Arbuthnot, who has been a source of inspiration for many years; to my daughter Maya, who has provided me with an understanding and insight on the devastating impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on the younger generation; to Ariel Noyola Rodríguez, my thanks for his video productions; Michael Welch for outstanding Global Research radio programs.

I am also indebted to the collective of Global Research authors and friends who, in the course of the last few years, have contributed to a detailed understanding of the corona crisis which is affecting people’s lives worldwide.

My thanks to Peter Koenig, Manlio Dinucci, David Skripac, Dr. Denis Rancourt, Dr. Stephen Frost, F. William Engdahl, Christine Massey, Dr. Rudolf Haensel, Edward Curtin, Richard Gale, Dr. Gary Null, Colin Todhunter, Michael Whitney, Prof. Anthony J. Hall, Dr. Pascal Sacré, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Prof. Raul Villegas, Shane Quinn, Stephen Lendman, Mark Taliano, Dr. Jacques Pauwels, Prof. Claudia von Werlhof, Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin, Carla Stea, Bonnie Faulkner, Timothy A. Guzman, Robert Burrowes, Dr. Gary G. Kohls, Dr. Nicole Delépine, Richard Delgado, Emanuel Pastreich, Mathias Chang, Stephen Sefton, Dr. Chandra Muzzafar, for their writings, support and encouragement.

I remain indebted to the late Padre Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann for having provided me with a critical understanding on the contradictions prevailing within the United Nations system.

 


 

Table of Contents

 

Preface 

 

Chapter I

Introduction. Destroying Civil Society. The Fear Campaign

Chapter II

The Corona Timeline

Chapter III

What Is COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2: How Is It Tested? How Is It Measured? 

Chapter IV

Engineered Economic Depression

Chapter V

The Enrichment of the Super Rich. The Appropriation and Redistribution of Wealth 

Chapter VI

The Impacts on Mental Health

Chapter VII

Corrupt Science: “There Is No Cure”. Suppression of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a Cheap and Effective Drug 

Chapter VIII

Big Pharma’s COVID “Vaccine”

Chapter IX 

The 2009 H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic. Was It a Dress Rehearsal?

Chapter X

Freedom of Expression. Categorizing The Protest Movement as “Anti-Social Psychopaths”

Chapter XI

The Worldwide CoVax Operation and the Nuremberg Code. Crimes Against Humanity, Genocide

Chapter XII

“Global Coup d’État” and the “Great Reset”. Global Debt and Neoliberal “Shock Treatment”

Chapter XIII 

“Digital Tyranny” and the QR Code 

Chapter XIV

The COVID-19 Endgame: Eugenics and the Depopulation Agenda

Chapter XV

The Road Ahead: Building a Worldwide Movement Against “Corona Tyranny”

 


 

Preface 

 

“Hell is empty, and all the demons are here.” —William Shakespeare, Tempest, 1610

 

The COVID-19 crisis is destroying people’s lives. My responsibility as an author is to reveal the truth, break the tide of media disinformation and reach out worldwide to as many people as possible.

We are dealing with an exceedingly complex process. In the course of the last two and a half years, I have analyzed almost on a daily basis the timeline and evolution of the COVID-19 crisis.

From the very outset in January 2020, people worldwide were led to believe and accept the existence of a rapidly progressing and dangerous epidemic. Media disinformation was instrumental in sustaining the COVID-19 narrative.

At the time of writing, protest movements have erupted in numerous countries. The entire planet is in state of economic and social chaos. A worldwide crisis in food and agriculture is unfolding with famines erupting in all major regions of the world (see Chapter IV). 

From the very outset in January 2020, scientific lies and falsehoods have been used to sustain the legitimacy of the COVID-19 policy mandates including lockdowns, the imposition of the face mask, social distancing and the suppression of fundamental human rights. 

The decision-making process is controlled by the financial establishment. A structure of “Global Governance” is unfolding which undermines democracy and the institutions of civil society. The same instructions are transmitted simultaneously to corrupt politicians in a large number of countries. The United Nations system is also complicit in the conduct of this diabolical endeavor.

The pandemic was announced on March 11, 2020. On that same day, lockdown instructions were transmitted to 193 member states of the United Nations, essentially requiring the confinement of the labor force and the “closure” of the economic and social  landscape as a means to “combating the virus”. 

More than 7 billion people worldwide are directly or indirectly affected by the corona crisis and the destructive mandates implemented by morally depraved national governments.  

The mRNA Vaccine

Starting in late 2020, people worldwide were led to believe that Big Pharma’s COVID-19 vaccine injections were the “solution”. And that “a new normal” would be restored once the entire population of the planet of almost 8 billion people had been fully vaccinated with several doses. 

How is it that a vaccine for the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus, which under normal conditions would have taken years to develop, was promptly launched in early November 2020? The mRNA “vaccine” announced by Big Pharma — with Pfizer in the lead — is based on an experimental gene-editing mRNA technology which has a bearing on the human genome.1  

Were the standard animal lab tests using mice or ferrets conducted?

Or did Pfizer “go straight to human “guinea pigs”“? Human tests began in late July and early August 2020.2 “Three months is unheard of for testing a new vaccine. Several years is the norm.”3

 

Copyright Large + JIPÉM, permission to use

This caricature by Large + JIPÉM  explains our predicament:

Mouse No. 1: “Are You Going to Get Vaccinated”

Mouse No. 2: “Are You Crazy, They Haven’t Finished the Tests on Humans”

The COVID-19 vaccine project is profit-driven. It is supported by corrupt politicians serving the interests of Big Pharma. It is by far the largest vaccination programme in world history geared towards injecting (in several doses) the entire population of planet Earth (7.9 billion people). 

The evidence amply documented is that the mRNA vaccine has resulted in an upward worldwide tide in mortality and morbidity. 

Reports confirm that the COVID-19 vaccines are killing our children. In the UK, “the worst figures in terms of all-cause deaths are among double-vaccinated teenagers.”4

 

Book Description and Outline

The introductory chapter focuses on the fear campaign, the deliberate destabilization of civil society and the insidious role of media propaganda.  

A detailed review of the history of the COVID-19 crisis, examining the timeline of major events is outlined in Chapter II. 

Chapter III focuses on the nature of the SARS-CoV-2 virus as well as on the flawed Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) Test which from the outset was established by national governments to generate “fake data” with a view to justifying excessive and socially repressive policy mandates. 

The broad economic and social consequences of this crisis including the process of worldwide impoverishment and redistribution of wealth in favor of the super rich billionaires are examined in Chapters IV and V. Economic chaos has been instrumental in triggering the most serious global debt crisis in world history. 

The devastating impacts of the lockdown policies on mental health including the rise in suicides and drug abuse are examined in Chapter VI. 

Chapter VII examines the suppression of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a cheap and effective drug.

Big Pharma’s vaccination programme was envisaged already months before the alleged outbreak of the novel coronavirus in Wuhan in late 2019. Chapter VIII reviews what is best described as “a killer vaccine”.  The latter part of the chapter focuses on the ID2020 Digital Identity Project and the imposition of the so-called vaccine passport.

Chapter IX recalls the circumstances of the 2009 H1N1 Swine Flu pandemic, which turned out to be a scam. Was it a “dress rehearsal” for things to come? 

Chapter X focuses on the derogation of freedom of expression and the authoritarian policies used to repress the protest movement and ensure social compliance. 

Chapter XI focuses on crimes against humanity and the Nuremberg Code. 

Chapter XII analyses the World Economic Forum’s proposed “Great Reset” which if adopted would consist in establishing a system of global governance, scrapping the welfare state and imposing massive austerity measures on an impoverished population. The official emblem of the WEF’s “Great Reset” is “Own Nothing, Be Happy”.

Chapter XIII entitled Digital Tyranny focuses on the worldwide QR Verification Code project which lays the groundwork for the establishment of a global digital data bank of almost 8 billion people. Peter Koenig describes the QR code as “an all-electronic ID – linking everything to everything of each individual (records of health, banking, personal and private, etc.).”

Chapter XIV focusses on Eugenics and Depopulation Agenda

Chapter XV entitled The Road Ahead: Building a Worldwide Movement Against Corona Tyranny formulates the contours of a worldwide movement which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of the financial elites, Big Pharma, et al., as well as the corrupt structures of political authority at the national level. 

A word on methodology: our objective is to refute the “Big Lie” through careful analysis consisting of:

  • a historical overview of the COVID crisis with precise data, concepts and definitions; 
  • quotations from official documents and peer-reviewed reports, numerous sources and references are indicated;
  • scientific analysis and detailed review of “official” data, estimates and definitions; and
  • analysis of the impacts of WHO “guidelines” and government policies on economic, social and public health variables.

My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a pretext and a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”.  

This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people.

We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children Worldwide. 

Truth is a powerful instrument. 

Michel Chossudovsky,

Global Research, Montreal, August 2022

 

Endnotes

1 F. William Engdahl, November 15, 2020. What’s Not Being Said About the Pfizer Coronavirus Vaccine. “Human Guinea Pigs”? https://www.globalresearch.ca/what-not-said-pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine/5729461

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid. 

4 The Expose, July 29, 2022.  Shocking: UK Government Admits COVID Vaccinated Children Are 4423% More Likely to Die of Any Cause & 13,633% More Likely to Die of COVID-19 Than Unvaccinated Children. https://www.globalresearch.ca/print-version-of-covid-book/5780283

 


 

Chapter I

Introduction

Destroying Civil Society. The Fear Campaign

 

“It is time for everyone to come out of this negative trance, this collective hysteria, because famine, poverty, mass unemployment will kill and destroy the lives of many more people than SARS-CoV-2!” —Dr. Pascal Sacré1

“I’m seeing patients that have facial rashes, fungal infections, bacterial infections.  … In February and March [2020] we were told not to wear masks. What changed? The science didn’t change. The politics did. This is about compliance. It’s not about science…” —Dr. James Meehan2

“Once the Lie becomes the Truth, there is no moving backwards. Insanity prevails. The world is turned upside down.”  –Michel Chossudovsky

“We’re being locked-down for an infection fatality rate of less than 0.2%.” —Dr. Richard Schabas3

We are at the crossroads of one of the most serious crises in world history. We are living history, yet our understanding of the sequence of events since January 2020 has been blurred. Worldwide, people have been misled both by their governments and the media as to the causes and devastating consequences of the COVID-19 “pandemic.”

The unspoken truth is that the novel coronavirus provides a pretext and a justification to powerful financial interests and corrupt politicians to precipitate the entire world into a spiral of mass unemployment, bankruptcy, extreme poverty and despair. 

This is the true picture of what is happening. It is the result of a complex decision-making process. 

“Planet lockdown” is an encroachment on civil liberties and the “right to life”.

Entire national economies are in jeopardy. In some countries, martial law has been declared.

Small and medium-sized capital are slated to be eliminated. Big capital prevails.

A massive concentration of corporate wealth is ongoing. 

It’s a diabolical “New World Order” in the making.  

Red zones, the face mask, social distancing, the closing down of schools, colleges and universities, no more family gatherings, no birthday celebrations, music, the arts; no more cultural events, sports events are suspended, no more weddings, “love and life” is banned outright.

And in several countries, Christmas and New Year family reunions (2021-2022) were illegal.

Closing down the global economy is presented to us as a means to combating the virus. That’s what they want us to believe. If the public had been informed that COVID-19 is “similar to seasonal Influenza”, the fear campaign would have fallen flat.

The pandemic was officially launched by the WHO on March 11, 2020 leading to the lockdown and closure of the national economies of 190 (out of 193) countries, member states of the United Nations. The instructions came from above, from Wall Street, the World Economic Forum (WEF), the billionaire foundations.

The March 11, 2020 pandemic was preceded by a WHO Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on January 30, 2020 which was followed in February 2020 by the destabilization of financial markets.

The video below was initially published by Vimeo more than a year ago, prior to the launching of the vaccine. It was taken down on March 5, 2022 as an act of censorship directed against Global Research. Watch below or click here.

 

 

On January 30, there were 83 “COVID-19 confirmed cases” outside China, out of a total population of 6.4 billion. In the days preceding the February financial crash, there were 1,076 “COVID-19 confirmed cases” outside China (see our analysis in Chapter II).

This diabolical project based on scanty and flawed estimates is casually described by the corporate media as a “humanitarian” endeavour; the “international community” has a “responsibility to protect” (R2P).  

Image: copyright CODEPINK, permission to use

In the words of Diana Johnstone, it’s “the global pretext”. An unelected “public-private partnership” under the auspices of the World Economic Forum (WEF) has come to the rescue of planet Earth’s 7.9 billion people. The closure of the national economies of 193 member states of the United Nations is presented as a means to “killing the virus”.

Sounds absurd. Closing down the real economy of planet Earth is not the “solution” but rather the “cause” of a diabolical process of worldwide destabilization and impoverishment. 

The national economy combined with political, social and cultural institutions is the basis for the “reproduction of real life”: income, employment, production, trade, infrastructure, and social services.

Destabilizing the economy of planet Earth cannot constitute a “solution” to combating the virus. But that is the imposed “solution” which they want us to believe in. And that is what they are doing.

It’s the destruction of people’s lives. It’s the destabilization of civil society. 

The lies are sustained by a massive media disinformation campaign — 24/7, incessant and repetitive “COVID alerts” in the course of more than two and a half years. It’s a process of social engineering. 

What they want is to hike up the numbers so as to justify the lockdown. COVID death statistics are “fabricated” (see Chapter III).

COVID-19 is portrayed as the “killer virus”. 

Destroying Civil Society 

People are frightened and puzzled. “Why would they do this?”

Empty schools, empty airports, bankrupt grocery stores.

In France, “churches were threatened with Kalashnikovs over COVID-19 outbreak” (April 2020).4

The entire urban services economy is in crisis. Shops, bars and restaurants are driven into bankruptcy. International travel and holidays are suspended.  Streets are empty. In several countries, bars and restaurants are required to take names and contact information to support effective contact tracing if necessary.5

Cultural Lockdown

At the same time, starting in March 2020, the worldwide closure of national economies was accompanied by a cultural lockdown affecting music and artistic events. Empty museums, no more operas, no more symphonies, concert halls are closed down worldwide. So-called digital stay at home platforms were put forth. In the US, museums announced closure on March 12, 2020 starting with the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. In France, the Louvre, Versailles and the Eiffel Tower were closed down on March 13, 2020, two days after the lockdown.

Free Speech Is Suppressed

The lockdown narrative is supported by media disinformation, online censorship, social engineering and the fear campaign.

Medical doctors who question the official narrative are threatened. They lose their jobs. Their careers are destroyed. Those who oppose the government lockdown are categorized as “anti-social psychopaths”.6

Peer-reviewed psychological “studies” are currently being carried in several countries using sample surveys. Accept the “big lie” and you are tagged as a “good person” with “empathy” who understands the feelings of others.

Express reservations regarding social distancing, the wearing of face mask and the mRNA vaccine, and you will be tagged (according to “scientific opinion”) as a “callous and deceitful psychopath” (see Chapter XI).

In colleges and universities, the teaching staff is pressured to conform and endorse the official COVID narrative. Questioning the legitimacy of the lockdown or the vaccine in online “classrooms” could lead to dismissal.

Numerous medical doctors and scientists who have opposed the COVID consensus or the vaccine have been arrested. In December 2020, “Jean-Bernard Fourtillan, a retired university professor known for his opposition to the COVID-19 vaccine was arrested “by law enforcement officers under military command, and forcibly placed in solitary confinement at the psychiatric hospital of Uzès.” Fourtillan is known as a  “longtime critic of vaccines that use dangerous adjuvants””.7

Google, Facebook and Twitter: Marketing the Big Lie

The opinions of prominent scientists who question the lockdown, face mask or social distancing are “taken down” by Google:

YouTube doesn’t allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts the World Health Organization (WHO) or local health authorities‘ medical information about COVID-19, including on methods to prevent, treat or diagnose COVID-19, and means of transmission of COVID-19.” (emphasis added)8
 
They call it “fact-checking”, without acknowledging that both the WHO and the national health authorities contradict their own data and concepts.

Similarly, Twitter has confirmed that “it will remove all posts that suggest there are ‘adverse impacts or effects of receiving vaccinations'” …

Twitter will memory-hole any posts that “invoke a deliberate conspiracy” or “advance harmful, false, or misleading narratives” about vaccines.”

Screenshot from Twitter

 

March 11, 2020: Engineered Economic Depression. Global Coup d’Etat?

Destabilizing in one fell swoop the national economies of 193 countries is an act of “economic warfare”. This diabolical agenda undermines the sovereignty of nation-states. It impoverishes people worldwide. It leads to a spiraling dollar-denominated global debt.

The powerful structures of global capitalism, Big Money coupled with its intelligence and military apparatus are the driving force. Using advanced digital and communications technologies, the lockdown and economic closure of the global economy is unprecedented in world history.

This simultaneous intervention in approximately 193 countries derogates democracy. It undermines the sovereignty of nation-states worldwide, without the need for military intervention. It is an advanced form of “economic warfare” which overshadows other forms of warfare including conventional (Iraq-style) theater wars (see Chapters IV and V).

 

“Global Governance” Scenarios. World Government in the Post-COVID Era? 

The March 11, 2020 lockdown project uses lies and deception to ultimately impose a worldwide totalitarian regime, entitled “Global Governance” (by unelected officials). In the words of David Rockefeller:

“…The world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” (quoted by Aspen Times, August 15, 2011, emphasis added)9

Image: David Rockefeller (By william vazquez, visual waves inc licensed under CC BY 4.0)

The Global Governance scenario imposes an agenda of social engineering and economic compliance:

It constitutes an extension of the neoliberal policy framework imposed on both developing and developed countries. It consists in scrapping “national auto-determination” and constructing a worldwide nexus of pro-US proxy regimes controlled by a “supranational sovereignty” (world government) composed of leading financial institutions, billionaires and their philanthropic foundations (see Chapter XIII). 

 

Simulating Pandemics

Rockefeller’s “Lock Step Scenario”

The Rockefeller Foundation proposes the use of “scenario planning” as a means to carry out “Global Governance”.10

In the Rockefeller’s 2010 report entitled “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development Area”, scenarios of Global Governance and the actions to be taken in the case of a worldwide pandemic are contemplated.11

More specifically, the report envisaged (p. 18) the simulation of a Lock Step scenario including a global virulent influenza strain.

“The Lock Step scenario describes “a world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback.” In “2012” (i.e. two years after the report’s publication), [as part of the simulation] an “extremely virulent and deadly” strain of influenza originating with wild geese brings the world to its knees, infecting 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million people in just seven months – “the majority of them healthy young adults.” (Helen Buyniski, February 2020)12

The 2010 Rockefeller report was published in the immediate wake of the 2009 H1N1 swine flu pandemic (see Chapter IX).

The Clade X Tabletop Simulation

On May 15, 2018, a tabletop simulation of a pandemic entitled Clade X was conducted under the auspices of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.  

Clade X was described by its organizers as a day-long pandemic tabletop exercise the purpose of which “was to illustrate high level strategic decisions in the United States and the world … to prevent a pandemic” (emphasis added).13  It was “played by individuals prominent in the fields of national security or epidemic response”.  

Bill Gates Had Foreknowledge 

“In the case of biological threats, that sense of urgency is lacking… The world needs to prepare for pandemics in the same serious way it prepares for war.” (Bill Gates quoted in Business Insider, April 17, 2018)

 

The October 2019 “Event 201”

Clade X was followed by another tabletop simulation entitled Event 201 (also under the auspices of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security).14

Event 201 pertained to a coronavirus epidemic entitled nCoV-2019.  It was held on October 18, 2019, less than three months before the announcement by the Chinese authorities in early January 2020 of a new coronavirus entitled 2019-nCoV (subsequently renamed SARS-CoV-2): 

“Statement about nCoV and our pandemic exercise

January 24, 2020 – In October 2019, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted a pandemic tabletop exercise called Event 201 with partners, the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Recently, the Center for Health Security has received questions about whether that pandemic exercise predicted the current novel coronavirus outbreak in China.

To be clear, the Center for Health Security and partners did not make a prediction during our tabletop exercise. For the scenario, we modeled a fictional coronavirus pandemic, but we explicitly stated that it was not a prediction. Instead, the exercise served to highlight preparedness and response challenges that would likely arise in a very severe pandemic. We are not now predicting that the nCoV-2019 outbreak will kill 65 million people. 

Although our tabletop exercise included a mock novel coronavirus, the inputs we used for modeling the potential impact of that fictional virus are not similar to nCoV-2019.” (emphasis added)15

The Event 201 pandemic exercise on October 18, 2019 also addressed how to deal with social media and so-called “misinformation”. 

Many features of the 201 “simulation exercise” did in fact correspond to what actually happened when the WHO Director-General launched a global public health emergency on January 30, 2020.

In the Event 201 scenario, a 15% collapse of financial markets had been “simulated”. It was not “predicted” according to the organizers and sponsors of the event, which included the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as well as the World Economic Forum.16

It is worth noting that the sponsors of Event 201 — including the WEF and the Gates Foundation — have been actively involved from the very outset in coordinating (and financing) the COVID-19-related policies including the RT-PCR test, the lockdown procedures as well as the mRNA vaccine. The evidence suggests that these policies had been planned and envisaged at a much earlier date. 

 

The Scenario 201 Players

Among the 201 Johns Hopkins tabletop scenario “players” were key personalities holding advisory or senior positions in a number of core organizations. Less than three months later, these 201 “players” became actively involved in the policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The following prominent individuals from global business, government, and public health were exercise players tasked with leading the policy response to a fictional outbreak scenario in the Event 201 pandemic tabletop exercise.”17

Some of the key players in Scenario 201; from left to right: Dr. Gao Fu (by 中国新闻网, licensed under CC BY 3.0), Jane Halton (by WHO/Peter Williams), and Dr. Stephen Redd (by U.S. Government, licensed under the Public Domain)

The entities directly or indirectly “represented” by the “players” included the WHO, Johns Hopkins, the Global Alliance on Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI, Dr. Timothy Grant Evans), US Intelligence, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Dr. Chris Elias), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI, Chairwoman Jane Halton), the World Economic Forum (WEF), the UN Foundation, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, Stephen Redd), China’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, Director Dr. George Fu Gao), Big Pharma (Adrian Thomas), the World Bank and Global Banking, the Airline and Hotel industries. For more details, click here.

It is worth noting that China’s CDC Director Dr. George Fu Gao played a central role in overseeing the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan in early 2020, acting in close liaison with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Johns Hopkins, et al. Dr. Gao Fu is an Oxford graduate with links to Big Pharma. He was also for several years a fellow of the Wellcome Trust. 

Dr. Stephen Redd (CDC) played a key role in the 2009 H1N1 vaccination campaign in the US, which turned out to be fake (see  Chapter IX).

 

nCoV-2019

It is also worth noting that the WHO initially adopted a similar acronym (to designate the coronavirus) to that of the Johns Hopkins Pandemic Event 201 Exercise (nCoV-2019). “…The new virus was initially named 2019-nCoV by [the] WHO.”18

“On Feb 11, 2020, WHO renamed the disease as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). That same day, the Coronavirus Study Group (CSG) of the International Committee on Virus Taxonomy posted a manuscript on bioRxiv in which they suggested designating 2019-nCoV as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on the basis of a phylogenetic analysis of related coronaviruses.” (Lancet)19

The selection of the name SARS-CoV-2 is explained in Chapter III in relation to the so-called Drosten report.

Intelligence and “The Art of Deception”

The COVID crisis is a sophisticated instrument of the power elites. It has all the features of a carefully planned intelligence operation using “deception and counter-deception”. Leo Straus “viewed intelligence as a means for policymakers to attain and justify policy goals, not to describe the realities of the world.” And that is precisely what they are doing in relation to COVID-19.20

 

“The Global Pretext” 

Confirmed by prominent scientists as well as by official public health bodies including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), COVID-19 is a public health concern but it is NOT a dangerous virus.

The COVID-19 crisis is marked by a public health “emergency” under WHO auspices which is being used as a pretext and a  justification to trigger a worldwide process of economic, social and political restructuring. The tendency is towards the imposition of a totalitarian state.

Social engineering is being applied. Governments are pressured into extending the lockdown despite its devastating economic and social consequences.

There is no scientific basis for implementing the closing down of the global economy as a means to resolving a public health crisis. Both the media and the governments are involved in spreading disinformation.

The fear campaign has no scientific basis. Your governments are LYING. In fact, they are lying to themselves. 

 

Endnotes

1 Dr. Pascal Sacré, August 7, 2020. COVID-19: Closer to the Truth: Tests and Immunity. https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-19-closer-to-the-truth-tests-and-immunity/5720160

2 John C. A. Manley, October 6, 2020. Medical Doctor Warns that “Bacterial Pneumonias Are on the Rise” from Mask Wearing. https://www.globalresearch.ca/medical-doctor-warns-bacterial-pneumonias-rise-mask-wearing/5725848

3 Dr. Richard Schabas, January 19, 2021. We’re Being Locked-down for an Infection Fatality Rate of Less than 0.2%? Dr. Richard Schabas to Ontario Premier Doug Ford. https://www.globalresearch.ca/were-being-locked-down-infection-fatality-rate-less-than-0-2/5734799

4 Lucy Williamson, April 22, 2020. Coronavirus: The church threatened with Kalashnikovs over Covid-19 outbreak. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-52389953

5 WHO, September 9, 2020. Tracking COVID-19: Contact Tracing in the Digital Age. https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/tracking-covid-19-contact-tracing-in-the-digital-age

6 Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 6, 2020. The Vaccinated vs. the Unvaccinated: Those Who Refuse the Vaccine and the “Official” Covid-19 Narrative are Categorized as “Psychopaths”. https://www.globalresearch.ca/collective-narcissism-and-the-dark-triad-those-who-protest-against-the-official-covid-19-narrative-are-categorized-as-psychopaths-is-it-a-witch-hunt/5722151

7 Jeanne Smits, December 11, 2020. Accomplished pharma prof thrown in psych hospital after questioning official COVID narrative. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/accomplished-pharma-prof-thrown-in-psych-hospital-after-questioning-official-covid-narrative/

8 Youtube Help, n.d. COVID-19 medical misinformation policy. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en

9 Will Kesler, August 15, 2011. Beware New World Order. https://www.aspentimes.com/news/beware-new-world-order/

10 Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 1, 2020. Global Capitalism, “World Government” and the Corona Crisis. https://www.globalresearch.ca/global-capitalism-world-government-and-the-corona-crisis/5712312

11 The Rockefeller Foundation and the Global Business Network, May 2010. Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development. https://www.nommeraadio.ee/meedia/pdf/RRS/Rockefeller%20Foundation.pdf

12 Helen Buyniski, February 5, 2020. VIDEO: The “Lock Step” Simulation Scenario: “A Coronavirus-like Pandemic that Becomes Trigger for Police State Controls”. https://www.globalresearch.ca/all-sectors-us-establishment-lock-step-deep-states-latest-bio-war/5702773

13 Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, n.d. CLADE X EXERCISE. https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events/2018_clade_x_exercise/

14 Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, n.d. Event 201. https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/

15 Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, January 24, 2020. Statement about nCov and our pandemic exercise. https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/news/center-news/2020/2020-01-24-Statement-of-Clarification-Event201.html

16 Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 1, 2020. COVID-19 Coronavirus: A Fake Pandemic? Who’s Behind It? Global Economic, Social and Geopolitical Destabilization. https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-19-coronavirus-a-fake-pandemic-whos-behind-it-global-economic-and-geopolitical-destabilization/5705063

17 Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, n.d. Event 201 Players. https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/players/

18 Shibo Jiang, Zhengli Shi, et al., February 19, 2020. A distinct name is needed for the new coronavirus. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30419-0/fulltext

19 Ibid.

20 Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 12, 2020. The Covid “Pandemic”: Destroying People’s Lives. Engineered Economic Depression. Global “Coup d’Etat”? https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-second-wave-destroying-peoples-lives-global-coup-detat/5728207


 

Chapter II

The Corona Timeline

 

This chapter provides a detailed timeline and history of the corona crisis starting in August 2019.

August 1, 2019: Glaxo-Smith-Kline (GSK) and Pfizer announced the establishment of a corporate partnership in Consumer Health Products including vaccines. 

September 19, 2019: Meeting of the ID2020 Alliance

The ID2020 Alliance held their summit in New York entitled “Rising to the Good ID Challenge”. The focus was on the establishment of a vaccine with an embedded digital passport under the auspices of GAVI (Alliance for Vaccine Identity). The stated objective was the creation of a global digital database.1

“With the opportunity for immunization to serve as a platform for digital identity, the program harnesses existing birth registration and vaccination operations to provide newborns with a portable and persistent biometrically-linked digital identity. The program will also explore and assess several leading infant biometric technologies to offer a persistent digital identity from birth … 

“We are implementing a forward-looking approach to digital identity that gives individuals control over their own personal information, while still building off existing systems and programs.”2

October 18, 2019: Event 201. The 201 Pandemic Simulation Exercise

The coronavirus was initially named 2019-nCoV by the WHO, the same name (with the exception of the placement of the date) as that adopted at the October 18, 2019 201 simulation exercise under the auspices of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health, Center for Heath Security (an event sponsored by the Gates Foundation and World Economic Forum). Event 201:

“In October 2019, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted a pandemic tabletop exercise called Event 201 with partners, the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. …  For the scenario, we modeled a fictional coronavirus pandemic, but we explicitly stated that it was not a prediction. (emphasis added, see Chapter I).3

December 12, 2019: The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission

When the advisory claims this date to be the earliest original onset date of the 59 patients with unexplained viral pneumonia.(Timeline and Early Chronology)4

December 31, 2019: First cases of pneumonia of unknown cause detected in Wuhan, Hubei Province and reported to the WHO.  “A total of 44 cases were reported: 11 patients are severely ill, while the remaining 33 are in stable condition.”5

January 1, 2020: Chinese health authorities closed the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan following Western media reports claiming that wild animals sold there may have been the source of the virus. This initial assessment was subsequently refuted by Chinese scientists.

January 7, 2020: The Chinese authorities (allegedly) “identified a new type of virus” which (according to reports) was isolated on January 7, 2020. No specific details were provided regarding the process of isolation of the virus. According to scientific reports, the identity as well as the process of isolation of the virus had not been undertaken (for further details, see Chapter III). The number of cases was exceedingly low. “44 cases of pneumonia even though viral-specific nucleic acids were found on only 15 patients”. No evidence of an unfolding epidemic in China.6

January 11, 2020: The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission announces the first death caused by the coronavirus.

January 22, 2020: WHO — Members of the WHO Emergency Committee “expressed divergent views on whether this event constitutes a PHEIC [Public Health Emergency of International Concern] or not”. The Committee meeting was reconvened on January 23, 2020, overlapping with the World Economic Forum meetings in Davos (January 21-24, 2020). The small number of cases in China did not justify a PHEIC.7

The meeting of the Emergency Committee convened by the WHO Director-General under the International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005) expressed divergent views on whether this event constitutes a PHEIC or not. At that time, the advice was that the event did not constitute a PHEIC, but the Committee members agreed on the urgency of the situation and suggested that the Committee should be reconvened in a matter of days to examine the situation further. (WHO, Statement on the meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee regarding the outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV))8

January 21-24, 2020: Consultations at the World Economic Forum, Davos, Switzerland

The consultations were held under the auspices of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) for the development of a vaccine program. CEPI is a WEF-Gates partnership. With support from CEPI, Seattle-based Moderna will manufacture an mRNA vaccine against 2019-nCoV:

“The Vaccine Research Center (VRC) of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of NIH, collaborated with Moderna to design the vaccine.”9 

The evidence suggests that the 2019-nCoV vaccine project was already underway in 2019 (see Chapter VIII). It was officially announced at Davos, two weeks after the January 7, 2020 announcement by the Chinese authorities, and barely a week prior to the official launching of the WHO’s worldwide Public Health Emergency on January 30, 2020.

The WEF-Gates-CEPI vaccine announcement precedes the WHO’s Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). See WEF video

Dominant financial interests, billionaire foundations and international financial institutions played a key role in launching the WHO PHEIC.

In the week preceding this historic WHO decision, the PHEIC was the object of “consultations” at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos (January 21-24). The WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros was present at Davos. Were these consultations instrumental in influencing the WHO’s historic decision on January 30? 

Was there a conflict of interest as defined by the WHO? The WHO’s largest donor is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which, together with the WEF and CEPI, had already announced in Davos the development of a COVID-19 vaccine prior to the historic January 30 launching of the PHEIC.10

The WHO Director-General had the backing of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Big Pharma and the World Economic Forum (WEF). There are indications that the decision for the WHO to declare a Global Health Emergency was taken on the sidelines of the WEF in Davos (January 21-24) overlapping with the January 22 meeting of the Emergency Committee in Geneva.

January 28, 2020: The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed (without firm evidence) that the novel coronavirus had been isolated (see Chapter III).11

January 30, 2020: The WHO’s Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC)

The first stage of this crisis was launched by the WHO on January 30th. While officially it was not designated as a “pandemic”, it nonetheless contributed to spearheading the fear campaign.

From the very outset, the estimates of “confirmed positive cases” have been part of a “Numbers Game”.

In some cases, the statistics were simply not mentioned and in other cases, the numbers were selectively inflated with a view to creating panic.

Not mentioned by the media, the number of “confirmed cases” based on faulty estimates (RT-PCR) used to justify this far-reaching decision was ridiculously low.

The worldwide population outside China is of the order of 6.4 billion. On January 30, 2020, outside China there were:

“83 cases in 18 countries, and only 7 of them had no history of travel in China.” (See WHO, January 30, 2020)12

On January 29, 2020, the day preceding the launching of the PHEIC (recorded by the WHO), there were five cases in the US, three in Canada, four in France, and four in Germany.13

There was no “scientific basis” to justify the launching of a worldwide public health emergency.

 

Screenshot from WHO, January 29, 2020

 

Those low numbers (not mentioned by the media) did not prevent the launching of a worldwide fear campaign.

 

January 31, 2020: President Trump’s Decision to Suspend Air Travel with China

On the following day (January 31, 2020), Trump announced that he would deny entry to the US of both Chinese and foreign nationals “who have traveled in China in the last 14 days”. This immediately triggered a crisis in air travel, transportation, US-China trade relations as well as freight and shipping transactions.

Whereas the WHO “[did] not recommend any travel or trade restrictions,” the five so-called “confirmed cases” in the US were sufficient to “justify” President Trump’s January 31st, 2020 decision to suspend air travel with China while precipitating a hate campaign against ethnic Chinese throughout the Western world.

This historic January 31st decision paved the way for the disruption of international commodity trade as well as for the imposition of worldwide restrictions on air travel. It was eventually instrumental in spearheading the bankruptcy of major airlines. 

“Fake media” immediately went into high gear. China was held responsible for “spreading infection” worldwide.

Early February 2020: The acronym of the coronavirus was changed from nCoV-2019 (its name under the October Event 201 Johns Hopkins Simulation Exercise) to SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 indicates the disease triggered by SARS-CoV-2.

February 20-21, 2020: Worldwide COVID data outside China. The Diamond Princess cruise ship

While China reported a total of 75,567 cases of COVID-19 (February 20), the confirmed cases outside China were abysmally low and the statistics based, in large part, on the RT-PCR test used to confirm the “worldwide spread of the virus” were questionable to say the least. Moreover, out of the 75,567 cases in China, a large percentage had recovered. And recovery figures were not acknowledged by the media.

On the day of Dr. Tedros’s historic press conference (February 20, 2020), the recorded number of confirmed cases outside China was 1,073 of which 621 were passengers and crew on the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship (stranded in Japanese territorial waters).

From a statistical point of view, the WHO decision pointing to a potential “spread of the virus worldwide” did not make sense.

On February 20th, 57.9% of the worldwide COVID-19 “confirmed cases” were from the Diamond Princess, hardly representative of a worldwide “statistical trend”. The official story is as follows:

  • A Hong Kong-based passenger who had disembarked from the Diamond Princess in Hong Kong on January 25 developed pneumonia and was tested positive for the novel coronavirus on January 30.
  • He was reported to have travelled on January 10 to Shenzhen on mainland China (which borders on Hong Kong’s new territories).
  • The Diamond Princess arrived in Yokohama on February 3. A quarantine was imposed on the cruiser, see NCBI study.14
  • Many passengers fell sick due to the confinement on the boat.
  • All the passengers and crew on the Diamond Princess undertook the PCR test.
  • The number of confirmed cases increased to 691 on February 23.15

Source: Nakazawa, E., Ino, H., et al. (Published on NCBI)

 

Read carefully: From the standpoint of assessing worldwide statistical trends, the data doesn’t add up. Without the Diamond Princess data, the so-called confirmed cases worldwide outside China on February 20, 2020 were of the order of 452, out of a population of 6.4 billion. 

Examine the WHO graph below. The blue indicates the confirmed cases on the Diamond Princess (international conveyance which arrived in Yokohama on February 3, 2020), many of whom were sick, confined to their rooms for more than two weeks (quarantine imposed by Japan). All passengers and crew took the RT-PCR test (which does not detect or identify SARS-CoV-2).

Needless to say, this so-called data was instrumental to spearheading the fear campaign and the collapse of financial markets in the course of the month of February 2020 (see Chapter IV).

 

Source: WHO, February 2020

Source: WHO, February 2020

 

February 20th, 2020: Director General of WHO intimates that the COVID-19 pandemic is imminent 

At a press conference on the 20th of February, Thursday afternoon (CET), in a briefing in Geneva, the WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that he was

“concerned that the chance to contain the coronavirus outbreak was “closing”” …

“I believe the window of opportunity is still there, but that the window is narrowing.”16

There were only 1,076 cases outside China (including the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship):

 

Excerpt from the WHO Director-General’s opening remarks, February 20th, 2020 (Source: WHO)

Note: The WHO graph above, showing data for February 20, 2020, indicates 1,073 cases; however, the WHO press conference indicated 1,076 cases.

 

These “shock and awe” statements contributed to heightening the fear campaign, despite the fact that the number of confirmed cases outside China was exceedingly low. 

Image: WHO data recorded on February 20, 2020,  at the outset of the so-called COVID Financial Crash. (Source: WHO)

February 20-21, 2020 marks the beginning of the 2020 Financial Crash (See Chapter IV).

Excluding the Diamond Princess, the WHO recorded on February 20 a total of 452 so-called “confirmed cases” worldwide outside China, for a population of 6.4 billion — 15 in the US, 8 in Canada, 9 in the UK (see table on the right). Those are the figures used to justify Dr. Tedros’s warnings, “the window is narrowing”

A larger number of cases outside China was recorded in South Korea (153 cases according to WHO) and Italy (recorded by national authorities).

The statement by Dr. Tedros (based on flawed concepts and statistics) set the stage for the February financial collapse (see Chapter IV).

February 24, 2020: Moderna Inc. supported by CEPI announced that its experimental mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, known as mRNA-1273was ready for human testing.17

February 28, 2020: A WHO vaccination campaign was announced by WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus:18

“More than 20 vaccines are in development globally, and several therapeutics are in clinical trials. We expect the first results in a few weeks”. 

It is worth noting that the campaign to develop vaccines was initiated prior to the decision of the WHO to launch a Global Public Health Emergency. It was first announced at the WEF meeting at Davos (January 21-24) by CEPI.

Early March 2020: China. More than 50% of the infected patients recovered. A total of 49,856 patients had recovered from COVID-19 and were discharged from hospitals in China. 

