Archive for the ‘War’ Category

War Against Nazism Still Not Won, As Long As Nazi Ideas Rule Minds Regarding France In USA

January 18, 2020

A STRIKING EXAMPLE OF COGNITIVE DERANGEMENT DISORDER: FRANCE, FOUNDATION OF THE USA, STILL VIEWED AS CAUSE OF NAZISM BY SECRETLY RACIST MASS HOMICIDAL, YET MAINSTREAM DOMINANT AMERICAN IDEOLOGY. Relationship with Iraq Invasion and Impeachment revealed!

The USA is a strange place where a Nazi ideology seed such as Keynes (head of UK delegation at Versailles in 1919) is lionized, by Jews (see Paul Krugman), and many basic Nazi these (some found in Keynes) are still viewed as Common Sense: in other words, VICTORY AGAINST NAZISM HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED… as long as the cognitive mechanisms (or, more precisely, lack thereof) which brought Nazism, many of them invented in the USA, have not been defeated.

*** 

The Weaponization Of Philosophical and Technological Progress by France Made England And USA possible: 

In the Foundation series from US author Isaac Asimov, mathematician of psychohistory logician Seldon foresees the imminent fall of the Galactic Empire, which encompasses the entire Milky Way, and a dark age lasting 30,000 years before a second empire arises. France,  by creating Britain and the USA, according to mainstream French ideology, did quite a bit the same thing.

France, is a collective of thinking leaders over centuries. Arguably, France is a direct extension of the complex Gallo-Roman mentality, itself something that rose over more than a millennium, prior to Caesar’s partial conquest. 

Some French thinkers and men of action, who had a tremendous influence on the modern world, have sunk in the fog of history. Some are known, although not as revolutionary thinkers, which they were (the best example being William the Conqueror). Some are not known to this day (such Berengar, an Abbot protected by William the Conqueror, who promoted reason as God, and probably influenced many, while putting into words what the times were doing in France). The French, the Normans, pushed, overall a similar scheme of extreme progress, and this is when Europe rose above Rome in nearly all significant ways.

Even the decapitated one, Louis XVI, played a crucial role in the history of civilization, as he is the one who insured the success of US Independence: Louis XVI’s massive military intervention made it possible for the USA to exist. This is why the “Star Spangled Banner”, similarly to the Marseillaise, is all about a bloody war against tyrants, among explosions… Modern democracy as found in France, Britain, US, was created by very bloody war… Against bloody masters. 

France decided the outlawing of slavery (Queen Bathilde of the Franks, circa 655 CE). When the French army occupied Britain in 1066 CE, it weaponized the outlawing of slavery and other progressive democratizing measures to stay in power: thus England came to be (this entanglement of Britain and France goes on to this day, as France was pro-Brexit… At least in 2018; Macron admitted that Johnson had a “strategic plan”).  

Amusingly, the French always invoke the “Anglo-Saxons”… When actually England and the USA are mostly… French, not just in deepest institutions, but down to the language (English being poorly pronounced French, mostly). So the British and US Americans are distinguished as “Anglo-Saxons”, as there are Bretons, because such is their difference.

***

If the US had joined the League of Nations, would WWII still have occurred?

Patrice Ayme, Decades of studying world history critically… among other things.

Let me change the question slightly into: If the US had respected its parent, France, and practiced other benevolent aspects of a naturally civilized nation, such as no racism, as its Gallo-Roman parent had tried to instill to the US, would WWII have occurred? Or, otherwise said: If The USA had acted decently after 1918, would the Nazis have disturbed the Peace?

The short of it: no.

World War Two happened, when it did, because the French Republic had more than enough with the Nazis. or, more generally, racist, militaristic, fascist, world-threatening Germany (the Germany which was destroyed in 1945).

Arras City hall, northern France, Destroyed By Invading German Fascists, 1914-1918

The French had been itching to go destroy Hitler since the latter invaded Spain in 1936 (with the help of the rogue general Franco, and fascist Italy). However, after agreeing to come to the rescue of the Spanish Republic, the French, led by PM Jewish Socialist Blum, were submitted to scathing threats from London and Washington, so they didn’t 9in 1929, before Nazism, Churchill threatened to bomb France, because France had made threatening noises about rearmament of Germany in violation of the Versailles Treaty, with the help of Portugal and the USSR; yes, that was 4 years before Nazism).

Then there was the 1938 Munich circus, followed by Hitler invading Czechoslovakia, Austria… The problem for France was lack of support by Britain (which however then decided to boost her air force through massive modernization).

After the fall of Spain (March 1939), the French stiffened the Polish spine, and added a chastised Great Britain in the appendix to the Franco-Polish treaty (“entente cordiale” would apply, so if france was at war with Germany, so would Britain be…)

Cornered, an enraged Hitler made Germany’s ultra secret alliance with fellow dictator Stalin official (it actually came all the way from 1916… before the Bolsheviks came to power).

Surely, now confronting the worldwide alliance of fascist Japan, Italy, Germany and the USSR, the French Republic won’t attack? But the French Republic was undeterred. At that point the Nazis were stuck. They couldn’t lose face: Hitler knew that the German generals had nearly staged a coup already.

What could have stopped the war? Those German generals: they had all the power… But many were themselves Nazis, so they were torn. Had the USA declared it sided with France, the generals would have known they were facing the infernal trio of France, Britain and their progeny, the USA, and, thus, Germany couldn’t win. So they would have had the excuse they wanted to stage a coup to save Germany, as they explained in 1937 to the (terrified) Anglo-Saxon ambassadors.

However the position of the USA in 1939 relative to Nazism was not clear: plutocrat FDR detested egalitarian, socialist France, and wanted to grab all her colonies to make them part of the US empire. Moreover US plutocrats were roaming all over Germany doing excellent business under Hitler, owning a large part of it: IBM had the monopoly of computing, for example, a gift of Hitler (ss “IBM and the Holocaust”). Finally, the US was a racist country, and much of Nazism was copied from US themes.

WWI Basilique Saint Quentin Northern France, Destroyed By Invading German Fascists, 1914-1918

The very idea of League of Nation was born in France (and then co-opted by hyper racist US president Wilson). So the entire “isolationist” posture, which didn’t apply to Nazi Germany (full of US plutocrats, US investments, US tech, etc.) was more directed against France… like the myth of the “crippling” reparations, launched by racist plutocrat Keynes, who was enraged that Eastern Europe had been freed from Germany by Versailles…

If the USA had been in the League, per se, would not have been enough, to prevent WW2. However, had the USA being just decent with its parent, France, the German generals would have seen their defeat was unavoidable, as the USA was siding with France.

And guess what, as I already said, but it’s worth repeating? The German generals asked, as early as 1937, the UK and US, to do just that, declare they would side with France. But the Anglo-Saxons didn’t. Instead, they told Hitler about the plot by the German generals… And FDR recalled his friend Dodd, US ambassador in Berlin, too friendly to his French peer, and too anti-Nazi. FDR replaced Dodd by a pro-Nazi, and did the same in Britain, installing Kennedy there… (More details in the book “The Garden of the Beasts”…)

Part of the city of Reims, 1918. Burned cathedral in the background. Destroyed by Invading German Fascists. 

The German generals were not smart enough to realize they were going to become victims of the greatest bait and switch imaginable… Although the same exactly had happened in WW1…

Nowadays, the Germans have finally figured it all out, deep inside… Just when at the same time, half of the Brits lost it completely… History is the ride that never ends…

The most amazing part of this subject is that many individuals who believe they know it well, actually repeat the basic Nazi themes… And, even more interesting, those themes often only partly originated in Germany (even the famous “stab in the back” theme the Nazis used had been uttered first by a British general who had lashed back sarcastically at war criminal general and principal original Nazi, Ludendorff…)

Oh, by the way, the fact the deep maneuvers of the US Deep State and its sponsor, US plutocracy, the billionaires and their descendants hidden in Foundations, Boards, Institutes, “Charities”, “Think Tanks”, plutocratic universities and the like, have not been exposed in full, doesn’t just explain the amazing (however ephemeral) success of the monstrosity known as Nazism. More fundamentally, it explains much of the rise of global plutocracy and its attendant inequality, poverty, drug abuse, decay in education, healthcare and many basic services observed since…

German racist fascism had to be destroyed. It was not destroyed in 1918–1919… so it tried again to win in 1933–1945. If the USA had been involved critically in teaching civilization to Germany, following the less racist principles of France, Nazism couldn’t have happened. When the French government went to Washington to ask to do something about Hitler, it lost, because “isolationism” was the pretext the USA used to keep on instrumentalizing (one should even say weaponizing) Germany. Fundamentally the USA was not in the League for the same reason why the fascists left it. Greed.

(From request by Thomas Fugate…)

***

The following answer is interesting, because it was made by a US citizen in 2020, but one would have expected it by a Nazi in 1942. I quote it because this anti-wisdom, this Nazi wisdom, is still around, because nobody blocks it as the infamy it is::

Typical Northern French City. Germans refused to pay for this devastations and Neonazis whine to this day that the attempt to make Germany pay for part of the devastation it caused after invading Northern France… caused Nazism, and the killing of 20 million civilian, or more, plus six millions Jews. All the fault of the French who got the racist idea that Germans should repair part of what they had destroyed.

Let’s hear it from the typical Neonazi, by someone read thousands of times on the public space known as Quora. She was replying to my essay above:

Jane Weir

Please. The French had been looking to ruin Germany from 1919 onward. Their insistent demand for reparations from Germany (paid with loans from the US) was simply irresponsible. Their irredentism was as vital as any other factor for the rise of Hitler and German rearmament. At any time in the late 30s the French could have made a non-aggression pact with Germany, so that the 1940 invasion and occupation would have been completely avoided.