The WHO recorded a total of 80,304 confirmed cases in China on March 3, 2020. What this means is that the total number of “confirmed infected cases” in China was at 30,448. Namely, 80,304 minus 49,856 = 30,448. No evidence of a pandemic in China.

These developments concerning “recovery” were not reported by the Western media.

March 5, 2020: WHO Director-General confirmed that, outside China, there were 2,055 cases reported in 33 countries. Around 80% of those cases were from three countries (South Korea, Iran and Italy).19

March 7, 2020: USA. The number of “confirmed cases” (infected and recovered) in the United States in early March was of the order of 430, rising to about 600 (March 8). A rapid rise in COVID positive cases was recorded in the the course of the month of March. 

Compare these figures to those pertaining to Influenza B virus. The CDC estimated for 2019-2020 (for the US) “at least 15 million virus flu illnesses… 140,000 hospitalizations and 8,200 deaths”. (The Hill)20

March 7, 2020: China. No pandemic in China. Reported new cases in China fell to double digit. 99 cases recorded on March 7. All of the new cases outside Hubei province were categorized as “imported infections” (from foreign countries). The reliability of the data remains to be established:

99 newly confirmed cases including 74 in Hubei Province, … The new cases included 24 imported infections — 17 in Gansu Province, three in Beijing, three in Shanghai and one in Guangdong Province.21

March 11, 2020: The historic COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, “closing down” of approximately 190 national economies  (Chapter IV)

The WHO Director-General had already set the stage in his February 21st Press Conference.22

 “The world should do more to prepare for a possible coronavirus pandemic.” The WHO had called upon countries to be “in a phase of preparedness”.

The WHO officially declared a worldwide pandemic at a time when there were 118,000 confirmed cases and 4,291 deaths worldwide (including China). (March 11, 2020, according to press conference)23 What do these “statistics” tell you?

Image: Total cases on March 12, 2020 (Source: WHO)

The number of confirmed cases outside China (6.4 billion population) was of the order of 44,279 and 1,440 deaths (figures recorded by the WHO for March 11 on March 12, see table on the right). These are the figures used to justify the lockdown and the closing down of approximately 190 national economies.24

(The number of deaths outside China mentioned in Tedros’s press conference was 4,291).

In the US recorded on March 11, 2020, there were, according to Johns Hopkins, 1,335 “cases” and 29 deaths (“presumptive” plus PCR confirmed).

No evidence of a pandemic on March 11, 2020.

Immediately following the March 11, 2020 WHO announcement, the fear campaign went into high gear. (The economic and financial impacts are reviewed in Chapter IV)

March 16, 2020: Moderna mRNA-1273 was tested in several stages with 45 volunteers in Seattle, Washington State. The vaccine program started in early February:

“We don’t know whether this vaccine will induce an immune response, or whether it will be safe. That’s why we’re doing a trial,” Jackson stressed. “It’s not at the stage where it would be possible or prudent to give it to the general population.” (AP, March 16, 2020)25

March 18, 2020: Lockdown in the United States

November 8, 2020: The COVID-19 mRNA “vaccine” was launched. (Chapter VIII)

Mid to late December 2020: Worldwide implementation of the mRNA vaccine program.

January 2021 (onwards): Rising trend in vaccine-related deaths and adverse events documented by official data as well as by the Pfizer Confidential Report (see Chapter VIII).

March 2021: Fictional Exercise Scenario of a Deadly Monkeypox Virus Pandemic

A Tabletop Simulation of a “fictional exercise scenario involving an unusual strain of monkeypox virus” was presented at the March 2021 Munich Security Conference. It was sponsored by the Nuclear Threat Initiative’s (NTI) program of  “Strengthening Global Systems to Prevent and Respond to High-Consequence Biological Threats”. (See Chapter XIII)

Two of the participants of the Johns Hopkins Event 201 October 2019 Tabletop Simulation of a novel coronavirus were present: Dr. George Gao Fu, head of China’s CDC and Dr. Chris Elias, President of the Global Development Division of the Gates Foundation.26

May-June 2021: The Delta Variant and “a Fourth Wave” were announced.

The alleged dangers of the Delta variant were used to speed up the vaccination program as well as the imposition of the vaccine passport.

August-September 2021: The Imposition of a Vaccine Passport in Several Western countries

October 2021: Release of the Pfizer Confidential Report under freedom of information (FOI)

This report confirms the impacts (death and adverse events) of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (see Chapter VIII).27

November 2021: The Omicron variant was allegedly detected in South Africa. The fear campaign triggered a renewed crisis in air travel, coupled with disruptions in commodity trade.

November 2021-January 2022: Distribution of billions of COVID antigen and home test kits worldwide which contributed to doubling the number of so-called “COVID-19 confirmed cases” in the course of six months. More than a billion home and antigen tests in the US, 291 million in Canada.28 

December 24, 2021: The COVID-19 Christmas Omicron lockdown

No large Christmas reunions, the imposition of stay at home mandates, partial closure of bars and restaurants (leading to more bankruptcies), cancellation of sports and cultural events. The unspoken objective is to isolate human beings — prevent people from socializing and meeting up with their loved ones. 

January-February 2022: Partial Lockdowns. Discriminatory Practices directed against the Unvaccinated

In many countries, the unvaccinated were confined to their homes, prevented from traveling, fired from their jobs, prevented from attending schools and universities. They were accused of being extremists and psychopaths. These social divisions are creating conflicts within families and local communities, literally contributing to the disruption of social life, with devastating impacts on economic activity (see Chapter XI).

Canada’s Freedom Convoy 2022 

January-Early February 2022: Mass protest movement in Canada against the vaccine mandate.

 

Freedom Convoy 2022, Ottawa, February 2022. (Copyright Global Research)

March 2022: The launching of the WHO Pandemic Treaty 

In March 2022, the WHO launched an Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) with a mandate to create “A Pandemic Treaty”, i.e. a global health governance entity which if adopted would override the authority of WHO member states (see Chapter XIII). 

China’s COVID Zero Tolerance Mandate imposed on Shanghai 

Starting on March 28, 2022The COVID Zero Tolerance Mandate was imposed on Shanghai, a port city of 26 million people. Initially in Shanghai then extended to major Chinese cities in the course of the following months (April-July 2022) (see Chapter IV).

May 13, 2022: The WHO announces a Monkeypox Outbreak

According to the WHO:

Since 13 May 2022, cases of monkeypox have been reported to [the] WHO from 12 Member States that are not endemic for monkeypox virus, across three WHO regions. Epidemiological investigations are ongoing,  … As of 21 May, 92 laboratory confirmed cases, and 28 suspected cases of monkeypox with investigations ongoing, have been reported to WHO from 12 Member States” (see Chapter XIII)

June-July 2022: The seventh wave. Alleged “imminent danger” of the Omicron BA-4 and BA-5 sub-variants.

July 23, 2022: The Monkeypox Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC)

The WHO Director-General declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) pertaining to the monkeypox virus

Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus took this decision unilaterally against a majority vote of International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) Emergency Committee.

“We have an outbreak that has spread around the world rapidly through new modes of transmission… Although I [Tedros] am declaring a public health emergency of international concern, for the moment this is an outbreak that is concentrated among men who have sex with men, especially those with multiple sexual partners.”29    (See Chapter XIII)

 

Endnotes

1 PYMNTS, September 18, 2019. How To Build A Global Digital Identity Network. https://www.pymnts.com/news/consumer-authentication/2019/how-to-build-a-global-digital-identity-network/

2 PYMNTS, September 19, 2019. ID2020 Alliance Unveils Digital ID Program. https://www.pymnts.com/news/biometrics/2019/id2020-alliance-unveils-digital-id-program/

3 Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, n.d. Event 201. https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/

4 Chiron Return, September 30, 2021. Timeline and Early Chronology of Covid-19 “Pandemic”, PCR Assay and Sequencing. https://www.globalresearch.ca/early-chronology-covid-pcr-assay-sequencing/5757189

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 WHO, January 23, 2020. Statement on the first meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee regarding the outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). https://www.who.int/news/item/23-01-2020-statement-on-the-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)

8 Ibid.

9 National Institutes of Health, March 16, 2020. NIH clinical trial of investigational vaccine for COVID-19 begins. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-clinical-trial-investigational-vaccine-covid-19-begins

10 WHO, January 30, 2020. Statement on the second meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee regarding the outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). https://www.who.int/news/item/30-01-2020-statement-on-the-second-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)

11 CDC, December 29, 2020. SARS-CoV-2 Viral Culturing at CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/grows-virus-cell-culture.html

12  WHO, January 30, 2020. Statement on the second meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee regarding the outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). https://www.who.int/news/item/30-01-2020-statement-on-the-second-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)

13 WHO, January 29, 2020. Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Situation Report – 9. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200129-sitrep-9-ncov-v2.pdf?sfvrsn=e2c8915_2

14 Eisuke Nakazawa, Hiroyasu Ino, et al., March 24, 2020. Chronology of COVID-19 Cases on the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship and Ethical Considerations: A Report From Japan. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7156812/

15 Ibid.

16 WHO, February 20, 2020. WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 on 20 February 2020. https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19-on-20-february-2020

17 WEF, February 13, 2020. Update: Coronavirus (COVID-19) | DAVOS 2020. https://www.weforum.org/videos/update-wuhan-coronavirus-covid-19-davos-2020

18 WHO, February 28, 2020. WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 – 28 February 2020. https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19—28-february-2020

19 WHO, March 5, 2020. WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 – 5 March 2020. https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19—5-march-2020

20 Joseph Guzman, January 27, 2020. Coronavirus is spreading — but the flu is a greater threat to Americans. https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/480089-coronavirus-sparks-panic-as-flu-poses-greater-threat-to

21 Xinhua, March 7, 2020. Xinhua Headlines: China’s new COVID-19 cases drop to double-digit figures since Jan. 21. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-03/07/c_138853686.htm

22 WHO, February 21, 2020. Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Press Conference. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcripts/who-audio-emergencies-coronavirus-full-press-conference-21feb2020-final.pdf?sfvrsn=954f8ec7_2

23 WHO, March 11, 2020. WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 – 11 March 2020. https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19—11-march-2020

24 WHO, March 12, 2020. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report – 52. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200312-sitrep-52-covid-19.pdf

25 The Associated Press, March 16, 2020. COVID-19 vaccine test begins as volunteer patient administered 1st shot. https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/coronavirus-vaccine-1.5499244

26 Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, August 4, 2022. Worldwide Monkeypox Health Emergency (PHEIC): For Bill Gates, It’s “Moneypox”: Simulation of Fictitious Monkeypox Virus Pandemic in March 2021, Goes Live in May 2022. https://www.globalresearch.ca/bill-gates-warns-smallpox-terror-attacks-urges-leaders-use-germ-games-prepare/5781195?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles

27 Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, August 13, 2022. Bombshell Document Dump on Pfizer Vaccine Data. https://www.globalresearch.ca/bombshell-document-dump-pfizer-vaccine-data/5763397

28 Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, July 19, 2022. Biggest Lie in World History: There Never Was A Pandemic. The Data Base is Flawed. The Covid Mandates including the Vaccine are Invalid. https://www.globalresearch.ca/biggest-lie-in-world-history-the-data-base-is-flawed-there-never-was-a-pandemic-the-covid-mandates-including-the-vaccine-are-invalid/5772008

29 WHO, July 23, 2022. WHO Director-General’s statement at the press conference following IHR Emergency Committee regarding the multi-country outbreak of monkeypox – 23 July 2022. https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-statement-on-the-press-conference-following-IHR-emergency-committee-regarding-the-multi–country-outbreak-of-monkeypox–23-july-2022

 


 

Chapter III

What Is COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2:

How Is It Tested? How Is It Measured?

 

“The PCR is a process. It does not tell you that you are sick.”  —Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and Inventor of the RT-PCR, passed away in August 2019.

“…All or a substantial part of these positives could be due to what’s called false positives tests.” —Dr. Michael Yeadon, distinguished scientist, former Vice President and Chief Science Officer of Pfizer

“This misuse of the RT-PCR technique is applied as a relentless and intentional strategy by some governments to justify excessive measures such as the violation of a large number of constitutional rights, … under the pretext of a pandemic based on a number of positive RT-PCR tests, and not on a real number of patients.” —Dr. Pascal Sacré, Belgian physician specialized in critical care and renowned public health analyst.

“I have seen massive efforts made to deliberately inflate Covid death numbers by relabelling cancer patients and stroke victims and all manner of normal regular deaths as Covid, in fact virtually anyone getting into an ambulance. The methods used to do so were totally flawed, PCR tests for example being run on 45 cycles we all know to be worthless, yet people are being euthanised on this basis and sometimes only on the basis of a chest x-ray alone.” —John O’Looney, Funeral Director, Milton Keynes, U.K.

 

Introduction

Media lies coupled with a systemic and carefully engineered fear campaign have sustained the image of a killer virus which is relentlessly spreading to all major regions of the world. 

Several billion people in more than 190 countries have been tested (as well as retested) for COVID-19.  

At the time of writing, more than 500 million people worldwide have been categorized as “COVID-19 confirmed cases (“cumulative cases”).

The alleged pandemic is said to have resulted in more than 5.8 million COVID-19-related deaths.

Both sets of figures — morbidity and mortality — are invalid. A highly organized COVID testing apparatus (part of which is funded by the billionaire foundations) was established with a view to driving up the numbers of “COVID-19 confirmed cases”, which are then used as a justification to impose the “vaccine” passport coupled with the repeal of fundamental human rights. 

From the outset of this crisis in January 2020, all far-reaching policy decisions upheld and presented to the public as a “means to saving lives” were based on flawed and invalid RT-PCR positive cases.

These invalid COVID-19 “estimates” have been used to justify confinement, social distancing, wearing of the face mask, the prohibition of social gatherings, cultural and sports events, the closure of economic activity, as well as the enforcement of the mRNA “vaccine” launched in November 2020. 

There is no such thing as a “COVID-19 confirmed case”. Firmly acknowledged both by scientific opinion and the World Health Organization, the RT-PCR test used to “detect” the spread of the virus (as well as its variants) is not only flawed but TOTALLY INVALID. 

The fear campaign is relentlessly spearheaded by political statements and media disinformation. A closer examination of official reports from national health authorities as well as peer-reviewed articles provides a totally different picture. 

In this chapter, we will be focusing on the following issues:

1.  The features of the SARS-CoV-2 virus as outlined by the WHO, the CDC and peer-reviewed reports. Is it a dangerous virus?

2. The Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) Test used to “detect/identify” SARS-CoV-2.

3. The reliability of the estimates of mortality and morbidity pertaining to the alleged COVID-19 infection.

 

The Features of SARS-CoV-2

Lies through omission: the media has failed to reassure the broader public.

Below is the official WHO definition of COVID-19 followed by that of the CDC:

Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses which may cause illness in animals or humans.  In humans, several coronaviruses are known to cause respiratory infections ranging from the common cold to more severe diseases such as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). The most recently discovered coronavirus causes coronavirus disease COVID-19.

“The most common symptoms of COVID-19 are fever, dry cough, and tiredness. … These symptoms are usually mild and begin gradually. Some people become infected but only have very mild symptoms. Most people (about 80%) recover from the disease without needing hospital treatment. Around 1 out of every 5 people who gets COVID-19 becomes seriously ill and develops difficulty breathing.”1

 

Similar to Influenza According to the CDC

COVID-19 versus Influenza (Flu) Virus A and Virus B (and subtypes) 

Rarely mentioned by the media or by politicians: The CDC (which is an agency of the US government) confirms that COVID-19 is similar to Influenza:

Influenza (Flu) and COVID-19 are both contagious respiratory illnesses, but they are caused by different viruses. COVID-19 is caused by infection with a new coronavirus (called SARS-CoV-2) and flu is caused by infection with influenza viruses. Because some of the symptoms of flu and COVID-19 are similar, it may be hard to tell the difference between them based on symptoms alone, and testing may be needed to help confirm a diagnosis. Flu and COVID-19 share many characteristics, but there are some key differences between the two.”2

If the public had been informed and reassured that COVID is “similar to Influenza”, the fear campaign would have fallen flat.

The lockdown and closure of the national economy would have been rejected outright.

According to Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, pneumonia is “regularly caused or accompanied by coronaviruses”.3

Immunologists broadly confirm the CDC definition. COVID-19 has similar features to a seasonal influenza coupled with pneumonia.

According to Anthony Fauci (Head of NIAID), H. Clifford Lane, and Robert R. Redfield (Head of CDC) in the New England Journal of Medicine:

“…the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.”4

How convenient: The above article was first published in the NEJM on March 26, 2020, exactly ten days after the declaration of a national emergency by President Trump on March 16, 2020. Had this authoritative peer-reviewed text been brought to the attention of the American public, the lockdown mandate would have fallen flat. 

Fauci speaks to the White House press corps on COVID-19 in April 2020, watched by President Donald Trump (left) and Vice President Mike Pence (right). (By The White House, licensed under the Public Domain)

Dr. Anthony Fauci is lying to himself. In his public statements, he says that COVID is “ten times worse than seasonal flu”.5

He refutes his peer-reviewed report quoted above. From the outset, Fauci has been instrumental in waging a fear and panic campaign across America.6 

 

The Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) Test

The slanted methodology applied under WHO guidance for detecting the alleged spread of the virus is the Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) test, which has been routinely applied all over the world since February 2020.

The RT-PCR test has been used worldwide to generate millions of erroneous “COVID-19 confirmed cases”, which are then used to sustain the illusion that the alleged pandemic is real.

This assessment based on erroneous numbers has been used in the course of the last two and a half years to spearhead and sustain the fear campaign.

And people are now led to believe that the COVID-19 “vaccine” is the “solution”. And that “normality” will be restored once the entire population of planet Earth has been vaccinated.

“Confirmed” is a misnomer. A “confirmed RT-PCR positive case” does not imply a “COVID-19 confirmed case”.

Positive RT-PCR is not synonymous with the COVID-19 disease! PCR specialists make it clear that a test must always be compared with the clinical record of the patient being tested, with the patient’s state of health to confirm its value [reliability]. (Dr. Pascal Sacré)7

The procedure used by the national health authorities is to categorize all RT-PCR positive cases as “COVID-19 confirmed cases” (with or without a medical diagnosis). Ironically, this routine process of identifying “confirmed cases” is in derogation of the CDC’s own guidelines:

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”8 (emphasis added)

The methodology used to detect and estimate the spread of the virus is flawed and invalid.

 

False Positives

The earlier debate at the outset of the crisis focused on the issue of “false positives.”

Acknowledged by the WHO and the CDC, the RT-PCR test was known to produce a high percentage of false positives. According to Dr. Pascal Sacré:

“Today, as authorities test more people, there are bound to be more positive RT-PCR tests. This does not mean that COVID-19 is coming back, or that the epidemic is moving in waves. There are more people being tested, that’s all.”9

The debate on false positives (acknowledged by health authorities) points to so-called errors without necessarily questioning the overall validity of the RT-PCR test as a means to detecting the alleged spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

 

The PCR Test Does Not Detect the Identity of the Virus

The RT-PCR test does not identify/detect the virus. What the PCR test identifies are genetic fragments of numerous viruses (including influenza viruses types A and B and coronaviruses which trigger common colds).

The results of the RT-PCR test cannot “confirm” whether an individual who undertakes the test is infected with SARS-CoV-2.

The following diagram summarizes the process of identifying positive and negative cases. All that is required is the presence of “viral genetic material” for it to be categorized as “positive”. The procedure does not identity or isolate COVID-19. What appears in the tests are fragments of the virus.10

 

 
 
A positive test does not mean that you have the virus and/or that you could transmit the virus.

According to Dr. Kary Mullis, inventor of the PCR technique, 

“The PCR detects a very small segment of the nucleic acid which is part of a virus itself.”

Image: Dr. Kary Mullis, American biochemist and Nobel laureate. (By Dona Mapston/Flickr, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

According to renowned Swiss immunologist Dr. B. Stadler:

So if we do a PCR corona test on an immune person, it is not a virus that is detected, but a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left. Even if the infectious viri are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected].11

Dr. Pascal Sacré concurs, “These tests detect viral particles, genetic sequences, not the whole virus.”12

“In an attempt to quantify the viral load, these sequences are then amplified several times through numerous complex steps that are subject to errors, sterility errors and contamination.”

 

The WHO’s “Customized” RT-PCR COVID-19 “Test” 

Two important and related issues.

The PCR test does not identify the virus as outlined above. Moreover, the WHO in January 2020 did not possess an isolate and purified sample of the novel 2019-nCoV virus. 

What was contemplated in January 2020 was a “customization” of the PCR test by the WHO, under the scientific guidance of the Berlin Virology Institute at Charité Hospital.

Dr. Christian Drosten and his colleagues at the Berlin Virology Institute undertook a study entitled “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR”.13

 

Screenshot from Eurosurveillance 

 

The title of the Berlin Virology Institute study is an obvious misnomer. The PCR test cannot “detect” the 2019 novel coronavirus. (See Dr. Kary Mullis, Dr. B. Stadler, Dr. Pascal Sacré quoted above).

Moreover, the study published by Eurosurveillance acknowledges that the WHO did not possess an isolate and purified sample of the novel 2019-nCoV virus: 

[While]… several viral genome sequences had been released,… virus isolates or samples [of 2019-nCoV] from infected patients were not available …”14

The Drosten, et al. team then recommended to the WHO that in the absence of an isolate of the 2019-nCoV virus, a similar 2003 SARS-CoV should be used as a “proxy” (point of reference) of the novel virus:

“The genome sequences suggest presence of a virus closely related to the members of a viral species termed severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-related CoV, a species defined by the agent of the 2002/03 outbreak of SARS in humans [3,4].

We report on the the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation [using the RT-PCR test], designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.” (Eurosurveillance, January 23, 2020, emphasis added).15

What this ambiguous statement suggests is that the identity of 2019-nCoV was not required and that “COVID-19 confirmed cases” (aka infection resulting from the 2019 novel coronavirus) would be validated by “the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV.” 

What this means is that a coronavirus detected 19 years ago (2003 SARS-CoV) is being used to “validate” the identity of a so-called “novel coronavirus” first detected in China’s Hubei Province in late December 2019.

The recommendations of the Drosten study (generously supported and financed by the Gates Foundation) were then transmitted to the WHO. They were subsequently endorsed by the Director-General of the WHO, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

The WHO did not have in its possession the “virus isolate” required to identify the virus. It was decided that an isolate of the new coronavirus was not required. 

The Drosten, et al. article pertaining to the use of the RT-PCR test worldwide (under WHO guidance) was challenged in a November 27, 2020 study by a group of 23 international virologists, microbiologists, et al.

It stands to reason that if the PCR test uses the 2003 SARS-CoV virus as “a point of reference”, there can be no “confirmed” COVID-19 cases of the novel virus 2019-nCoV (subsequently renamed SARS-CoV-2) or of its variants.

 

Has the Identity of the 2019-nCoV Been Confirmed? Does the Virus Exist? 

While the WHO did not possess an isolate of the virus, is there valid and reliable evidence that the 2019 novel coronavirus had been isolated from an “unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient”?16

The Chinese authorities announced on January 7, 2020 that “a new type of virus” had been “identified” “similar to the one associated with SARS and MERS” (related report, not original Chinese government source). The underlying method adopted by the Chinese research team is described below:

We prospectively collected and analysed data on patients with laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection by real-time RT-PCR and next-generation sequencing.

Data were obtained with standardised data collection forms shared by WHO and the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium from electronic medical records.17 (emphasis added)

The above study (quotation above as well as other documents consulted) suggests that China’s health authorities did not undertake an isolation/purification of a patient’s specimen. Using “laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection by real-time RT-PCR” (as quoted in their study) is an obvious misnomer, i.e. the RT-PCR test cannot under any circumstances be used to identify the virus. The isolate of the virus by the Chinese authorities is unconfirmed.18

 

Freedom of Information Pertaining to the Isolate of SARS-CoV-2

A detailed investigative project by Christine Massey entitled Freedom of Information Requests: Health/Science Institutions Worldwide “Have No Record” of SARS-COV-2 Isolation/Purification provides documentation concerning the identity of the virus. The responses to these requests from 127 entities in 25 countries confirm that there is no record of isolation/purification of SARS-CoV-2 “having been performed by anyone, anywhere, ever.”19

 

The Threshold Amplification Cycles. The WHO Admits that the Results of the RT-PCR “Test” Are Totally Invalid

The RT-PCR test was adopted by the WHO on January 23, 2020 as a means to detecting the SARS-CoV-2 virus, following the recommendations of the Berlin Virology research group (quoted above).

Exactly one year later on January 20, 2021, the WHO retracts. They don’t say “we made a mistake”. The retraction is carefully formulated (see original WHO document here).20

The contentious issue pertains to the number of amplification threshold cycles (Ct). According to Pieter Borger, et al.:

The number of amplification cycles [should be] less than 35; preferably 25-30 cycles. In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture…(Critique of Drosten Study)21

The World Health Organization (WHO) tacitly admits one year later that ALL PCR tests conducted at a 35 cycle amplification threshold (Ct) or higher are INVALID. But that is what they recommended in January 2020, in consultation with the Virology team at Charité Hospital in Berlin.

If the test is conducted at a 35 Ct threshold or above (which was recommended by the WHO), genetic segments of the SARS-CoV-2 virus cannot be detected, which means that ALL the so-called “COVID-19 confirmed cases” tabulated worldwide in the course of the last two and a half years are invalid.

According to Pieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra, Michael Yeadon, et al., the Ct > 35 has been the norm “in most laboratories in Europe & the US”.22

 

The WHO’s Mea Culpa

Below is the WHO’s carefully formulated “retraction”.

“WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology. (emphasis added)

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.”23

 

“Invalid Positives” Is the Underlying Concept 

This is not an issue of “weak positives” and “risk of false positive increases”. What is at stake is a “flawed methodology” which leads to invalid estimates of “COVID-19 confirmed cases”.

What this admission of the WHO confirms is that the estimate of COVID positive from a PCR test (with an amplification threshold of 35 cycles or higher) is invalid. In which case, the WHO recommends retesting, “a new specimen should be taken and retested…”

The WHO calls for “retesting”, which is tantamount to saying “we screwed up”.

That recommendation is pro-forma. It won’t happen. Several billion people worldwide have already been tested, starting in early February 2020.

From the outset, the PCR test has routinely been applied at a Ct amplification threshold of 35 cycles or higher. What this means is that the PCR methodology as applied worldwide has in the course of the last two and a half years led to the compilation of faulty and misleading COVID-19 estimates, which according to the WHO (January 20, 2021) are based on an invalid methodology.  

And these are the statistics which are used to measure the progression of the so-called “pandemic”. Above an amplification cycle of 35 or higher, the test will not detect fragments of the virus. Therefore, the official “COVID numbers” (COVID-19 confirmed cases) are meaningless.

It follows that there is no scientific basis for confirming the existence of a pandemic, which in turn means that the lockdown/economic measures which have resulted in social panic, mass poverty and unemployment (allegedly to curtail the spread of the virus) have no justification whatsoever. According to scientific opinion:

“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%  

3. The number of amplification cycles (less than 35; preferably 25-30 cycles);

In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture [reviewed in 2]; if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%” (emphasis added) (Pieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra, Michael Yeadon, Clare Craig, Kevin McKernan, et al. Critique of Drosten Study)24

As outlined above, “the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%”, it follows that using the >35 cycles detection will indelibly contribute to “hiking up” the number of “fake positives”.

The WHO’s mea culpa confirms that the COVID-19 PCR test procedure as applied is meaningless.

 

The CDC Orders the Withdrawal of the PCR Test

The WHO’s historic retraction is followed six months later by a mea culpa on the part of the CDC. On July 21, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) calls for the withdrawal of the PCR test as a valid method for detecting and identifying SARS-CoV-2: 

“After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only.”

In preparation for this change, CDC recommends clinical laboratories and testing sites that have been using the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR assay select and begin their transition to another FDA-authorized COVID-19 test.

CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses. (emphasis added)25

Read carefully: what this CDC directive tacitly admits is that the PCR test does not effectively differentiate between “SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses”. We have known this from the outset.

As of January 1, 2022, the CDC has withdrawn its endorsement of the RT-PCR test in the US.

If the PCR test is invalid as intimated by both the CDC and the WHO, more than 574 million so-called “COVID-19 confirmed cases” (July 2022) as well as more than 6.3 million alleged COVID-related deaths (July 2022) collected and tabulated worldwide since the outset of the alleged pandemic are totally meaningless.

 

The Falsification of Death Certificates 

Inasmuch as the PCR test is invalid, it follows that the estimates of “COVID-19 confirmed cases” including the detection of variants of SARS-CoV-2 are totally invalid. This in turn means that the methodology pertaining to establishing COVID-19-related deaths worldwide is also invalid.

It is worth noting that in a December 2020 report, the CDC reported that 94% of the deaths attributed to COVID have “comorbidities” (i.e. deaths due to other causes).26

For six percent of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups.

“They’re writing COVID on all the death certificates,” according to Michael Lanza, Funeral Director at Staten Island, NY.

“Funeral directors doubt legitimacy of deaths attributed to pandemic, fear numbers are ‘padded.'” (Project Veritas)27

Moreover, had the CDC used the criteria in its Medical Examiners’ and Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting Revision 2003: 

” … the COVID-19 fatality count would have been approximately 90.2% lower” (See H. Ealy, M. McEvoy, and et al., August 09, 2020)28

US Fatalities With At Least 1 Comorbidity. (Source: CDC via IPAK PHPI

 

COVID-19: The “Underlying Cause of Death” and the CDC’s “More Often Than Not” Clause 

While the CDC acknowledged the issue of comorbidities, it nonetheless enacted totally invalid instructions with regard to the death certificates.

Barely a week following the historic March 11, 2020 lockdown, specific guidelines were introduced by the CDC pertaining to  death certificates (and their tabulation in the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS)).29

Will COVID-19 be the underlying cause of death? This concept is fundamental.30

The underlying cause of death is defined by the WHO as

“the disease or injury that initiated the train of events leading directly to death”.  

What the CDC recommended with regard to statistical coding and categorization is that COVID-19 is expected to be the underlying cause of death “more often than not.”

The CDC combines these two criteria: “underlying cause of death” and “more often than not”.

Will COVID-19 be the underlying cause of death? 

“The underlying cause depends upon what and where conditions are reported on the death certificate. However, the rules for coding and selection of the underlying cause of death are expected to result in COVID-19 being the underlying cause more often than not.”31

The above directive is categorical.

The CDC Concepts and Justifications

The certifier is not allowed to report coronavirus without identifying a specific strain. And the guidelines recommend that COVID-19 must always be indicated.

 

Screenshot from National Vital Statistics System

The certifier cannot depart from the CDC criteria. COVID-19 is imposed. Read carefully the CDC criteria.32

There are no loopholes.

These CDC directives have contributed to categorizing COVID-19 as the recorded “cause of death”. Two fundamental concepts prevail throughout:

  1. The “underlying cause of death”
  2. The “More Often than Not” clause which falsifies the cause of death 

And these criteria are imposed despite the fact that the RT-PCR test used to corroborate the “cause of death” provides misleading results as acknowledged by both the WHO and the CDC.

In practice, as outlined above, “probable COVID-19” or “likely COVID-19” will be considered as the “underlying cause of death” without the conduct of a PCR test and without performing an autopsy. 

The criteria establishing the “underlying” cause of death in the US are based on “the more often than not” clause (see above) established nationally by the CDC.

Canada: Flawed “Estimates” of the Cause of Death

In Canada, the criteria differ from one province to another. Categorizing the cause of death in Canada’s Province of Quebec has been the object of gross manipulation.33

According to a directive from Quebec’s Ministry of Health (April 2020):

“If the presumed cause of death is Covid-19 (with or without a positive test) an autopsy should be avoided and death should be attributed to Covid-19 as the probable cause of death. In addition, deaths whose probable cause is Covid-19 are considered natural, and are not subject to a coroner’s notice.“ (emphasis from the original document)34

The directive does not allow the counting of comorbidities. Applied on April 16, 2020, this directive was conducive to an immediate sharp increase in the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19:

44.9% of total deaths in Quebec were attributed to COVID-19 (week of 11-18 April 2020) (see table below).

According to Montreal’s La Presse, “April [2020] was the deadliest month”. But did La Presse consult the directives of the Ministry of Health?

Below are the (daily) causes of death for Quebec corresponding to the week of April 12 to 18, 2020 (immediately following the government directive) measured according to the criteria issued by the Ministry of Health.35 There were virtually no COVID cases or deaths recorded in March 2020. 

Table below: Causes of Deaths, Daily Average 

 

Source: Copyright La Presse 

Are these figures the result of the so-called deadly pandemic? Or are they the result of the Ministry of Health’s “guidelines” based on erroneous criteria?

  • “presumed” case pertaining to COVID
  • “with or without a positive test”
  • “probable” cause of death
  • “autopsy should be avoided” in the case of COVID-19
  • deaths of which the probable cause is COVID-19 are considered natural, and are not the object of a notice to the coroner

According to Mr. Paul G. Brunet of the Council for the Protection of the Sick (CPM):

“… We realized through the denunciations by some of the doctors that people did not die from COVID, but from dehydration, malnutrition, abandonment, laments Mr. Brunet. So what did the thousands of people in CHSLDs [old persons nursing homes] and private residences really die of?” (quoted in La Presse, translated from French)

 

Test, Test, Test: Invalid Data and the “Numbers Game”

People are frightened. They are encouraged to do the PCR test, which increases the number of fake positives. Governments are involved in increasing the number of PCR tests with a view to inflating the estimates of so-called “COVID-19 confirmed cases”.

Moreover, starting in late 2021, several billion antigen and home test kits were distributed worldwide. More than a billion test kits were distributed in the US.

In Canada, which has a population of 38.5 million people, the federal government ordered (late 2021, early 2022) the delivery of 291 million COVID-19 antigen home testing kits. This decision has not only contributed to spearheading the fear campaign, it has created a situation of social chaos. It has contributed to pushing up the numbers of so-called “confirmed cases”.36 These tests are not routinely accompanied by a medical diagnosis of the patient.

 


Annex to Chapter III

Full text of the WHO directive dated January 20, 202137

 

Screenshot from WHO

 

Nucleic Acid Testing (NAT) Technologies that Use Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) for Detection of SARS-CoV-2

Product type: Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2

Date: 13 January 2021                                                                      

WHO-identifier: 2020/5, version 2

Target audience: laboratory professionals and users of IVDs.

Purpose of this notice: clarify information previously provided by WHO. This notice supersedes WHO Information Notice for In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device (IVD) Users 2020/05 version 1, issued 14 December 2020.

Description of the problem: WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology.

Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.

Actions to be taken by IVD users:

  1. Please read carefully the IFU in its entirety.
  2. Contact your local representative if there is any aspect of the IFU that is unclear to you.
  3. Check the IFU for each incoming consignment to detect any changes to the IFU.
  4. Provide the Ct value in the report to the requesting health care provider.

 

Notes

1. Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020, WHO reference number WHO/2019-nCoV/laboratory/2020.6.

2. Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. BMJ. 1994 Jul 9;309(6947):102. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6947.102.


Endnotes

1 WHO, March 8, 2020. Media Statement: Knowing the risks for COVID-19. https://www.who.int/indonesia/news/detail/08-03-2020-knowing-the-risk-for-covid-19

2 CDC, n.d. Similarities and Differences between Flu and COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm#table

3 Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 5, 2020. Fake Coronavirus Data, Fear Campaign. Spread of the COVID-19 Infection. https://www.globalresearch.ca/fake-coronavirus-data-fear-campaign-spread-of-the-covid-19-infection/5708643

4 Anthony Fauci, Clifford Lane, et al., March 26, 2020. Covid-19 — Navigating the Uncharted. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387#

5 Ronald Bailey, March 11, 2020. COVID-19 Mortality Rate ‘Ten Times Worse’ Than Seasonal Flu, Says Dr. Anthony Fauci. https://reason.com/2020/03/11/covid-19-mortality-rate-ten-times-worse-than-seasonal-flu-says-dr-anthony-fauci/

6 Ibid.

7 Dr. Pascal Sacre, November 5, 2020. The COVID-19 RT-PCR Test: How to Mislead All Humanity. Using a “Test” To Lock Down Society. https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-19-rt-pcr-how-to-mislead-all-humanity-using-a-test-to-lock-down-society/5728483

8 CDC, July 21, 2021. CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel. https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

9 Dr. Pascal Sacre, November 5, 2020. The COVID-19 RT-PCR Test: How to Mislead All Humanity. Using a “Test” To Lock Down Society. https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-19-rt-pcr-how-to-mislead-all-humanity-using-a-test-to-lock-down-society/5728483

10 Joseph Hadaya, Max Schumm, et al., April 1, 2020. Testing Individuals for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2764238

11 Beda M Sadler, July 2, 2020. Coronavirus: Why Everyone Was Wrong. It is Not a “New Virus”. “The Fairy Tale of No Immunity”. https://www.globalresearch.ca/coronavirus-why-everyone-wrong/5718049

12 Dr. Pascal Sacre, August 7, 2020. COVID-19: Closer to the Truth: Tests and Immunity. https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-19-closer-to-the-truth-tests-and-immunity/5720160

13 Victor M Corman, Olfert Landt, et al., January 23, 2020. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid.

16 Christine Massey, August 4, 2021. The Identity of the Virus: Health/Science Institutions Worldwide “Have No Record” of SARS-COV-2 Isolation/Purification. https://www.globalresearch.ca/foi-reveal-health-science-institutions-around-world-have-no-record-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification-anywhere-ever/5751969

17 Chaolin Huang, Yeming Wang, et al., January 24, 2020. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7159299/

18 Fan Wu, Su Zhao, et al., February 3, 2020. A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2008-3

19 Christine Massey, August 4, 2021. The Identity of the Virus: Health/ Science Institutions Worldwide “Have No Record” of SARS-COV-2 Isolation/Purification. https://www.globalresearch.ca/foi-reveal-health-science-institutions-around-world-have-no-record-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification-anywhere-ever/5751969

20 WHO, January 20, 2021. Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2. https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05

21 Pieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra, et al., November 27, 2020. Review report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020. https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

22 Ibid.

23 WHO, September 11, 2020. Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/diagnostic-testing-for-sars-cov-2

24 Pieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra, et al., November 27, 2020. Review report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020. https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

25 CDC, July 21, 2021. Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing. https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html

26 CDC, January 20, 2022. Conditions Contributing to COVID-19 Deaths, by State and Age, Provisional 2020-2021. https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Conditions-Contributing-to-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Stat/hk9y-quqm

27 Project Veritas, April 30, 2020. BREAKING: Funeral Directors in COVID-19 Epicenter Doubt Legitimacy of Deaths Attributed to Pandemic, Fear Numbers are ‘Padded’. https://www.projectveritas.com/news/breaking-funeral-directors-in-covid-19-epicenter-doubt-legitimacy-of-deaths/

28 H. Ealy, M. McEvoy, et al., July 24, 2020. Covid-19: Questionable Policies, Manipulated Rules of Data Collection and Reporting. Is It Safe for Students to Return to School? https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-fatalities-wer-90-2-lower-how-would-you-feel-about-schools-reopening/5720264

29 National Vital Statistics System, March 24, 2020. New ICD code introduced for COVID-19 deaths. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/coronavirus/Alert-2-New-ICD-code-introduced-for-COVID-19-deaths.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2XckyC93jfKqvOue5EdPlNA8LlKKgz4vPZTU1whI4vXLSOADSjsL9XY-M

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid.