It’s ridiculous to think the French were “itching” to destroy Hitler because of German and Italian support for the Spanish Nationalists. The anti-Franco French tilt in 1936 was simply the policy of Leon Blum’s Popular Front government, and as you probably know it was ineffectual and short-lived, ending when Britain and France both agreed to remain neutral in the Spanish conflict.

France tried in 1939 to negotiate an alliance with the USSR, but this just encouraged Germany to outmaneuver them with their own non-aggression pact, neutralizing the Soviets and enabling Germany to swiftly conquer Poland and reincorporate the lands it had lost 20 years before. Even when France had the opportunity to invade Germany from the west in September 1939, they barely feinted over the borders, then withdrew and let their troops idle for six months. Whenever the French had a chance to make a blunder, they seized it with both hands.

***

Nazism Springs Eternal If No One Contradicts It:

Fascist racist Germany attacked the French Republic (without war declaration) on August 2 1914 (reminiscent of September 1, 1940) . the German dictatorship pursued with war crimes (including killing toddlers), as early as August 1914 (the surprise attack against the world was itself a war crime). When the German army retreated in 1918, it eradicated, destroyed and annihilated north-east France (the industrial basket of France).

If France had treated Germany as Germany did France, France would have annihilated the Ruhr, dynamiting all factories and machines, flooding the minutes, cutting telephones and electricity poles… it’s actually the refusal of the Second Reich Germans (“Weimar”) which caused the French intervention if 1923.

In the red zones (“zone rouge”) the areas most devastated by the invading fascist German army, human life was impossible, the ground being toxic, lethal, full of non exploded explosives, neurotoxic chemicals, etc.

The mistake done in 1918 was not to invade Germany, judge hang the top German racist fascist war criminal there, including the Kaiser, Von Moltke, Ludendorff. That would have got rid of the inspiring core of the Nazi party.

The real causes of Nazism are found in Arminius (traitor to the Roman army, civilization), Luther (a hater of Jews), Herder (a tribal fanatic), Hegel (world-empire delirium, an admirer of the fascist dictator Napoleon). All had been said when Goering, father of Goering made an holocaust of Namibians.

I have been a great reader of the basic Nazi texts, and thus very familiar with the self-serving arguments you use: I know another 50 along the same lines. 

For example, you say: “[Germany .. pact [with] the Soviets and enable Germany to swiftly conquer Poland and reincorporate the lands it had lost 20 years before.” That’s cute, isn’t it? Many ignorant US citizens will agree with you, and thus will find yourself. However Poles will understand that you say Poland should not have been allowed to exist again, after generations of racist occupation, abuse and enslavement by Russia and Germany. Oh, you are in honorable company: Keynes sailed that racist boat, arguing in his miserable little book that Poles couldn’t manage an economy.

The Nazis proceeded to kill so many Poles that the population of Poland went from 35 millions in 1939 down to 24 millions in 1946.

In the end, in their dozens of thousands of extermination camps, the Nazis assassinated more than twenty million. To argue that this all happened because of the French is an argument the Nazis rolled out in 1945. There was never a question Britain would intervene when the fascists attacked the Republic in Spain. It’s British and US opposition which made the French decide not to intervene. Similarly in 1938, when France nearly went to war against Hitler allied to Czechoslovakia. In the end, France didn’t want more of a conflict with the US and UK. 

***

Cognitive Derangement Syndrome Is Still Poorly Analyzed:

One should looking coldly at what happened to Germany in 1853-1945. Not just because the major traits of history have to be drawn. It’s not just a question of historical establishment of the truth. It is also a question of how come the cognition of supposedly civilized people, especially the Germans, the Nazis and the US public, could fail to this extent? The same forces are still at work, because they were never exposed, let alone condemned. 

The plutocratic effect was central to the German tragedy: Germans thought and felt, just as they had been programmed by their masters… including being imprinted to be ruled by evil (helped along by the ideology of Prussian Slave Master, Immanuel Kant… who is viewed to this day as a great philosopher, because he promoted bling obedience to… slave masters.) Kant is admired, to this day, in “humanities” departments, precisely because he is so inhuman. So are his infernal consorts, Herder, Hegel, Marx… All of them, and lesser German philosophical critters, and quite a few French, admirers of the concept of dictatorship… thus of Hitler, Stalin, and their ilk. Thus De Beauvoir and Sartre, after doing the Nazi thing in 1940-44, did the Castro-Che Guevara-Mao thing in the 1960s: same general idea, dictatorship is good. 

The Nazi De Beauvoir should have at least been condemned to be shot… Instead, now she is the object of a cult. Now a cult for Nietzsche is to be commended. Nietzsche hated the German drift into galloping racism and invasive militarism  he himself observed, and stridently condemned… As Einstein did (all too much) later. Nietzsche was good, because he resisted infamy, De Beauvoir was bad, because she promoted the idea that one should collaborate with infamy.

All those who, to this day, regret, as Jane Weir above, or Keynes and his admirers (Krugman) that Eastern Europe, including Poland and Czechoslovakia, was freed from German racist subjugation and exploitation are either plain Nazis, or then are still deeply affected by the Cognitive Derangement Syndrome which is behind the most infamous ideologies of history.

Some of this Cognitive Derangement Syndrome is fully in evidence in the USA today. Using gross maneuvers to manipulate public opinion, some of the principal enablers of the Iraq War are trying to make it so as to have their own establishment, long in power, gain the US presidency. How? Well, while US citizens whine about Martin Luther King, they forget to ask themselves what MLK would have thought about the invasion of Iraq, how he would acted against it… And who exactly enabled that atrocity. They are in your face everyday, just look.

President Obama recently, in an excellent pantomime, explained, in a few seconds that the Cognitive Derangement Syndrome emanated from a lack of attention span, and a disconnect between the gravity of what one did. What Obama said was that scapegoating should be serious business. Instead those young punks are just interested in changing channels, because they are fundamentally bored… and boring.

Relation with the preceding essay on why the Versailles Treaty, albeit good, was not so good as to destroy the racist, fascist ideology which affected Germany? Let me explain.

Scapegoating the French Republic for causing what she fought, racist fascism, is dishonest and correspond simply to people who know, deep down inside, that the US profited from Nazism, so they are anxious to accuse others to have caused it. When the truth is that, if the USA had lined itself up with France in 1939 (as the UK did), World War Two and its atrocities would have petered out.

Patrice Ayme

A Bad Assassination By Plutocrats, For Plutocrats: Che Guevara 

January 12, 2020

I have been highly critical of the excesses of Athens in defending herself during the Peloponnesian War (Such as the infamous holocaust of Mylo, with its grotesque justification). And I exceriorate tyrants such as Constantine, Napoleon, Louis XIV, Kaiser WII, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito, etc. for their human rights destruction. So it may seem strange my war against Islamism goes as far as approving the execution of a few Islam Fundamentalist terrorists (while being mild with Saudi’s MBS… although he is embarked on mass lethal war in Yemen, and a questionable relationship with assassinating an editorialist of the Washington Post…).

Well, I am far from approving all the activities of the US armed forces and secret services. I am not just talking about the Banana wars of the 1920s, 30s, in service of plutocrats, which the head of the US Marine Corps, Major General Butler then correctly decried. The assassination of Che Guevara (see below) is more of the same. See:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2016/04/16/military-industrial-complex-a-necessary-danger-to-civilization/

But also of more obscure actions, such as lawyer Donovan, soon to found the OSS, going to Yugoslavia in July 1941 to foment trouble against the Nazis… something that resulted in the death of more than a million Yugoslavs… ultimately just to extend the US world empire, on the cheap.) The list of various exaction campaigns perpetrated by the US government against other nations is in the hundreds… However, fighting Islamism (instead of using it as was long done, starting in the 1930s) is a good thing… And the USA has finally joined France on the correct side of the struggle against a superstition justifying sexism, stupidification, terror and dictatorship

***

Eliminating Soleimani was a question of world public security:

Major General Soleimani of Iran, an authentic war hero, and an imminent (mass) killer was a master Islamist general. Soleimani was excellent at using both Suni and Shiite, even arming them against each other, his Quds force pulling the strings. The end result was a projection of Iranian Islamist power westward, greatest, arguably, since the Eight Century.

One lesson of history is that Islamist military adventures have to be taken seriously. The diminutive Arab Islamist power quickly destroyed several large empires, including Zoroastrian Sassanid Persia, and half of Rome, in a few years, in perhaps the greatest military feat of history.

Soleimani promoted Islam, an ideology most successful, precisely because it is most friendly to dictators.

***

Che Dead

Whereas Che Guevara promoted, however violently and idiotically, the struggle against inequality… a much better cause: 

However, those of Marxist inspiration tend to use dictatorial means, as promoted by Marx (following in a sense, Julius Caesar…)

Che’s hysterical ideology advocated exporting “revolution” to any country whose leader is supported by the empire (the United States) while falling out of favor with its peasants. Guevara talks about how constant guerrilla warfare taking place in non-urban areas can overcome (plutocratic) leadership. That was, and is, eminently stupid, and not supported by the facts, poor peasantry being militarily important, potentially, only in very few countries… and thus, that’s not what happened where revolutions worked!

***  

I always was against the execution of Che Guevara. It was an extra-judicial assassination, the way it happened, with nothing to justify it. The Che failed in Bolivia, because there had been a redistribution of land to poor peasants in 1950s. Thus the Che found himself alone, with little to no support, hunted by the CIA and its trained helpers. Bolivia was still replete with racism and massive inequality (I have lived there, long ago)… But that Bolivian racism and inequality could be endured… whereas the mix of dictatorship, Mafia, United Fruits and US exploitation in the 1950s Cuba was not tolerable; so Castro and Che succeeded in Cuba, not Bolivia, for the same reason that revolution could succeed in Russia, not the USA.

The ongoing threat posed by Che Guevara to Bolivia was nonexistent (nearly 2,000 soldiers trapped his little band of 17 famished guerillas; a goat shepherd Bolivian woman had apparently revealed their whereabouts…). One could safely have detained him, indefinitively, there was no human reason to assassinate him (officially CIA was against it). It was a crime, and that is why the Che was assassinated, precisely because it was a crime. US plutocrats involved in latin America and their CIA helpers were all for a reign of terror.