32 Ibid.

33 Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 14, 2021. Quebec: Falsification of Mortality Data Pertaining to Covid-19. https://www.globalresearch.ca/quebec-falsification-of-mortality-data-pertaining-to-covid-19/5737290

34 See this: https://amol.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/19_avril_20-AU-00603_LET_Opatrny-Codirecteurs_Orientations_ministerielle….pdf

35 Ibid.

36 Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, July 19, 2022. Biggest Lie in World History: There Never Was A Pandemic. The Data Base is Flawed. The Covid Mandates including the Vaccine are Invalid. https://www.globalresearch.ca/biggest-lie-in-world-history-the-data-base-is-flawed-there-never-was-a-pandemic-the-covid-mandates-including-the-vaccine-are-invalid/5772008

37 WHO, January 20, 2021. Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2. https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05

 


 

Chapter IV

Engineered Economic Depression

 

Introduction

Economics 101. The March 11, 2020 lockdown applied simultaneously in 190 countries has resulted in: 

“The confinement of the labor force” coupled with

“The paralysis of the workplace”.  

The predictable impact: 

The most serious economic crisis in world history.

The Economics Profession

The economics profession  focusing on the “market mechanism” has casually ignored this fundamental causal relationship. 

The consensus among both neoclassical as well as “progressive” political economists and social scientists is that “V the virus”, namely SARS-CoV-2 is responsible for the downfall of economic activity.

A similar position was adopted by trade union organizations including the AFL-CIO: the confinement of the labor force was viewed as a means to “protect” labor rights. 

When workers are confined in their homes, prevented from going to their workplace, “the common sense impact” is obvious: the lockdown is conducive to worldwide economic and social chaos. 

According to mainstream economists and financial analysts, the economic crisis commenced in early March 2022 coinciding with the onslaught of the war in Ukraine.  

That position is mistaken.

The ongoing economic and social crisis which is affecting humanity worldwide has its roots in January 2020 following the WEF meetings in Davos and the launching of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) by the WHO (January 30, 2020). 

Distinct Phases and Consequences

There are several distinct phases in the engineered destabilization of the global economy which are examined in this chapter:

  • Late January 2020: the Trump administration announced (Jan 31, 2020) that the U.S. will deny entry to foreign nationals “who have traveled in China in the last 14 days”.1 Trump’s decision immediately triggered a crisis in air travel and transportation which is still ongoing. China-US trade as well as the tourism industry were disrupted.
  • February 20, 2020: The WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros’s warning that a pandemic was imminent served to trigger the most serious financial crash since 1929.
  • The March 11, 2020 lockdown was conducive to the “closing down” of approximately 193 national economies, with devastating economic and social consequences.
  • November-December 2020: A partial lockdown as well as the launching of the COVID-19 vaccine
  • November 2021-January 2022: The Omicron variant was used to justify a partial lockdown, the launching of the vaccine passport, the enforcement of restrictive measures directed against the unvaccinated.
  • April-July 2022: The application of a lockdown mandate under China’s Zero Tolerance COVID Mandate in Shanghai and major urban areas in China.

 

The Disruption of US-China Trade 

Trump’s decision on January 31, 2020 was taken immediately following the announcement of the WHO Director-General’s decision to launch a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) (January 30, 2020). In many regards, this was an act of “economic warfare” against China.

And then, following Trump’s January 31, 2020 decision to curtail air travel and transportation to China, a campaign was launched in Western countries against China as well as against ethnic Chinese. The Economist reported that “The coronavirus spreads racism against and among ethnic Chinese.”2

“Britain’s Chinese community faces racism over coronavirus outbreak.”

According to the South China Morning Post (Hong Kong): “Chinese communities overseas are increasingly facing racist abuse and discrimination amid the coronavirus outbreak. Some ethnic Chinese people living in the UK say they experienced growing hostility because of the deadly virus that originated in China.”3

 

US-China Trade. America’s Dependence on “Made in China”

The impacts on bilateral US-China trade relations at the outset of the corona crisis were devastating: US commodity imports from China declined by 28.3% in the course of the first three months of the corona crisis.

Following the March 11, 2020 lockdown and (partial) closure of economic activity worldwide, the decline of US imports from China in March 2020 was of the order of 36.5% (in relation to March 2019).4  Moreover, resulting from the deep-seated financial crisis which started in February 2020, the value of (announced) Chinese direct investment projects in the US had fallen by about 90% (Financial Times).5

While the US has an advanced and diversified high technology economy (in both civilian and military production), its manufacturing base is weak. America is an import-led economy (resulting from offshoring) heavily dependent on commodity imports from the People’s Republic of China.

Moreover, despite America’s financial dominance and the powers of the dollar, there are serious failures in the structure of America’s “real economy” which have been exacerbated by the corona crisis.

Political and geopolitical factors have also played a key role including the anti-Chinese campaign launched in February 2020 as well as threats by Washington, claiming that China was responsible for “spreading the virus”.

While the US economy entered into a deep-seated crisis starting with the February 2020 financial crash and the March 2020 lockdown, China’s national economy had recovered. China’s exports increased significantly in the course of 2021. 

Bilateral US-China trade relations are nonetheless in jeopardy, marked by a significant reduction of Chinese imports from the US. While China’s exports to the United States increased in 2021, China’s monthly trade surplus with the United States increased by 31.1% (Time, January 14, 2022).6

In April 2022, there was a dramatic turnaround in China’s economy, marked by the adoption of a COVID-19 Zero Tolerance Mandate, (with millions of people confined to their homes) leading to a partial closing down of Shanghai’s financial sector coupled with a paralysis of commodity trade out the world’s largest port (see analysis below).

 

The February 2020 Corona Financial Crash

Speculative trade and financial fraud played a key role. On Thursday afternoon, 20th of February, in Geneva (CET Time), the WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus held a press conference. I am “concerned”, he said, “that the chance to contain the coronavirus outbreak” is “closing” …

“I believe the window of opportunity is still there, but that the window is narrowing.”7

These “shock and awe” statements contributed to triggering panic, despite the fact that the number of confirmed cases outside China was exceedingly low: 1,076 cases for a population of 6.4 billion (excluding the Diamond Princess, there were 452 so-called “confirmed cases” worldwide) (see Chapter II).

The statement by Dr. Tedros (based on flawed concepts and statistics) set the stage for the February financial collapse triggered by inside information, foreknowledge, derivative trade, short-selling and a galore of hedge fund operations.

COVID-19 was narrowly identified as the catalyst of the financial crash.

Who was behind this catalyst?

Who was behind the fear campaign which contributed to triggering chaos and uncertainty on financial markets?

The small number of “COVID-19 confirmed cases” outside China (1,076) did not in any way point to an unfolding worldwide epidemic. But this did not prevent the markets from plummeting.

The markets had been manipulated. Whoever had foreknowledge (“inside information”) of the WHO Director-General’s February 20, 2020 statement would have reaped significant monetary gains.

Was there a conflict of interest (as defined by the WHO)?8 The WHO is partly funded by the Gates Foundation. Bill Gates has “60% of his assets invested in equities [including stocks and index funds]”, according to a September 2019 CNBC report.9

The stock market crash initiated on February 20th referred to as the 2020 Coronavirus Crash (February 20-April 7, 2020) was categorized as:

“the fastest fall in global stock markets in financial history, and the most devastating crash since the Wall Street Crash of 1929.”

The cause of the financial crash was (according to “analysts”) V the Virus, namely, the “massive spread” of the epidemic outside China. But that was an outright lie. There were only 1,076 cases worldwide for a population of 6.4 billion outside China (see Chapter III). Media disinformation played a key role in spearheading the fear campaign.

 

Insider Trading and Financial Fraud

The possibility of financial fraud and “insider trading” (which is illegal) was casually dispelled by financial analysts and media reports. 

Without the human hand, there is no causal relationship between a microscopic virus and the complex gamut of financial variables. 

The “killer virus” fear campaign coupled with Dr. Tedros’s timely “warnings” of the need to implement a worldwide pandemic indelibly served the interests of Wall Street’s institutional speculators and hedge funds. The financial crash led to a major shift in the distribution of money wealth (see analysis in Chapter V).

In the week following the February 20-21 WHO announcement, the Dow Jones collapsed by 12% (CNBC, February 28, 2020).10 According to analysts, the plunge of the DJIA was the result of the worldwide spread of the virus. A nonsensical statement in contradiction with the (small) number of WHO COVID positive estimates (1,076 outside China), most of which were based on the faulty PCR test. 

On Monday, February 24, upon the reopening of stock markets, there was an unprecedented plunge in the Dow Jones  attributable to the “impending dangers” that “COVID was spreading worldwide creating uncertainties in financial markets”.  

“Stocks fell sharply on Monday (February 24) as the number of coronavirus cases outside China surged, stoking fears of a prolonged global economic slowdown from the virus spreading. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed 1,031.61 points lower, or 3.56%, at 27,960.80.” (CNBC) (emphasis added)

 

Dow Jones Industrial Average December 2019 – March 2020 (Source: Bloomberg Data)

 

Also on February 24, Trump requested a $1.25 billion emergency aid.

 

Screenshot from Al Jazeera

 

According to BBC, worldwide stock markets saw sharp falls “because of concerns about the economic impact of the virus”, suggesting that the virus was “the invisible hand” responsible for the decline of financial markets.

COVID-19 was narrowly identified as the catalyst of the financial crash.

Who was behind the fear campaign which contributed to triggering chaos and uncertainty on financial markets coupled with bankruptcies and a massive redistribution of money wealth? 

March 11, 2020: The COVID-19 Pandemic, Lockdown, Closing Down of 190 National Economies

On March 11, 2020, the WHO officially declared a worldwide pandemic at a time when the number of confirmed cases outside of China (6.4 billion population) was of the order of 44,279 and 1,440 deaths (figures recorded for March 11 by the WHO on March 12, 2020).11 

The “science” behind this worldwide lockdown decision was based on “a mathematical model” by Dr. Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, London, as a means to avoiding a “predicted” 600,000 deaths in the UK.

Ferguson’s “model” (which borders on ridicule) was used by the financial establishment as a justification to trigger economic and social chaos worldwide. Ferguson’s endeavors were generously funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Immediately following the March 11, 2020 WHO announcement, the fear campaign went into high gear. As in the case of the February 20-21, 2020 crash, the March 11, 2020 statement by the WHO Director-General had set the stage.

Stock markets crashed worldwide. On the following morning, the Dow (DJIA) plummeted by 9.99%  (a decline of 2,352.60 to close at 21,200.62). Black Thursday, March 12, 2020 was “the Dow’s worst day” since 1987.12 Financial fraud was the trigger. A massive transfer of financial wealth had taken place in favor of America’s billionaires (see chapter V).

“Stay at Home” confinement instructions were transmitted to 193 member states of the United Nations. Politicians are the instruments of powerful financial interests. Was this far-reaching decision justified as a means to combating the virus?

The decision was based on a flawed lockdown model designed by Imperial College London. 

“Confinement of the labour force” coupled with paralysis of the “workplace” (productive, commercial activities, etc.)  indelibly leads to a deep-seated worldwide economic depression. 

Unprecedented in history, applied almost simultaneously in a large number countries, entire sectors of the world economy were destabilized. Small and medium-sized enterprises were driven into bankruptcy. Unemployment and poverty are rampant.

In several developing countries, famines have erupted (see analysis below). The social impacts of these measures are devastating. The health impacts (mortality and morbidity) including the destabilization of the national healthcare system (in numerous countries) far surpass those attributed to COVID-19.

 

Economic Warfare

The instructions came from above, from Wall Street, the World Economic Forum, and the billionaire foundations. This diabolical project is casually described by the corporate media as a “humanitarian” public health endeavor.  The “international community” has a “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P).  An unelected “public-private partnership” under the auspices of the World Economic Forum (WEF) has come to the rescue of planet Earth’s 7.9 billion people. The closure of the global economy was presented as a means to “killing the virus”.

Sounds absurd. Closing down the real economy of planet Earth is not the “solution” but rather the “cause” of a process of worldwide destabilization and impoverishment, which in turn has an impact on patterns of morbidity and mortality. In this regard, what must be addressed is the causal relationship between economic variables (e.g.  purchasing power, unemployment) and the state of health of the population.  

The national economy combined with political, social and cultural institutions is the basis for the “reproduction of real life”: income, employment, production, trade, infrastructure, and social services.

Destabilizing the economy of planet Earth cannot constitute a “solution” to combating the virus. But that was the imposed “solution” which they want us to believe in. And that is what they are doing.

 

The Lockdown and the Process of Engineered Bankruptcy

There is an important relationship between the “real economy” and “Big Money”, namely the financial establishment.

What is ongoing is a process of concentration of wealth, whereby the financial establishment (i.e. the multi-billion dollar creditors) are slated to appropriate the real assets of both bankrupt companies as well as state assets.

The “real economy” constitutes “the economic landscape” of real economic activity: productive assets, agriculture, industry, goods and services, trade, investment, employment as well as social and cultural infrastructure including schools, hospitals, universities, museums, etc. The real economy at the global and national levels is being targeted by the lockdown and closure of economic activity. 

The lockdown instructions transmitted to national governments have been conducive to the destabilization of “the national economic landscape” of numerous countries, which consists of a complex economic and social structure

The “stay at home” lockdown prevents people from going to work. From one day to the next, it creates mass unemployment (worldwide). In turn, the lockdown is coupled with the closure of the entire sectors of the national economy.

The lockdown immediately contributes to the disengagement of human resources (labor) which in turn brings productive activity to a standstill.

The channels of supply and distribution are frozen, which eventually leads to potential shortages in the availability of commodities. In turn, several hundred million workers worldwide lose their jobs and their earnings.

While national governments have set up various “social safety nets” for the unemployed, the payment of wages and salaries by the employer is disrupted which in turn leads to a dramatic worldwide collapse in purchasing power.

It’s a payments crisis. Wages and salaries are not paid. Impoverished households are unable to purchase food, pay their rent or monthly mortgage. Personal and household debts (including credit card debts) go fly high. It’s a cumulative process.

This globalization of poverty leads to a decline in consumer demand which then backlashes on the productive system, leading to a further string of bankruptcies. Inevitably, the structure of international commodity trade is also affected. 

 

Global Indebtedness

The Global Money financial institutions are the “creditors” of the real economy which is in crisis. The closure of the global economy starting in March 2020 has triggered a process of global indebtedness. Unprecedented in world history, a multi-trillion bonanza of dollar-denominated debts is hitting simultaneously the national economies of more than 190 countries.

The creditors will also seek to acquire ownership and/or control of “public wealth” including the social and economic assets of the state through a massive indebtedness project under the surveillance of creditor institutions including the IMF, the World Bank, the regional development banks, etc. 

Under the so-called “new normal”, Great Reset put forth by the World Economic Forum (WEF), the creditors (including the   billionaires) are intent upon buying out important sectors of the real economy as well as taking over bankrupt entities (see Chapter XIII).13

 

Crisis of the Global Economy. The Evidence

In the sections below, we briefly review the dramatic impacts of the closure of the global economy focusing on bankruptcies, global poverty, unemployment, the outbreak of famines as well as the collapse of the educational system. 

Most of the figures quoted below are from the UN, governments and related sources, which tend to underestimate the seriousness of this ongoing global crisis, which is literally destroying people’s lives. 

Indebtedness in all sectors of economic activity worldwide is the driving force.

What is presented below is but the tip of the iceberg.  

 

Bankruptcies

The wave of bankruptcies triggered by the closure of the world economy affects both small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) as well as large corporations. The evidence confirms that small and medium-sized enterprises are literally being wiped out.

According to a 2020 survey by the International Trade Centre, quoted by the OECD, pertaining to SMEs in 132 countries:

two-thirds of micro and small firms report that the crisis strongly affected their business operations, and one-fifth indicate the risk of shutting down permanently within three months. Based on several surveys in a variety of countries, McKinsey (2020) indicates that between 25% and 36% of small businesses could close down permanently from the disruption in the first four months of the pandemic. (OECD Report, emphasis added)14

According to Bloomberg:

Over half of Europe’s small and medium-sized businesses say they face bankruptcy in the next year if revenues don’t pick up, underscoring the breadth of damage wrought by the Covid-19 crisis.

One in five companies in Italy and France anticipate filing for insolvency within six months, according to a McKinsey & Co. survey in August of more than 2,200 SMEs in Europe’s five largest economies.”15

The surveys tend to underestimate the magnitude of this unfolding catastrophe. The numbers are much larger than what is being reported.

In the US, the bankruptcy process is ongoing. According to a group of academics in a letter to Congress:

“We anticipate that a significant fraction of viable small businesses will be forced to liquidate, causing high and irreversible economic losses. “Workers will lose jobs even in otherwise viable businesses. …

A run of defaults looks almost inevitable. At the end of the first quarter of this year, U.S. companies had amassed nearly $10.5 trillion in debt — by far the most since the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis began tracking the figure at the end of World War II. “An explosion in corporate debt,” Mr. Altman said.” (NYT, June, 16, 2020)16

With regard to small businesses in the US:

almost 90% of small businesses experienced a strong (51%) or moderate (38%) negative impact from the pandemic; 45% of businesses experienced disruptions in supply chains; 25% of businesses has less than 1-2 months cash reserves.“ (OECD)17

The results of a survey of over 5,800 small businesses in the United States:

… shows that 43% of responding businesses are already temporarily closed. On average, businesses reduced their employees by 40%. Three-quarters of respondents indicate they have two months or less in cash in reserve. … (OECD) 

In a 2020 survey,18 

 “half of all US small business owners in the entire country believe that they may soon be forced to close down for good. Not even during the Great Depression of the 1930s did we see anything like this”.19

It should be noted that since the March 2020 lockdown (in both the US and Canada), both small and medium-sized enterprises as well as large corporations have received numerous handouts and loans under so-called emergency lending, which has contributed to delaying the actual filing of bankruptcy (in the US, see Chapter VII and Chapter XI). Worldwide, the filing of bankruptcy has been conveniently postponed following what the World Bank described as “trillions of dollars of financial support from governments” which are generously funded by Big Money creditors.

 

Global Unemployment

A massive worldwide contraction in employment is ongoing. In an August 2020 report, the International Labour Organization (ILO) confirms that:

The COVID-19 crisis has severely disrupted economies and labour markets in all world regions, with estimated losses of working hours equivalent to nearly 400 million full-time jobs in the second quarter of 2020, most of which are in emerging and developing countries…(ILO, 2020a). …

Among the most vulnerable are the 1.6 billion informal economy workers, representing half of the global workforce, who are working in sectors experiencing major job losses or have seen their incomes seriously affected by lockdowns.

The COVID‐19 crisis is disproportionately affecting 1.25 billion workers in at-risk jobs, particularly in the hardest-hit sectors such as retail trade, accommodation and food services, and manufacturing (ILO, 2020b). Most of these workers are self-employed, in low-income jobs in the informal sector…  Young people, for example, are experiencing multiple shocks including disruption to education and training, employment and income, in addition to greater difficulties in finding jobs.20

The ILO does not in any way explain the political causes of mass unemployment, resulting from actions taken by national governments, allegedly with a view to resolving the COVID pandemic. Moreover, the ILO tends to underestimate both the levels as well as the dramatic increase in unemployment. 
 

Global Unemployment Is Slated to Rise in 2022-23

The pandemic is presented as the cause of unemployment. According to the ILO:

Global unemployment is expected to remain above pre-COVID-19 levels until at least 2023. The 2022 level is estimated at 207 million, compared to 186 million in 2019.21 

The ILO acknowledges that the overall impact on employment is not revealed by the above projections of global unemployment, “because many people have left the labour force”.  

What is at stake is that large sectors of the labor force are the victims of bankruptcies as well as discriminatory policy mandates which have marginalized them from the labour market. 

National governments remain under the control of global creditors. What is contemplated for the post-COVID era is the implementation of massive austerity measures including the cancellation of workers’ benefits and social safety nets.

 

Unemployment in the US

In the US, “more than 30 million people, over 15% of the workforce, applied for unemployment benefits… ” in the immediate wake of the March 2020 lockdown. (CSM, May 6, 2020)22

Announced in early December 2020, “More than 10 million Americans are projected to lose their unemployment benefits the day after Christmas [2020] unless Congress acts to extend key pandemic-related programs – a prospect that as of now looks uncertain at best.” (US News and World Report)23

The cliff edge looms as coronavirus cases surge around the country and applications for unemployment benefits rise with states and localities reimposing virus-related restrictions. The lapse is also set to occur as protections for renters, student loan borrowers and homeowners expire – a potential devastating confluence of events for both individuals, whose savings have been ravaged by the pandemic, and the economy at large, which is gradually clawing its way back from the coronavirus-induced recession.

When the programs lapse at the end of December [2020], an estimated 12 million people could lose jobless benefits, according to the Century Foundation. (US News and World Report)24
 
During the most severe Main Street economic collapse in US history — with over one-fourth of working-age Americans jobless — an additional calamity looms:

According to Census Bureau estimates, 30 to 40 million Americans face possible eviction in 2021-22 for lack of income to pay rent or service mortgages.

Without federal aid or an extended rent moratorium, a calamity of biblical proportions may unfold in the coming months. (Stephen Lendman)25

 

Unemployment in the European Union (EU)

Unemployment across the whole of the European Union is expected to rise to nine percent in 2020, in the wake of the Coronavirus pandemic and subsequent lockdowns enforced by national governments”.26

According to official EU figures:

Greece, Spain and Portugal … have once again seen large rises in youth unemployment since the start of the pandemic. Greece saw a surge from 31.7 percent in March [2020] to 39.3 percent in June [2020], while Spain and Portugal had similar increases, from 33.9 percent to 41.7 percent and 20.6 percent to 27.4 percent, respectively.27

 

Unemployment in Latin America

In Latin America, the average unemployment rate was estimated at 8.1 percent at the end of 2019. The ILO states that it could rise by a modest 4 to 5 percentage points to 41 million unemployed.28

In absolute numbers, these rates imply that the number of people who are looking for jobs but are not hired rose from 26 million before the pandemic to 41 million in 2020, as announced by ILO experts.

These estimates of the ILO and the World Bank are misleading. According to the Inter American Development Bank (IDB), the increase in unemployment for the Latin American region was of the order of 24 million in 2020, with job losses in Colombia of the order of 3.6 million, Brazil 7.0 million and Mexico 7.0 million.29

Even these figures tend to underestimate the dramatic increase in unemployment. And the situation has evolved in 2021-22, following partial lockdowns which have triggered a renewed wave of bankruptcies. 

According to a survey conducted by the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI), the increase in unemployment in Mexico was of the order of 12.5 million in April 2020, i.e. in the month following the March 11, 2020 lockdown and closure of the national economy.30

 

The Outbreak of Famines

Poverty and chronic undernourishment is a pre-existing condition.

First, there is a long-term historical process of macroeconomic policy reform and global economic restructuring which has contributed to depressing the standard living worldwide in both the developing and developed countries.

Second, these pre-existing historical conditions of mass poverty have been exacerbated and aggravated by the imposition of the COVID lockdown.

With large sectors of the world population already well below the poverty line prior to the March 2020 COVID-19 lockdown, the recent hikes in the prices of basic food staples are devastating. 

According to the World Food Programme (WFP), “690 million people do not have enough to eat while 130 million additional people risk being pushed to the brink of starvation.” (November 2020 statement)

These figures are questionable. Both the FAO and the WFP have failed to address the central role of the lockdown and closure of national economies as a “shock mechanism” which simultaneously triggers mass poverty coupled with the destabilization of agricultural production in both developing and developed countries, in all major regions of the world. 

The underlying causality is simply not addressed. Climate and conflict analysis take precedence:

“We are seeing a catastrophe unfold before our very eyes. Famine – driven by conflict, and fuelled by climate shocks and the COVID-19 hunger pandemic – is knocking on the door for millions of families.” (David Beasley, Executive director of the WFP)

 

The FAO Report

Famines have erupted in at least 25 developing countries according to the FAO. It’s an incomplete study: most of Asia and Latin America, Europe, the Middle East and North America are not included (see map below): 

“The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Food Programme (WFP) identifies 27 countries that are on the frontline of impending COVID-19-driven food crises, as the pandemic’s knock-on effects aggravate pre-existing drivers of hunger.

No world region is immune, from Afghanistan and Bangladesh in Asia, to Haiti, Venezuela and Central America, to Iraq, Lebanon, Sudan and Syria in the Middle East to Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Liberia Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Mozambique, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe in Africa.

The joint analysis by FAO and WFP warns these “hotspot countries” are at high risk of – and in some cases are already seeing – significant food security deteriorations in the coming months, including rising numbers of people pushed into acute hunger.”

Source: FAO, April 2020

The COVID-19 pandemic has potentially far-reaching and multifaceted indirect impacts on societies and economies, which could last long after the health emergency is over. These could aggravate existing instabilities or crises, or lead to new ones with repercussions on food security, nutrition and livelihoods.

With over two billion people, or 62 percent of all those working worldwide, employed in the informal economy according to ILO data, millions of people face a growing risk of hunger. Earnings for informal workers are estimated to have declined by 82 percent, with Africa and Latin America to face the largest decline (ILO 2020). (FAO, p. 6)31

 

Global Famine. Acute Hunger in 80 Countries

A World Food Programme (WFP) November 2021 report points to Global Famine and “Acute Hunger in 80 Countries”

Global hunger continues to rise at an alarming rate: our latest estimates show that 282.7 million people across 80 countries are experiencing extreme levels of acute hunger. This represents an increase of around 110 percent compared to 2019 (when 135 million people in 58 countries were classified as acutely food insecure).

This “guesstimate” of 287.7 million cases of acute hunger borders on ridicule and “fake statistics”. Mass poverty is extensive worldwide. The “estimate” is based on the following concept, which is put forth by the World Food Programme (a UN body) as a humanitarian and compassionate criterion:

“one meal a day, the basic needed to survive – costing US$0.43 per person per day”. (WFP, p 1)

Ask Bill Gates, who is actively buying up bankrupt family farms: “how much did your lunch cost”?

The recent hikes in food prices are contributing in a very real sense to “eliminating the poor” through “starvation deaths”. In the words of Henry Kissinger:

“Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.”

In this regard, Kissinger had intimated, in the context of the “1974 National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests,” that the recurrence of famines could constitute a de facto instrument of population control. It’s part of the WEF’s eugenics agenda.  

 

Famine and Despair in India 

The social and economic impacts of the March 11, 2020 lockdown in India were devastating, triggering a wave of famine and despair. “Millions of people who lost their income now face increased poverty and hunger, in a country where even before the pandemic 50 percent of all children suffered from malnourishment”.32

In late November 2020, the largest general strike in the country’s history was carried out against the Modi government with more than 200 million workers and farmers. According to the Mumbai University and College Teachers’ Union: 

This strike is against the devastating health and economic crisis unleashed by COVID-19 and the lockdown on the working people of the country. This has been further aggravated by a series of anti-people legislations on agriculture and the labour code enacted by the central government. Along with these measures, the National Education Policy (NEP) imposed on the nation during the pandemic will further cause irreparable harm to the equity of and access to education.33

According to Left Voice:

“The pandemic has spread from major cities such as Delhi, Mumbai, and other urban centers to rural areas where public health care is scarce or non-existent. The Modi government has handled the pandemic by prioritizing the profits of big business and protecting the fortunes of billionaires over protecting the lives and livelihoods of workers.”34

 

“Food Insecurity” in the US 

Undernourishment and so-called “food insecurity” are not limited to developing countries.

The terminology is not quite the same. “Famine” in America which today is a reality is rarely mentioned. Neither is the lockdown (confinement of the labor force) acknowledged as a mechanism which has triggered so-called “food insecurity”.

The US Department of Agriculture defines “food insecurity” as “a household-level economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food”. 

“Hunger” is defined as “an individual-level physiological condition that may result from food insecurity”. “Famine” does appear in the USDA glossary. 

Recent estimates by Feeding America suggest that one in seven Americans representing 45 million people in 2020, including 15 million children, experienced “food insecurity”:

Before the start of the pandemic, the overall food insecurity rate had reached its lowest point since it began to be measured in the 1990s, but those improvements were being upended by the pandemic.35

According to Stephen Lendman:

“Around one in four US households experienced food insecurity this year [2020]— over 27% of households with children.

A Northwestern University Institute for Policy Research study estimates the number of food insecure households with children at nearly 30%.  Black families are twice as food insecure as their white counterparts. Latino households are also disproportionately affected.”36

 

The Billionaires’ “Solution to Global Famine”? 

In a bitter irony, the World Food Programme (WFP) has announced that the billionaire philanthropists (including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, et al.), who have enriched themselves in the course of the COVID-19 crisis, have generously come to the rescue of 42 million people affected by famine.

Bear in mind, this process of global impoverishment is the direct consequence of billionaire enrichment invariably conducted through fake science and fraudulent transactions (see Chapter V).

According to Oxfam, “For every new billionaire created during the pandemic. … millions of people were pushed into extreme poverty”.

“Billionaires gathered in Davos have enjoyed an obscene surge in their fortunes over the last two years. The pandemic and now the steep rise in food and energy prices have been a bonanza for the wealthiest, while millions of people face hunger and poverty as the cost living shoots up.” (Oxfam)

 

Education: The Impacts on Our Children

The very foundations of civil society are threatened. UNICEF estimates that 1.6 billion children and adolescents were affected by the closure of schools worldwide.37

“As the COVID-19 pandemic has spread across the globe, a majority of countries have announced the temporary closure of schools, impacting more than 91 per cent of students worldwide… Never before have so many children been out of school at the same time…”

Colleges and universities are also paralysed. Students are denied the right to education. While UNESCO confirms that more than one billion learners are affected, it offers no concrete solution or critique. The official narrative of the so-called “public/private partnership” imposed on national governments has been adopted at face value.38

School closures were carried out in 132 countries. See diagram below (UNESCO, May 2020).

 

Screenshot from UNESCO

The above review of the economic and social impacts points to a complex process. Large sectors of the world population have been precipitated into poverty and despair. The various agencies of the United Nations quoted above tend to skim the surface. The underlying causes are simply not addressed.

 

The Global Travel and Tourism Economy

Prior to the corona crisis, travel and tourism represented a major share of the global economy: approximately ten percent of global GDP with an estimated workforce of more than 320 million jobs worldwide.39

Travel and tourism industry, which includes airlines, airport facilities, land transportation, hotels, resorts, restaurants, museums, concert halls, parks, and a variety of urban services, has been precipitated into bankruptcy resulting in mass unemployment.

The economic and social impacts are devastating particularly in countries which have a sizeable tourist economy (e.g. Italy, France, Switzerland, Thailand, Vietnam, Mexico, Cuba, The Dominican Republic, Peru, and Panama, among others).

The estimated loss of jobs in the tourism industry is estimated to be of the order of 100 million worldwide (November 2020 report, see also IMF report).40

Job Losses in the US

According to the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), a “staggering 9.2 million jobs could be lost in the U.S. … if barriers to global travel remain in place”. The WTTC estimates that more than half of all jobs supported by the sector in the U.S. in 2019 are slated to be lost. Between 10.8 million and 13.8 million jobs within the Travel and Tourism sector “are at serious risk”.41

While the restrictions on air travel coupled with the March 11, 2020 lockdown triggered the demise of smaller regional airlines, in the course of the 2020-2022, a large number of national flag carriers have been precipitated into a de facto bankruptcy situation, including Aero-Mexico, Avianca, and South African Airlines, among others. According to a report, “43 commercial airlines have failed since January 2020, … completely ceasing or suspended operations” in 2020. There was also a backlash on the production of civilian aircraft.42

Trump’s suspension of air travel to China on January 31, 2020 based on five COVID-19 confirmed positive cases in the U.S. played a key role in setting the stage for the air travel and tourism crisis, which at the time of writing is still ongoing.

The lockdown has also undermined the largest transport infrastructure project in Europe, namely the underground tunnel between the UK and continental Europe. The Eurostar was precipitated into a situation of de facto bankruptcy.

All of these disruptions in international travel are presented to public opinion as a means to combating the killer virus. It’s a big lie.

Bankrupt hotel chains and major airlines in all likelihood will be “picked up” at rock-bottom prices by the multi-billionaires.

 

The Shanghai 2022 COVID Zero Tolerance Mandate. The Destabilization of China’s Export Economy?   

Starting in late March, early April 2022, the Chinese government ordered the lockdown pertaining to Shanghai, a port city of 26 million people.

The confinement of Shanghai’s labour force was carried out under a “COVID Zero Tolerance Mandate”: “At least 38,000 medical workers from across China have been deployed to aid Shanghai … in the fight against the Omicron variant…” (Global Times)43

Image: Dr. George Gao Fu (by 中国新闻网, licensed under CC BY 3.0)

Visibly, China’s health authorities had endorsed the Fauci-Gates “fake science” lockdown consensus without batting an eyelid. China’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CCDC) is headed by Dr. George Gao Fu, a colleague of Anthony Fauci, et al. Anthony Fauci is Dr. Gao Fu’s mentor. 

China’s Zero Tolerance COVID Mandate was a “copy and paste” of the March 11, 2020 lockdown (based on “fake science”) sponsored by Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, et al. under the auspices of the WHO (in close consultation with the World Economic Forum). China’s Zero Tolerance COVID Mandate is predicated on a fear campaign.

In mid-July 2022, China’s health authorities announced that several major urban areas had been instructed to implement the COVID Zero Tolerance Mandate as a means to combating the “highly-transmissible Omicron BA.5 subvariant”.

The labour force was confined in a large number of industrial cities thereby leading to economic and social chaos as well as a dramatic decline in economic activity. According to Reuters:

The BA.5 [subvariant] lineage, spreading fast in many other countries, has been detected in cities such as Xian in the province of Shaanxi and Dalian in Liaoning province, … It was first found in China on May 13 in a patient who had flown to Shanghai from Uganda, the China Center for Disease Prevention and Control said, with no local infections linked to the case that month.44

Did that “patient” from Uganda take the PCR test upon his return to China? Variants and sub-variants cannot under any circumstances be detected by the PCR test (the original SARS-CoV-2 virus cannot be detected by the PCR test, see Chapter III).

A large number of urban areas were closed down in major regions of China. On July 11, 2022, China’s National Heath Commission confirmed the following data for mainland China45:

  • a total of 352 new domestically transmitted COVID infections recorded on July 10,
  • 46 new symptomatic cases, and
  • 306 new asymptomatic cases.

46 new symptomatic cases out of a population of 1.45 billion people does not justify closing down China’s major urban areas.

 

Economic Destabilization: Shanghai and the Global Economy 

The impacts of these measures put forth by China’s National Health Commission and China’s CCDC have precipitated China’s supply chains into jeopardy.

“COVID Zero Tolerance” has contributed to destabilizing Shanghai’s financial sector as well as its buoyant export economy. It has also contributed to undermining domestic transport and commodity supply lines.

Since mid-April 2022 (coinciding with the lockdown of Shanghai), the Yuan (CNY) declined abruptly against the US dollar (USD).

 

Chinese Yuan Renminbi to US Dollar Exchange Rate Chart (Source: Xe)

 

The volume of commodity trade in and out of the Port of Shanghai (and other major port cities) has subsided, which inevitably has a bearing on the availability of “Made in China” commodities worldwide.

 

Made in China goods (By ThiNguyen2021, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

 

“Made in China” is the backbone of retail trade which indelibly sustains household consumption in virtually all major commodity categories from clothing, footwear, to hardware, electronics, mobile phones, TV sets, toys, jewelries, household fixtures, food, etc. Ask the American consumer: the list is long.

Importing from China is a lucrative multi-trillion dollar operation. It is the source of tremendous profit and wealth in the US because consumer commodities imported from China’s low wage economy are often sold at the retail level more than ten times their factory price.

Global commodity trade at wholesale and retail levels is in crisis. The potential impacts in all major regions of the world are devastating — worldwide scarcities of essential consumer goods coupled with inflationary pressures.

These developments also affect China’s sovereignty as a nation-state with a weakened economy, not to mention its Belt and Road initiative.

In the context of the current crisis, including Washington’s “Pivot to Asia”, there are serious geopolitical implications which have a direct bearing on the confrontation between China and the US.

For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, The Shanghai “COVID Zero Tolerance Mandate”. Engineered Depression of China’s Economy?

Automobile Industry at a Standstill: Engineered Shortage in the Production of Semi-conductors?  

The automobile industry worldwide experienced a 15% decline in production in 2020. The decline in 2021-22 is significant, largely affecting production in Japan, South Korea and China.

This decline has been accentuated by a shortage in the availability of semi-conductors:

“Automakers, which rely on dozens of chips to build a single vehicle, have been particularly hard hit, forced to halt production lines globally as they await chip supplies. The debacle is likely to cost the auto industry $450 billion in global sales … In September 2021 Toyota was forced to slash production at 14 factories in Japan over a lack of semiconductors. Some of the cuts will continue into October due to a lack of components from Southeast Asia, Toyota has said.” (Washington Post, September 2021)46

Semi-conductors constitute a strategic commodity, used in a variety of sectors including electronics, medical devices, electronic and communications networks, etc. 

There are indications of possible manipulations, which have led to artificial shortages of semi-conductors affecting a number of key sectors of the global economy.

There are geopolitical implications. The world’s largest semi-conductor producer is the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC).

 

Global “Supply Chain Disruptions” and Demand Relations 

The lockdowns from March 11, 2020 onwards have triggered a process of worldwide economic destabilization which directly affects both “supply” and “demand” relations. It’s the most serious economic crisis in world history affecting simultaneously more than 190 countries.

“Supply” pertains to the production of goods and services, namely the activities of the “real economy”.

“Demand” pertains to the ability of households given their purchasing power to acquire essential goods and services.

Both supply and demand relations are in jeopardy.

Worldwide, large sectors of industry, agriculture and urban services stand idle. The lockdown policies initiated in March 2020 have triggered bankruptcies and unemployment, which in turn have been conducive to a process of disengagement of human resources (labor) and productive assets from the economic landscape.

On the supply side, a massive contraction in the production and availability of goods and services (commodities) is unfolding. Entire sectors of the global economy are “not producing”, scarcities of certain commodities and services have emerged. In turn, the channels of transportation by land and sea (e.g. container trade) have been disrupted since March 2020.

On the demand side, mass unemployment and poverty triggered by the lockdown policies has contributed to an unprecedented collapse in purchasing power (of families and households worldwide), which in turn has led to the collapse in the demand for goods and services. Poverty is rampant, large sectors of the world population do not have money to buy food and essential consumer goods.

Contraction of production (supply) coupled with the collapse of purchasing power (demand) is conducive to a deep-seated worldwide economic depression coupled with inflationary pressures. 

In turn, the collapse in purchasing power resulting from mass unemployment has led to a mounting personal debt crisis including the inability to meet monthly rent and mortgage payments. This process eventually leads to a confiscation of real assets.

In the US, 68 percent of those who were behind on rent (May 2021 figures) had become unemployed as a result of the lockdown.47

These developments are casually blamed on the “pandemic’s economic fallout” without analyzing how the failed lockdown policies were instrumental in triggering economic chaos and unemployment worldwide.

 

The Fiscal Crisis of the Nation-State

State-funded public sector activities including health, education, culture, sports and the arts are in jeopardy. Meanwhile, in the US, the Biden administration has favored a massive increase in military and security-related expenditures as well as biotechnology with generous handouts to Big Pharma and the Military-Industrial Complex.