The CIA denied having killed Che. But, a few years after the crime, as it turned out, I talked with the Bolivian Justice minister. He told me: “There was nothing we could do. Our hands were completely tied. And it’s true to this day. We do exactly what the US tell us to do.” I didn’t realize at the time how exceptional that exchange was. I was direct eyewitness to history (and the lying snakes).

***

In this 1967 photo provided by Felix Rodriguez, CIA agent and US soldier Rodriguez, left, is shown with (still alive!) Che Guevara, center, before Guevara was executed in Bolivia. (AP Photo/Courtesy of Felix Rodriguez)

According to Rodriguez, this was all very personal, as his family had suffered in Cuba from Che and his ilk……

Another eyewitness of the general scene, shortly after Che’s execution, thinks Rodriguez killed Che. There are official orders, and then there are real orders.

Newsweek, 10/9/2017: 

A White House memorandum signed by Walt Whitman Rostow, national security adviser to President Lyndon B. Johnson, also attributed the order to kill Guevara to Bolivian military leader General Alfredo Ovando Candía. “I regard this as stupid,” Rostow wrote about the execution order, adding, “but it is understandable from a Bolivian standpoint.”

Two American human and civil rights lawyers however didn’t believe the CIA role could be so easily dismissed. In their book Who Killed Che? How the CIA Got Away With Murder, Michael Ratner and Michael Steven Smith reviewed previously unpublished documents from CIA, White House, State and Defense Departments and argued the CIA wanted and expected Guevara to be killed, if captured.

“The line of the government was that: ‘The Bolivians did it as we couldn’t do anything about it.’ That isn’t true. This whole operation was organized out of the White House by Walt Whitman Rostow and the CIA,” Smith told Democracy Now in 2012.

“The U.S. wanted Che dead because that was the way to end revolutionary fervour in Latin America and around the world,” Ratner added.

The US wanted Che dead, because the US government at the time, did exactly what US plutocrats making a lot of money in Latin America told it to do. Now they make less money, and, say, China, has become much more profitable (until the apparition of the demoniac Trump, that is…)

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Ernesto Rafael Guevara de la Serna was born to a well-off family in Argentina in 1928. While studying medicine at the University of Buenos Aires, he took time off to travel around South America on a motorcycle; he witnessed the poverty and oppression of the lower classes. He received his medical degree in 1953 and continued his travels around Latin America, becoming involved with left-wing organizations, making a big noise that he couldn’t g. In the mid 1950s, Guevara met up with Fidel Castro and his group of exiled revolutionaries in Mexico. Guevara played a key role in Castro’s seizure of power from Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista in 1959. Che served as Castro’s right-hand man and minister of industry. Guevara strongly opposed U.S. domination in Latin America and advocated peasant-based revolutions to combat social injustice in Third World countries. Castro later described him as “an artist of revolutionary warfare.”

Guevara resigned—some say he was dismissed—from his Cuban government post in April 1965, possibly over differences with Castro about the nation’s economic and foreign policies: Cuba abandoned Guevara’s plans for economic diversification and rapid industrialization, and instead became a part of the Soviet empire. Guevara then disappeared from Cuba, traveled to Africa, feeding the war in Angola, and eventually resurfaced in Bolivia, where he was killed (after failing to do his homework, as I said above).

***

October 9th marks the fiftieth anniversary of the execution of Ernesto “Che” Guevara. 

Only one person witnessed Che’s death: the executioner himself, Bolivian Army Sergeant Mario Terán.  “Know that you are killing a man,” Che told him. “Now shoot here, dammit.”  The latter order refers to Che’s exhorting his reluctant killer to aim the rifle at the chest.  The president of Bolivia, René Barrientos, had already announced Che’s death in the previous day’s battle.  The mortal wounds had to appear related to a battle, not an execution. It seems that many of those who took part in Che’s death were latter tracked by Cuban agents. What is certain is that were killed.

Terán was forgiven by Cuba and given free cataract surgery.

***

Some Cuban exiles still hate Che, accusing him of extrajudicial executions. I am skeptical of these accusations, considering what we know of his later adventures, more characterized by naivety than anything else.

Executing Soleimani, Executing Heydrich: Justified In Both Cases

January 5, 2020

Why did Trump order the killing of Suleimani? There is something like enough is enough. Soleimani’s agents in Iraq alone, caused the death of 608 US soldiers (said the State Dept. last year). Soleimani was in charge, if not the soul, of Fundamentalist Islamist State Iran’s aggressive expansion throughout the Middle East, in areas that, long ago, were part of the Greco-Roman states.