Since the onset of the corona crisis, the public debt in country after country has gone fly high largely precipitated by economic chaos.

Bankrupt companies no longer pay taxes. Unemployed workers (without earnings) no longer pay taxes. Tax dollars are no longer coming into the coffers of the state.

The increase in global unemployment and poverty coupled with bankruptcies have led to an unprecedented fiscal crisis.

In turn, government revenue has been redirected to funding corporate handouts.

The private appropriation of wealth has precipitated a global debt crisis. In country after country, the public debt has skyrocketed.

 

Massive Austerity Measures, Global Insolvency 

Generous handouts and social safety nets have been used by national governments as a means to enforcing compliance and acceptance of the COVID-19 mandates. These handouts (including loans at 0%) are eventually slated to be abolished and replaced by the most drastic austerity measures in world history.

An unpayable multi-trillion dollar public debt is unfolding worldwide, coupled with a process which we might describe as “global insolvency”.

The creditors of the state are “Big Money”. Ultimately, they call the shots.

The enrichment of the billionaire class has also contributed to the destabilization of the nation-state (see Chapter V).

What is also unfolding is the “privatization of the nation-state” including the progressive demise of the “welfare state” and its public institutions (education, health, culture).

 

Endnotes

1 Allison Aubrey, January 31, 2020. Trump Declares Coronavirus A Public Health Emergency And Restricts Travel From China. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/01/31/801686524/trump-declares-coronavirus-a-public-health-emergency-and-restricts-travel-from-c

2 The Economist, February 17, 2020. The coronavirus spreads racism against—and among—ethnic Chinese. https://www.economist.com/china/2020/02/17/the-coronavirus-spreads-racism-against-and-among-ethnic-chinese

3 Wallis Wang, February 13, 2020. Britain’s Chinese community faces racism over coronavirus outbreak. https://www.scmp.com/video/world/3050436/britains-chinese-community-faces-racism-over-coronavirus-outbreak

4 Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 5, 2020. The Corona Pandemic and Trump’s Trade War against China: America’s Dependence on “Made in China”. Potential Disruption of the US Economy. https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-corona-pandemic-and-trumps-trade-war-against-china-americas-dependence-on-made-in-china-potential-disruption-of-the-us-economy/5713552

5 Financial Times, May 11, 2020. US-China economic decoupling accelerates in first quarter of 2020. https://www.ft.com/content/115fc14f-4a8a-45da-8688-c59605a5191a

6 Joe Mcdonald, January 14, 2022. China’s Trade Surplus Hit Record in 2021—With Exports Jumping 30% Amid Pandemic Demand. https://time.com/6139334/china-record-trade-surplus-2021/

7 WHO, February 20, 2020. WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 on 20 February 2020. https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19-on-20-february-2020

8 WHO, n.d. Declarations of Interest. https://www.who.int/about/ethics/declarations-of-interest

9 Maggie Fitzgerald, September 17, 2019. More than 60% of Bill Gates’ wealth is invested in stocks. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/17/bill-gates-gave-away-35-billion-this-year-but-net-worth-didnt-drop.html

10 Fred Imbert, Maggie Fitzgerald, et al., February 28, 2020. Stock market Friday recap: Dow loses 3,500 points on week, closes off lows, Fed pledges support. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/28/stock-market-live-updates-dow-loses-3200-points-and-counting-on-week-bond-yields-collapsing.html

11 WHO, March 12, 2020. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report – 52. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200312-sitrep-52-covid-19.pdf

12 Pipa Stevens, Maggie Fitzgerald, et al., March 12, 2020. Stock market live Thursday: Dow tanks 2,300 in worst day since Black Monday, S&P 500 bear market. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/12/stock-market-today-live.html

13 WEF, n.d. The Great Reset. https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/

14 OECD, July 15, 2020. Coronavirus (COVID-19): SME policy responses. https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/coronavirus-covid-19-sme-policy-responses-04440101/

15 See this: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-22/half-of-europe-s-smaller-businesses-risk-bankruptcy-within-year

16 See this: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/business/corporate-bankruptcy-coronavirus.html

17 OECD, July 15, 2020. Coronavirus (COVID-19): SME policy responses. https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/coronavirus-covid-19-sme-policy-responses-04440101/

18 Michael Snyder, December 10, 2020. 48% Of U.S. Small Businesses Fear that They May be Forced to “Shut Down Permanently” Soon. https://www.globalresearch.ca/48-us-small-businesses-fear-forced-shut-down-permanently-soon/5732050

19 Chuck Casto, November 25, 2020. Alignable: 48% Of Small Businesses Risk Closing in Q4, New Poll Says. https://www.alignable.com/forum/alignable-48-of-small-businesses-risk-closing-for-good-new-poll

20 ILO, September 23, 2020. COVID-19 leads to massive labour income losses worldwide. https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_755875/lang–en/index.htm

21 ILO, January 17, 2022. ILO downgrades labour market recovery forecast for 2022. https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_834117/lang–en/index.htm

22 Ned Temko, May 6, 2020. No jobs, so what future? Half the world’s workforce on the edge. https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2020/0506/No-jobs-so-what-future-Half-the-world-s-workforce-on-the-edge

23 Claire Hansen, December 2, 2020. Some 12 Million to Lose Unemployment Aid After Christmas With Stimulus Still Uncertain. https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2020-12-02/some-12-million-to-lose-unemployment-aid-after-christmas-with-stimulus-still-uncertain

24 Ibid.

25 Stephen Lendman, December 2, 2020. Millions of Americans Vulnerable to Eviction. https://www.globalresearch.ca/millions-americans-vulnerable-eviction/5730985

26 Statista, January 2022. Unemployment rate in selected European countries as of November 2021. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1115276/unemployment-in-europe-by-country/

27 James Poulter, September 15, 2020. Europe Is Facing a Youth Unemployment Crisis. https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7gknm/europe-is-facing-a-youth-unemployment-crisis

28 ILO, July 1, 2020. ILO: Sharp rise in unemployment in Latin America and the Caribbean leaves millions without income. https://www.ilo.org/caribbean/newsroom/WCMS_749692/lang–en/index.htm

29 Semana, August 19, 2020. Colombia, el tercer país que más empleos perdió en América Latina. https://www.semana.com/empresas/confidencias-on-line/articulo/empleos-que-mas-se-perdieron-en-america-latina-segun-el-bid/296265/

30 Forbes, June 3, 2020. Desempleo en México alcanza a casi 25% de la población: Heath. https://www.forbes.com.mx/economia-desempleo-mexico-casi-25-poblacion-heath/

31 FAO and WFP, July 2020. FAO-WFP early warning analysis of acute food insecurity hotspots. https://www.fao.org/3/cb0258en/CB0258EN.pdf

32 Global Research News, December 4, 2020. India: Largest Strike in World History : Over 200 Million Workers and Farmers Protest against Poverty and Unemployment Triggered by Covid Lockdown. https://www.globalresearch.ca/india-largest-strike-in-world-history-over-200-million-workers-and-farmers-paralyze-india/5731395

33 Ibid. 

34 Ibid.

35 Feeding America, March 2021. The Impact of the Coronavirus on Food Insecurity in 2020 & 2021. https://www.feedingamerica.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/National%20Projections%20Brief_3.9.2021_0.pdf

36 Stephen Lendman, October 3, 2020. Covid Crisis Has Triggered Mass Unemployment in America: Over One Million UI Claims in the US for 28 Straight Weeks. https://www.globalresearch.ca/over-one-million-ui-claims-us-28-straight-weeks/5725527

37 Jason Miks and John McIlwaine, April 20, 2020. Keeping the world’s children learning through COVID-19. https://www.unicef.org/coronavirus/keeping-worlds-children-learning-through-covid-19

38 UNESCO, n.d. Education: From disruption to recovery. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse

39 Adam Behsudi, December 2020. Tourism-dependent economies are among those harmed the most by the pandemic. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2020/12/impact-of-the-pandemic-on-tourism-behsudi.htm

40 Margaux MacDonald, Roberto Piazza, et al., September 2, 2020. A Simple Guide to Estimating the Impact of COVID-19 on Travel and Hospitality Activity. PDF Link

41 World Travel and Tourism Council, November 11, 2020. U.S. looks set to lose 9.2 million jobs in 2020 due to COVID-19 and travel restrictions, says WTTC. https://wttc.org/Portals/0/Documents/Press%20Releases/US-looks-set-to-lose-9-million-jobs-in-2020-due-to-COVID-19-and-travel-restrictions.pdf

42 Abigail Ng, October 8, 2020. Over 40 airlines have failed so far this year — and more are set to come. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/08/over-40-airlines-have-failed-in-2020-so-far-and-more-are-set-to-come.html

43 Global Times, April 4, 2022. Over 38k medical workers deployed to aid Shanghai in Omicron battle, the highest number since Wuhan in early 2020. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202204/1257497.shtml

44 Roxanne Liu & Ryan Woo, July 11, 2022. Update 3-Shanghai plans more COVID testing amid fresh curbs across China. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/1-shanghai-braces-more-mass-040242739.html

45 Ibid.

46 Jeanne Whalen, September 23, 2021. Semiconductor shortage that has hobbled manufacturing worldwide is getting worse. https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/09/23/chip-shortage-forecast-automakers/

47 Sarah Treuhaft, Michelle Huang, et al., September 16, 2021. Rent Debt in America: Stabilizing Renters Is Key to Equitable Recovery. https://nationalequityatlas.org/rent-debt-in-america

 

 

Chapter V

The Enrichment of the Super Rich

The Appropriation and Redistribution of  Wealth 

 

“V the Virus” is said to be responsible for the wave of bankruptcies and unemployment. That’s a lie. There is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.

The decision-making process must be addressed. It’s the powerful financiers and billionaires who are behind this project which has contributed to the destabilization (worldwide) of the real economy.

Since early February 2020, the Super Rich have cashed in on billions of dollars. In a matter of four months, coinciding with the March 11, 2020 lockdown, the total wealth held by billionaires around the world has grown from $8 trillion to more than $10 trillion.

There are three distinct phases which are directly related to the corona crisis. Each of which is marked by major shifts in the distribution of global wealth.

  1. The financial crisis initiated on February 20 was conducive to a dramatic redistribution of wealth and ownership of financial assets. Foreknowledge, inside information and speculative trade played a key role. Was there foreknowledge and/or inside information of WHO’s Dr. Tedros’s February 20th statement? (See Chapter IV)
  2. The March 11 lockdown and closing down of the national economies of 190 UN member states, which triggered corporate as well as SME bankruptcies worldwide. The March 11 event also marked the plunge of stock markets worldwide, starting on Black Thursday March 12, 2020 (see Chapter IV).
  3. The third stage of billionaire enrichment pertains to the implementation in 2021-2022 “partial lockdowns”, policy mandates and restrictive measures which contributed to triggering a renewed wave of bankruptcies and economic chaos.

The redistribution of wealth in favor of the billionaire class is confirmed by an IPS study resulting from the March 2020 closing down of the global economy.1

At the global level, billionaires were big winners during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

According to a UBS 2020 report, roughly 2,189 global billionaires have an estimated wealth of $10.2 trillion.2

This is an estimated increase of $1.5 trillion during the 2020 pandemic based on both UBS and Forbes billionaire data from 2019.  

The UBS report raises the question: are the billionaires “innovators” or “disruptors”?

When the storm passes, a new generation of billionaire innovators looks set to play a critical role in repairing the damage. Using the growing repertoire of emerging technologies, tomorrow’s innovators will digitize, refresh and revolutionize the economy. 

Let us be under no illusions, these corrupt billionaires are “impoverishers”.

 

“Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction” (FWMD)

While the UBS and Forbes report (quoted above) fail to explain how the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to this massive redistribution of wealth, they nonetheless confirm that “collective billionaire wealth has grown at its fastest rate over any period over the past decade.”3

In fact, it is the largest redistribution of global wealth in world history. It is predicated on a systematic process of worldwide impoverishment. It is an act of economic warfare.

The billionaires were not only the recipients of generous “government stimulus packages” (i.e. handouts), the bulk of their financial gains from the outset of the COVID fear campaign in early February 2020 was the result of insider trading, derivative trade and the manipulation of both financial and commodity markets.

Warren Buffett rightfully identifies these speculative instruments (supported by sophisticated algorithms) as “Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction”.

On March 18, 2020 (coinciding with the lockdown in the US), US billionaires had a combined wealth of $2.947 trillion. By October 8, 2020, their wealth had surged to $3.8 trillion — a monetary increase of $850 billion, a rise of their combined wealth of the order of more than 28 percent (see IPS study).4

This estimate does not account for the increase in wealth during the period preceding March 18, 2020 which was marked by a series of stock market crashes.5 

And commencing in late 2020, the billionaire class was involved in sustaining a second wave lockdown involving the partial closure of the world economy. 

The table below identifies the increase in personal wealth of the five richest US billionaires (March 18 – June 17, 2020). (Not outlined in the table is the wealth of US billionaires which increased by another $266 billion from June to October 2020).

 

Source: Institute for Policy Studies

 

Billionaire wealth growth (March 2020 – March 2021) resulting from the implementation of the March 2020 lockdown, Chuck Collins (in an incisive study published by Inequality.org) estimates billionaire wealth growth over a full year, based on Forbes data compiled in this report by ATF and IPS.6,7

March 18 [2020] is used as the unofficial beginning of the crisis because by then most federal and state economic restrictions responding to the virus were in place. March 18 was also the date that Forbes picked to measure billionaire wealth for the 2020 edition of its annual billionaires’ report, which provided a baseline that ATF and IPS compare periodically with real-time data from the Forbes website. PolitiFact has favorably reviewed this methodology.8

Source: Forbes data analyzed by Americans for Tax Fairness and Institute for Policy Studies

Source: Institute for Policy Studies

Source: Forbes data analyzed by Americans for Tax Fairness and Institute for Policy Studies

 

The Enrichment of Big Pharma

The Forbes report underscores the enrichment of the CEOs of both Western and China’s Big Pharma conglomerates involved in the COVID vaccine as well as in the lucrative sale (worldwide) of face masks and medical supplies.9

These include Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel and BioNTech co-founder Uğur Şahin.

China’s Big Pharma is a full-fledged partner in this process of enrichment. The CEOs of several China-based pharmaceutical companies include Tianjin’s CanSino Biologics, Inco, Shenzhen’s Contec Medical Systems, and Sansure Biotech, which makes COVID-19 tests, as well as China’s vaccine conglomerate Sinovac. 

Among China’s Big Pharma multi-billionaires is Li Jianquan, president of Chinese medical products manufacturer Winner Medical. Several of the products related to the COVID pandemic, including face masks, are produced by Winner Medical. 

Li Jianquan has a net worth of 6.8 billion (for details, see Forbes Report).10

For the complete list of billionaires in 2020-2021, consult the Forbes list.11

 

The Geopolitics of Global Wealth

In 2022, Forbes reported a reshuffle of worldwide billionaire wealth to the detriment of Russia and China. 34 fewer billionaires in Russia (compared to 2021) and “87 fewer Chinese billionaires on the list”:

America still leads the world, with 735 billionaires worth a collective $4.7 trillion, including Elon Musk, who tops the World’s Billionaires list for the first time. China (including Macau and Hong Kong) remains number two, with 607 billionaires worth a collective $2.3 trillion.”

For the full list of the 2022 world’s billionaires, see Forbes real-time billionaires rankings.

 

Billionaire Enrichment and the Demise of the Family Farm 

The ongoing demise of family-owned agriculture has been exacerbated by the lockdown policies.

Bill Gates is using the money appropriated during the financial crisis to extend his corporate control in a variety of economic activities, “buying devalued assets at fire-sale prices” including the acquisition of farmland (see Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on Neo-feudalism).12

According to The Land Report (February 2021), Bill and Melinda Gates are now America’s largest farm owners to the detriment of family farming, which over the years has been driven into bankruptcy.

The Gates portfolio consists of “242,000 acres of American farmland and nearly 27,000 acres of other land across Louisiana, Arkansas, Nebraska, Arizona, Florida, Washington and 18 other states” (see the analysis by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.).13

See the map below indicating a total of 268,984 acres accruing to the Gates. This is tantamount to the de facto expropriation of thousands of family farms over a vast area of the United States.

This process spearheaded by mounting debts and bankruptcies commenced prior to the pandemic and will in all likelihood continue under the so-called “new normal”.

 

This graph is based on a 2021 report by The Land Report

 

Billionaire Wealth Is Not the Result of Economic Growth

This enrichment of a social minority is not based on the creation of  “new wealth” resulting from real economic growth. Quite the opposite. It is the result of an engineered global economic depression.

The process of billionaire enrichment feeds on economic and social chaos. It relies heavily on the “fear campaign” and the worldwide destabilization of both financial markets and the real economy.

It has been instrumental in triggering an unprecedented process of redistribution of income and wealth. Large sectors of the world population have been driven into extreme poverty. 

Billionaire enrichment involves the acquisition of economic and financial assets at rock bottom prices, the takeover of bankrupt enterprises in major sectors of economic activity, the manipulation of markets (bonds, equities, commodities, currency markets, etc.) including the use of speculative instruments, derivative trade, involving “foreknowledge” and “inside information” (see Chapter IV).

 

Endnotes

1 Chuck Collins, October 8, 2020. U.S. Billionaire Wealth Is Up $850 Billion Since March 18th. https://ips-dc.org/u-s-billionaire-wealth-up-850-billion/

2 UBS, 2020. Riding the storm: Market turbulence accelerates diverging fortunes. https://www.ubs.com/content/dam/static/noindex/wealth-management/ubs-billionaires-report-2020-spread.pdf

3 Ollie A. Williams, October 6, 2020. Billionaire Wealth Hits $10 Trillion For First Time Ever Thanks To Government Stimulus: UBS. https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverwilliams1/2020/10/06/billionaire-wealth-hits-10-trillion-for-first-time-ever-thanks-to-government-stimulous/?sh=49cd0e6549ba

4 Chuck Collins, October 8, 2020. U.S. Billionaire Wealth Is Up $850 Billion Since March 18th. https://ips-dc.org/u-s-billionaire-wealth-up-850-billion/

5 Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 7, 2020. The Covid-19 Roadmap: Towards Global Economic Chaos and Societal Destruction. https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-covid-19-roadmap-towards-economic-chaos-and-societal-destruction/5725602

6 Chuck Collins, March 23, 2021. Who Are the 10 Biggest Pandemic Profiteers? https://inequality.org/great-divide/10-biggest-pandemic-profiteers/

7 Americans for Tax Fairness and IPS, March 18, 2021. Billionaires Data. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15n35QH3mq7jxxLmOnrcn2LGtMSssi-x1aCU9_2V9YVM/edit#gid=1259834744

8 Nusaiba Mizan, October 12, 2020. Biden says billionaires gained $800 billion, but study looks at growth since market bottomed out. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/oct/12/joe-biden/biden-says-billionaires-gained-800-billion-study-l/

9 Giacomo Tognini, April 6, 2021. Meet The 40 New Billionaires Who Got Rich Fighting Covid-19. https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2021/04/06/meet-the-40-new-billionaires-who-got-rich-fighting-covid-19/?sh=278895b117e5

10 Ibid. 

11 See this: https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/

12 Robert F. Kennedy Jr., February 4, 2021. Bill Gates and Neo-Feudalism: A Closer Look at Farmer Bill. https://www.globalresearch.ca/bill-gates-neo-feudalism-closer-look-farmer-bill/5736504 

13 Ibid.


 

Chapter VI

The Impacts on Mental Health 

 

“If we don’t stand up against this lockdown madness right now, we are complicit in the soul murder of our children! Yet the majority of parents and educators in kindergartens and schools … silently accept that corrupt governments are driving their children into madness or even suicide and thus strangling the future of all of us. –Rudolf Haensel,  September 2021

“Smiling as a facial expression has existed since the dawn of mankind. It is an inherent feature of human beings. Coupled with mandatory social distancing, the Covid mask hides our faces and prevents us from expressing our feelings while meeting and interacting with our fellow human beings. The mandates create an aura of social despair. Smiling and laughter reduces stress, encourages dialogue, exchange, solidarity, conflict resolution. Smiling also constitutes a means to confronting the Covid-19 fear campaign.” –Michel Chossudovsky, May 2022

“There has been another cost that we’ve seen, particularly in high schools. We’re seeing, sadly, far greater suicides now than there are deaths from COVID. We’re seeing far greater deaths from drug overdose,” –Dr. Robert Redfield, former director of the CDC, July 14, 2020

 

Introduction

Physical Distancing, Corona, Covid-19

The coronavirus mental health predicament of several billion people worldwide is the result of

  • social engineering including confinement, isolation, social distancing and the mask,
  • the incessant 24/7 fear campaign waged by the media and the governments,
  • the spike in unemployment, mass poverty and despair triggered by the worldwide destabilization of national economies.

Image: Pixabay License/No attribution required

Psychiatrists have addressed the “negative impacts” on mental health pertaining to the factors mentioned above. Confirmed by peer-reviewed reports, the lockdowns have also been conducive to triggering depression, uncertainty, and anxiety. 

“There is concern the Coronavirus Disease (COVID)-19 pandemic is having a negative impact on the mental health of the general population through a range of suggested mechanisms: fear, uncertainty, and anxiety; social distancing/isolation; loneliness; and economic repercussions.”1

The overall picture of the impacts of the corona crisis on mental health is yet to be fully addressed. Our analysis will focus on the following issues for which data is available:

  1. the dramatic increase in suicides worldwide in countries where the lockdown was imposed,
  2. the increase in mortality attributable to drug overdose (cocaine, opioids),
  3. the rise in alcoholism resulting from a hike in alcohol consumption.

 

Worldwide Rise in Suicides

The WHO has failed to report on suicide deaths since the beginning of the pandemic. Similarly, at the time of writing, the reported suicide statistics in the US pertaining to 2021-22 are not available. Our analysis is largely based on case study reports. 

Suicides in the US

In 2019, suicides were the tenth leading cause of death in the US, 47,511 Americans died by suicide.2 The estimated number of suicide attempts in 2019 was of the order of 1.38 million.3

The evidence is scanty. 

A CDC-sponsored peer-reviewed report (Mark É. Czeisler, Rashon I. Lane, Emiko Petrosky, et al.) confirms that the loss of employment and purchasing power in the immediate aftermath of the March 2020 lockdown played a key role specifically  among “vulnerable” social and low income groups, in triggering a wave of depression and anxiety, which resulted in what they describe as “suicide ideation” (thinking about different ways to die).4

The authors confirm that:  

Symptoms of anxiety disorder and depressive disorder increased considerably in the United States during April–June of 2020 compared with the same period in 2019 (1,2). ….

The percentage of respondents who reported having seriously considered suicide in the 30 days before completing the survey (10.7%) was significantly higher among respondents aged 18–24 years (25.5%), minority racial/ethnic groups (Hispanic respondents [18.6%], non-Hispanic black [black] respondents [15.1%]), self-reported unpaid caregivers for adults (30.7%), and essential workers (21.7%).5

Another study confirms that ‘social distancing/isolation and loneliness‘ resulting from the lockdown policies are factors which may have contributed to suicide:  

“Secondary consequences of social distancing may increase the risk of suicide,” researchers noted in an April 10, 2020 paper published by the American Medical Association.6

“It is important to consider changes in a variety of economic, psycho-social, and health-associated risk factors.” (See FEE)

Essentially, researchers warned forced isolation could prove to be “a perfect storm” for suicide. (emphasis added)7

The central issue — which is not addressed by the peer-reviewed reports — is how the engineered loss of employment and purchasing power resulting from the lockdown coupled with confinement leads to depression and despair.8

Anxiety and depression resulting from unemployment and loss of income is a worldwide phenomenon, unprecedented in world history. Country by country, one can observe similar tendencies. Low-income developing countries such as India are experiencing a situation of total despair affecting large sectors of an impoverished population.  

Suicides in India

The lockdown in India has been conducive to a spike in suicides which is a consequence of “severe hardship … as entire livelihoods have come undone, amid an escalating job crisis”.9

“It should come as little surprise then that the spectre of suicide has raised its ugly head, with spikes in reports of people, who see no change in fortune on the horizon, taking their own lives.”

The Brookings Institute has also addressed the role of the corona crisis in triggering suicides in India:

Anecdotal evidence for India, meanwhile, suggests increases in rural suicides. India instituted one of the world’s strictest lockdowns amidst high rates of poverty. … Lockdowns resulted in millions of more Indians entering poverty and exacerbated one of the highest suicide rates in the world. The additional numbers of suicides are estimated to be well into the thousands.10

Suicides in Japan

While the overall number of suicides had declined steadily in recent years, 2020 marked the first time within the past decade that suicide numbers were rising again. (Statista)11  
 
 
 
Notice the surge in suicide rates immediately following the lockdown (Source: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Labor/Graphic: Jason Kwok and Natalie Croker, CNN)
 

This sudden upward trend was triggered by COVID-19 lockdown policies. In 2020, approximately 21,000 people committed suicide in Japan,12

“Far more Japanese people are dying of suicide, likely exacerbated by the economic and social repercussions of the pandemic, than of the COVID-19 disease itself. …  Provisional statistics from the National Police Agency show suicides surged to 2,153 in October [2020] alone, marking the fourth straight month of increase.” CBS November 2020 report (emphasis added)13

The above report confirms that suicides among women in Japan increased dramatically in the wake of the March 2020 lockdown. In October 2020 (compared to October of the previous year), female suicides had increased by 83% (in comparison to male suicides which increased by 22% over the same time period).14

Suicides Among Japan’s Schoolchildren

A 2021 report by Japan’s Ministry of Education confirms that suicide among Japanese schoolchildren had hit a record high during the 2020 school year.

“Japan recorded 415 suicides among schoolchildren aged 6 to 18 during the 2020 school year — the highest number since records began in 1974…. The figure was 31% higher than the previous school year, when 317 schoolchildren died.”15 

The report from the Ministry of Education suggests that “the pandemic has caused changes in the school and family environment and had an impact on children’s behavior”.

 

Deaths Resulting from Drug Overdose

The main drug opioid categories (CDC) are as follows:

  • illegal heroin
  • synthetic opioids such as fentanyl
  • so-called “pain relievers” including oxycodone (OxyContin®), hydrocodone (Vicodin®)
  • codeine
  • morphine
  • etc. 

The drugs listed above are “chemically-related and interact with opioid receptors on nerve cells in the body and brain” (CDC).

Recorded in 2020, the corona crisis has contributed to a significant increase in both opioid and cocaine sales in the US. 

According to the CDC:

Synthetic opioids ([categorized by the CDC as] primarily illicitly manufactured fentanyl) appear to be the primary driver of the increases in overdose deaths, increasing 38.4 percent from the 12-month period leading up to June 2019 compared with the 12-month period leading up to May 2020.  …

Overdose deaths involving cocaine also increased by 26.5 percent. … Overdose deaths involving psychostimulants, such as methamphetamine [produced by GSM], increased by 34.8 percent. The number of deaths involving psychostimulants now exceeds the number of cocaine-involved deaths.16 (CDC December 2020 Report) (emphasis added)

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported in December 2020 that the pandemic may have contributed to “a rise in deadly drug overdoses.” While the data is incomplete, the CDC report confirms a sizeable increase in the number of deaths attributable to drug overdose (related to consumption of cocaine and opioids):

Drug overdoses were linked to more than 81,000 people’s deaths between June 2019 and May 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, jumping 18 percent compared to the previous 12-month period. Such deaths rose 20 percent or more in 25 states and the District of Columbia, the report said.17 (PBS report)

The  CDC graph based on both the predicted as well as reported values (i.e. numbers) of deaths attributed to drug overdoses reveals that the monthly count started to accelerate in February 2020.18

Screenshot from CDC

 

In April, 2020, 2,146 people died of opioid overdose, followed by 3,388 deaths in May 2020 marking the largest monthly increases since 2015 when the federal government began collecting this data.17 (Quoted in PBS report)

The following graph indicates the US monthly data. In the months prior to the corona crisis (July 2019 to January 2020), the monthly drug overdose death count was substantially below 1,000.

The hike starts in February (coinciding with the financial crash). Following the mid-March lockdown, drug overdose deaths went fly high.

In May 2020, the overdose death count was in excess of 3,000, i.e. a more than three-fold increase in relation to the drug overdose deaths recorded prior to the corona crisis. In the US, the recorded monthly drug overdose deaths in 2020 have more than tripled.17

 

Graph based on CDC data quoted above. Source: PBS

 

More recent CDC data confirms that the increase in deaths attributable to drug overdose has continued to increase:

From 71,130 deaths in 2019 (end of December 2019) to 92,478 in 2020 (end of December 2020), namely an increase of 21,348 deaths in the course of 2020 in relation to 2019.19

This upward trend has continued in the course of 2021.

In the twelve-month period finishing in June 2021, the number of recorded drug overdose deaths reached almost 100,000 fatalities (end of June 2021: 98,022).20

Opioid-related Deaths in Canada

The tendency in Canada is consistent with that observed in the US. A dramatic increase in opioid-related deaths was recorded in Ontario following the March 17, 2020 lockdown emergency which was coupled with unemployment following the closing down of economic activity:

The number of opioid-related deaths increased quickly in the weeks following the state of emergency declaration in Ontario on March 17, 2020. Overall, there was a 38.2% increase in opioid-related deaths in the first 15 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic (695 deaths; average of 46 deaths weekly) compared to the 15 weeks immediately prior (503 deaths; average of 34 deaths weekly).21

It is worth noting that in the course of the pandemic, fentanyl (pharmaceutical opioid) accounted for 87% of opioid-related deaths (87.2% [N=538 of 617]) compared to the pre-pandemic cohort (79.2% [N=399 of 504]).22

 

Source: Public Health Ontario

 

The following graph provides a clear-cut picture of the dramatic rise in opioid overdose emergency visits in Ottawa starting from January 2020 through December 2020.

 

 Source: Public Health Ontario

 

The Production and Trade in Opioids

According to UN sources, Afghanistan currently produces 94% percent of the world’s opium supply, which is transformed into heroin, morphine as well as pharmaceutical opioids. The heroin trade is protected.23 US military presence in Afghanistan plays a key role. It’s a multi-billion dollar operation involving both the drug cartels (illegal heroin) and (indirectly) Big Pharma which is involved in the sale and distribution of pharmaceutical opioids.24

Several Big Pharma companies involved in the marketing of the COVID-19 vaccine including Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson are also involved in the highly profitable (and legal) sale of pharmaceutical opioids, which in the course of the corona crisis (2020-2021) have become one of the main sources of drug overdose.

Corrupt Big Pharma Companies

Local communities across America took a stance against the Pharma giants with regard to opioids. In 2019-20, a multi-billion dollar opioid settlement was reached with Purdue Pharma on behalf of thousands of US cities and counties. 

“In October [2020], Oxycontin-maker Purdue admitted to enabling the supply of drugs “without legitimate medical purpose”, paying doctors and others illegal kickbacks to prescribe the drugs, among other claims. It agreed to pay $8.3bn.” (BBC, February 4, 2021)25

At the height of the corona crisis (November 2020):

“Four major Big Pharma distributors (Johnson & Johnson, McKesson, Cardinal Health, Amerisource Bergen) involved in the production (J&J) and distribution of prescription opioids “reached a tentative multi-billion settlement with counties and cities that sued them for damages”.26 

The settlement was referred to as the “Opioid Epidemic.” What is its relationship to the corona crisis? In a bitter irony, Johnson & Johnson, which has been the object of a prescription opioids class action lawsuit, is also a major distributor of the COVID-19 vaccine. 

These same Big Pharma distributors benefited from the spike in the sales of opioids resulting from the lockdown, which in turn contributed to a significant increase in drug overdose deaths in the course of 2020-2021 (see graphs above).

In a bitter irony, the spike in drug overdose has led to increased profits for Big Pharma.

While Big Pharma is the object of a multi-billion dollar civil lawsuit on the fraudulent distribution of prescription opioids, several of these corrupt companies are now entangled in promoting the COVID-19 vaccine initiative. According to Bloomberg, “more than 400,000 Americans have died over the last two decades from [drug] overdose”.27

And now, since the onset of the corona crisis in February 2020, monthly deaths resulting from drug overdose have more than tripled (see graph above). 

 

Alcoholism

Drug abuse and alcoholism are often related.

Drug and alcohol abuse have increased with COVID, and so has suicide. Help hotlines are flooded and certain statistics — online alcohol sales increased in the U.S. by over 200% — paint a dark picture.”

“Addiction is skyrocketing,” says addiction therapist Cindi Brand, who worked formerly with CAMH.

The pandemic has increased all forms of anxiety and stress even … Social distancing means people with addiction issues “can’t possibly get the help they need right now,” she says. (emphasis added)28

Increase in Sales of Alcohol

An upward trend in alcoholism during the corona crisis in the US is confirmed by a significant increase in the sale of alcohol. According to a Nielsen study, the stay at home orders in March 2020 resulted in “a 54% increase in national sales of alcohol for the week ending March 21, 2020, compared with one year before; online sales increased 262% from 2019.”29

A RAND corporation sample survey study conducted with the support of the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) consisted in comparing adults’ drinking habits in 2019 with those prevailing during the corona crisis (2020):

“American adults have sharply increased their consumption of alcohol during the shutdown triggered by the coronavirus pandemic, with women increasing their heavy drinking episodes (four or more drinks within a couple of hours) by 41%

A national survey found that the overall frequency of alcohol consumption increased by 14% among adults over age 30, compared to the same time last year. The increase was 19% among all adults aged 30 to 59, 17% among women, and 10% among for non-Hispanic white adults.” (Rand Corporation)30

While the Rand Corporation study on drinking habits reveals an increase in the consumption of alcohol, the results must be interpreted with caution. The recorded increase in the actual sale of alcohol (54%) was significantly higher than the estimated increase in drinking, based on the Rand sample survey. Concurrently, however, during lockdown, consumption of alcohol has largely been taking place in homes, rather than in (closed) bars and restaurants.31 

According to Michael Pollard, lead author of the study at RAND, “People’s depression increases, anxiety increases, [and] alcohol use is often a way to cope with these feelings.”32

 

Endnotes

1 Stefania Chiappini,  Amira Guirguis, et al., July 29, 2020. COVID-19: The Hidden Impact on Mental Health and Drug Addiction. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7403495/

2 American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, n.d. Suicide Statistics. https://afsp.org/suicide-statistics/

3 National Institute of Mental Health, n.d. Suicide. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide#part_154969

4 Mark É. Czeisler, Rashon I. Lane, et al., August 14, 2020. Mental Health, Substance Use, and Suicidal Ideation During the COVID-19 Pandemic — United States, June 24–30, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6932a1.htm

5 Ibid.

Mark A. Reger, Ian H. Stanley, et al., April 10, 2020. Suicide Mortality and Coronavirus Disease 2019—A Perfect Storm? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2764584?guestAccessKey=c40eefb2-c634-47ed-b3c3-f00b005e3cf2&utm_

7 Jon Miltimore, November 24, 2020. Suicide Claimed More Lives in October Than 10 Months of COVID-19 in Japan, Report Shows. https://fee.org/articles/suicide-claimed-more-lives-in-october-than-10-months-of-covid-19-in-japan-report-shows/

Mark A. Reger, Ian H. Stanley, et al., April 10, 2020. Suicide Mortality and Coronavirus Disease 2019—A Perfect Storm? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2764584?guestAccessKey=c40eefb2-c634-47ed-b3c3-f00b005e3cf2&utm_

9 Times Now Digital, September 14, 2020. Amid COVID-19 outbreak, India’s suicide epidemic remains unaddressed – these graphs show how. https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/amid-covid-19-outbreak-indias-suicide-epidemic-remains-unaddressed-these-graphs-show-how/652188

10 Carol Graham, November 17, 2020. The human costs of the pandemic: Is it time to prioritize well-being? https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-human-costs-of-the-pandemic-is-it-time-to-prioritize-well-being/

11 Statista, March 2021. Total number of suicides committed in Japan from 2011 to 2020. https://www.statista.com/statistics/622065/japan-suicide-number/

12 L. Kettenhofen, November 30, 2021. Suicide in Japan – statistics & facts. https://www.statista.com/topics/5259/suicide-in-japan/

13 Lucy Craft, November 13, 2020. Suicide claimed more Japanese lives in October than 10 months of COVID. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/japan-suicide-coronavirus-more-japanese-suicides-in-october-than-total-covid-deaths/

14 Ibid.

15 Emiko Jozuka, October 14, 2021. Child suicides in Japan are at a record high. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/14/asia/suicide-children-japan-intl-hnk/index.html

16 CDC, December 17, 2020. Overdose Deaths Accelerating During COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p1218-overdose-deaths-covid-19.html

17 Laura Santhanam, December 28, 2020. What’s behind the historic spike in drug overdose deaths under COVID-19. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/whats-behind-the-historic-spike-in-drug-overdose-deaths-under-covid-19

18 CDC, January 12, 2022. Provisional Drug Overdose Death Counts. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/drug-overdose-data.htm#data-tables

19 Ibid.

20 Deidre McPhillips, November 17, 2021. Drug overdose deaths top 100,000 annually for the first time, driven by fentanyl, CDC data show. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/17/health/drug-overdose-deaths-record-high/index.html

21 Ontario Drug Policy Research Network, The Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario/Ontario Forensic Pathology Service, et al., November 2020. Preliminary Patterns in Circumstances Surrounding Opioid-Related Deaths in Ontario during the COVID-19 Pandemic. https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/o/2020/opioid-mortality-covid-surveillance-report.pdf?la=en

22 Ibid.

23 Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 14, 2005. The Spoils of War: Afghanistan’s Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade. https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-spoils-of-war-afghanistan-s-multibillion-dollar-heroin-trade/91

24 MarketWatch, January 13, 2022. Opioids Drugs Market Size, Share 2022 Global Analysis Covers COVID-19 Impact | Detailed Insights on Upcoming Trends, Growth Rate and Future Forecast to 2025. https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/opioids-drugs-market-size-share-2022-global-analysis-covers-covid-19-impact-detailed-insights-on-upcoming-trends-growth-rate-and-future-forecast-to-2025-2022-01-13

25 BBC, February 4, 2021. McKinsey agrees $573m opioid settlement in US. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55939224

26 KHN Morning Briefing, November 6, 2020. 4 Drug Companies Agree To $26 Billion Opioid Settlement. https://khn.org/morning-breakout/4-drug-companies-agree-to-26-billion-opioid-settlement/

27 Jef Feeley, February 4, 2021. McKinsey to Pay $573 Million to Resolve U.S. Opioid Claims. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-04/mckinsey-said-to-agree-to-550-million-opioid-claim-settlement-kkq6xumb

28 Liz Braun, October 1, 2020. Drug and alcohol use rising during COVID. https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/drug-and-alcohol-use-rising-during-covid

29 NielsenIQ, May 7, 2020. Rebalancing the ‘COVID-19 effect’ on alcohol sales. https://nielseniq.com/global/en/insights/analysis/2020/rebalancing-the-covid-19-effect-on-alcohol-sales/

30 RAND, September 29, 2020. Alcohol Consumption Rises Sharply During Pandemic Shutdown; Heavy Drinking by Women Rises 41%. https://www.rand.org/news/press/2020/09/29.html

31 Sasha Pezenik, September 30, 2020. Alcohol consumption rising sharply during pandemic, especially among women. https://abcnews.go.com/US/alcohol-consumption-rising-sharply-pandemic-women/story?id=73302479

32 Ibid.  


 

Chapter VII

Corrupt Science: “There Is No Cure”

Suppression of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), 

A Cheap and Effective Drug 

 

There was an ongoing battle to suppress hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a cheap and effective drug for the treatment of COVID-19. The campaign against HCQ was carried out through slanderous political statements, media smears, not to mention an authoritative peer-reviewed “evaluation” published on May 22 by The Lancet, which was based on fake figures and test trials.

The study was allegedly based on data analysis of 96,032 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Dec 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020 from 671 hospitals worldwide. The database had been fabricated. The objective was to kill the hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) cure on behalf of Big Pharma.

While The Lancet article was retracted, the media casually blamed “a tiny US-based company” named Surgisphere whose employees included “a sci-fi writer and adult content model” for spreading “flawed data” (Guardian). This Chicago-based outfit was accused of having misled both the WHO and national governments, inciting them to ban HCQ. None of those trial tests actually took place.

 

Screenshot from The Lancet

 

While the blame was placed on Surgisphere, the unspoken truth (which neither the scientific community nor the media has acknowledged) is that the study was coordinated by Harvard professor Mandeep Mehra under the auspices of Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), which is a partner of the Harvard Medical School.

When the scam was revealed, Dr. Mandeep Mehra, who holds the Harvey Distinguished Chair of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, apologized:

“I have always performed my research in accordance with the highest ethical and professional guidelines. However, we can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards.

It is now clear to me that in my hope to contribute this research during a time of great need, I did not do enough to ensure that the data source was appropriate for this use. For that, and for all the disruptions – both directly and indirectly – I am truly sorry.” (emphasis added)

Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSC (official statement on BWH website)1

But that “truly sorry” note was just the tip of the iceberg. Why?

The studies respectively on Gilead Sciences’ remdesivir and on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) were conducted simultaneously by Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH).

While The Lancet report (May 22, 2020) coordinated by Dr. Mandeep Mehra was intended “to kill” the legitimacy of HCQ as a cure of COVID-19, another important (related) study was being carried out (concurrently) at BWH pertaining to remdesivir on behalf of Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Dr. Francisco Marty, a specialist in Infectious Disease and Associate Professor at Harvard Medical School, was entrusted with coordination of the clinical trial tests of the antiviral medication remdesivir under Brigham’s contract with Gilead Sciences, Inc2:

“Brigham and Women’s Hospital began enrolling patients in two clinical trials for Gilead’s antiviral medication remdesivir. The Brigham is one of multiple clinical trial sites for a Gilead-initiated study of the drug in 600 participants with moderate coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and a Gilead-initiated study of 400 participants with severe COVID-19.

… If the results are promising, this could lead to FDA approval, and if they aren’t, it gives us critical information in the fight against COVID-19 and allows us to move on to other therapies.”

While Dr. Mandeep Mehra was not directly involved in the Gilead Remdesivir BWH study under the supervision of his colleague Dr. Francisco Marty, he nonetheless had contacts with Gilead Sciences, Inc:

“He participated in a conference sponsored by Gilead in early April 2020 as part of the Covid-19 debate” (France Soir, May 23, 2020)3

What was the intent of his (failed) study? To undermine the legitimacy of hydroxychloroquine?

According to France Soir, in a report published after The Lancet retraction:

The often evasive answers produced by Dr Mandeep R. Mehra, … professor at Harvard Medical School, did not produce confidence, fueling doubt instead about the integrity of this retrospective study and its results. (France Soir, June 5, 2020)4

Was Dr. Mandeep Mehra in conflict of interest? (That is a matter for BWH and the Harvard Medical School to decide upon)

 

Who Were the Main Actors? 

Dr. Anthony Fauci, portrayed as “America’s top infectious disease expert,” played a key role in smearing the HCQ cure which had been approved years earlier by the CDC as well as providing legitimacy to Gilead’s remdesivir.

Dr. Fauci has been the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since the Reagan administration. He is known to act as a mouthpiece for Big Pharma.

Dr. Fauci launched remdesivir in late June (see details below). According to Fauci, remdesivir is the “corona wonder drug” developed by Gilead Sciences, Inc. It’s a $1.6 billion dollar bonanza.

 

Gilead Sciences, Inc: History

Gilead Sciences, Inc is a multi-billion dollar bio-pharmaceutical company which is now involved in developing and marketing remdesivir. Gilead has a long history. It has the backing of major investment conglomerates including the Vanguard Group and Capital Research & Management Co, among others. It has developed ties with the US government.

In 1999, Gilead Sciences, Inc developed Tamiflu (used as a treatment of seasonal influenza and bird flu). At the time, Gilead Sciences, Inc was headed by Donald Rumsfeld (1997-2001), who later joined the George W. Bush administration as Secretary of Defense (2001-2006). Rumsfeld was responsible for coordinating the illegal and criminal wars on Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003).

Rumsfeld maintained his links to Gilead Sciences, Inc throughout his tenure as Secretary of Defense (2001-2006). According to CNN Money (2005): “The prospect of a bird flu outbreak … was very good news for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [who still owned Gilead stocks] and other politically connected investors in Gilead Sciences.”5

Anthony Fauci has been in charge of the NIAID since 1984, using his position as “a go-between” the US government and Big Pharma. During Rumsfeld’s tenure as Secretary of Defense, the budget allocated to bio-terrorism increased substantially, involving contracts with Big Pharma including Gilead Sciences, Inc. Anthony Fauci considered that the money allocated to bio-terrorism in early 2002 would:

“accelerate our understanding of the biology and pathogenesis of microbes that can be used in attacks, and the biology of the microbes’ hosts — human beings and their immune systems. One result should be more effective vaccines with less toxicity.” (Washington Post, February 7, 2022)6

In 2008, Dr. Anthony Fauci was granted the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George W. Bush “for his determined and aggressive efforts to help others live longer and healthier lives.”7

Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, listens Thursday, June 19, 2008, as he is announced as a recipient of the 2008 Presidential Medal of Freedom, at ceremonies in the East Room of the White House. (White House photo by Shealah Craighead)

 

The 2020 Gilead Sciences, Inc. Remdesivir Project

We will be focusing on key documents (and events).

Chronology (February-June 2020)

February 21, 2020: Initial release pertaining to NIH-NIAID remdesivir placebo test trial

April 10: The Gilead Sciences, Inc study published in the NEJM on the “Compassionate Use of Remdesivir”

April 29: NIH released study on remdesivir (report published on May 22 in NEJM)

May 22: The BWH-Harvard Study on Hydroxychloroquine coordinated by Dr. Mandeep Mehra published in The Lancet

May 22: Remdesivir for the Treatment of COVID-19 — Preliminary Report, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) 

June 5: The (fake) Lancet Report (May 22) on HCQ is retracted

June 29: Fauci announcement. The $1.6 billion remdesivir HHS agreement with Gilead Sciences, Inc

 

April 10, 2020: The Gilead Sciences, Inc study published in the NEJM on the “Compassionate Use of Remdesivir”

A Gilead-sponsored report was published in New England Journal of Medicine in an article entitled “Compassionate Use of Remdesivir for Patients with Severe COVID-19”. It was co-authored by an impressive list of 56 distinguished medical doctors and scientists, many of whom were recipients of consulting fees from Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Gilead Sciences, Inc. funded the study which included several staff members as co-authors.

“The testing included a total of 61 patients [who] received at least one dose of remdesivir on or before March 7, 2020; 8 of these patients were excluded because of missing postbaseline information (7 patients) and an erroneous remdesivir start date (1 patient) … Of the 53 remaining patients included in this analysis, 40 (75%) received the full 10-day course of remdesivir, 10 (19%) received 5 to 9 days of treatment, and 3 (6%) fewer than 5 days of treatment.” (NEJM, April 10, 2020)8

The NEJM article states that “Gilead Sciences, Inc began accepting requests from clinicians for compassionate use of remdesivir on January 25, 2020.”

From whom, from where? According to the WHO (January 30, 2020), there were 86 cases in 18 countries outside China of which 5 were in the US, 5 in France and 3 in Canada.

Several prominent physicians and scientists have cast doubt on the Compassionate Use of Remdesivir study conducted by Gilead, focusing on the small size of the trial. Ironically, the number of patients in the test is less than the number of co-authors: “53 patients” versus “56 co-authors.”

Below we provide excerpts from scientific statements on the Gilead NEJM project (Science Media Centre) published immediately following the release of the NEJM article9:

‘Compassionate use’ is better described as using an unlicensed therapy to treat a patient because there are no other treatments available. Research based on this kind of use should be treated with extreme caution because there is no control group or randomisation, which are some of the hallmarks of good practice in clinical trials.” (Prof Duncan Richard, Clinical Therapeutics, University of Oxford)

 “It is critical not to over-interpret this study. Most importantly, it is impossible to know the outcome for this relatively small group of patients had they not received remdesivir.” (Dr Stephen Griffin, Associate Professor, School of Medicine, University of Leeds)

 “The research is interesting but doesn’t prove anything at this point: the data are from a small and uncontrolled study.” (Simon Maxwell, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Prescribing, University of Edinburgh)

“The data from this paper are almost uninterpretable. It is very surprising, perhaps even unethical, that the New England Journal of Medicine has published it. It would be more appropriate to publish the data on the website of the pharmaceutical company that has sponsored and written up the study. At least Gilead have been clear that this has not been done in the way that a high quality scientific paper would be written.” (Prof Stephen Evans, Professor of Pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine)

“It’s very hard to draw useful conclusions from uncontrolled studies like this particularly with a new disease where we really don’t know what to expect and with wide variations in outcomes between places and over time. One really has to question the ethics of failing to do randomisation – this study really represents more than anything else, a missed opportunity.” (Prof Adam Finn, Professor of Paediatrics, University of Bristol)

To review the complete document of Science Media Centre pertaining to expert assessments, click here.

 

April 29, 2020: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Study on Remdesivir

On April 29 following the publication of the Gilead Sciences, Inc study in the NEJM on April 10, a press release of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on remdesivir was released. The full document was published on May 22, by the NEJM under the title: Remdesivir for the Treatment of COVID-19 — Preliminary Report (NEJM). 

The study had been initiated on February 21, 2020. The title of the April 29 press release was: “Peer-reviewed data shows remdesivir for COVID-19 improves time to recovery.”

It’s a government-sponsored report which includes preliminary data from a randomized trial involving 1,063 hospitalized patients. The results of the trial labelled Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT) are preliminary, conducted under the helm of Dr. Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID):

An independent data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) overseeing the trial met on April 27 to review data and shared their interim analysis with the study team. Based upon their review of the data, they noted that remdesivir was better than placebo from the perspective of the primary endpoint, time to recovery, a metric often used in influenza trials. Recovery in this study was defined as being well enough for hospital discharge or returning to normal activity level.

Preliminary results indicate that patients who received remdesivir had a 31% faster time to recovery than those who received placebo (p<0.001). Specifically, the median time to recovery was 11 days for patients treated with remdesivir compared with 15 days for those who received placebo. Results also suggested a survival benefit, with a mortality rate of 8.0% for the group receiving remdesivir versus 11.6% for the placebo group (p=0.059). (emphasis added)10

In the NIH’s earlier February 21, 2020 report (released at the outset of the study), the methodology was described as follows:

… A randomized, controlled clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the investigational antiviral remdesivir in hospitalized adults diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) …

Numbers. Where? When? 

The February 21 report confirmed that the first trial participant was “an American who was repatriated after being quarantined on the Diamond Princess cruise ship” that docked in Yokohama (Japanese Territorial Waters) (see Chapter II). “Thirteen people repatriated by the US State Department from the Diamond Princess cruise ship” were selected as patients for the placebo trial test.

Ironically, at the outset of the study, 58.7% of the “confirmed cases” worldwide (542 cases out of 924) (outside China) were on the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship from which the initial trial placebo patients were selected.

Where and When: The trial test in the 68 selected sites? That came at a later date because on February 19 (WHO data), the US had recorded only 15 positive cases (see table below).

“A total of 68 sites ultimately joined the study—47 in the United States and 21 in countries in Europe and Asia.” (emphasis added)

In the final May 22 NEJM report entitled Remdesivir for the Treatment of COVID-19 — Preliminary Report

There were 60 trial sites and 13 subsites in the United States (45 sites), Denmark (8), the United Kingdom (5), Greece (4), Germany (3), Korea (2), Mexico (2), Spain (2), Japan (1), and Singapore (1). Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either remdesivir or placebo. Randomization was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrollment.11

The Washington Post applauded Anthony Fauci’s announcement (April 29)12:

“The preliminary results, disclosed at the White House by Anthony S. Fauci, …  fall short of the magic bullet or cure… But with no approved treatments for Covid-19,[Lie] Fauci said, it will become the standard of care for hospitalized patients …

The data shows that remdesivir has a clear-cut, significant, positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery,” Fauci said. 

“The government’s first rigorous clinical trial of the experimental drug remdesivir as a coronavirus treatment delivered mixed results to the medical community Wednesday — but rallied stock markets and raised hopes that an early weapon to help some patients was at hand.

The preliminary results, disclosed at the White House by Anthony Fauci, chief of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which led the placebo-controlled trial found that the drug accelerated the recovery of hospitalized patients but had only a marginal benefit in the rate of death.

… Fauci’s remarks boosted speculation that the Food and Drug Administration would seek emergency use authorization that would permit doctors to prescribe the drug.

In addition to clinical trials, remdesivir has been given to more than 1,000 patients under compassionate use. [Also refers to the Gilead study published on April 10 in the NEJM]

The study, involving [more than] 1,000 patients at 68 sites in the United States and around the world [??], offers the first evidence [??] from a large [??], randomized [??] clinical study of remdesivir’s effectiveness against COVID-19.”

The NIH placebo test study provided “preliminary results.” While the placebo trial test was “randomized”, the overall selection of patients at the 68 sites was not fully randomized. See the full report.13

 

May 22, 2020: The Controversial (Retracted) Lancet Report on Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)

It is worth noting that the full report of the NIH-NIAID entitled Remdesivir for the Treatment of COVID-19 — Preliminary Report was released on May 22, 2020 in the NEJM, on the same day as the controversial Lancet report on hydroxychloroquine.

Immediately following its publication, the media went into high gear, smearing the HCQ cure, while applauding the NIH-NIAID report on remdesivir released on that same day.

Remdesivir, the only drug cleared to treat COVID-19, sped the recovery time of patients with the disease, … “It’s a very safe and effective drug,” said Eric Topol, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. “We now have a definite first efficacious drug for Covid-19, which is a major step forward and will be built upon with other drugs, [and drug] combinations.”14

When the Lancet HCQ article by Bingham-Harvard was retracted on June 5, it was too late, it received minimal media coverage. Despite the retraction, the HCQ cure “had been killed.”

 

June 29, 2020: Fauci Green Light. The $1.6 Billion Remdesivir Contract with Gilead Sciences, Inc

Dr. Anthony Fauci granted the “green light” to Gilead Sciences, Inc. on June 29, 2020.

The semi-official US government NIH-NIAID-sponsored report (May 22) entitled Remdesivir for the Treatment of COVID-19 — Preliminary Report (NEJM) was used to justify a major agreement with Gilead Sciences, Inc. (A final report was released on November 5, 2020)

The report was largely funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

On June 29, based on the findings of the NIH-NIAID report published in the NEJM, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on behalf of the Trump Adminstration an agreement to secure large supplies of the remdesivir drug from Gilead Sciences, Inc. for the treatment of COVID-19 in America’s private hospitals and clinics.

The earlier Gilead study based on scanty test results published in the NEJM (April 10) of 53 cases (and 56 co-authors) was not highlighted. The results of this study had been questioned by several prominent physicians and scientists.

Who will be able to afford remdesivir? 500,000 doses of remdesivir are envisaged at $3,200 per patient, namely $1.6 billion (see the study by Elizabeth Woodworth).15

The drug was also approved for marketing in the European Union under the brand name Veklury.

If this contract is implemented as planned, it represents for Gilead Sciences, Inc. and the recipient US private hospitals and clinics a colossal amount of money.

According to the Trump Administration’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar (June 29, 2020):

“To the extent possible, we want to ensure that any American patient who needs remdesivir can get it. [at $3200] The Trump Administration is doing everything in our power to learn more about life-saving therapeutics for COVID-19 and secure access to these options for the American people.”

 

Remdesivir versus Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)

Careful timing:

The Lancet study (published on May 22, 2020 and subsequently retracted) was intended to undermine the legitimacy of hydroxychloroquine as an effective cure to COVID-19, with a view to sustaining the $1.6 billion agreement between the HHS and Gilead Sciences, Inc. on June 29. The legitimacy of this agreement rested on the May 22 NIH-NIAID study in the NEJM which was considered “preliminary.”16

What Dr. Fauci failed to acknowledge is that chloroquine had been “studied” and tested 15 years ago by the CDC as a drug to be used against coronavirus infections. And that hydroxychloroquine has been used in the course of 2020 in the treatment of COVID-19 in several countries.

According to the (2005) Virology Journal, Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread.”17 It was used in the SARS-1 outbreak in 2002. It had the endorsement of the CDC. 

HCQ is not only effective, it is “inexpensive” when compared to remdesivir at an estimated “$3,120 for a US patient with private insurance.”

 

Concluding Remarks

The Gilead Sciences, Inc. remdesivir study (50+ authors) was published in the New England Journal of Medicine on April 10, 2020.

It was followed by the NIH-NIAID Remdesivir for the Treatment of COVID-19 — Preliminary Report on May 22, 2020 in the NEJM.  And on that same day, May 22, the report on hydroxychloroquine coordinated by BWH-Harvard Dr. Mehra was published by the Lancet (which was subsequently retracted).

Harvard Medical School and the BWH bear responsibility for having hosted and financed the Lancet report on HCQ coordinated by Dr. Mandeep Mehra.

Is there conflict of interest? BWH was simultaneously involved in a study on remdesivir in a contract with Gilead Sciences, Inc.

While the Lancet report coordinated by Harvard’s Dr. Mehra was retracted, it nonetheless served the interests of Gilead Sciences, Inc.

It is important that an independent scientific and medical assessment be undertaken, respectively of the Gilead Sciences, Inc New England Journal of Medicine (NEMJ) peer-reviewed study (April 10, 2020) as well as the NIH-NIAID study also published in the NEJM (May 22, 2020).

 

Endnotes

1 Brigham and Women’s Hospital, May 22, 2020. No Improvement in Death Rate for COVID-19 Patients who Received Hydroxychloroquine. https://www.brighamandwomens.org/about-bwh/newsroom/press-releases-detail?id=3592

2 Brigham and Women’s Hospital, March 30, 2020. Two Remdesivir Clinical Trials Underway at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. https://www.brighamhealthonamission.org/2020/03/26/two-remdesivir-clinical-trials-underway-at-brigham-and-womens-hospital/

3 Xavier Azalbert & Eric Gyssler, June 5, 2020. From coincidences to coincidences, the Boston connexion serves Remdesivir? https://www.francesoir.fr/politique-monde/coincidences-coincidences-boston-connexion-serves-remdesivir

4 Ibid.

5 Nelson D. Schwartz, October 31, 2005. Rumsfeld’s growing stake in Tamiflu Defense Secretary, ex-chairman of flu treatment rights holder, sees portfolio value growing. https://money.cnn.com/2005/10/31/news/newsmakers/fortune_rumsfeld/

6 George F. Will, February 7, 2002. War and Health. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2002/02/07/war-and-health/c1e5dfb2-c373-45ef-87d1-eb89f0db557c/

7 George W Bush Library, March 30, 2020. https://twitter.com/gwblibrary/status/1244601539227942914?lang=en

8 Jonathan Grein, Norio Ohmagari, et al, June 11, 2020. Compassionate Use of Remdesivir for Patients with Severe Covid-19. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007016#article_references

9 Prof. Stephen Evans & Prof. Adam Finn, April 11, 2020. Expert reaction to a study about compassionate use of remdesivir for patients with severe COVID-19. https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-a-study-about-compassionate-use-of-remdesivir-for-patients-with-severe-covid-19/

10 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, February 25, 2020. NIH Clinical Trial of Remdesivir to Treat COVID-19 Begins. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/nih-clinical-trial-remdesivir-treat-covid-19-begins

11 John H. Beigel, Kay M. Tomashek, et al., November 5, 2020. Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Final Report. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007764?query=recirc_mostViewed_railB_article

12 Laurie Mcginley & Christopher Rowland, April 29, 2020. Gilead’s remdesivir improves recovery time of coronavirus patients in NIH trial. https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/gileads-remdesivir-improves-recovery-time-of-coronavirus-patients-in-nih-trial/

13 Ibid.

14 Matthew Herper, May 22, 2020. Covid-19 study details benefits of treatment with remdesivir, and also its limitations. https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/22/covid-19-study-details-benefits-of-treatment-with-remdesivir-and-also-its-limitations/

15 Elizabeth Woodworth, August 27, 2020. Remdesivir for Covid-19: $1.6 Billion for a “Modestly Beneficial” Drug? https://www.globalresearch.ca/remdesivir-covid-19-1-6-billion-modestly-beneficial-drug/5717690

16 Mandeep R. Mehra, Sapan S. Desai, et al., May 29, 2020. Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis. https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6.pdf

17 Martin J. Vincent, Eric Bergeron, et al., August 22, 2005. Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/

 


 

Chapter VIII

Big Pharma’s COVID “Vaccine”

 

Our Children Are the Victims

Student at the Lycée Valabre de Luynes-Gardannem, Aix-en-Provence, 16 years old Sofia Benharira  passed away on September 21 [2021] yes, 7 days after having received the deadly Pfizer vaccine. Two Heart Attacks, Thrombosis. May She Rest in Peace.

***

“Her daughter’s 13-year-old friend who did not want to take the COVID-19 vaccine. “Her Heart Stopped. She is in Critical Care. This is happening here right now in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Because she wanted to play soccer. 

She did not want to take the Vaccine. But when our Premier mandated the vaccine for children playing sport.  …. 

“I am disgusted with our government.”

(Powerful voice of a Canadian mother)

***

“Yesterday evening, we got news from France of a young man, 22 years old who died nine hours after having being vaccinated. He wanted to travel on a holiday to Greece. “He just wanted to live said his father. … he was my only son, and he died, killed by a crap vaccine that was never validated or properly tested”. 

The mainstream media provided its own interpretation quoting “authoritative medical sources”.

“It  wasn’t the vaccine which triggered Maxime Beltra‘s death. He died from an allergic reaction, they said: “a probable serious food allergy, according to medical sources”.

Now isn’t that a piece of authoritative fake news, quoting hospital officials. Today Our thoughts are with Maxime Beltra and his family.

***

“If you permit this to go ahead [vaccine], I guarantee, there will be avoidable deaths of perfectly healthy children and severe illnesses in ten times as many. And for no possible benefit. Knowing what I know from 40 years training and practice in toxicology, biochemistry and pharmacology, to participate in this extraordinary abuse of innocent children in our care can be classified in no other way than Murder.” —Dr. Michael Yeadon, prominent scientist, former Vice President of Pfizer

“Three doctors from Ontario died after the hospital where they worked started administering the fourth booster shot to their staff. Is it a coincidence or are they victims of this diabolical worldwide vaccination campaign?” —Mark Taliano, author, Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization

“This vaccine campaign will go down as the biggest scandal in medical history, … moreover, it will be known as the biggest crime ever committed on humanity.” —MP Christine Anderson, Member of the European Parliament, July 2022

 

Yes, It’s a killer vaccine. That message should be loud and clear. This is happening all over the world: children and adolescents are dying. Crimes against humanity, crimes against our children. 

Health authorities are routinely instructed to categorize vaccine-related deaths and injuries to COVID-19: “The vaccinated are dying of COVID.” It’s a boldface lie. 

 

Introduction

The vaccine was launched on November 9, 2020, barely six months after the March 11, 2020 lockdown. These two interrelated policy mandates constitute the strategic pillars of the COVID crisis:

  • The lockdown was an act of economic and social warfare directed against all humanity.
  • Amply documented (starting in early 2021) the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is a poisonous substance which has resulted in a sustained upward trend in vaccine-related mortality and morbidity.

Peer-reviewed reports confirm the causes of vaccine-related deaths and injuries including, among others, blood clots, thrombosis, myocarditis and fertility.

The impacts of the vaccine are also documented by a secret Pfizer report which was released under freedom of information (see analysis below).

Video: Impact of COVID vaccinations on mortality (December 2020 – April 2021, selected countries), click here to watch.

The latest official figures at the time of writing (April 3, 2022) point to approximately: 

69,053 COVID-19 injection-related deaths and 10,997,126 injuries for the EU, US and UK combined for a population of 830 million people.1

But only a small fraction of the victims or families of the deceased will go through the tedious process of reporting vaccine-related deaths and adverse events to the national health authorities. 

Moreover, the health authorities are actively involved in obfuscating the deaths and injuries resulting from the “unapproved” and “experimental” COVID-19 “vaccine”.

Based on historical data (Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESPH-VAERS) p. 6)

“Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. … less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. (emphasis added)2

These are official statistics based on a formal process of registration of deaths and injuries. The actual number of deaths and injuries triggered by the mRNA vaccine is much higher.

Multiply the figures by the relevant parameter to get the REAL numbers; we are talking about very high numbers.

 

The mRNA “Vaccine”. Hidden Agenda? 

The vaccine does not save lives nor does it contain the pandemic because there is no pandemic. It’s a money-making operation for Big Pharma in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Moreover, it’s not a one-time vaccine jab. Several doses are contemplated over several years.

It is applied worldwide and enforced by powerful financial Interest. Not a single country, with the exception of Burundi, Tanzania and Haiti, had the courage to refuse the mRNA vaccine.

While there is no reliable evidence, it is worth noting that the presidents of Tanzania and Burundi died under mysterious circumstances.

Haiti was the only country in the Western hemisphere which categorically refused to implement the mRNA vaccine.

In a bitter irony, immediately following president Jovenel Moise’s assassination on July 7, 2021, president Joe Biden promptly sent half a million vaccine doses (and more to come, courtesy of Uncle Sam) delivered by COVAX to Port-au-Prince six days after Moise’s passing.3

This first shipment to Haiti was part of a US Aid Program consisting of 500 million doses of the “killer vaccine” which was slated to be sent to a large number of developing countries.  

 

Big Money for Big Pharma

The US government ordered 100 million doses of the vaccine in the immediate wake of the March 11, 2020 lockdown. The EU purchased more than 1.8 billion doses, which represents four times the population of the European Union. It’s Big Money for Big Pharma, generous payoffs to corrupt politicians at the expense of taxpayers.

The objective is ultimately to make money, by vaccinating the entire planet of 7.9 billion people for SARS-CoV-2.

The COVID vaccine requires at least three doses. This is the largest vaccine project in world history and the biggest money-making operation for Big Pharma.

Worldwide, people are led to believe that the corona vaccine is a solution. And that “normality” will then be restored.

 

The mRNA Vaccine Is “Unapproved” and “Experimental” 

How is it that a vaccine for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which under normal conditions would take years to develop, was promptly launched on the 9th of November 2020?

Moreover, the vaccine announced by Pfizer, Moderna Inc, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is based on an experimental gene-editing mRNA technology which has a bearing on the human genome.

Coupled with the mRNA vaccine initiative is the development of a so-called digital passport which is currently being imposed on entire populations (see analysis below).

And why do we need a vaccine for COVID-19 when the WHO, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as well as numerous scientists have confirmed unequivocally that COVID-19 is “similar to seasonal influenza”? (See analysis in Chapter III)

Four major companies including Pfizer Inc, Moderna Inc, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) are involved in marketing the experimental mRNA vaccine with the relentless support of national governments.  

In the US, the “green light” to market the experimental mRNA vaccine was granted back in December 2020, despite the fact that according to the FDA, the vaccine is an “unapproved product”.

The FDA, in an ambiguous statement, has provided a so-called Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, namely “to permit the emergency use of the unapproved product, … for active immunization…”4 (See below)

 

Screenshot from the FDA

 

There is something fishy and “contradictory” in this statement. The experimental Pfizer mRNA vaccine is both “unapproved” and “permitted”.

I have checked this statement with a prominent lawyer. It is blatantly illegal to market an “unapproved product”.

In the US, the Pfizer-Moderna vaccine was categorized by the CDC as an “investigational drug”. “The emergency use” clause is there to justify the launching of what might be described as an “illegal drug”.

There is an ongoing fear campaign but there is no “emergency” which justifies “emergency use”. Why?

  1. Both the WHO and the CDC have confirmed that COVID-19 is “similar to seasonal influenza”; it is not a killer virus. 
  2. The PCR test used to estimate “confirmed positive cases” is flawed. Since March 2020, the COVID-19 “numbers” have been manipulated, hiked up.
  3. The overall validity of the PCR test (and estimates) as applied since January 2020 has been questioned (January 2021) by the WHO (see our analysis in Chapter III).

 

Pfizer Has a Criminal Record: “Fraudulent Marketing” of an “Unapproved Product”

Flashback to 2009. In a historic US Department of Justice decision in September 2009, Pfizer Inc. pleaded guilty to criminal charges.5 It was “the largest health care fraud settlement” in the history of the US Department of Justice:

American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. … have agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, … ” (September 2, 2009)6

Screenshot from the Department of Justice

 

To view the C-Span video, click here.

 

Déjà Vu: Flash Forward to 2020-2022

How on earth can you trust a Big Pharma vaccine conglomerate which pleaded guilty to criminal charges by the US Department of Justice including “fraudulent marketing” and “felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act”?

I should mention, however, that in 2009, Pfizer was so to speak “put on probation” by the US Department of Justice.7 It was obliged to enter into “a corporate integrity agreement” with the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). That agreement provided for “procedures and reviews to … avoid and promptly detect” misconduct on the part of Pfizer Inc.  

Johnson & Johnson and “the Opioid Epidemic” 

At the height of the corona crisis, barely covered by the media, coinciding with the launch of the COVID-19 vaccine in early November 2020, Johnson & Johnson (and its three distributors) (involved in the marketing of prescription opioids)  “reached a tentative multi-billion settlement with counties and cities that sued them for damages”.8 The class action lawsuit was “the largest federal court case in American history” (for further details, see Chapter VI pertaining to “The Impacts on Mental Health”).

Are these legal antecedents relevant to an understanding of Big Pharma’s vaccine initiative?

Johnson & Johnson is currently involved in the production and marketing of a COVID adenovirus viral vector vaccine which also entails genetic therapy (the above J&J class-action lawsuit is one among several lawsuits against J&J).

 

Human Guinea Pigs

In relation to the COVID vaccine, “fraudulent marketing” is an understatement. The mRNA vaccine announced by Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca is an “unapproved drug” based on the “experimental” gene-editing mRNA technology which has a bearing on the human genome.9

Moreover, the standard animal lab tests using mice or ferrets were not conducted. Pfizer “went straight to human ‘guinea pigs’.”10

“Human tests began in late July and early August [2020]. Three months is unheard of for testing a new vaccine. Several years is the norm.” (F. William Engdahl, Global Research, November 2020)11

Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Vice President of Pfizer, has taken a firm stance

“All vaccines against the SARS-COV-2 virus are by definition novel. No candidate vaccine has been… in development for more than a few months.”

“If any such vaccine is approved for use under any circumstances that are not EXPLICITLY experimental, I believe that recipients are being misled to a criminal extent.”12

In early December 2020,  Dr. Michael Yeadon together with Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg “filed an application with the EMA“, the European Medicines Agency responsible for EU-wide drug approval, for the immediate suspension of all SARS-CoV-2 vaccine studies, in particular the Pfizer-BioNtech study on BNT162b (EudraCT number 2020-002641-42).13

 

History of the SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Project 

There are many contradictions. The analysis below addresses the earlier stages of the vaccine project as well as the role of the 201 simulation of a coronavirus pandemic under the auspices of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine held in New York on October 18, 2019 (see Chapter I).

The COVID vaccine is a multi-billion dollar Big Pharma operation which will contribute to increasing the public debt of more than 150 national governments.

Supported by the fear campaign, money — rather than public health — is the driving force behind this initiative.

The GSK-Pfizer Partnership 

Five months before the onset of the COVID-19 crisis, two of the largest worldwide Pharma conglomerates decided to join hands in a strategic relationship. In August 2019, GSK confirmed the formation of a major partnership with Pfizer entitled the Consumer Health Joint Venture.14

While the relationship is said to be limited to “trusted consumer health brands”, the agreement envisaged joint financial procedures including joint multi-billion dollar investment projects. While it does not constitute a merger, the GSK-Pfizer alliance implies selective integration and de facto collusion in many of the two companies’ activities including the vaccine market.

The completion of the joint venture with Pfizer marks the beginning of the next phase of our transformation of GSK. This is an important moment for the Group, laying the foundation for two great companies, one in Pharmaceuticals and Vaccines and one in Consumer Health.” (GSK, August 1, 2019, emphasis added)15

This GSK-Pfizer relationship also encompasses a network of partner pharmaceutical companies, research labs, virology institutes, military and biotech entities, etc. many of which are currently involved in the COVID vaccine initiative.  

At present, a handful of multi-national companies including GSK and Pfizer control 80% of the global vaccine market. Under the agreement between the two companies, GSK-Pfizer is slated to play a dominant and coordinated role in regards to the COVID-19 vaccine.

 

The October 2019 Coronavirus Event 201 Simulation Exercise. Development of an “Effective Vaccine”

The coronavirus was initially named nCoV-19 by CEPI and the WHO — exactly the same name as that adopted in the WEF-Gates-Johns Hopkins Event 201 (2019-nCov) pertaining to a coronavirus simulation exercise held in mid-October 2019. It was only later that COVID-19 was identified by the WHO not as a virus but as a disease: coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the virus was identified as “severe acute respiratory syndrome” coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). 

The Event 201 Johns Hopkins simulation (examined in Chapter I) addressed the development of an effective vaccine in response to millions of cases in the October 2019 simulation of an outbreak of a novel coronavirus entitled 2019-nCoV. The simulation announced a scenario in which the entire population of the planet would be affected:

“We ran a massive viral pandemic simulation.., 65 million deaths worldwide.”

“During the initial months of the pandemic, the cumulative number of cases [in the simulation] increases exponentially, doubling every week. And as the cases and deaths accumulate, the economic and societal consequences become increasingly severe.”

The scenario ends at the 18-month point, with 65 million deaths. The pandemic is beginning to slow due to the decreasing number of susceptible people. The pandemic will continue at some rate until there is an effective vaccine or until 80-90 % of the global population has been exposed. From that point on, it is likely to be an endemic childhood disease.16

To watch the World Economic Forum video, The 201 Johns Hopkins Simulation, click here.

 

The Central Role of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI)

The lead entity for the novel coronavirus vaccine initiative is the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), an organization sponsored and financed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Two weeks after the virus had been formally identified by the People’s Republic of China (Jan 7, 2020), a vaccine for the novel coronavirus was announced by CEPI at the Davos World Economic Forum on January 20-24, 2020.

Note the chronology: The development of the 2019-nCoV vaccine was announced at the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF) a week prior to the official launching by the WHO of a Worldwide Public Health Emergency (January 30, 2020) at a time when the number of “confirmed cases” worldwide (outside China) was 83 (see Chapter II).

The pandemic was launched by the WHO on March 11, 2020. And five days later, barely covered by the media, the first tests involving human volunteers were conducted by Moderna in Seattle on March 16, 2020.

The evidence suggests that the vaccine project was initiated at a much earlier stage. According to Richard Hatchett, CEO of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the project to develop a vaccine commenced not only prior to the discovery and identification of the coronavirus (January 7, 2020) but several months prior to the October 2019 simulation exercise (see interview with Richard Hatchett below).17

CEPI, on behalf of the Gates Foundation and the WEF, was seeking a “monopoly” role in the vaccination business the objective of which was a “global vaccine project”, in partnership with a large number of “candidates”.

The CEO Stéphane Bancel of Moderna Inc. described the features of the mRNA vaccine at a World Economic Forum press conference in Davos (January 2020). “We inject instructions … mRNA is a platform.” He confirmed that research was already well underway in collaboration with the NIS and CEPI. Click here to view the video.

Image: Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel (Licensed under GFDL, free to use)

On January 31, 2020, the day following the WHO’s official launching of the global public health emergency (PHEIC) and Trump’s decision to curtail air travel with China, CEPI announced its partnership with CureVac AG, a German-based biopharmaceutical company.

A few days later, in early February 2020, CEPI “announced that major vaccine manufacturer GSK would allow its proprietary adjuvants — compounds that boost the effectiveness of vaccines — to be used in the response” (the pandemic was officially launched on March 11, 2020).18

There were many “potential vaccines in the pipeline” with “dozens of research groups around the world racing to create a vaccine against COVID-19”.

 

The COVID-19 Global Vaccination Program 

CEPI (on behalf of Gates-WEF, which funded the 201 simulation exercise) played a key role in a large-scale worldwide vaccination program in partnership with biotech companies, Big Pharma, government agencies as well as university laboratories.  

Screenshot from CEPI’s Twitter

 

The foregoing statement by CEPI was made nearly two months prior to the official declaration of a pandemic on March 11, 2020. The number of confirmed cases outside China on January 30, 2020 was 83. 

“We’re having conversations with a broad array of potential partners”. And critical to those conversations is: What’s the plan to make very large quantities of vaccine within a time frame that is potentially relevant to what people seem to be increasingly certain will be a pandemic, if it isn’t already there? …” [Richard Hatchett, CEPI CEO in an interview with stat.news.com] (emphasis added)19 

 

Prior Knowledge of the COVID Pandemic. The mRNA Vaccine Was Already in the Pipeline

Of significance, Hatchett confirmed that the project to develop a vaccine commenced not only prior to the discovery and identification of the coronavirus (January 7, 2020) but several months prior to the October 2019 201 simulation exercise.

“We did that in the last year or so [early 2019]…  We are using the information that we have collected and have that team now thinking about opportunities for scaling vaccines of various different types. That is a work in progress. For some of the technologies the tech transfer [to a manufacturer] may be something that could be done in a time frame that was pertinent to the epidemic, potentially.

I think it is going to be really important to engage those folks who have access to really substantial production capacity. And having the big producers at the table — because of their depth, because of their experience, because of their internal resources — would be very, very important.

The candidate vaccines will be very, very quick. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of NIAID [who has been spreading panic on network TV], is out in public as saying he thinks the clinical trial for the Moderna vaccine may be as early as the spring [2020]. (emphasis added)20

Did CEPI Director Richard HatchettDr. Anthony Fauci who heads NIAID, and Moderna’s CEO Stéphane Bencel have “prior knowledge” of the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic? 

Hatchett’s statements suggest that they had already been working on an mRNA vaccine in early 2019. Moreover, on December 12, 2019, two weeks prior to the official confirmation of the existence of a so-called “novel coronavirus” by the Chinese health authorities, Moderna Inc. together with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) had already “sent mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates” to a lab investigator at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (see Joseph Mercola, July 10, 2021).21

The CEPI-sponsored vaccine conglomerates had already planned their investments well in advance of the global worldwide health emergency (declared by the WHO on January 30, 2020).

Moderna announced on February 24, 2020 the development of “an experimental (messenger) mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, known as mRNA-1273″. “The initial batch of the vaccine has already been shipped to US government researchers from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)” headed by Dr. Antony Fauci.