Fundamentalist Islamist States are not compatible with Secular Democracy, because they don’t keep with the times (that’s what being non-secular means, fundamentally): they are still stuck in the Middle Ages, executing people for being unbelievers, as when Ali (fourth Caliph), and his sons Hussein and Hasan, ruled. Ali was the cousin and son-in-law of Mohammed. The Shiite branch of Islam regards him and certain descendants as inspired rulers, only true heirs of Mohammed. Ali was the son of Abu Talib, Mohammed’s uncle and for a time his guardian, He was also the first male convert to Islam. He died in two days from a strike of a follower of another Muslim sect, with a poisoned sword.

Ali was neither nice nor enlightened. He ordered Muslims and others he viewed as unfaithful, to be burned alive.

Democracy, the people-power, is not compatible with regimes where one religious fanatic, like Khamenei, drenched with and molded by superstition and an imaginary world full of prophets, djinns and demons rules over millions.
Moreover the Islamist State regime in Iran over which Khomeini, Khamenei and Soleimani ruled wants nuclear weapons. What for? Destroy Israel (as ordered by Literal Islam)? Destroy us? In the name of their demon in the sky?

[I tried to post a picture of Soleimani, but was prevented to do so by the internet dictators who mind us. After wasting a full hour on this, I give up. Forbidding to post a picture is as anti-democratic as it gets!]

Suleimani (saluting) and Iranian Pope-Emperor Khamenei.

This is a small planet, and there is no space for secular democracy, and its deadly enemies, brandishing nuclear weapons.
Time to review, and thus learn, history. So as not to repeat it, the nuclear way.

In the Second World War, the French Republic was initially held back, and prevented (in 1933, 1935, 1936, and 1938) by the British and the American governments to do anything about Hitler.

Finally, after the fall of the Spanish Republic to the Nazis and their allies, Britain joined France in giving guarantees to Poland (in the addendum to the Polish-French defense treaty). Meanwhile the US was clamoring for peace, although hundreds of thousands of undesirable Germans had already been incarcerated or eliminated by the Nazis. US pseudo-intellectuals, and the US Congress were still viewing France and Britain as the problem, while the Nazis had started to systematically kill Polish civilians (by bombing mills, and hospitals, inter alia). A US law condemned US citizens who did as little as stepping on a French or british boat (Fall 1939).

The holocaust of World War Two (more than 4% of humanity killed) was rendered possible by the division of the democracies, and the party of pro-Nazis disguised as advocates of “peace”. We have a similar situation now. Actually, Hitler was strongly influenced by Islam, because Islam was a war religion and it hated the Jews.
Hitler said so, and was right: some sacred Muslim writings say Judgment day will not happen before all Jews are killed. Here is an example.

Hadith 41;6985: ”Allah’s Messenger: The last hour would NOT COME UNLESS the Muslims will FIGHT AGAINST THE JEWS and the MUSLIMS WOULD KILL THEM until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree, and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and KILL HIM…”

By executing Suleimani, the US government put its foot down. It is similar to the execution of Reinhard Heydrich by the British. Except Suleimani was a mix of Heydrich and Himmler. (Right, the Nazis exacted great vengeance after Heydrich’s execution. The answer to this is to make a more detailed list of criminals against humanity, and punish them in the future.)
A slight difference between Nazi Germany, also a religious cult, and Shiite Iran, is that the dictatorship in Iran was never elected… Whereas the Nazis initially were, and went through referendums and a simulacrum of democracy thanks to the “Enabling Act”…
Having nuclear armed superstitious dictatorship left free to expand their influence and means is the recipe for the end of not just democracy on this planet, but the biosphere itself. The demons of the Middle Ages belong to history, not the future. And if to make them pass away requires lethal force, so be it. Last thing we need is a nuclear Pearl Harbor, or the nuclear equivalent of the battle of France of 1940.

In 1940, the French army, which had more and better tanks, a bigger Navy, and an air force just as big (although half of it was outside France, and the latest fighters had not been deployed yet in sufficient numbers) was defeated mostly because it was taken by surprise. Surprise, first of all, in the nature of the attack (which was so desperate that it was completely crazy, out of war manuals), surprise, because they didn’t see it coming (unbelievably the French and British didn’t know where the German army was), and surprise in crucial technical details (such as equipping the superior French tanks with radio; without radio, those tanks were vulnerable, all the more as their crews were too small). Surprise also because everybody knew the French army was superior to the Nazi one, so the basic precaution of keeping a reserve had not been taken, while, hubristically, the French rushed to save the perfidious Netherlands…

The best way to win wars is not to avoid them at all cost, as ignorant peaceniks affect to believe, but to engage in them in a timely manner. Winning the potential war was helped by eliminating a fanatical rogue Iranian murderer with immense powers of destruction. And the best way to engage in holocausts is not to fight wars in the name of humanity.

It is reassuring to see that the present US government learned something from the 1930s fiasco of peace at any cost…

Patrice Ayme

***

P/S:

There were UN sanctions against Soleimani from 2007, for terrorism. By 2011, sanctions were extended by the US, the EU, for repressing and killing civilians in Syria rebelling against the dictatorship there (which Soleimani supported enormously)… especially after an alleged plan to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the US…

On the face of it, Quds general Soleimani was the biggest terrorist, ever, much bigger than Bin Laden and Al Baghdadi, by orders of magnitude.