In the words of Fauci:

“Finding a safe and effective vaccine to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2 is an urgent public health priority…This Phase 1 study, launched in record speed, is an important first step toward achieving that goal.”22

Below are excerpts from the statement by Moderna which indicates “foreknowledge” as well as its collaboration with Anthony Fauci’s NIAID as early as January 13, 2020:23

Moderna’s Work on a Potential Vaccine Against COVID-19

Moderna is proud to be among the many groups working to respond to this continuing global health emergency. This page summarizes key milestones in our work to advance our vaccine candidate (mRNA-1273) and responds to frequently asked questions.

Timeline of our response through March 16, 2020

On January 11, 2020, the Chinese authorities shared the genetic sequence of the novel coronavirus.

On January 13, 2020, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Moderna’s infectious disease research team finalized the sequence for mRNA-1273, the Company’s vaccine against the novel coronavirus. At that time, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of NIH, disclosed their intent to run a Phase 1 study using the mRNA-1273 vaccine in response to the coronavirus threat and Moderna mobilized toward clinical manufacture.  Manufacture of this batch was funded by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI).

On February 7, 2020, the first clinical batch, including fill and finishing of vials, was completed, a total of 25 days from sequence selection to vaccine manufacture. The batch then proceeded to analytical testing for release.

On February 24, 2020, the clinical batch was shipped from Moderna to the NIH for use in their Phase 1 clinical study.

On March 4, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) completed its review of the Investigational New Drug (IND) application filed by the NIH for mRNA-1273 and allowed the study to proceed to begin clinical trials.

On March 16, 2020, the NIH announced that the first participant in its Phase 1 study for mRNA-1273 was dosed, a total of 63 days from sequence selection to first human dosing.

While Moderna Inc. initially stated that the first clinical trials would commence in late April (2020), tests involving human volunteers started in mid-March 2020 in Seattle (bear in mind the pandemic was officially launched on March 11, 2020).24 

Researchers in Seattle gave the first shot to the first person in a test of an experimental coronavirus vaccine Monday — leading off a worldwide hunt for protection even as the pandemic surges.  …

Some of the study’s carefully chosen healthy volunteers, ages 18 to 55, will get higher dosages than others to test how strong the inoculations should be. Scientists will check for any side effects and draw blood samples to test if the vaccine is revving up the immune system, looking for encouraging clues like the NIH earlier found in vaccinated mice.

“We don’t know whether this vaccine will induce an immune response, or whether it will be safe. That’s why we’re doing a trial,” Jackson stressed. “It’s not at the stage where it would be possible or prudent to give it to the general population.” (FOX news local)25

 

The COVID Vaccine and the ID2020 Digital Identity Platform

While CEPI had announced the launching of a global vaccine at the Davos World Economic Forum, another important and related endeavor was underway. It’s called the ID2020 Agenda which, according to Peter Koenig, constitutes “an electronic ID program that uses generalized vaccination as a platform for digital identity”: 

“The ID2020 Agenda harnesses existing birth registration and vaccination operations to provide newborns with a portable and persistent biometrically-linked digital identity.” (Peter Koenig, March 12, 2020)26 

The founding partners of ID2020 are Microsoft, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) (an initiative of the Gates Foundation).

GAVI and its partners (WHO, UNICEF, World Bank, and the IMF) have been actively involved in the implementation (financing) of the global vaccine project entitled COVAX. 

The key entities involved in coordinating COVAX are the Vaccine Alliance (GAVI), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and the World Health Organization (WHO). All three entities receive financial support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.  

 

Screenshot from WHO

 

It is worth noting that the ID2020 Alliance held their summit in New York, entitled “Rising to the Good ID Challenge”, on September 19, 2019, exactly one month prior to the nCov-2019 simulation exercise entitled Event 201 at Johns Hopkins in New York:

Is it just a coincidence that ID2020 is being rolled out at the onset of what the WHO calls a Pandemic? – Or is a pandemic needed to ‘roll out’ the multiple devastating programs of ID2020? (Peter Koenig, March 2020)27

ID2020 is part of a “world governance” project which, if applied, would roll out the contours of what some analysts have described as a global police state encompassing through vaccination (embedded microchip) the personal details of several billion people worldwide.

According to Dr. David Martin (quoted by Makia Freeman)

“This is not a vaccine … using the term vaccine to sneak this thing under public health exemptions … This is a mRNA packaged in a fat envelope that is delivered to a cell. It is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator. It is not a vaccine! Vaccines actually are a legally defined term … under public health law … under CDC and FDA standards, and a vaccine specifically has to stimulate both an immunity within the person receiving it, but it also has to disrupt transmission.”28 

 

Hidden COVID-19 Vaccine Injuries: The Microscopic Blood Clots

Many people who are vaccinated will not be immediately aware of the injuries incurred. The latter in many cases of “adverse events” are not discernible nor are they recorded. While “big blood clots” resulting from the vaccine are revealed and reported by those vaccinated, an important study by Canada’s Dr. Charles Hoffe suggests that the mRNA vaccine generates “microscopic blood clots”.

“The blood clots we hear about which the media claim are very rare are the big blood clots which are the ones that cause strokes and show up on CT scans, MRI, etc.

The clots I’m talking about are microscopic and too small to find on any scan. They can thus only be detected using the D-dimer test.” 

“These people have no idea they are even having these microscopic blood clots. The most alarming part of this is that there are some parts of the body like the brain, spinal cord, heart and lungs which cannot re-generate. When those tissues are damaged by blood clots they are permanently damaged.

“These shots are causing huge damage and the worst is yet to come.”29

Watch below his interview with Laura Lynn Tylor Thompson (also available on Rumble channel).

 

Do We Know What’s Inside the Pfizer Vaccine Vial?

The causes of vaccine-related deaths and injuries have not been addressed by the health authorities.

What is inside the vaccine vial? National health authorities have not made public the results of their lab exams. It is unclear as to whether those lab exams of the vaccine vials have been conducted.

Below is a review of the analysis and laboratory research conducted by the independent La Quinta Columna Spanish team.

Graphene Oxide Nano-particles

According to lab exams conducted by the Spanish La Quinta Columna research team, graphene oxide nano-particles have been detected in the vial of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine.30

The preliminary results of their research (analysis by electron microscopy and spectroscopy) are far-reaching. Graphene oxide is a toxin which triggers thrombi and blood coagulation. It also has an impact on the immune system. Graphene oxide accumulated in the lungs can have devastating impacts.

Watch the interview with Ricardo Delgado Martin of La Quinta Columna.

 

The results of the Spanish study, yet to be fully confirmed and ascertained, suggest that the recorded vaccine-related deaths and “adverse events” could be the result of graphene oxide nano-particles contained in the COVID vaccine vial.

Similarly, we call upon the national health authorities of the 193 member states of the UN which are currently vaccinating their people to conduct their own study and analysis of the vaccine vial. And if graphene oxide is detected, the vaccination program should immediately be discontinued.

See summary of their report entitled “Graphene Oxide Detection in Aqueous Suspension, Observational study in Optical and Electron Microscopy”. Read the full study (English).31

Also of significance (acknowledged by national health authorities), graphene oxide nano-particles are also contained in face masks.32

 

The Electromagnetic Properties of the mRNA Vaccine

What is triggering the electromagnetic effects which have been detected in people who have been vaccinated?

These effects have been amply documented and confirmed by independent sources including those vaccinated. The national health authorities have failed to provide an explanation.

See the study conducted by the European Forum for Vaccine Vigilance.33

Below are two videos produced by the Spanish Research team at La Quinta Columna.

Watch the video below.

 

Watch the video below.

 

Big Pharma. Pfizer’s Near Global Monopoly

Hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake. This is the largest and most dangerous and expensive vaccine project in world history which is slated to be financed by tax dollars worldwide, putting an obvious strain on the public debt of numerous countries.

The vaccine program is accompanied by a “timeline” consisting of recurrent mRNA inoculations over several years. As documented above, it will have devastating impacts on mortality and morbidity worldwide.

What is at stake is a multi-billion dollar Big Money operation for Big Pharma with Pfizer in the lead.

Pfizer-BioNTech (allied with Moderna Inc.) is in the process of consolidating its worldwide (near monopoly) position by pushing out its major competitors including AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson (J&J).

Pfizer has been pressuring politicians to endorse their mRNA vaccine. Its political lobbying is also directed against its Big Pharma competitors. According to The Bureau of Investigative Journalism report:

One official who was present in the unnamed country’s negotiations described Pfizer’s demands as “high-level bullying” and said the government felt like it was being “held to ransom” in order to access life-saving vaccines.34

Ironically, in the EU, the reported deaths and injuries were used by the European Commission to cancel the renewal of the contract with AstraZeneca, despite the fact that there were substantially more deaths and injuries associated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

In April 2021, the EU Commission confirmed that it would “end AstraZeneca and J&J vaccine contracts at expiry”. “The Pfizer shot will take precedence”. Never mind your followup dose with AstraZeneca, the health authorities have instructed people to get their second or third jab with Pfizer or Moderna (thereby visibly violating medical norms).

Having sidelined its competitors, Pfizer-BioNTech has jacked up the price of the vaccine vial. Pfizer has literally cornered both the EU and US markets.

A near global vaccine monopoly is in the making by a company which has a criminal record with the US Department of Justice. 

The Secret Pfizer Report 

The confidential Pfizer Report released as part of a freedom of information (FOI) procedure provides data on deaths and adverse events recorded by Pfizer from the outset of the vaccine project in December 2020 to the end of February 2021, namely a very short period (at most two and a half months).

“By February of 2021, Pfizer had already received more than 1,200 reports of deaths allegedly caused by the vaccine and tens of thousands of reported adverse events, including 23 cases of spontaneous abortions out of 270 pregnancies and more than 2,000 reports of cardiac disorders.”35

The Pfizer BioNTech vaccine was launched in the US on the 14th of December after the granting of Emergency Use Authorization on December 11, 2020.

Report Prepared by: Worldwide Safety Pfizer

The information contained in this document is proprietary and confidential. Any disclosure, reproduction, distribution, or other dissemination of this information outside of Pfizer, its Affiliates, its Licensees, or Regulatory Agencies is strictly prohibited. Except as may be otherwise agreed to in writing, by accepting or reviewing these materials, you agree to hold such information in confidence and not to disclose it to others (except where required by applicable law), nor to use it for unauthorized purposes.”36

In a twisted irony, the data revealed in this “insider report” refutes the official vaccine narrative peddled by the governments and the WHO. It also confirms the analysis of numerous medical doctors and scientists who have revealed the devastating consequences of the mRNA “vaccine”.

What is contained in Pfizer’s “confidential” report is detailed evidence on the impacts of the “vaccine” on mortality and morbidity. This data which emanates from the “horse’s mouth” can now be used to confront as well as formulate legal procedures against Big Pharma, the governments, the WHO and the media.

In a court of law, the evidence contained in this Big Pharma confidential report (coupled with the data on deaths and adverse events compiled by the national authorities in the EU, UK and US) is irrefutable: because it is their data and their estimates and not ours.

Bear in mind: its data is based on reported and recorded cases, which constitute a small percentage of the actual number of vaccine-related deaths and adverse events.

This is a de facto mea culpa on the part of Pfizer (Yes, it is a killer vaccine).

Pfizer was fully aware that the mRNA vaccine which it is marketing worldwide would result in a wave of mortality and morbidity. This is tantamount to a crime against humanity on the part of Big Pharma.

Pfizer knew from the outset that it was a killer vaccine.37

It is also a mea culpa and treason on the part of corrupt national governments worldwide which are being threatened and bribed by Big Pharma.

At the time of writing, no attempt has been made by the governments to call for the withdrawal of the killer vaccine.

People are told that the vaccine is intended to save lives.

“Killing is good for business”: It is a multi-billion dollar operation worldwide. And Pfizer already has a criminal record (2009) with the US Department of Justice on charges of “fraudulent marketing”.

 

Concluding Remarks: The Vaccine Passport

The data from official sources as well as those quoted in the Pfizer report confirm unequivocally that the COVID-19 “vaccine” has resulted in an upward trend in vaccine-related mortality and morbidity.

The studies of Dr. Charles Hoffe, the Spanish research team (La Quinta Columna), the confidential Pfizer Report as well as numerous other studies unequivocally confirm that the mRNA “vaccine” is a “killer vaccine”.

So why are governments pressuring people to get vaccinated?

Heads of state and heads of government worldwide are being pressured, bribed, co-opted and/or threatened by powerful financial interests into accepting the COVID vaccine consensus.

The vaccine passport is the endgame, which constitutes a transition towards digital tyranny and depopulation (see Chapters XIII and XIV).

 

Endnotes

1 Doctors for COVID Ethics, June 22, 2022. J’Accuse! The Gene-based “Vaccines” Are Killing People. Governments Worldwide Are Lying to You the People, to the Populations They Purportedly Serve. https://www.globalresearch.ca/jaccuse-governments-worldwide-lying-you-people-populations-they-purportedly-serve/5750650

2 The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010. Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS). https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf

3 Captaindaretofly, August 26, 2021. Several Anti-Covid-19 Vaccine Presidents Assassinated, Mainstream Media Silent, COVID-19 Jabs “Coincidentally” Rolled Out Just Days Later. https://www.globalresearch.ca/several-anti-covid-19-vaccine-presidents-assassinated-mainstream-media-silent-covid-19-jabs-coincidentally-rolled-out-just-days-later/5754040

4 FDA, January 3, 2022. Comirnaty and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/comirnaty-and-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine#additional

5 US Department of Justice, September 2, 2009. Justice Department Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History: Pfizer to Pay $2.3 Billion for Fraudulent Marketing. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 KHN Morning Briefing, November 6, 2020. 4 Drug Companies Agree To $26 Billion Opioid Settlement. https://khn.org/morning-breakout/4-drug-companies-agree-to-26-billion-opioid-settlement/

9 F. William Engdahl, October 17, 2021. What’s Not Being Said About the Pfizer Coronavirus Vaccine. “Human Guinea Pigs”? https://www.globalresearch.ca/what-not-said-pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine/5729461

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid. 

12 See this: threadreaderapp.com/…/1302725167588798467

13 Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg and Dr. Michael Yeadon, December 1, 2020. Petition/Motion For Administrative/Regulatory Action Regarding Confirmation Of Efficacy End Points And Use Of Data In Connection With The Following Clinical Trial(S). https://2020news.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Wodarg_Yeadon_EMA_Petition_Pfizer_Trial_FINAL_01DEC2020_EN_unsigned_with_Exhibits.pdf

14 GSK, August 1, 2019. GSK completes transaction with Pfizer to form new world-leading Consumer Healthcare Joint Venture. https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/media/press-releases/gsk-completes-transaction-with-pfizer-to-form-new-world-leading-consumer-healthcare-joint-venture/

15 Ibid.

16 Center for Health Security, n.d. The Event 201 scenario. https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/scenario.html

17 Helen Branswell, February 6, 2020. In effort to develop coronavirus vaccine, outbreak expert sees ‘hardest problem’ of his career. https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/06/cepi-coronavirus-vaccine-development/

18 GSK, February 3, 2020. CEPI and GSK announce collaboration to strengthen the global effort to develop a vaccine for the 2019-nCoV virus. https://cepi.net/news_cepi/cepi-and-gsk-announce-collaboration-to-strengthen-the-global-effort-to-develop-a-vaccine-for-the-2019-ncov-virus/

19 Helen Branswell, February 6, 2020. In effort to develop coronavirus vaccine, outbreak expert sees ‘hardest problem’ of his career. https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/06/cepi-coronavirus-vaccine-development/

20 Ibid. 

21 Joseph Mercola, July 11, 2021. NIAID, Moderna Had COVID Vaccine Candidate in December 2019. https://www.globalresearch.ca/niaid-moderna-covid-vaccine-candidate-december-2019/5749713

22 National Institutes of Health, March 16, 2020. NIH clinical trial of investigational vaccine for COVID-19 begins. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-clinical-trial-investigational-vaccine-covid-19-begins

23 Moderna, Inc. 2020. Moderna’s Work on a Potential Vaccine Against COVID-19. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000119312520074867/d884510dex991.htm

24 Mark Prvulovic, February 24, 2020. Moderna’s New COVID-19 Vaccine Ready for Human Trials; Stock Up 15%. https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/02/24/modernas-new-covid-19-vaccine-ready-for-human-tria.aspx

25 Associated Press, March 16, 2020. Coronavirus vaccine test opens as volunteer in Seattle gets 1st shot. https://www.q13fox.com/news/coronavirus-vaccine-test-opens-as-volunteer-in-seattle-gets-1st-shot

26 Peter Koenig, March 12, 2020. The Coronavirus Vaccine: The Real Danger is “Agenda ID2020”. Vaccination as a Platform for “Digital Identity”. https://www.globalresearch.ca/coronavirus-causes-effects-real-danger-agenda-id2020/5706153

27 Ibid.

28 Makia Freeman, November 13, 2021. The mRNA COVID Vaccine Is Not a Vaccine. https://www.globalresearch.ca/mrna-covid-vaccine-not-vaccine/5734464

29 Brian Shilhavy, July 14, 2021. Canadian Doctor: 62% of His Patients Vaccinated for COVID Have Permanent Heart Damage. “Microscopic Blood Clots”. https://www.globalresearch.ca/canadian-doctor-62-patients-vaccinated-covid-have-permanent-heart-damage/5750198

30 Ricardo Delgado and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 17, 2021. Video: Graphene Oxide: A Toxic Substance in the Vial of the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine? https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-graphene-oxide-a-toxic-substance-in-the-vial-of-the-covid-19-mrna-vaccine/5750340

31 Prof. Dr. Pablo Campra Madrid, June 28, 2021. Graphene Oxide Detection in Aqueous Suspension, Observational study in Optical and Electron Microscopy. https://www.docdroid.net/Ov1M99x/official-interim-report-in-english-university-of-almeria-pdf

32 Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 14, 2021. Face Masks Contain Graphene, A Poisonous Substance. https://www.globalresearch.ca/face-masks-contain-graphene-a-poisonous-substance/5749855

33 Mamer and Amar Goudjil, January 23, 2022. Study on Electromagnetism of Vaccinated Persons. https://www.globalresearch.ca/study-electromagnetism-vaccinated-persons-luxembourg/5749516

34 Madlen Davies, Rosa Furneaux, et al., February 23, 2021. ‘Held to ransom’: Pfizer demands governments gamble with state assets to secure vaccine deal. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2021-02-23/held-to-ransom-pfizer-demands-governments-gamble-with-state-assets-to-secure-vaccine-deal

35 Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, August 13, 2022. Bombshell Document Dump on Pfizer Vaccine Data. https://www.globalresearch.ca/bombshell-document-dump-pfizer-vaccine-data/5763397

36 Pfizer, 2021. Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) Received Through 28-Feb-2021. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf

37 Ibid.


 

Chapter IX

The 2009 H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic.

Was It a Dress Rehearsal?

 

Introduction

Remember the 2009 H1N1 “Pandemic” when Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology compared the H1N1 swine flu pandemic to the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic while reassuring the public that the latter was more deadly. (CBC: Get swine flu vaccine ready: U.S. advisers). For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, August 2009 Study on H1N1 Pandemic.1

Based on incomplete and scanty data, the WHO Director-General Margaret Chan predicted with authority that “as many as 2 billion people could become infected over the next two years — nearly one-third of the world population.” (World Health Organization as reported by the Western media, July 2009)

A worldwide public health emergency was unfolding on an unprecedented scale. 4.9 billion doses of H1N1 swine flu vaccine  envisaged by the World Health Organization (WHO).

A report by President Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology “considered the H1N1 pandemic ‘a serious health threat’ to the U.S. — not as serious as the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic but worse than the swine flu outbreak of 1976.”

“It’s not that the new H1N1 pandemic strain is more deadly than previous flu threats, but that it is likely to infect more people than usual because so few people have immunity.” (Get swine flu vaccine ready: U.S. advisers)

It was a multi-billion bonanza for Big Pharma supported by the WHO’s Director-General Margaret Chan. 

Image: Margaret Chan, Director-General, World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, is captured during the session ‘Raising Healthy Children’ at the Annual Meeting 2011 of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, January 28, 2011. (Copyright World Economic Forum swiss-image.ch/Photo by Remy Steinegger / Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0)

In a subsequent statement, Dr. Chan confirmed that:

“Vaccine makers could produce 4.9 billion pandemic flu shots per year in the best-case scenario”, Margaret Chan, Director-General, World Health Organization (WHO), quoted by Reuters, 21 July 2009).2

Swine flu could strike up to 40 percent of Americans over the next two years and as many as several hundred thousand could die if a vaccine campaign and other measures aren’t successful.” (Official Statement of Obama Administration, MSNBC News, 24 July 2009).3

Déjà Vu: Neil Ferguson

At the very outset of the H1N1 crisis in April 2009, Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, London was advising Bill Gates and the WHO:  

“‘We might expect up to 30 per cent — 40 per cent of the population to become ill in the next six months if this truly turns into a pandemic,'” said Professor Neil Ferguson, a member of the World Health Organisation (WHO) taskforce which decided to raise its alert over the virus to level four.”(emphasis added)

That was the same Neil Ferguson (generously supported by the Gates Foundation) who designed the coronavirus lockdown model (launched on March 11, 2020). As we recall, that March 2020 mathematical model was based on “predictions” of 600,000 deaths in the UK.

There was no H1N1 pandemic affecting two billion people.

Millions of doses of swine flu vaccine had been ordered by national governments from Big Pharma.

Millions of vaccine doses were subsequently destroyed — a financial bonanza for Big Pharma, an expenditure crisis for national governments.

There was no investigation into who was behind this multi-billion dollar fraud. Several critics confirmed that the H1N1 pandemic was “fake”.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a human rights watchdog, is publicly investigating the WHO’s motives in declaring a pandemic. Indeed, the chairman of its influential health committee, epidemiologist Wolfgang Wodarg, has declared that the “false pandemic” is “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.”

Even within the agency, the director of the WHO Collaborating Center for Epidemiology in Munster, Germany, Dr. Ulrich Kiel, has essentially labeled the pandemic a hoax. “We are witnessing a gigantic misallocation of resources [$18 billion so far] in terms of public health,” he said.

They’re right. This wasn’t merely overcautiousness or simple misjudgment. The pandemic declaration and all the Klaxon-ringing since reflect sheer dishonesty motivated not by medical concerns but political ones.

Unquestionably, swine flu has proved to be vastly milder than ordinary seasonal flu. It kills at a third to a tenth the rate, according to US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates. Data from other countries like France and Japan indicate it’s far tamer than that.(

(Michael Fomento, Forbes, February 10, 2010)5

NIAID Director Anthony Fauci had endorsed the 2009 H1N1 vaccine on behalf of Big Pharma:

About 60 million people, most of them children, received the vaccine... It was subsequently revealed that the vaccine, GSK’s PandemrixTD, can cause narcolepsy and cataplexy … Narcolepsy affects a person’s sleeping cycle, leaving them unable to sleep for more than 90 minutes at a time, and causing them to fall unconscious during the day. The condition damages mental function and memory, and can lead to hallucinations and mental illness” (International Business Times, 03 February 2014)

 

GSK in Canada 

GSK’s ArepanrixTD (broadly similar to PambremixTD with a different name) was applied in Canada (see here).7

The WHO’s H1N1 pandemic was declared on June 11, 2009. GSK was on contract with the Canadian government. The GSK’s ArepandrixTM vaccine was delivered to Canada’s health authorities within less than four months.  

GSK President Paul Lucas who was invited by Canada’s Senate boasted that “45% of Canadians had received protection from the H1N1 virus by being vaccinated with GSK’s ArepanrixTM” (Canada’s Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, October 9, 2009).8

There was no protection. Many people in Canada fell sick after receiving the H1N1 ArepanrixTD vaccine. In the UK and the EU, the victims of the GSK vaccine were duly compensated. It was a “similar” vaccine with a different name (PambremixTD):

[British] Patients who suffered brain damage as a result of taking a swine flu vaccine are to receive multi-million-pound payouts from the UK government.

The government is expected to receive a bill of approximately £60 million, with each of the 60 victims expected to receive about £1 million each. (International Business Times, emphasis added)9

In a bitter irony, it was the UK government (rather than GSK) that paid for the vaccine- induced brain damages in children.

Despite ample evidence, in Canada, no compensation was paid.

 

In Memory of a Little Girl Named Amina Abudu

GSK’s Vaccine killed a little girl named Amina Abudu:

A vaccine was rushed to market, and the five year old was among millions of Canadians to get the shot, … Five days later, Amina’s older brother found her lying unconscious in the bathroom of the family’s east-end Toronto home. She was dead.

The parents’ lawyer, Jasmine Ghosn, alleged the preventive drug was brought out quickly and without proper testing … as the federal government exerted “intense pressure” on Canadians to get immunized. (National Post, November 2019)10

 

Copyright Adam Abudu, permission to use

On record, GSK acknowledged that the ArepanrixTD applied in Canada was “similar” to GSK’s PandemrixTM applied in the UK and the EU, which led to brain damage in children.

PandemrixTD (2009) causes narcolepsy, which is categorized as “a chronic neurological disorder that affects the brain’s ability to control sleep-wake cycles.” While PandemrixTM was subsequently withdrawn, ArepanrixTD (which is similar or identical to PandremrixTM) applied in Canada prevailed.

All the evidence was casually dispelled. An eleven years lawsuit against GSK was initiated by Amina’s parents in the Ontario Superior Court and then in the Court of Appeal.

I spoke to Amina’s father Adam Abudu who provided me with a number of legal documents as well as the texts of the judgment.

Below is the concluding statement of the Ontario Superior Court in December 2019 (emphasis added):

No matter how much I may sympathize with the grief Ms. Hyacenth and Mr. Adam have been forced to live with because of the loss of their daughter, the evidence does not support any finding of a breach of the standard of care by GSK or any finding that the death was caused or contributed to by the Arepanrix vaccine.

The pain of the loss of a child may dissipate but does not disappear. I sincerely hope that the effort and energy Ms. Hyacenth and Mr. Adam have put into finding a cause for Amina’s death will help dissipate their pain. I hope that the knowledge that Amina’s passing has not gone unnoticed by GSK, public health authorities or the courts gives them some comfort.

Understandably they have fought long and hard for answer to a question that would overwhelm any parent in these circumstances: Why did my child die? I deeply regret having to answer the question by saying that, after 10 years of investigation, we do not know. The state of scientific and medical knowledge remains limited and imperfect. A court must, however, base its decisions on the evidence before it. That evidence does not establish on a balance of probabilities that Arepanrix caused or contributed to Amina’s very unfortunate death. As a result, I must dismiss the plaintiffs’ action.

(Ontario Superior Court, J Koehnen, December 10, 2019)

“Frivolous Justice”

Note the hideous tone of the above statement by “trial judge” Markus Koehnen, a former litigation partner with McMillan LLP, a major corporate Toronto law firm:

“I sincerely hope effort and energy Ms. Hyacenth and Mr. Adam have put into finding a cause for Amina’s death will help dissipate their pain.”

That is what you call “Frivolous Justice”.

The above judgment (which failed to acknowledge and analyze methodically the evidence) was then submitted to the Court of Appeal in December 2020 (more than 11 years after Amina’s passing in 2009) and then to Canada’s Supreme Court which refused to hear the case.

Amina Abudu’s passing — Her legacy will live:

For the millions of children worldwide whose lives are currently threatened by Big Pharma’s COVID mRNA “vaccine”.

The underlying criminality largely directed against children goes back to the WHO’s Director-General Margaret Chan’s landmark decision to declare an H1N1 pandemic, based on “fake science”. There was no pandemic, and SEVERAL billion doses of a dangerous and “fake vaccine” were distributed. Was this deliberate?

“Nevermind the kids”… that’s “collateral damage” for Big Pharma which made billions of dollars selling the H1N1 vaccine.

Confirmed by the British Medical Journal: “The World Health Organization’s handling of the swine flu pandemic was deeply marred by secrecy and conflict of interest with drug companies”:

“The BMJ found that WHO guidelines on the use of antiviral drugs were prepared by experts who had received consulting fees from the top two manufacturers of these drugs, Roche and GlaxoSmithKline, or GSK.

The report also reveals that at least one expert on the secret, 16-member “emergency committee” formed last year to advise the WHO on whether and when to declare a pandemic received payment during 2009 from GSK.

Announcing that swine flu had become a global pandemic automatically triggered latent contracts for vaccine manufacture with half-a-dozen major pharmaceutical companies, including GSK. The WHO has refused to identify committee members, arguing that they must be shielded from industry pressure. “The WHO’s credibility has been badly damaged,” BMJ editor Fiona Godlee said in an editorial.” (AFP, June 4, 2010, emphasis added)

 

Was the 2009 H1N1 Pandemic a “Dress Rehearsal”?

The same powerful financial actors including Big Pharma and the billionaire philanthropists including the Gates Foundation were behind the H1N1 scam.

What were the lessons learned “for them”?

  • The pandemic was fake and the dangers of the H1N1 vaccine were revealed in court cases in the UK and the EU.
  • In contrast to today’s ongoing COVID Crisis, the fraud was revealed because segments of the mainstream media reported on H1N1 and informed the public.
  • There was no cohesive propaganda apparatus coupled with online censorship.
  • There was no organized fear campaign.
  • There were divisions within the WHO.
  • Scientists and medical doctors were not unduly pressured to endorse the WHO decision.

Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, who revealed the fraud behind H1N1 and brought it to the attention of the European Parliament, is now actively involved together with Dr. Michael Yeadon in the campaign against the COVID-19 vaccine.

Endnotes

1 Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 25, 2009. Remember the “Fake” 2009 H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic: Manipulating the Data to Justify a Worldwide Public Health Emergency. https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-h1n1-swine-flu-pandemic-manipulating-the-data-to-justify-a-worldwide-public-health-emergency/14901

2 Katie Reid and Laura MacInnis, May 19, 2009. WHO sees 4.9 billion pandemic flu shots in best-case. https://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE54H1XO20090519

3 MSNBC News, July 24, 2009. Swine flu could sicken over 2 billion in 2 years. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32122776

4 NDTV, April 28, 2009. Deadly flu could infect 40 per cent of UK population: Report. ndtv.com/…/deadly-flu-could-infect-40-per-cent-of-uk-population-report-392997

5 See this: https://www.forbes.com/2010/02/05/world-health-organization-swine-flu-pandemic-opinions-contributors-michael-fumento.html#4fd9f96548e8 (Article was unpublished)


 

Chapter X

Categorizing The Protest Movement as “Anti-Social Psychopaths”

 

“The tools of psychology are dangerous in the hands of the wrong men. Modern educational methods can be applied in therapy to streamline man’s brain and change his opinions so that his thinking conforms with certain ideological systems.” —Joost A. M. Meerloo, The Rape Of The Mind, 1956.

“Coercive psychological systems are behavioral change programs which use psychological force in a coercive way to cause the learning and adoption of an ideology or designated set of beliefs, ideas, attitudes, or behaviors.”The Late Dr. Margaret Singer

“The intense pressure to conform is an attempt to cement a community of believers. Strict rules of belonging are imposed, and those who disagree are excluded. This community has invented its own rite of passage: a form of baptism, of purification in the name of salvation, with “the vaccine” worshipped as the saviour.”Prof. Maximilian Forte, July 2022

Introduction

The  imposition of the MRNA vaccine has relied on coercive persuasion and brainwashing tactics, coupled with media propaganda and the fear campaign.  The objective of national governments is to ensure “Acceptance”. Dr. Margaret Singer quoted above, refers to coercive influence, anxiety and stress-producing tactics over continuous periods of time“.

From the very outset of the pandemic, a diabolical process was undertaken which consisted in “identifying” and “categorizing” all those who are opposed to the governments’ management of the coronavirus pandemic including the lockdowns and the vaccine mandate.  

According to so-called “peer-reviewed psychological studies” (commissioned by corporate foundations on behalf of the Globalist elites) the opponents of the covid consensus have been categorized as “anti-social psychopaths”.  

The unvaccinated have been prevented from travelling, fired from their jobs, prevented from attending schools and universities. They are categorized and accused (according to “scientific opinion) of being extremists and psychopaths. 

What has unfolded is a social divide between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.

These social divisions are creating conflicts within families and local communities, literally contributing to the disruption of social life, with devastating impacts on economic activity. 

Supported by media propaganda, the campaign is proceeding unabated. Those who refuse to get the killer “vaccine” are categorized as “anti-social psychopaths”.

What prevails is a “divide and rule” scenario which is being enforced simultaneously in numerous countries. 

This chapter reviews several psychological studies undertaken with a view to undermining the protest movement against the COVID-19 mandates and the vaccine.

 

“Scientific Studies”: Categorizing COVID Opponents as “Anti-social Psychopaths” 

What is the nature and thrust of these “scientific studies”? 

Protest against the “official truth”, criticize government mandates, express reservations regarding the lockdown, social distancing, the wearing of face mask, the vaccine, etc. and you will be tagged (according to “scientific opinion”) as a “callous and deceitful psychopath”

Accept the “official narrative” and vaccine mandate you are tagged as a “good person” with “empathy” who understands the feelings of others. 

A so-called peer-reviewed “empirical report” describes those who refuse to wear the face mask or abide by social distancing as having “anti-social personality disorders”. 

Those who “do not adhere to measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19” are tagged as “anti-social”.  

The findings of the Brazilian study involving a “sample” of 1,578 adults was published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences under the title COVID-19 pandemic over time: Do antisocial traits matter?1

 

Screenshot from ScienceDirect

 

“Empathy” versus “Anti-social Traits” 

The statistical “methodology” of this study is straightforward. It is intended to serve as a model. It consists in categorizing a so-called sample of adults from all major regions of Brazil into two distinct groups. It examines:

“..the relationships between antisocial traits and compliance with COVID-19 containment measures. The sample consisted of 1578 Brazilian adults aged 18–73 years … and a questionnaire about compliance with containment measures.2

Latent profile analyses indicated a two-profile solution:

the antisocial pattern profile which presented higher scores in Callousness, Deceitfulness, Hostility, Impulsivity, Irresponsibility, Manipulativeness, and Risk-taking, as well as lower scores in “Affective resonance” (processes of social interaction) and the empathy pattern profile which presented higher scores in Affective resonance …” 

The antisocial and empathy groups showed significant differences. … Our findings indicated that antisocial traits, especially lower levels of empathy and higher levels of Callousness, Deceitfulness, and Risk-taking, are directly associated with lower compliance with containment measures. These traits explain, at least partially, the reason why people continue not adhering to the containment measures even with increasing numbers of cases and deaths. (emphasis added)3

The research methodology is built around three main questions4:

  • “Do you think it is necessary to avoid approaching people as much as possible until the coronavirus situation is controlled?” (social distancing),
  • “Do you think it is necessary to wash your hands and/or use alcohol gel as many times a day until the coronavirus situation is controlled?” (hygiene),
  • “Do you think it is necessary to use face mask (that protects nose and mouth) in Brazil?” (face mask)

Yes/No Categorization

Answer Yes to these three questions: you are categorized as having “Empathy” (i.e. the ability to understand and share the feelings of others).

Answer No to all three questions: you are categorized (according to the study) as having “higher levels of Callousness, Deceitfulness, Hostility, Impulsivity, Irresponsibility, Manipulativeness, and Risk-taking” (as quoted above).

It all sounds very scientific. The unspoken objective of these psycho-studies is to provide governments with a mandate to intimidate as well as to enforce compliance, while smearing the alleged psychopaths who refuse to conform to the official narrative, which is an outright lie.  
 

“The Dark Triad” and “Collective Narcissism” 

According to Eric W. Dolan (PsyPost), the above study consisted in identifying “a measure of maladaptive personality traits…”.  Dolan also refers to a related study focusing on:

“the “Dark Triad” of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism associated with ignoring preventative COVID-19 measures.”

The study conducted in Poland is entitled: 

Adaptive and maladaptive behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic: The roles of Dark Triad traits, collective narcissism, and health beliefs5

The study refers to the practice of “collective narcissism”, namely a common belief and practice by a so-called “In-Group” (aka protest movement, collective of dissident medical doctors, scientists) directed against the official coronavirus “truth” (aka the Big Lie). Collective narcissism is embedded in what psychologists call the Dark Triad.

 

Screenshot from ScienceDirect

The study is based on “a nationally representative sample from Poland (N = 755)”. It examines “the relationships between the Dark Triad traits (i.e. psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism) and collective narcissism (i.e. agentic and communal) … Participants characterized by the Dark Triad traits engaged less in prevention …”6

“The results point to the utility of health beliefs in predicting behaviors during the pandemic, explaining (at least in part) problematic behaviors associated with the dark personalities (i.e., Dark Triad, collective narcissism). …

The traits, such as the Dark Triad (i.e., narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy) and collective narcissism … may have implications for how one copes with the virus…  For example, individuals characterized by the Dark Triad traits may be less likely to follow governmentally-enforced restrictions related to COVID-19.7

The term “agentic” quoted above refers to “goal-achievement”.

And here is the methodology:

“We measured the Dark Triad traits (Wave 2) … [also with reference to] the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen scale (Jonason & Webster, 2010). The scale consists of four items assessing individual differences in psychopathy (e.g. “I tend to lack remorse”), narcissism (e.g. “I tend to seek prestige or status”), and Machiavellianism (e.g. “I tend to manipulate others to get my way”). Participants indicated their agreement with each item (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). We averaged responses to create indices of each trait.”8

Sounds scientific. What are the conclusions?

“We advanced the scope of the model by illustrating the relevance of dark personality traits in predicting both adaptive and maladaptive behaviors in response to the pandemic by person-focused (i.e. the Dark Triad traits) and group-focused (i.e. collective narcissism) personality traits.” 

To read the full report, click here, emphasis added)9

The psychological definition of Dark Triad Traits comprises the combined personality traits of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. “They are called “dark” because of their “malevolent qualities“.”Illustration by Global Research

The Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD) consists of a broader “personality inventory” which assesses and measures the three personality components of the Dark Triad.

Illustration by Global Research

In substance, what this “scientific report” confirms is that people, who question the COVID-19 official narrative including the vaccine mandate, have “malevolent personality disorders”. They are said to suffer from the Dirty Dozen “Dark Triad Traits” (DTDD). 

 

The Anti-COVID Protest Movement Is Identified as “Collective Narcissism”

When they act contiguously within an In-Group or a Protest movement, they are tagged as applying “collective narcissism”.

The framework of the above study is also envisaged for other countries in partnership with the Warsaw group. Another related study is entitled “Who complies with the restrictions to reduce the spread of COVID-19?: Personality and perceptions of the COVID-19 situation”10

Strong words. “Peer-reviewed”?

 

Towards an Inquisitorial Environment. Digital Witch Hunt

Psychology is being used in a pernicious way to provide legitimacy to police state measures. The mandate is to “go after” those who allegedly have “malevolent personality disorders”.

It’s an inquisitorial doctrine, which could eventually evolve towards a Digital Witch Hunt. In contrast to the Spanish Inquisition, the contemporary inquisitorial system has almost unlimited capabilities of spying on and categorizing individuals who are opposed to the COVID-19 consensus. 

People are tagged and labeled, their emails, cell phones are monitored, detailed personal data are slated to be entered into a giant Big Brother data bank of 7.9 billion people under WHO auspices. 

Anti-vaccine scientists and medical doctors are categorized. They are the object of censorship, and in some cases they are arrested and sent for treatment in a psychiatric ward. 

Once this digital cataloging has been completed, people are locked into watertight compartments. Their profiles are established and entered into a computerized data bank. 

Meanwhile, the citizenry is galvanized into supporting the tenets of “Global Governance”. 

Painting by Francisco Goya depicting an auto de fé, an act of public penance carried out between the 15th and 19th centuries of condemned heretics and apostates imposed by the Inquisition, based on 1800-1810 first-hand accounts. (By QAHsJoGPh6kFeQ at Google Cultural Institute, licensed under the Public Domain)

 

Are the Billionaires Mentally Deranged? 

These empirical psychology studies are meant to be used against citizens who oppose the COVID-19 policy mandates implemented by their governments. In turn these governments obey orders from higher up. 

We might beg the question: Are the billionaires, “philanthropists”, corrupt politicians, et al., who are the unspoken architects of both the COVID-19 vaccine and the lockdown policies mentally deranged? 

Their personality traits are not the motive of scientific investigation. They are psychopaths. Money and enrichment is the driving force.

 

Endnotes

1 Fabiano Koich Miguel, Gisele Magarotto Machado, et al., January 1, 2021. Compliance with containment measures to the COVID-19 pandemic over time: Do antisocial traits matter? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886920305377

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

Bartłomiej Nowak, Paweł Brzóska, et al., December 1, 2020. Adaptive and maladaptive behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic: The roles of Dark Triad traits, collective narcissism, and health beliefs. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886920304219

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 Marcin Zajenkowski, Peter K. Jonason, et al., November 1, 2020. Who complies with the restrictions to reduce the spread of COVID-19?: Personality and perceptions of the COVID-19 situation. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886920303883


 

Chapter XI

The Worldwide COVAX Operation 

and The Nuremberg Code.

Crimes Against Humanity, Genocide

 

“We, the survivors of the atrocities committed against humanity during the Second World  War, feel bound to follow our conscience. …

Another holocaust of greater magnitude is taking place before our eyes. We call upon you to stop this ungodly medical experiment on humankind immediately. It is a medical experiment to which the Nuremberg Code must be applied.” —Rabbi Hillel Handler, Hagar Schafrir, Sorin Shapira, Mascha Orel, Morry Krispijn et al, see complete text here

 

The mRNA “Vaccine” vs. Nuremberg 

The vaccine is being applied and imposed worldwide. The target population is 7.9 billion. Several doses are contemplated. It is the largest vaccination program in world history (see Chapter VIII).

“Never before has immunization of the entire planet been accomplished by delivering a synthetic mRNA into the human body”.1

Image: “Very good meeting with @BillGates on the margins of #Rotary convention. Discussed on @WHO & @gatesfoundation collaborative initiatives focused on Primary health care. His commitment to helping the needy is beyond words.” (By Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus/Facebook)

The WHO “guidelines” for establishing a Worldwide Digital Informations System for issuing so-called “Digital Certificates for COVID-19” are generously funded by the Rockefeller and Bill and Melinda Gates foundations.” (see Chapter XIII)

Focusing on the experimental nature of the mRNA vaccine and its devastating health impacts, legal analysts have raised the issue of the historic Nuremberg Nazi Doctors’ Trial” (1946-47) in which Nazi doctors were charged for war crimes, specifically in the conduct of medical experiments on both prisoners in the concentration camps and civilians.

The Medical Case, U.S.A. vs. Karl Brandt, et al. (also known as the Doctors’ Trial), was prosecuted in 1946-47 against 23 doctors and administrators accused of organizing and participating in war crimes and crimes against humanity in the form of medical experiments and medical procedures inflicted on prisoners and civilians.3

Karl Brandt, the lead defendant, was the senior medical official of the German government during World War II; other defendants included senior doctors and administrators in the armed forces and SS (see Harvard Documents).4

 

Letter to Heinrich Himmler concerning x-ray and surgical sterilization (Taken from Nuremberg Trials Project of Harvard Law)

 

Resulting from the verdict on August 19, 1947, the Nuremberg Code was enacted. Reviewed below are the Ten Principles of the Nuremberg Code.5 Several of these principles – in relation to the mRNA vaccine and the vaccine passport – have been blatantly violated.

The first principle of the “Nuremberg Code” states that “the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential,” and that is precisely what is being denied in relation to the “vaccine” (see sentences in bold below).6

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probably cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

(emphasis added)

 

Nuremberg and the COVID Crisis

Starting in December 2020, entire populations in a large number of countries are under threat to comply and get vaccinated.

With reference to the Nuremberg Code, they are unable:

to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion” (Nuremberg principle 1 above).

Amply documented, there is an upward trend in mRNA vaccine deaths and injuries worldwide and the health authorities are fully aware of the “health risks”, yet they have not informed the public. There is no informed consent. And the media is lying through their teeth:

No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur” (Nuremberg principle 5 above). 

The above “a priori reason” outlined in Nuremberg principle 5 is amply documented. Deaths and disabling injuries are ongoing at the level of the entire planet. They are confirmed by the official statistics of mRNA vaccine mortality and morbidity (EU, US, UK).

 

Nazi “Medical Experiments”

Let us recall the categorization of specific crimes pertaining to Nazi “medical experiments” conducted on concentration camp prisoners. These included “the killing of Jews for anatomical research, the killing of tubercular Poles, and the euthanasia of sick and disabled civilians in Germany and occupied territories. …”7

Karl Brandt and six other defendants were convicted, sentenced to death, and executed; nine defendants were convicted and sentenced to terms in prison; and seven defendants were acquitted.

The trial documents and evidence are all on file. The defendants were charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. 

 

The defendants in the dock during the Nuremberg Trials (By Raymond D’Addario, licensed under the Public Domain)

 

The Scale and Size of the Worldwide COVID-19 Vaxx Operation

While the Nuremberg principles are of utmost relevance to the COVID-19 vaccine project, simplistic comparisons should be avoided. The context, the history and the mechanisms of compliance pertaining to the mRNA “vaccine” are fundamentally different.

The scale and size of the worldwide COVAX operation as well as its complex organizational structure (WHO, GAVI, Gates Foundation, Big Pharma) are unprecedented.

Humanity in its entirety is the object of the vaxx project. The target population for experimentation of the COVID-19 vaccine is the entire population of planet Earth:

Almost 8 billion people, involving several doses.

Multiply the world’s population by four doses (as proposed by Pfizer): the order of magnitude is 30 billion doses worldwide.

The numbers are in the billions. The likely impacts on mortality and morbidity are beyond description.

Big Money is behind this public-private partnership project.

We are dealing with a worldwide process of crimes against humanity. Entire populations in a large number of member states of the UN are subject to compliance and enforcement (without the rule of law).

If they refuse the vaccine, they are socially marginalized and confined, rejected by their employers, rejected by society; no education, no career, no life. Their lives are destroyed.

If they accept the vaccine, their health and their life are potentially in jeopardy.

The evidence of mortality and morbidity resulting from vaccine inoculation both present (official data) and future (e.g. undetected microscopic blood clots) is overwhelming (see Chapter VIII).

And that’s just the beginning.

Extensive crimes against humanity worldwide are being committed.

The mRNA “vaccine” modifies the human genome at the level of the entire planet. It’s genocide.

It’s a “holocaust of greater magnitude, taking place before our eyes”. 

 

Endnotes

1 Rabbi Hillel Handler, Hagar Schafrir, et al., September 16, 2021. Stop the Covid Holocaust! Open Letter. https://www.globalresearch.ca/stop-the-covid-holocaust-open-letter/5755902

2 WHO, August 27, 2021. Digital documentation of COVID-19 certificates: vaccination status: web annex A: DDCC:VS core data dictionary, 27 August 2021. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Digital_certificates-vaccination-data_dictionary-2021.1

3 Harvard Law School, n.d. NMT Case 1: U.S.A. v. Karl Brandt et al.: The Doctors’ Trial. https://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/nmt_1_intro

4 Ibid.

5 US Holocaust Memorial Museum, n.d. Nuremberg Code. https://www.ushmm.org/information/exhibitions/online-exhibitions/special-focus/doctors-trial/nuremberg-code

6 Ibid.

7 Harvard Law School, n.d. NMT Case 1: U.S.A. v. Karl Brandt et al.: The Doctors’ Trial. https://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/nmt_1_intro


 

Chapter XII

Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”.

Global Debt and Neoliberal “Shock Treatment”

 

“The IMF, World Bank and global leaders knew full well what the impact on the world’s poor would be of closing down the world economy through COVID-related lockdowns.

Yet they sanctioned it and there is now the prospect that in excess of a quarter of a billion more people worldwide will fall into extreme levels of poverty in 2022 alone.” —Colin Todhunter, July 2022

History of Economic “Shock Treatment”. From the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) to “Global Adjustment (GA)”

The March 11, 2020 (simultaneous) closing down of the national economies of approximately 193 member states of the UN is diabolical and unprecedented. Millions of people have lost their jobs and their lifelong savings. In developing countries, poverty, famine and despair prevail. The closure of national economies has led to a spiraling global debt. Increasingly, national governments are controlled by the creditors, which are currently financing the social safety nets, corporate bailouts and handouts.

While this model of “global intervention” is unprecedented, it has certain features reminiscent of the country-level macro-economic reforms including the imposition of strong “economic medicine” by the IMF. To address this issue, let us examine the history of so-called “economic shock treatment” (a term first used in the 1970s).1

 

Flashback to Chile, September 11, 1973

As a visiting professor at the Catholic University of Chile, I lived through the military coup directed against the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende. It was a CIA operation led by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger coupled with devastating macro-economic reforms.

In the month following the coup d’etat, the price of bread increased from 11 to 40 escudos overnight.2 This engineered collapse of both real wages and employment under the Pinochet dictatorship was conducive to a nationwide process of impoverishment.

Chilean leader Augusto Pinochet shaking hands with U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1976 (By Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Chile.Archivo General Histórico del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, licensed under CC BY 2.0 cl)

 

While food prices had skyrocketed, wages had been frozen to ensure “economic stability and stave off inflationary pressures.” From one day to the next, an entire country had been precipitated into abysmal poverty; in less than a year, the price of bread in Chile increased 36 times and 85 percent of the Chilean population had been driven below the poverty line. That was Chile’s 1973 “Reset”. 

Two and a half years later in 1976, I returned to Latin America as a visiting professor at the National University of Cordoba in the northern industrial heartland of Argentina. My stay coincided with another military coup d’état in March 1976.

Behind the massacres and human rights violations, “free market” macro-economic reforms had also been prescribed – this time under the supervision of Argentina’s New York creditors, including David Rockefeller who was a friend of the Junta’s Minister of Economy José Alfredo Martinez de Hoz.3

Chase Alumni Association

Image: David Rockefeller meets Dictator Jorge Videla (right) and Minister of Finance Martinez de Hoz, 1978? (Source: Plaza de Mayo)

Chile and Argentina were “dress rehearsals” for things to come. The imposition of the IMF-World Bank Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) was imposed on more than 100 countries starting in the early 1980s (see Michel Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, Global Research, 2003).4

A notorious example of the “free market”: Peru in August 1990 was punished for not conforming to IMF diktatsthe price of fuel was hiked up 31 times and the price of bread increased more than 12 times in a single day.5 These reforms – carried out in the name of “democracy” – were far more devastating than those applied in Chile and Argentina under the fist of military rule.

The March 2020 Lockdown. “Economic Warfare”

And now on March 11, 2020, we enter a new phase of macro-economic destabilization, which is more devastating and destructive than 40 years of “shock treatment” and austerity measures imposed by the IMF on behalf of dominant financial interests.

There is rupture, a historical break as well as continuity. It’s “neoliberalism to the nth degree”.

Closure of the Global Economy: Economic and Social Impacts at the Level of the Entire Planet

Compare what is happening to the global economy today with the country by country “negotiated” macro-economic measures imposed by creditors under the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP). The March 11, 2020 “Global Adjustment” was not negotiated with national governments. It was imposed by a  “public-private partnership”, sustained by fake science, supported by media propaganda and accepted by co-opted and corrupt politicians.

 

“Engineered” Social Inequality and Impoverishment. The Globalization of Poverty 

Compare the March 11, 2020 “Global Adjustment” “guidelines” affecting the entire planet to Chile on September 11, 1973.

In a bitter irony, the same Big Money interests behind the 2020 “Global Adjustment” were actively involved in Chile (1973) and Argentina (1976). Remember “Operation Condor” and the “Dirty War” (Guerra Sucia).

There is continuity. The same powerful financial interests including the IMF and the World Bank bureaucracies in liaison with the Federal Reserve, Wall Street, The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and the World Economic Forum (WEF) are currently involved in preparing and managing the post-pandemic “new normal” debt operations (on behalf of the creditors) under the Great Reset.

Henry Kissinger was involved in coordinating Chile’s 9/11, 1973 “Reset”.

The following year (1974), he was in put charge of the drafting of the “National Strategic Security Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) which identified depopulation as “the highest priority in US foreign policy towards the Third World”.6         

The Thrust of “Depopulation” Under the Great Reset? 

Illustration by Global Research/image of Henry Kissinger is from White House Photographic Office/PD-USGOV, licensed under the Public Domain

Today, Henry Kissinger is a firm supporter alongside the Gates Foundation (which is also firmly committed to depopulation) of the Great Reset under the auspices of the World Economic Forum (WEF) (see Chapter XIII). 

No need to negotiate with national  governments nor carry out “regime change”. The March 11, 2020 lockdown project constitutes a “Global Adjustment” which triggers bankruptcies, unemployment and privatization on a much larger scale affecting in one fell swoop the national economies of more than 150 countries.

And this whole process is presented to public opinion as a means to combating the “killer virus” which, according to the CDC and the WHO is similar to seasonal influenza (see Chapter III).

 

The Hegemonic Power Structure of Global Capitalism 

Big Money including the billionaire foundations are the driving force. It’s a complex alliance of Wall Street and the banking establishment, the Big Oil and Energy Conglomerates, the so-called “Defense Contractors”, Big Pharma, the Biotech Conglomerates, the Corporate Media, the Telecom, Communications and Digital Technology Giants, together with a network of think tanks, lobby groups, research labs, etc. The ownership of intellectual property also plays a central role.

This powerful digital-financial decision-making network also involves major creditor and banking institutions: the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank (ECB), the IMF, the World Bank, the regional development banks, and the Basel-based Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which plays a key strategic role.

By far the most powerful financial entities are the giant investment portfolio conglomerates including Black Rock, Vanguard, State Street and Fidelity. They control: 

“… a combined 20 trillion dollars in managed assets…. Conservatively counting, a four to five-fold leverage power (i.e. some US$ 80 to 100 trillion)”. These powerful financial conglomerates have a leverage in excess of the the world’s GDP which is of the order of about 82 trillion dollars.”7

In turn, the upper echelons of the US state apparatus (and Washington’s Western allies) are directly or indirectly involved, including the Pentagon, US Intelligence (and its research labs), the health authorities, Homeland Security and the US State Department (including US embassies in over 150 countries).

 

The “Real Economy” and “Big Money”

Why are these COVID lockdown policies spearheading bankruptcy, poverty and unemployment?

Global capitalism is not monolithic. There is indeed “a class conflict” “between the super rich and the vast majority of the world population”.

But there is also intense rivalry within the capitalist system; namely a conflict between “Big Money Capital” and what might be described as “Real Capitalism” which consists of corporations in different areas of productive activity at the national and regional levels. It also includes small and medium-sized enterprises.

What is ongoing is a process of concentration of wealth (and control of advanced technologies) unprecedented in world history, whereby the financial establishment (i.e. the multi-billion dollar creditors) are slated to appropriate the real assets of both bankrupt companies as well as state assets.

The “real economy” constitutes “the economic landscape” of  real economic activity: productive assets, agriculture, industry, services, economic and social infrastructure, investment, employment, etc. The real economy at the global and national levels is being targeted by the lockdown and closure of economic activity. The Global Money financial institutions are the “creditors” of the real economy.

 

Global Governance: Towards a Totalitarian State

The individuals and organizations involved in the October 18, 2019 201 Simulation are now involved in the actual management of the crisis once it went live on January 30, 2020 under the WHO’s Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), which in turn set the stage for the February 2020 financial crisis and the March lockdown (see Chapter I).

The lockdown and closure of national economies has triggered several waves of mass unemployment coupled with the engineered bankruptcy (applied worldwide) of small and medium-sized enterprises (see Chapter IV).

All of which is spearheaded by the installation of a global totalitarian state which is intent upon breaking all forms of protest and resistance.

The COVID vaccination program (including the embedded digital passport and the QR Code) is an integral part of a global totalitarian regime (see Chapter VIII and Chapter XIII).

What is the infamous ID2020? It is an alliance of public-private partners, including UN agencies and civil society. It’s an electronic ID program that uses generalized vaccination as a platform for digital identity. The program harnesses existing birth registration and vaccination operations to provide newborns with a portable and persistent biometrically-linked digital identity.red zones, face masks, social distancing, lockdown. (Peter Koenig, March 12, 2020)8

 

“The Great Reset”

The same powerful creditors which triggered the COVID global debt crisis are now establishing a “new normal” which essentially consists in imposing what the World Economic Forum describes as the “Great Reset”.

Using COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions to push through this transformation, the Great Reset is being rolled out under the guise of a ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ in which older enterprises are to be driven to bankruptcy or absorbed into monopolies, effectively shutting down huge sections of the pre-COVID economy. Economies are being ‘restructured’ and many jobs will be carried out by AI-driven machines.

The jobless (and there will be many) would be placed on some kind of universal basic income and have their debts (indebtedness and bankruptcy on a massive scale is the deliberate result of lockdowns and restrictions) written off in return for handing their assets to the state or more precisely to the financial institutions helping to drive this Great Reset. The WEF says the public will ‘rent’ everything they require: stripping the right of ownership under the guise of ‘sustainable consumption’ and ‘saving the planet’. Of course, the tiny elite who rolled out this great reset will own everything. (Colin Todhunter,  Dystopian Great Reset, November 9, 2020)9

 

Push the Reset Button

The World Economic Forum’s Great Reset has been long in the making. “Push the reset button” with a view to saving the world economy was announced by WEF Chairman Klaus Schwab in January 2014, six years prior to the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

“What we want to do in Davos this year [2014] is to Push the Reset Button, the world is too much caught in a crisis mode.”

Two years later in a 2016 interview with the Swiss French language TV network (RTS), Klaus Schwab talked about implanting microchips in human bodies, which in essence is the basis of the “experimental” COVID mRNA vaccine. 

“What we see is a kind of fusion of the physical, digital and biological world,” said Klaus Schwab.

Schwab explained that human beings will soon receive a chip which will be implanted in their bodies in order to merge with the digital world.

RTS: “When will that happen?

KS: “Certainly in the next ten years.

“We could imagine that we will implant them in our brain or in our skin.”

“And then we can imagine that there is direct communication between the brain and the digital World.”

Watch the interview below, Towards Digital Tyranny, with Peter Koenig. Click here for the Bitchute version.

June 2020. The WEF Officially Announces the Great Reset

“The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future.” -Klaus Schwab, WEF (June 2020) 

What is envisaged under “the Great Reset” is a scenario whereby the global creditors will have appropriated by 2030 the world’s wealth while impoverishing large sectors of the world population.

In 2030, “you’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.” (Click here to watch the video)

 

The United Nations: An Instrument of Global Governance on Behalf of an Unelected Public-Private Partnership

The UN system is also complicit. It has endorsed “Global Governance” and the Great Reset. And so has the Vatican. 

Image: Antonio Guterres (By U.S. Mission Photo by Eric Bridiers/Flickr, licensed under the Public Domain)

While UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres rightfully acknowledges that the pandemic is “more than a health crisis”, no meaningful analysis or debate under UN auspices as to the real causes of this crisis has been undertaken.

According to a September 2020 UN Report:

“Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost. The lives of billions of people have been disrupted. In addition to the health impacts, COVID-19 has exposed and exacerbated deep inequalities … It has affected us as individuals, as families, communities and societies. It has had an impact on every generation, including on those not yet born. The crisis has highlighted fragilities within and among nations, as well as in our systems for mounting a coordinated global response to shared threats. (UN Report)10

The far-reaching decisions which triggered social and economic destruction worldwide are not mentioned. No debate in the UN Security Council. Consensus among all five permanent members of the UNSC.

V the Virus is casually held responsible for the process of economic destruction. 

The World Economic Forum’s “public-private partnership” project entitled “Reimagine and Reset Our World” has been endorsed by the United Nations. 

Image: George Kennan (By Harris & Ewing/Library of Congress, licensed under the Public Domain)

Flashback to George Kennan and the Truman Doctrine in the late 1940s. Kennan believed that the UN provided a useful way to “connect power with morality,” using morality as a means to rubber-stamp America’s “humanitarian wars”.

The COVID crisis, the lockdown measures and the mRNA vaccine are the culmination of a historical process.

The lockdown and closure of the global economy are “weapons of mass destruction” which in the real sense of the word “destroy people’s lives”. Amply documented, the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine is best described as a “killer vaccine”. 

What we are dealing with are extensive “crimes against humanity”.

 

President Joe Biden and the “Great Reset”

Joe Biden is a groomed politician, a trusted proxy, serving the interests of the financial establishment.

Let’s not forget that Joe Biden was a firm supporter of the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein “had weapons of mass destruction”. “The American people were deceived into this war”, said Senator Dick Durbin. Do not let yourself be deceived again by Joe Biden.11

Evolving acronyms: 9/11, GWOT, WMD and now COVID. Biden was rewarded for having supported the invasion of Iraq.

During the election campaign, Fox News described Biden as a “socialist” who threatens capitalism; “Joe Biden’s disturbing connection to the socialist ‘Great Reset’ movement”.

While this is absolute nonsense, many “progressives” and anti-war activists have endorsed Joe Biden without analyzing the broader consequences of the Biden presidency.

“The Great Reset” is socially divisive, it’s racist. It is a diabolical project of global capitalism. It constitutes a threat to the large majority of American workers as well as to small and medium-sized enterprises. It also undermines several important sectors of the capitalist economy. 

 

The Biden Presidency and the Lockdown

With regard to COVID, Biden is firmly committed to maintaining the partial closing down of both the US economy and the global economy as a means to “combating the killer virus”.  

President Biden is a firm supporter of the corona lockdown. He not only endorses the adoption of staunch COVID-19 lockdown policies, his administration is committed to the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” and the “vaccine passport” as an integral part of US foreign policy, to be implemented or more correctly “imposed” worldwide.

In turn, the Biden-Harris administration will attempt to override all forms of popular resistance to the coronavirus lockdown.

What is unfolding is a new and destructive phase of US imperialism. It’s a totalitarian project of economic and social engineering, which ultimately destroys people’s lives worldwide. This “novel” neoliberal agenda using the corona lockdown as an instrument of social oppression has been endorsed by President Biden and the leadership of the Democratic Party. 

The Biden White House is committed to the instatement of what David Rockefeller called “Global Governance”. 

 

The Protest Movement

It should be noted that the protest movement in the US against the lockdown is weak. In fact there is no coherent grassroots national protest movement. Why? Because “progressive forces” including leftist intellectuals, NGO leaders, trade union and labor leaders — most of whom are aligned with the Democratic Party — have from the outset been supportive of the lockdown. And they are also supportive of Joe Biden.  

In a bitter irony, anti-war activists as well as the critics of neoliberalism have endorsed Joe Biden.

Unless there is significant protest and organized resistance, nationally and internationally, the Great Reset will be embedded in both domestic and US foreign policy agendas of the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration.

It’s what you call imperialism with a “human face”.

Where Is the Protest Movement Against This Unelected Corona “Public-Private Partnership”?

The same philanthropic foundations (Rockefeller, Ford, Soros, et al.) which are the unspoken architects of the “Great Reset” and “Global Governance” are also involved in (generously) financing climate change activism, the Extinction Rebellion, the World Social Forum, Black Lives Matter, LGBT, et al. 

What this means is that the grassroots of these social movements are often misled and betrayed by their leaders who are routinely co-opted and generously rewarded by a handful of corporate foundations.

The World Social Forum (WSF), which is commemorating its 21st anniversary, brings together committed anti-globalization  activists from all over the world. But who controls the WSF? From the outset in January 2001, it was (initially) funded by the Ford Foundation. 

It’s what you call “manufactured dissent” (far more insidious than Herman-Chomsky’s “manufactured consent”).

The objective of the financial elites “has been to fragment the people’s movement into a vast “do it yourself” mosaic. Activism tends to be piecemeal. There is no integrated anti-globalization anti-war movement.” (Michel Chossudovsky, Manufacturing Dissent, Global Research, 2010)12

Image: Joe Biden with Henry Kissinger (By Kai Mörk www.securityconference.delicensed under CC BY 3.0 de)

In the words of McGeorge Bundy, President of the Ford Foundation (1966-1979):

“Everything the [Ford] Foundation did could be regarded as “making the world safe for capitalism”, reducing social tensions by helping to comfort the afflicted, provide safety valves for the angry, and improve the functioning of government.13

The protest movement against the Great Reset which constitutes a “global coup d’état” requires a process of worldwide mobilization:

There can be no meaningful mass movement when dissent is generously funded by those same corporate interests [WEF, Gates, Ford, et al.] which are the target of the protest movement”.14

 

 

Endnotes

1 Michel Chossudovsky, April-June 1975. Hacia El Nuevo Modelo Económico Chileno Inflación Y Redistribución Del Ingreso. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20856482?refreqid=excelsior%3A9228243fa26a81bb3c2b0c2d58094922&seq=1

2 Ibid.

3 Michel Chossudovsky, April 16, 1977. Legitimised Violence and Economic Policy in Argentina. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4365500?seq=1 

4 Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 3, 2020. Understand the Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order. https://www.globalresearch.ca/understand-the-globalization-of-poverty-and-the-new-world-order/25371

5 Ibid. 

6 National Security Council, December 10, 1974. Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (THE KISSINGER REPORT). https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf

7 Peter Koenig, January 22, 2022. The COVID-Omicron Crisis: The Roadmap Towards a Worldwide Financial Crash, Inflation, Digitization. https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-omicron-is-killing-christmas-and-beyond-financial-crash-inflation-digitization/5765170

8 Peter Keonig, March 12, 2020. The Coronavirus Vaccine: The Real Danger is “Agenda ID2020”. Vaccination as a Platform for “Digital Identity”. https://www.globalresearch.ca/coronavirus-causes-effects-real-danger-agenda-id2020/5706153

9 Colin Todhunter, November 9, 2020. Dystopian “Great Reset”: “Own Nothing and Be Happy”, Being Human in 2030. https://www.globalresearch.ca/own-nothing-happy-being-human-2030/5728960

10 UN, September 2020. United Nations Comprehensive Response to COVID-19. https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/un-comprehensive-response-to-covid-19.pdf

11 Mark Weisbrot, February 17, 2020. WORTH THE PRICE? Joe Biden and the Launch of the Iraq War (narrated by Danny Glover). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhcuei8_UJM

12 Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 20, 2010. “Manufacturing Dissent”: The Anti-globalization Movement is Funded by the Corporate Elites. https://www.globalresearch.ca/manufacturing-dissent-the-anti-globalization-movement-is-funded-by-the-corporate-elites/21110

13 Ibid. 

14 Ibid.


 

Chapter XIII 

“Digital Tyranny” and the QR Code

 

“It’s the worldwide invasion of the QR code – QR coding of everything: all of your most intimate data, health, personal behaviors, habits – track records of where we have been and even where we may be planning to go. Nothing will escape the QR code. Nobody talks about it.” —Peter Koenig, former World Bank analyst, Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization

 

Towards a Digitized Global Police State 

The worldwide QR Verification Code project lays the groundwork for the instatement of a “Digitized Global Police State” controlled by the financial establishment. It’s part of what the late David Rockefeller entitled “The March Towards World Government” based on an alliance of bankers and intellectuals (see Chapter XII).  Peter Koenig describes the QR code as:

“an all-electronic ID – linking everything to everything of each individual (records of health, banking, personal and private, etc.).”

 

Towards a Worldwide Digital Currency System (CBDC)  

Consultations are also ongoing between the World Economic Forum (WEF) and central banks with a view to implementing a so-called Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) network. According to David Skripac,

“A worldwide digital ID system is in the making. … The aim of the WEF—and of all the central banks [is] to implement a global system in which everyone’s personal data will be incorporated into the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) network.”1 

 

The QR Verification Code Software

In early 2022, the WHO signed a major contract with Deutsche Telekom T Systems to develop a QR Verification App and software which is to be applied worldwide.

The QR code-based software solution is slated to be used:

“for other vaccinations as well, such as polio or yellow fever, T-Systems said in a statement … adding that the WHO would support its 194 member states in building national and regional verification technology.” (emphasis added)

According to a Deutsche Telekom I-T Systems Communique, “The WHO’s gateway service also serves as a bridge between regional systems“, which essentially implies a coordinated global structure of QR surveillance, which oversees the entire population of Planet Earth.2

And once established, it will police “every aspect of our lives”, wherever our location. “It can also be used as part of future vaccination campaigns and home-based records.

According to the CEO of Deutsche Telecom T Systems:

“Corona has a grip on the world. Digitization keeps the world running”.3

Bill Gates has a long-standing relationship with Deutsche Telekom’s  former CEO Ron Sommer going back to the late 1990s.4

 

Tracing and Tracking

T-Systems had previously set up the European Federation Gateway Service (EFGS). The service ensures that member states’ corona tracing apps work across borders.

The Telekom app is categorized as “one of the most successful tracing apps in the world”.

Who has the grip on the world? A giant data bank pertaining to almost 8 billion people is controlled by “Big Money”.5

People are tagged and labeled, their emails, cell phones are monitored, detailed personal data are entered into a giant Big Brother data bank.

“Digital tyranny” requires repelling all forms of political and social resistance. 

Individual human beings are categorized as “numbers”. Once these “numbers” are inserted into a global digital data bank, humanity in its entirety is under the control of the globalists, namely the Financial Establishment.

The history, culture and identity of nation-states is foreclosed. People become numbers inserted into a global data bank. In turn the formulation of societal projects (projet de société) at national, local and community levels is erased.

Social democracy, socialism, libertarianism: under global governance, all forms of representative democracy and class struggle are precipitated into the dustbin of history.

Progressives should understand who is behind this hegemonic project, it’s part of a neoliberal agenda, it’s an endgame which destroys the identity of human beings; it destroys humanity.

It is important to organize a broad movement of resistance leading to the outright dismantling of this diabolical agenda, which is embedded in the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty, sponsored by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Gates Foundation.

The modalities of the globalists’ project are embedded in the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty, an initiative of the WEF and the Gates Foundation.

 

The Infamous WHO “Treaty on Pandemics”  

Image: Damaged but still decodable QR code (Licensed under CC0)

In March 2022, the WHO launched an Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) with a mandate to create “A Pandemic Treaty”, i.e. a global health governance entity which would override the authority of WHO member states.

“The Global Pandemic Treaty on pandemic preparedness would grant the WHO absolute power over global biosecurity, such as the power to implement digital identities / vaccine passports, mandatory vaccinations, travel restrictions, lockdowns, standardized medical care and more.

This Pandemic Treaty, if implemented, will change the global landscape and strip you and me of some of our most basic rights and freedoms.

Make no mistake, the WHO Pandemic Treaty is a direct attack on the sovereignty of its member states, as well as a direct attack on your bodily autonomy.” (Peter Koenig, June 2022)6

The Treaty on Pandemics is tied into the WHO’s QR Verification Code project and the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine.

The  legitimacy of both the Treaty on Pandemics and the QR Verification Code under WHO auspices rests on the presumption that the alleged “COVID-19 pandemic is real” and that the mRNA vaccine constitutes a SOLUTION to curbing the spread of the virus. 

What is the legitimacy as well as the science behind this diabolical project? NONE. Amply confirmed: THERE IS NO PANDEMICThe alleged COVID-19 pandemic is based on “fake science” (see Chapter III).

Both the EU Digital COVID Certificate Framework as well as the WHO QR Verification Code are predicated on outright lies and fabrications.

The Treaty on Pandemics is the “back door” towards “Global Governance” and digital tyranny. It consists in constructing a worldwide nexus of proxy regimes controlled by a “supranational sovereignty” (World Government) composed of leading financial institutions, billionaires and their philanthropic foundations (see Chapter XII).

Image by the Council of the European Union

 

The WHO’s Plan Is for 10 Years of Pandemics (2020-2030)

A series of future pandemics have been contemplated by the WHO with the support of the Gates Foundation.  According to the President of the European Council Charles Michel and the Director-General of the WHO Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus: 

 “There will be other pandemics and other major health emergencies.

The question is not if, but when. …  we must be better prepared to predict, prevent, detect, assess and effectively respond to pandemics in a highly coordinated fashion.

To that end, we believe that nations should work together towards a new international treaty for pandemic preparedness and response.” 

-Joint call for an international pandemic treaty7

 

Bill Gates’s “Pandemic Number Two”: The Monkeypox?

“We’ll have another pandemic. It will be a different pathogen next time,” (CNBC, February 18, 2022)

“We’ll have to prepare for the next one…

“To be ready for Pandemic Two, … I call this Pandemic One”  (Bill Gates, see Video: The WHO Plans for 10 Years of Pandemics)8

President Joe Biden says America “needs to start getting funding to prepare for the next pandemic“. 

Big Money is behind Biden’s proposal, supportive of Bill Gates: 

“The White House has proposed allocating $82 billion toward planning for pandemic response”. (Business Insider, June 23, 2022)9

 

The  Monkeypox PHEIC

On July 23, 2022, a Monkeypox Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) was declared unilaterally by the Director-General of the WHO Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus against a majority vote of the International Health Regulations (IHR) Emergency Committee (9 against, 6 in favor).10

“We have an outbreak that has spread around the world rapidly through new modes of transmission…I [Tedros] have decided that the global monkeypox outbreak represents a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.”  …11

 “Although I [Tedros] am declaring a public health emergency of international concern, for the moment this is an outbreak that is concentrated among men who have sex with men, especially those with multiple sexual partners.  …

It’s therefore essential that all countries work closely with communities of men who have sex with men, to design and deliver effective information and services, and to adopt measures that protect the health, human rights and dignity of affected communities.

(emphasis added)

“I  Have Decided… “

Tedros’ decision to declare a PHEIC in defiance of the Emergency Committee is illegal. The above announcement borders on ridicule. Where is the science? What are the implications? A review of WHO statements reveals “scientific biases” and outright manipulations. 

And guess what: it’s the real-time PCR test, which the CDC declared invalid for detecting SARS-CoV-2 (effective December 31 2021), which is now being used to “detect the monkeypox pathogen”.12

Screenshot from CDC

There is no evidence that monkeypox is a sexually-transmitted disease. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 1, 2022)13

Does Tedros’s statement constitute an encroachment of the fundamental rights of the LGBT Community which is currently the object of the emergency measures? In the words of the IHR Emergency Committee report cited above: “interventions [are] targeted to this segment of the population [LGBT].”

The WHO is funded by the Gates Foundation. And Bill Gates is centrefold. He has been pushing for the monkeypox scenario since 2017. 

Moreover, in March 2021, a tabletop simulation (similar to the October 2019 Event 201 Simulation) generously funded by multi-billionaire foundations, portrays a “fictional exercise scenario of a deadly, global pandemic involving an unusual strain of monkeypox virus”. The simulation was presented at the Munich Security Conference.

 

Simulation versus “Real Life” Monkeypox Outbreak

May 15, 2022 marks the commencement of the monkeypox epidemic in the Simulated Scenario” (see figure below), leading up to January 2023 (83 countries affected) with 70 million confirmed cases and 1.3 million deaths (see graph below).14

Coincidence? Visibly, May 15, 2022 as well as the 150 cases in the simulation bear a canny resemblance to the “REAL” press reports and WHO advisory:         

“Since 13 May 2022, cases of monkeypox have been reported to [the] WHO from 12 Member States that are not endemic for monkeypox virus, across three WHO regions. Epidemiological investigations are ongoing,  …” (WHO Advisory)15

 

Screenshot from the Simulated Scenario, Munich Security Conference, page 10 of NTI Report

 

The Transition from PHEIC 2.0 to “Pandemic Number Two”? 

Dr. Tedros’s July 2022 monkeypox PHEIC was modelled on the WHO’s COVID-19 January 30, 2020 PHEIC (see Chapter II).

What’s next? The PHEIC sets the stage. It’s a preamble towards subsequent pandemics.  

Will the historic July 23, 2022 Monkeypox PHEIC 2.0 lead the way towards “Pandemic Number Two”, i.e. a worldwide monkeypox pandemic, officially enacted by the WHO at some future date?

A monkeypox vaccine was developed (prior to the outbreak in May 2022). It was announced on May 18, 2022.16

 

Endnotes

1 David Skripac, March 26, 2022. Oh, Canada! Our Home and Native . . . Dictatorship! The WEF is “Trampling Our Freedoms”. https://www.globalresearch.ca/canada-our-home-native-dictatorship/5772052

2 Albert Hold, February 23, 2022. Checking Covid 19 certificates: World Health Organization selects T-Systems as industry partner. https://www.telekom.com/en/media/media-information/archive/covid-19-who-commissions-t-systems-648634

3 Ibid.

4 Dow Jones Newswires, September 4, 1998. Deutsche Telekom Won’t Comment On Reports of Talks With Microsoft. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB904923633645893500

5 Worldometer, n.d. Current World Population. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

6 Peter Koenig & Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, June 2, 2022. Video: Digital Tyranny and the QR Code. The WHO Pandemic Treaty is the Back Door to “Global Governance”. https://www.globalresearch.ca/digital-tyranny-and-the-qr-code-the-who-pandemic-treaty-is-a-back-door-to-global-governance/5782245

7 Council of the European Union, n.d. An international treaty on pandemic prevention and preparedness. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/coronavirus/pandemic-treaty/

8 Stopworldcontrol, May 4, 2022. THE PLAN – WHO plans for 10 years of pandemics, from 2020 to 2030. https://rumble.com/v13kefy-must-see-the-plan-who-plans-for-10-years-of-pandemics-from-2020-to-2030.html

9 Matthew Loh, June 23, 2022. Biden says another pandemic will come and the US needs to start preparing for it. https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-second-pandemic-funding-us-preparing-2022-6

10 Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, May 25, 2022. Worldwide Monkeypox Health Emergency (PHEIC): For Bill Gates, It’s “Moneypox”: Simulation of Fictitious Monkeypox Virus Pandemic in March 2021, Goes Live in May 2022. https://www.globalresearch.ca/bill-gates-warns-smallpox-terror-attacks-urges-leaders-use-germ-games-prepare/5781195

11 WHO, July 23, 2022. WHO Director-General’s statement at the press conference following IHR Emergency Committee regarding the multi-country outbreak of monkeypox – 23 July 2022. https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-statement-on-the-press-conference-following-IHR-emergency-committee-regarding-the-multi–country-outbreak-of-monkeypox–23-july-2022

12 CDC, June 6, 2022. Test Procedure: Monkeypox virus Generic Real-Time PCR Test. https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/pdf/pcr-diagnostic-protocol-508.pdf

13 Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, August 1, 2022. “Factual Chaos” at the WHO? Dr. Tedros: Monkeypox Outbreak Is “Among Men Who Have Sex with Men”. https://www.globalresearch.ca/factual-chaos-at-the-who-dr-tedros-monkeypox-outbreak-is-among-men-who-have-sex-with-men/5788349

14 NTI, November 23, 2021. Strengthening Global Systems to Prevent and Respond to High-Consequence Biological Threats. https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/strengthening-global-systems-to-prevent-and-respond-to-high-consequence-biological-threats/

15 WHO, May 21, 2022. Multi-country monkeypox outbreak in non-endemic countries. https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2022-DON385

16 Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, May 25, 2022. Worldwide Monkeypox Health Emergency (PHEIC): For Bill Gates, It’s “Moneypox”: Simulation of Fictitious Monkeypox Virus Pandemic in March 2021, Goes Live in May 2022. https://www.globalresearch.ca/bill-gates-warns-smallpox-terror-attacks-urges-leaders-use-germ-games-prepare/5781195


Chapter XIV

The COVID-19 Endgame: Eugenics

and the Depopulation Agenda

 

“We’re now facing a situation where a huge number of very powerful organizations and elites at international and national levels are calling for policies that are basically a suicide pact. Basically a death wish of some sort.” —Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace

Do these “Do Goodie” billionaires have any idea of the carnage and suffering their mass-vaccination campaign is likely to generate? Or is that the goal, a world with fewer people? —Michael Whitney, renowned author and geopolitical analyst. 