I was against the attacks on Iraq… from 1990 to 2003. Especially the 2003 invasion. We would have been better off with Saddam Hussein still in power. However the Islamist State in Iran is a major problem… for civilization. Iraq, while an authoritarian dictatorship, was secular, and had lots of nice modern laws copied on the West, as Saddam himself, somewhat baffled, noticed.
The question of why was iraq attacked than has to do with… fracking, US fossil fuel control… And general political control of the world, especially the EU, Russia…

***

P/S 2: Agnès Callamard is a French Human Rights expert and Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions at the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). She is also the Director of Columbia University’s Global Freedom of Expression project.

Callamard told CNN that such actions (such as eliminating one of the world’s biggest terrorists) are rewriting the rules — and she believes a bigger issue needs to be addressed.
What kind of institutions and rules will best protect people around the world, and do we think that kind of strike is conducive to an international rule of law?
The answer is simple: secularism and direct democracy. Striking the enemies of both is a question of life and death.
Little ignorant cowards who never had a Fatwa against them can’t get it, and are enemies of civilizational progress, in the same fashion as Nazi collabos in World War Two…
Which law, anyway? We are all held hostages to Launch On Warning” (LOW)… Does the PC drenched Agnès Callamard even heard of LOW? Probably not, not her expertise, i’m sure. Still, LOW is what the LAW is submitted to.

Better Win War Now, than lose it tomorrow. 

January 4, 2020

The history of civilization is a struggle between fascism and democracy. Fascism confers military power and the extinction of the enemy. Democracy confers intelligence thus progress of the brutal evil of nature, and provides with the natural state of the genus Homo, comprising all the freedoms.

Thus any battle against fascism is a battle for humanity against the Dark Side… Except when the most advanced, most human party, has to use the power of fascism and the Dark Side to destroy its enemies… This later logical twist, that of the “Just War” has been known ever since civilization exists, and assuredly for much longer. Unsophisticated individuals friendly to fascism and the Dark Side always brandish the utilization of the later as the ultimate defense of the most advanced civilization to claim that the forces of greater light and goodness are not any better than their inferiors.

At the Battle de la Marne, Civilization, carried by the wings of the human spirit, Won Over Racist, Holocaustic Fascism, And That’s The Truth. Racist fascist prone to exterminate others (for example exterminate not just Jews, but Iraqis), will disagree… But with these truths we will extinguish them…

They even go further: they claim there is no such a thing as “better” (I have explained that this is exactly what the Nazis, and Soviet and US plutocrats wanted to hear, after 1933, and this is why the theme was embraced with such alacrity by European intellectuals basically paid, by the new masters, to destroy their own civilization. This is why someone like De Beauvoir served the Nazis, and then the Americans (under cover of “decolonization”), then Castro, Mao and other degenerate dictatorialists (Marxist In Name Only Weasels: MINOWs).

The incapacity of many indoctrinated since has enabled them to deny the very concept of superiority (thus progress). They became perfect slaves for plutocracy, the Sheep-People, the Sheeple. I talk to some recently, they attacked even the idea of controlled thermonuclear fusion, because it would lead to better tools, hence better weapons, hence the idea that there is such a thing as progress, thus superiority.

It’s not even the Inversion of All Values plutocracy is keen to achieve, it’s they very denial that there are values: nihilism to serve The Man, Pluto.

US President Trump authorized the attack early Friday at Baghdad International Airport that killed Iran’s top security and intelligence commander, Major General Qassim Suleimani, head of the Quds Force (declared a terrorist organization in the West).

White House: “Suleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel. But we caught him in the act. We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war.

The elimination of that famous enemy of democracy and friend of Allah (in His Shiite version), was achieved apparently with new weapons, ultra precise small rockets…

What was Suleimani, one of Iran’s most feared killers doing in Iraq? Was he invited there by the government? Why shouldn’t the lethal enemies of democracies not be destroyed in a timely manner? When Hitler rose, the US did just two things: 1) prevent the French Republic to strike in a timely manner to respond to the Nazi invasions of Spain and the Rhineland. 2) Let Texaco fuel the air bridge and then the rogue army which enabled the fascists to destroy the Spanish Republic… with Texas oil. That amused Hitler for years.

Superstitious religious terrorism, quickly followed by the invasion of small, very determined savage barbarian tribes, and alliances thereof, caused the Fall of the “Occidental Part” of the Roman state. In 394 CE, using savage Goths as shock troops, emperor Theodosius I destroyed the secular occidental Roman army led by the very experienced Frankish Roman generalissimo Arbogast. By 406 CE, the Roman Occidental Part was pierced through by many German nations… Soon all the way to North Africa.

Something similar, a brutal military collapse, unrecoverable and unrecovered, happened to the Oriental part when the small Arab army shattered the Roman army. In both cases, the consequences were civilizational collapse and an enormous diminution of the population.