Introduction

The two strategic pillars of the COVID agenda examined in the previous chapters are:

  • The lockdown: an act of economic and social warfare which has triggered a worldwide process of impoverishment, social marginalization and despair,
  • The mRNA COVID “vaccine” which has resulted in a worldwide upward trend in mortality and morbidity.

Unprecedented in world history, these two strategic pillars are instrumental in triggering a process of depopulation which indelibly points to extensive crimes against humanity.

The enforcement of the depopulation agenda requires a socially repressive structure of “global governance” controlled by the financial establishment.

It also requires a cohesive propaganda apparatus with a view to enforcing social acceptance worldwide. In turn, this process requires the demise of the institutions of representative government coupled with the criminalization of the judicial system.

 

Depopulation and the History of Eugenics

The Global Governance scenario attempts to impose an agenda of social engineering and economic compliance.

The World Government envisaged by the globalists is predicated on obedience and acceptance. One of its major objectives is to carry out a worldwide depopulation agenda. 

The contemporary eugenics movement sponsored by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the billionaire philanthropists hinges upon two strategic pillars: the COVID lockdown and the mRNA vaccine, which are instruments of global population reduction.

US-NATO-led war are also instruments of depopulation. 

What we are living now is unprecedented. Today’s depopulation agenda is by no means comparable to the eugenist movement which unfolded in the US as of the early 20th century. Eugenics at the outset was based on legislation directed against specific population groups with so-called “learning or physical disabilities”:

“The 1907 law denied entry to anyone judged ‘mentally or physically defective, such mental or physical defects being of a nature which may affect the ability of such alien to earn a living.’ It added ‘imbeciles’ and ‘feeble-minded persons’ to the list. …

By 1938, 33 American states permitted the forced sterilisation of women with learning disabilities and 29 American states had passed compulsory sterilisation laws covering people who were thought to have genetic conditions. Laws in America also restricted the right of certain disabled people to marry. More than 36,000 Americans underwent compulsory sterilisation before this legislation was eventually repealed in the 1940s.” (Victoria Brignell)1

 

Depopulation Directed Against Third World Countries

Inspired by the eugenist ideology, depopulation in the post World War II era became an integral part of a neo-colonial agenda. It was carefully embedded into the tenets of US foreign policy, largely directed against so-called “developing countries”.

We recall US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s National Security Study Memorandum 200 entitled “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.”

 

Screenshot from the National Security Council document

 

According to Kissinger (NSSM 200, 1974):

“Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the Third World, because the U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries.”

Illustration by Global Research / Image of Henry Kissinger is by Jay Godwin/Flickr, licensed under the Public Domain

 

The Vaccine Campaign Directed Against Third World Countries

In regards to Third World countries, depopulation was carefully instrumented through vaccines. The “tetanus vaccines” project implemented under WHO-UNICEF auspices was intended to “secretly sterilize women in poor countries all over the planet”.

Kenya’s Catholic bishops are charging two United Nations organizations with sterilizing millions of girls and women under cover of an anti-tetanus inoculation program sponsored by the Kenyan government.”2

Bill Gates, who is now at the forefront of the globalists’ mRNA “vaccine” program was intricately involved. “The Gates Foundation was sued by governments around the world, Kenya, India, the Philippines – and more.” (Peter Koenig, April 2020)3

 

The Globalists’ Depopulation Agenda.“What to Do with All These Useless People?”

While the globalists consider that planet Earth is overpopulated, they do not formally acknowledge that the COVID-19 mandates including the vaccine constitute the means to reducing the world’s population. The vaccine is upheld as means to “save lives”.

Klaus Schwab’s protégé Prof. Yuval Noah Harari, nonetheless begs the question, “what to do with all these useless people?”  

Harari is an influential member of the World Economic Forum (WEF) who supports the idea of creating a dystopian society managed by a handful of globalists who will rule over every human being on earth from the day they are born. (Timothy Alexander Guzman, July 2022)4

 

Secret 2009 Meeting of “The Good Club”. “Billionaires Try to Shrink World’s Population”

Flashback to April 25, 2009. The World Health Organization (WHO) headed by Margaret Chan declared a Public Health Emergency of International concern (PHEIC) pertaining to the H1N1 Swine Flu pandemic, which in many regards was a “dress rehearsal” of the COVID pandemic (see Chapter IX). Barely two weeks later in early May 2009, at the height of the H1N1 “pandemic”, the billionaire philanthropists met behind closed doors at the home of the president of the Rockefeller University in Manhattan.

This secret gathering was sponsored by Bill Gates. They call themselves “The Good Club”. Among the participants were the late David Rockefeller, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey and many more:  

“Some of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.” (Sunday Times, May 2009)5

The emphasis was not on population growth (i.e. planned parenthood) but on “depopulation”, i.e. the reduction in the absolute size of the world’s population. To read the complete WSJ article, click here.

According to the Sunday Times report:

The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.

Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the summit was unprecedented. “We only learnt about it afterwards, by accident. Normally these people are happy to talk good causes, but this is different – maybe because they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal,” he said.

Another guest said there was “nothing as crude as a vote” but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.

“This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers,” said the guest.  …

Why all the secrecy? “They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government,” he said. (Sunday Times)6

The decision-making is intricate and complex. The reports of this secret May 2009 meeting largely reveal the depopulation narrative. It was one among numerous similar meetings (which are rarely the object of media coverage).

What is significant is the criminal intent of these billionaire “philanthropists” to depopulate planet Earth.

 

Bill Gates 2010 Depopulation Statement. The Role of “New Vaccines”

Image: Bill Gates (By Kuhlmann /MSC, licensed under CC BY 3.0 de)

Was an absolute “reduction” in world population contemplated at that May 2009 secret meeting? A few months later, Bill Gates in his TED presentation (February 2010) pertaining to vaccination, confirmed the following:

“And if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that [the world population] by 10 or 15 percent”.7

Listen to the quotation in this video starting at 04:21. Alternatively, see below for the screenshot of the quotation.

Screenshot from the TED Talk video

 

Bill Gates’s “Absolute Reduction” in World Population 

Bill Gates’s proposal of an “absolute reduction” in the world’s population using vaccination as an instrument would be as follows:

The world’s population (November 2022 estimate) is of the order of 8.0 billion.

  • An absolute reduction of 10% in 2022 would be of the order of 800 million.
  • An absolute reduction of 15% of the world population in 2022 would be of the order of 1.2 billion.

The same group of billionaires, who met at the May 2009 “secret venue”, has been actively involved from the outset of the COVID crisis in designing the lockdown policies applied worldwide, the mRNA vaccine and the “Great Reset”, the endgame of which is massive depopulation. 

Crimes against humanity are beyond description.

We are dealing with a criminal cabal which must be confronted.

 

Endnotes

1 Victoria Brignell, December 10, 2010. When America Believed in Eugenics. https://www.globalresearch.ca/when-america-believed-eugenics/5743548?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles

2 Michael Snyder, November 11, 2014. Is the WHO Using Vaccines to Secretly Sterilize Women All Over the Globe? https://www.globalresearch.ca/is-the-un-using-vaccines-to-secretly-sterilize-women-all-over-the-globe/5413599

3 Peter Koenig, March 4, 2021. Bill Gates and the Depopulation Agenda. Robert F. Kennedy Junior Calls for an Investigation. https://www.globalresearch.ca/bill-gates-and-the-depopulation-agenda-robert-f-kennedy-junior-calls-for-an-investigation/5710021

4 Timothy Alexander Guzman, August 6, 2022. The Cult of Globalism: The Great Reset and Its “Final Solution” for “Useless People”. https://www.globalresearch.ca/cult-globalism-great-reset-final-solution-useless-people/5784969

5 John Harlow, May 24, 2009. Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/billionaire-club-in-bid-to-curb-overpopulation-d2fl22qhl02

6 Ibid.

7 Bill Gates, 2010. Innovating to zero! https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates_innovating_to_zero/transcript


 

Chapter XV 

The Road Ahead:

Building a Worldwide Movement Against “Corona Tyranny”

 

The Storming of the Bastille occurred in Paris on the afternoon of July 14, 1789. The Bastille was a medieval armory, fortress, and political prison. It was the symbol of Royal Authority under the reign of King Louis XVI. 

The French monarchy was obliged to accept the authority of the newly proclaimed National Assembly as well as endorse the fundamental rights contained in the “Declaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen” (Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen), formulated in early August 1789.1

More than 230 years later, these fundamental rights (Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité) are now being contravened by corrupt governments around the world on behalf of a totalitarian and illusive financial establishment.

Storming of the Bastille (By Bibliothèque nationale de France, licensed under the Public Domain)

 

Bastille 2022

Bastille 2022 pertains not only to the restoration of these fundamental rights. It seeks to reverse and disable the criminal COVID-19 agenda which in the course of more than two and a half years has triggered economic, social and political chaos worldwide in 193 member states of the United Nations, coupled with bankruptcies, unemployment, mass poverty and despair. Famines have been reported in more than 25 countries. 

Starting in November 2020, an experimental mRNA vaccine launched by our governments (allegedly with a view to combating the spread of the virus) has resulted in an ascending worldwide trend of vaccine-related deaths and injuries. It’s a killer vaccine. It’s a crime against humanity. 

Bastille 2022 is not a “protest” movement, narrowly defined.

We do not seek to negotiate with corrupt government officials. We question their legitimacy. They are liars.

Our intent is to confront the powerful actors behind this criminal endeavor which is literally destroying people’s lives worldwide, while creating divisions within society. The impacts on mental health on population groups worldwide are devastating. 

The numerous lockdowns documented in previous chapters (stay at home of the workforce), fear campaigns, COVID-19 policy mandates imposed on approximately 193 member states of the United Nations have also contributed to undermining and destabilizing:

  • the very fabric of civil society and its institutions including education, culture and the arts, social gatherings, sports, entertainment, etc. 
  • all public sector activities including physical and social infrastructure, social services, law enforcement, etc.
  • all major private sector activities which characterize national, regional and local economies including small, medium and large corporate enterprises, family farms, industry, wholesale and retail trade, the urban services economy, transport companies, airlines, hotel chains, etc.
  • the structures of the global economy including international commodity trade, investment, import and export relations between countries, etc. The entire landscape of the global economy has been shattered. 

In turn, a process of enrichment by the elite billionaires together with widening social inequalities is unfolding (see Chapter V).

The massive debts incurred by the nation-states resulting from corruption as well fiscal collapse have skyrocketed. Increasingly national governments are in a straitjacket, under the brunt of powerful creditor institutions. Mounting debts at all levels of society are the driving force (see Chapter IV).

 

The Creation of a Mass Movement 

What is at stake is the creation of a mass movement (nationally and worldwide) which questions the legitimacy and authority of the architects of this insidious project which broadly speaking emanates from Big Money, Big Pharma, the Information Technology Conglomerates, the Security Apparatus, Intelligence, the Military Industrial Complex, Big Energy, and the Corporate Media. 

Ironically, the architects of the COVID-19 “pandemic” are now actively involved in formulating the “solution”. The World Economic Forum’s Great Reset consists in installing a worldwide totalitarian regime. What is contemplated is a system of “Global Governance” predicated on depopulation (see Chapters XII and XIII).

Approximately 193 UN member states are slated to be weakened and undermined. They are under the grip of the most serious debt crisis in world history. Under the Great Reset, the institutions of parliamentary democracy and the welfare state are to be replaced by an unelected “public-private partnership” dominated by the upper echelons of the financial establishment. 

 

Restoring Real Democracy

We will seek all avenues through peaceful means to disable and undermine this totalitarian project including dialogue with and within public and private institutions (students, teachers, law enforcement officials, members of the military and the judiciary, etc.)

What is required is to break down the structures of corruption, hierarchy and abusive authority, namely to pursue what might be described as:

“the democratization of decision-making within our institutions”.

 

The Art of Deception

We must nonetheless understand the limitations of conducting effective judicial procedures against national governments. The judges are often pressured, threatened and corrupt, aligned with both dominant financial interests and politicians.

Moreover, inasmuch as this insidious project is enforced by national governments worldwide, the International Criminal Court (ICC) which is officially “independent” in regards to the UN Security Council, has a longstanding record of side-stepping US-NATO war crimes. The ICC is controlled by the same financial elites which control the governments.

We must also understand the complexities of this carefully designed and coordinated totalitarian project, namely the role of various fraudulent financial institutions, corporate advisory and lobby groups, consultants, “scientific advisors”, etc. acting as intermediaries on behalf of Big Pharma and the financial elites. 

There is a hierarchy in the structures of authority. This complex and intricate decision-making process is used to co-opt, bribe and manipulate government officials. Almost identical policy mandates (emanating from higher authority) are implemented simultaneously in numerous countries, requiring active coordination. The same powerful lobby firms are acting at one and the same time in different countries (e.g. in North America and the European Union).

Large scale street protests will not prevail unless they are focused on effectively disabling this corrupt decision-making process. 

 

Protesters gathered near the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin in August 2020 to protest against COVID measures. Copyright: Reuters

 

Truckers Freedom Convoy in Canada in February 2022, a movement against COVID mandates. Copyright David Skripac, with permission to use

What Are Our Priorities? Counter-Propaganda 

More than 7 billion people worldwide are directly or indirectly affected by the corona crisis. Several billion people have already been vaccinated by an “unapproved” experimental mRNA “vaccine”, which has resulted in a worldwide wave of mortality and morbidity.

While this tendency is confirmed by official figures pertaining to vaccine-related deaths and adverse events, the mainstream media and the governments are in a state of denial.

The devastating health impacts of the COVID-19 vaccine are rarely acknowledged. It’s the same catchphrase (which is an outright lie) repeated ad nauseam: “the virus is far more dangerous than the vaccine”:

“We actually have more safety data on the vaccine than the virus, and already see that the virus is far more dangerous than the vaccine. (Intercare)2

Dr. Alan Schroeder thinks it’s very natural for parents to worry, but said for teens, the virus is more dangerous than the vaccine. (NBC)3

Doctors are on the lookout for it in children, but the bottom line remains that the virus is far more dangerous than the vaccine.

“The mutations in the omicron variant make it [the virus] more prolific, dangerous, and elusive“.

etc.

This propaganda consensus must be broken. With regard to the vaccine, informing people across the land regarding the data on deaths and adverse events is the first step.

The COVID crisis initiated in January 2020 is unprecedented in world history. Propaganda under Nuremberg is a crime (see Chapter XI).

Dismantling the propaganda apparatus is crucial. Counter-propaganda plays a key role in revealing the lies used to justify the policy mandates.

Without persistent media disinformation, the official COVID narrative falls flat.

First and foremost, we must forcefully challenge the mainstream media, without specifically targeting mainstream journalists who have been instructed to abide by the official narrative. We should in this regard favor dialogue with individual (independent) journalists.

We must ensure that people worldwide achieve an understanding of the history and devastating impacts of the COVID crisis supported by scientific concepts, analysis, testimonies and data. This endeavor will require a parallel process at the grassroots level, of sensitizing fellow citizens and establishing dialogue on the nature of the alleged pandemic, the mRNA vaccine, the RT-PCR test, as well as the devastating economic and social impacts of the lockdowns.

While we must put an end to the fear campaign, we must nonetheless inform our fellow citizens regarding the dangers of the mRNA vaccine as well as the engineered chaos of this totalitarian agenda of “Global Governance” on the very structures of civil society.

The “fear campaign” is to be replaced by “information, concepts, analysis and data” as well as “strategies” to confront Big Pharma, corrupt officials in high office as well as their Big Money sponsors.

We must also ensure the conduct of dialogue and debate at the grassroots of society.

 

Putting an End to the “Killer Vaccine”

Our first task is to immediately halt and cancel the so-called COVID-19 “vaccine” which has triggered a wave of mortality and morbidity worldwide. 

According to Dr. Thomas Binder:

“The gene injections are unsafe. They can cause anaphylactic reactions, thromboembolism, thrombocytopenia, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and myocarditis in the short term.4

There is possible immunosuppression and antibody-dependent enhancement, ADE, in the medium-term.

And in the long term there are possible autoimmune diseases, cancer and infertility, risks that have not been ruled out yet.”

According to Doctors for COVID Ethics, in the EU, UK and US, the data respectively tabulated by EudraVigilance, MHRA (UK) and VAERS (US):

“have now recorded many more deaths and injuries from the COVID-19 “vaccine” roll-out than from all previous vaccines combined since records began”

With regard to the mRNA “vaccine”, the catastrophic number of injection related deaths has NOT been reported by the mainstream media, despite the official figures being publicly available.

“The signal of harm is now indisputably overwhelming, and, in line with universally accepted ethical standards for clinical trials, we demand that the COVID-19 “vaccination” programme be halted immediately worldwide.

Continuation of the programme, in the full knowledge of ongoing serious harm and death to both adults and children, constitutes Crimes Against Humanity/Genocide, for which those found to be responsible or complicit will ultimately be held personally liable.”5

As outlined in Chapter VIII, Pfizer has a criminal record (2009) with the US Department of Justice on charges of “fraudulent marketing”.6

As part of the 2009 DoJ settlement, Pfizer was put on parole:

“Pfizer also has agreed to enter into an expansive corporate integrity agreement … [which] provides for procedures and reviews to be put in place to avoid and promptly detect conduct similar to that which gave rise to this matter.”7

But we are no longer dealing with “fraudulent marketing”:

“Killing is good for business”: The vaccine is a multi-billion dollar operation worldwide. It’s manslaughter.

Once the “vaccine” has been halted, the criminality of Big Pharma will be fully revealed and understood. In turn, the legitimacy of the official COVID narrative based on lies and fake science will inevitably be impaired. This is the first step towards breaking the “official” COVID narrative. 

The truth is an important peaceful weapon. Without propaganda and media disinformation, the architects of this project do not have a leg to stand on.

Let us break the “official” COVID-19 consensus and the propaganda apparatus which provides “legitimacy” to a criminal agenda.

Once it collapses, it will open up the road towards reversing the broader process of economic, social and political chaos generated in the course of the last two and a half years.

 

The Geopolitical Dimensions

What is unfolding is a new and destructive phase of US imperialism. It’s a totalitarian project of economic and social engineering. 

The Biden administration has endorsed the COVID agenda, which has been used to destabilize and weaken national economies (ironically, including the United States as well as its allies and its “enemies”).

We cannot divorce our understanding of the COVID crisis from that of US foreign policy and America’s hegemonic agenda, e.g. the war in Ukraine, US-Russia relations, the enlargement and extension of NATO, the militarization of the South China Sea directed against China, Iran and the geopolitics of the Middle East, the ongoing sanctions regimes against Venezuela and Cuba, etc. 

Integrating All Sectors of Society

It should be noted that organized opposition in many Western countries is weak. Why? Because “progressive forces” including left intellectuals, NGO leaders, trade union and labor leaders both in Western Europe and North America have from the outset endorsed the official COVID narrative. Many of these progressive movements are supported by corporate foundations. 

The same billionaire foundations which are the unspoken architects of the “Great Reset” and “Global Governance” are also involved in (generously) financing various social movements. “They control the opposition”.  

What this means is that grassroots activists are often misled and betrayed by their leaders who are routinely co-opted by their billionaire sponsors.

It is essential that these grassroots activists be integrated into the mainstay of the movement against the COVID-19 consensus.

 

The Road Ahead

What is required is the development of a broad-based grassroots network which confronts both the architects of this crisis as  well as all levels of government (i.e. national, states, provinces, municipalities, etc.) involved in imposing the vaccine as well carrying out the lockdown and closure of economic activity.

This network would be established (nationally and internationally) at all levels of society, in towns and villages, workplaces, parishes, trade unions, farmers organizations, professional associations, business associations, student unions, and veterans associations. Church groups would be called upon to integrate this movement.

“Spreading the word” through social media and independent online media outlets will be undertaken bearing in mind that Google as well as Facebook are instruments of censorship.

Legal procedures and protests are unfolding in all major regions of the world. As part of a worldwide network of initiatives, it is important to establish mechanisms of communication, dialogue and exchange within and between countries. 

The creation of such a movement, which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of the financial elites, Big Pharma, et al., as well as the structures of political authority at the national level, is no easy task. It will require a degree of solidarity, unity and commitment unparalleled in world history.

What is required is the breaking down of political and ideological barriers within society (e.g. between political parties) while acting with a single voice towards building a worldwide consensus against tyranny. 

Worldwide solidarity and human dignity is the driving force.

 

Endnotes

1 Encyclopaedia Britannica, July 20, 1998. Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Declaration-of-the-Rights-of-Man-and-of-the-Citizen

2 Intercare, n.d. Part 10: COVID-19 vaccines and long-term side effects. https://healthhub.intercare.co.za/2021/09/15/part-10-covid-19-vaccines-and-long-term-side-effects/

3 Anoushah Rasta, May 5, 2021. FDA Expected to Approve Vaccinations for Kids, But Are Parents Ready to Move Forward? https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/coronavirus/fda-expected-to-approve-vaccinations-for-kids-but-are-parents-ready-to-move-forward/2537309/

4 Doctors for COVID Ethics, August 3, 2021. COVID Vaccine Necessity, Efficacy and Safety. https://doctors4covidethics.org/covid-vaccine-necessity-efficacy-and-safety-3/

5 Doctors for COVID Ethics, October 22, 2021. J’Accuse! The Gene-based “Vaccines” Are Killing People. Governments Worldwide Are Lying to You the People, to the Populations They Purportedly Serve. https://www.globalresearch.ca/jaccuse-governments-worldwide-lying-you-people-populations-they-purportedly-serve/5750650

6 US Department of Justice, September 2, 2009. Pfizer Inc. “Fraudulent Marketing”: “Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History” (2009). US Department of Justice. https://www.globalresearch.ca/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement/5738792

7 Ibid.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

As we mark two full years since Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukrainian government forces have withdrawn from Avdiivka, a town they first captured from the self-declared Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) in July 2014. Situated only 10 miles from Donetsk city, Avdiivka gave Ukrainian government forces a base from which their artillery bombarded Donetsk for nearly ten years. From a pre-war population of about 31,000, the town has been depopulated and left in ruins.

The mass slaughter on both sides in this long battle was a measure of the strategic value of the city to both sides, but it is also emblematic of the shocking human cost of this war, which has degenerated into a brutal and bloody war of attrition along a nearly static front line. Neither side made significant territorial gains in the entire 2023 year of fighting, with a net gain to Russia of a mere 188 square miles, or 0.1% of Ukraine.

And while it is the Ukrainians and Russians fighting and dying in this war of attrition with over half a million casualties, it is the United States, with some its Western allies, that has stood in the way of peace talks. This was true of talks between Russia and Ukraine that took place in March 2022, one month after the Russian invasion, and it is true of talks that Russia tried to initiate with the United States as recently as January 2024.

In March 2022, Russia and Ukraine met in Turkey and negotiated a peace agreement that should have ended the war. Ukraine agreed to become a neutral country between east and west, on the model of Austria or Switzerland, giving up its controversial ambition for NATO membership. Territorial questions over Crimea and the self-declared republics of Donetsk and Luhansk would be resolved peacefully, based on self-determination for the people of those regions.

But then the U.S. and U.K. intervened to persuade Ukraine’s President Volodomyr Zelenskyy to abandon the neutrality agreement in favor of a long war to militarily drive Russia out of Ukraine and recover Crimea and Donbas by force. U.S. and U.K. leaders have never admitted to their own people what they did, nor tried to explain why they did it.

So it has been left to everyone else involved to reveal details of the agreement and the U.S. and U.K.’s roles in torpedoing it: President Zelenskyy’s advisers; Ukrainian negotiators; Turkish foreign minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu and Turkish diplomats; Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who was another mediator; and former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, who mediated with Russian President Vladimir Putin for Ukraine.

The U.S. sabotage of peace talks should come as no surprise. So much of U.S. foreign policy follows what should by now be an easily recognizable and predictable pattern, in which our leaders systematically lie to us about their decisions and actions in crisis situations, and, by the time the truth is widely known, it is too late to reverse the catastrophic effects of those decisions. Thousands of people have paid with their lives, nobody is held accountable, and the world’s attention has moved on to the next crisis, the next series of lies and the next bloodbath, which in this case is Gaza.

But the war grinds on in Ukraine, whether we pay attention to it or not. Once the U.S. and U.K. succeeded in killing peace talks and prolonging the war, it fell into an intractable pattern common to many wars, in which Ukraine, the United States and the leading members of the NATO military alliance were encouraged, or we might say deluded, by limited successes at different times into continually prolonging and escalating the war and rejecting diplomacy, in spite of ever-mounting, appalling human costs for the people of Ukraine.

U.S. and NATO leaders have repeated ad nauseam that they are arming Ukraine to put it in a stronger position at the “negotiating table,” even as they keep rejecting negotiations. After Ukraine gained ground with its much celebrated offensives in the fall of 2022, U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley went public with a call to “seize the moment” and get back to the negotiating table from the position of strength that NATO leaders said they were waiting for. French and German military leaders were reportedly even more adamant that that moment would be short-lived if they failed to seize it.

They were right. President Biden rejected his military advisers’ calls for renewed diplomacy, and Ukraine’s failed 2023 offensive wasted its chance to negotiate from a position of strength, sacrificing many more lives to leave it weaker than before.

On February 13, 2024, Reuters Moscow bureau broke the story that the United States had recently rejected a new Russian proposal to reopen peace negotiations. Multiple Russian sources involved in the initiative told Reuters that Russia proposed direct talks with the United States to call a ceasefire along the current front lines of the war.

After Russia’s March 2022 peace agreement with Ukraine was vetoed by the U.S., this time Russia approached the United States directly before involving Ukraine. There was a meeting of intermediaries in Turkey, and a meeting between Secretary of State Blinken, CIA Director Burns and National Security Adviser Sullivan in Washington, but the result was a message from Sullivan that the U.S. was willing to discuss other aspects of U.S.-Russian relations, but not peace in Ukraine.

Image of Russian troops in Ukraine. Credit: Ukraine MoD/Facebook

And so the war grinds on. Russia is still firing 10,000 artillery shells per day along the front line, while Ukraine can only fire 2,000. In a microcosm of the larger war, some Ukrainian gunners told reporters they were only allowed to fire 3 shells per night. As Sam Cranny-Evans of the U.K.’s RUSI military think-tank told the Guardian, “What that means is that Ukrainians can’t suppress Russian artillery any more, and if the Ukrainians can’t fire back, all they can do is try to survive.”

A March 2023 European initiative to produce a million shells for Ukraine in a year fell far short, only producing about 600,000. U.S. monthly shell production in October 2023 was 28,000 shells, with a target of 37,000 per month by April 2024. The United States plans to increase production to 100,000 shells per month, but that will take until October 2025.

Meanwhile, Russia is already producing 4.5 million artillery shells per year. After spending less than one tenth of the Pentagon budget over the past 20 years, how is Russia able to produce 5 times more artillery shells than the United States and its NATO allies combined?

RUSI’s Richard Connolly explained to the Guardian that, while Western countries privatized their weapons production and dismantled “surplus” productive capacity after the end of the Cold War in the interest of corporate profits, “The Russians have been… subsidizing the defense industry, and many would have said wasting money for the event that one day they need to be able to scale it up. So it was economically inefficient until 2022, and then suddenly it looks like a very shrewd bit of planning.”

President Biden has been anxious to send more money to Ukraine–a whopping $61 billion—but disagreements in the U.S. Congress between bipartisan Ukraine supporters and a Republican faction opposed to U.S. involvement have held up the funds. But even if Ukraine had endless infusions of Western weapons, it has a more serious problem: Many of the troops it recruited to fight this war in 2022 have been killed, wounded or captured, and its recruitment system has been plagued by corruption and a lack of enthusiasm for the war among most of its people.

In August 2023, the government fired the heads of military recruitment in all 24 regions of the country after it became widely known that they were systematically soliciting bribes to allow men to avoid recruitment and gain safe passage out of the country. The Open Ukraine Telegram channel reported, “The military registration and enlistment offices have never seen such money before, and the revenues are being evenly distributed vertically to the top.”

The Ukrainian parliament is debating a new conscription law, with an online registration system that includes people living abroad and with penalties for failure to register or enlist. Parliament already voted down a previous bill that members found too draconian, and many fear that forced conscription will lead to more widespread draft resistance, or even bring down the government.

Oleksiy Arestovych, President Zelenskyy’s former spokesman, told the Unherd website that the root of Ukraine’s recruitment problem is that only 20% of Ukrainians believe in the anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalism that has controlled Ukrainian governments since the overthrow of the Yanukovych government in 2014. “What about the remaining 80%?” the interviewer asked.

“I think for most of them, their idea is of a multinational and poly-cultural country,” Arestovych replied. “And when Zelenskyy came into power in 2019, they voted for this idea. He did not articulate it specifically but it was what he meant when he said, ‘I don’t see a difference in the Ukrainian-Russian language conflict, we are all Ukrainians even if we speak different languages.’”

“And you know,” Arestovych continued, “my great criticism of what has happened in Ukraine over the last years, during the emotional trauma of the war, is this idea of Ukrainian nationalism which has divided Ukraine into different people: the Ukrainian speakers and Russian speakers as a second class of people. It’s the main dangerous idea and a worse danger than Russian military aggression, because nobody from this 80% of people wants to die for a system in which they are people of a second class.”

If Ukrainians are reluctant to fight, imagine how Americans would resist being shipped off to fight in Ukraine. A 2023 U.S. Army War College study of “Lessons from Ukraine” found that the U.S. ground war with Russia that the United States is preparing to fight would involve an estimated 3,600 U.S. casualties per day, killing and maiming as many U.S. troops every two weeks as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq did in twenty years. Echoing Ukraine’s military recruitment crisis, the authors concluded, “Large-scale combat operations troop requirements may well require a reconceptualization of the 1970s and 1980s volunteer force and a move toward partial conscription.”

U.S. war policy in Ukraine is predicated on just such a gradual escalation from proxy war to full-scale war between Russia and the United States, which is unavoidably overshadowed by the risk of nuclear war. This has not changed in two years, and it will not change unless and until our leaders take a radically different approach. That would involve serious diplomacy to end the war on terms on which Russia and Ukraine can agree, as they did on the March 2022 neutrality agreement.

*

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

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

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

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

Featured image: The ruins of Avdiivka. Photo Credit: Russian Defense Ministry

Is World War III About to Start or Has It Already?

February 22nd, 2024 by Richard C. Cook

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

Let me start by pointing out that the above was the topic of a three-part article I wrote that was published on the VT Foreign Policy website on December 31, 2023, entitled: “Is World War III About to Start?”

In this article I did not postulate a definitive answer. Of course, some would say that WWIII has already begun. But let’s explore further.

We know that the U.S. has been in a continuous state of some level of war mobilization since at least 1940. That’s coming up on a century ago. Of course, some would say that when WWII began, it was really just a continuation of WWI, when the U.S. had troops fighting in Europe from 1917-1918. So that takes us to well over a century ago.

But why another world war now? Let’s explore some history.

When Germany invaded Poland at the start of WWII in September, 1939, it was more than a year before the U.S. was formally at war, after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

But well before, in 1940, the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration began to use Lend-Lease to supply military assistance to the Western Allies, acquisitions that they were allowed to purchase on credit.

To this day, however, few are aware of how much by way of armaments was also provided to the Soviet Union via Lend-Lease. This included tanks, artillery, and whole factories to help build the Soviet war machine. It also included equipment needed to eventually build atomic weapons.

All of these transfers to the Soviets were concealed from Congress and the public but originated with actions by actors/agents within the Roosevelt government. U.S./Soviet collaboration was also concealed from Hitler, who said he would not have invaded the Soviet Union had he known of its vast hidden stores of war materiel. This was part of the U.S./British plan to trap Hitler into action that would complete the destruction of Germany begun during World War I.

It wasn’t until after World War II had ended when, under President Harry Truman, the U.S. broke away from its Soviet wartime ally, which now became our enemy when the “Cold War” was engineered into existence.

Few are aware that the impetus for U.S. policy during and after WWII came from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Always the most prominent American “think tank” since its inception at the end of WWI, the CFR was/is a U.S.-situated creation of the London/New York-based “Money Power.” The leading U.S. figure in the CFR’s scheming is believed to have been Bernard Baruch. Members of the Rockefeller family and their associates have also been heavily involved in the CFR and have provided funding for much of its program.

Before the CFR came into existence, the U.S. branch of the Money Power had been headed by J.P. Morgan and was concentrated then, as now, in New York City. Allied with Morgan was the newly-minted fortune of John D. Rockefeller. Under the stage-managing of the European Rothschilds, both Morgan and Rockefeller connived in setting up the Federal Reserve in 1913. Col. House was tasked with getting U.S. President Woodrow Wilson to go along and sign the legislation.

The immediate purpose of the Federal Reserve was to provide Great Britain and France with the money to fight Germany in WWI. But France was, and remains, secondary. The Federal Reserve was, above all, central to an Anglo-American objective to take over the world.

The purpose of this takeover was to expand the grip over the world economy of the empire of usury. It was through usury, which had been prohibited in Europe during the Middle Ages and by the Islamic religion since its founding, that the world’s bankers have confiscated the wealth of every nation in which they have been allowed to dominate. Usury requires the constant generation of surplus profits to feed the bankers’ greed. Military force is the means by which the proceeds of usury are secured.

By means of WWI, the German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian empires, along with their ancient aristocratic cultures whose wealth was in land, were destroyed. The main reason these empires were obliterated and their kings removed or, in Russia’s case, killed, was the vast amount of debt they had incurred by borrowing from Europe’s bankers. After the war, their property was forfeited as bankers’ collateral.

Thus much of central and eastern Europe was obliterated during the war, with Turkish control of the Middle East terminated.

Britain and the U.S. were the two powers most united with the Money Power, whose wealth has been based on private banking and usury for the last 400 years, since the time of Cromwell. By the early 19th century it’s been the Rothschilds at center stage, even in the U.S., with the Rockefellers in league.

Now Russia was turned over to the Bolsheviks, who were hidden agents of the Money Power and collectors on the usurers’ debt claims. Britain took control of Palestine as a League of Nations mandate, having issued the Balfour Declaration as the first step in creation of a Jewish national state.

The Rothschilds provided the funds for Jewish conquest of Palestine and for building the Israeli Zionist entity.

Back to the Council on Foreign Relations.

Its purpose was/is to assure that in all future wars, the U.S. government would be controlled by the Money Power, which is exactly what has happened. Britain has a corresponding organization, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, or Chatham House.

This was a branch of the Round Table, set up by Nathaniel Rothschild and Alfred Lord Milner, using the legacy of Cecil Rhodes from his diamond and gold mining enterprises in South Africa.

In 1939-1940, as WWII was beginning in Europe, the CFR commenced writing a series of reports that it imposed on the Roosevelt Administration, laying out a future program whereby the U.S. would assume military dominance over the entire world. The Rockefeller Foundation paid for these studies.

The CFR program for global military dominance has been the overriding U.S. geopolitical objective ever since; always, of course, on behalf of the Money Power, with the U.S. providing the military might. It’s said that “all wars are economic.”

The U.S. has chosen to attain its economic goals by brute force, no longer by means of hard work, diplomacy, or cooperative venture. It has seen most of the other nations of the world as its enemies or subjects, but above all, as debtors to its banks. In response, the U.S. is viewed increasingly by the rest of the world as a schoolyard bully, or as a harsh debt collector.

The U.S. has been engaged in “endless wars” since 1941: WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, you name it.

This is why the U.S. generated the “War on Terror” and is now engaged in a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine to control Europe and Eurasia.

It’s why the U.S. is engaged in another proxy war on the side of genocidal Israel in the Middle East in order to keep control the oil resources of the Islamic world.

It’s the purpose of the U.S. military doctrine of “Full-Spectrum Dominance,” meant to put a stop to competition anywhere on the planet or even in cyberspace or outer space.

Always Britain has been at America’s side with its “special relationship,” egging us on, seeming to play the role of “America’s poodle.” The action arm for endless war has been the faction known as “Neocons.”

But even behind control of oil has been control of banking and collection of the profits from usury. Whenever the U.S. takes over a country, it’s the banks that move in first, often with the International Monetary Fund as the leading edge of the takeover. This control is executed by the “jackals” who work for the intelligence agencies.

Meanwhile, the military establishment of both the U.S. and Britain employ many thousands of highly-educated individuals in researching the most ingenious methods possible of killing their fellow human beings. In a technological age there is no limit to how gruesome and unconscionable these methods can be. It’s these military researchers who have been at the forefront of bioweapons development using gain-of-function research.

This is the context in which we can ask the question, “Is World War III About to Start?”

We mean by this, of course, is the U.S. about to engage in all-out nuclear war against the nations identified as its “adversaries”?

At present, these are Russia and China, the only nations appearing to be seriously challenging Full-Spectrum Dominance. Also identified as a near-term enemy is Iran. Israel and Ukraine, both U.S. proxies, appear to have been assigned the role of instigators.

But don’t forget, it’s always been on behalf of the Money Power and its usury, which began its takeover of America more than two centuries ago, even before the U.S. Constitution was written.

It was through this takeover that the wealth accruing to Americans from their work and from the resources of the land began to flow upwards into the hands of those in charge of the monetary system, with a portion of it being used to pay for the military machine that would gradually put the entire world under its control—or so they think.

We can reasonably ask whether this is how people are meant to live, so obviously filled with greed, hate, and hubris. Is this what American religious fundamentalists intend to help bring about?

The American Geopolitical Institute will be studying these matters in the weeks and months ahead.

Every human enterprise must serve life, must seek to enrich existence on earth, lest man become enslaved where he seeks to establish his dominion!” —Bô Yin Râ (Joseph Anton Schneiderfranken, 1876-1943), Translation by Posthumus Projects Amsterdam, 2014.

*

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

This article was originally published on VT Foreign Policy.

Featured image source


Our Country, Then and Now

by Richard C. Cook

ISBN: 9781949762853

E-book ISBN: 978-1-949762-86-0

Year: 2023

Our Country Then and Now takes us on a 400-year journey through America’s history, providing unique snapshots from African enslavement, native dispossession, financial scandals, and wars of expansion and aggression, interspersed with tales from author Richard C. Cook’s ancestry—from Puritan forebears to fighters in the American Revolutionary War and the Civil War, to Midwest Pioneer farmers and their relations with native nations.

Click here to order.