Why did this happen? Why the collapse of the Greco-Roman world state? Democratic forces didn’t take seriously enough religious terrorism fed militarism, the exact mix Iran is now brimming with. “Taking seriously” means that you go to war and reduce the enemy into insignificance, before it grows too powerful… as Hitler had become in 1939, when France and Britain, unprepared, declared war to the Nazis. If the French army had fought the Nazis earlier, it would have learned the tricks needed May 10, 1939. But it didn’t. So French tanks didn’t have radio, and too few crew members. The suggestions of De Gaulle to create large tank formations had been followed by the Nazis more than by the French. Also the French and British air forces needed a few days to perfect the aerial air combat and ground support stunts the Nazis had three years to refine in Spain. So the British and French air forces couldn’t destroy the provisional Nazi bridges on the Moselle.   

The fulcrum of the Western Civilization which became the World Civilization most of the planet enjoys now, was France (long story, lasting more than 3,000 years…) Not by coincidence, France has also been the country most at war. Ever. And, also not by coincidence, the next most bellicose country was China.

War, fundamentally is not just always a deranged rage, but also, when it turns out to have been a good war, a debate where the best ideas won… An example is the crushing of German racial lethal fascism by France and her descendants. It promoted better ideas, for example the fact that the US Army realized it became a better fighting force by incorporating Afro-Americans and other “coloreds” in combat (see the Tuskegee Airmen of the 99th and 332th Air Squadrons, the Black squadron engaged spectacularly at the precedingly faltering Anzio beach head).

It’s not just that civilization has to be defended against fascism. It is also that it has to be born violently from the prior fascism it has to escape to rise again, like the Phoenix (example abounds such as the rise, and the rebirth, of Athenian democracy, or the rise of the Roman, French or American Republics, etc.)

The phoenix exists, it’s human intelligence, always born by branching out from the intellectual, and political, and economic, and plutocratic fascisms which preceded them.

Want progress? Engage in war, and it will be a good war, if it starts with an alliance with truths. Better and deeper truths. And remember this: it will be hard, and you better love fighting!

Patrice Ayme

 

Si Vis Pacem, Para Scientiam: Science For War, War For Science

November 24, 2019

Si Vis Pacem, Para Scientiam? If you want peace, prepare for science? The original Latin proverb is: Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum. If you want peace, prepare war. Cute, but not enough. My proverb is more to the point.

At first the original Roman proverb, want peace, prepare war, sounds pretty deep, in the philosophy of military science, and so did I feel, for decades…

However, in the end the Romans were defeated. They didn’t get defeated once, or a few times, and then ultimately won the wars… As the Franks/French did so many times. No, the Romans, starting under Marcus Aurelius, started to lose… and lose, and lose, didn’t not recover very well, and finally, two centuries later, by 406 CE, four years before the fall of Rome to the Goths, the empire was riddled with armed German nations [1].  

So the proverb was nearly right, thus still wrong, a near-miss, the equivalent of the big splash the Bismarck succeeded to land next to one of the two British battleships assaulting it, drenching the command deck of its enemy… but failing to score. The British did score, though, and, within minutes, the Bismarck had lost the ability to aim its fire, becoming just a big fat target for the Brits.

By 406 CE, the Roman empire was also a big fat target for the Barbarians. To try to defeat the Goths later, the Romans had to muster an army mostly made of Huns at Toulouse. The Goths still won and killed the Roman general. That defeat of  Litorius was in 439 CE. In 451 CE, after being chased and harassed by a Frankish army, a coalition of Franks, Goths and Romans (under the plausibly double dealing generalissimo Aetius) defeated the Huns spectacularly.

Clearly the Romans were fighting a lot, prepared or not, and prepared to this mess, they were not. Something deeper had gone very wrong. Actually Aetius was assassinated later in palace intrigue.   

Because they only prepared for war, the Romans lost to the other guys, because the other guys had also prepared for war; the Parthians, then the Sassanids, and finally, worse of all, the Arabs. The Romans should have prepared for (more) science.

Greek fire was a sort of napalm spewed from metallic machines which could spew enormous fire at great range, from 15 meters to up to 450 meters when loaded on catapults. In the first battle which saved Constantinople, more than 2,000 Arab ships were destroyed, and only seven (7) survived! There was a repeat of that latter. Then the Arabs launched the plan of taking Constantinople from behind (as the Turks would o, seven centuries later!). So the Arabs conquered North Africa, Spain… Only to see three successive invasions of Francia crushed to smithereens, causing the fall of Umayyad Caliphate in Damascus… Greek fire was used to destroy the Arab fleet in the Gulf of Saint Tropez in the Tenth Century, while a Frankish army was pressing inland on the Muslim redoubt at la Garde Freinet. The Arabs never figured out how it worked… And we still don’t know, actually, so well guarded was the secret. In comparison, how to make nuclear bombs is no secret…

Greek Fire had saved the Oriental empire. It was then superseded by black powder. French engineers (more exactly the Bureau brothers) were able to make field guns, guns which could be wheeled into a moving battlefield, with which twenty years after roasting Joan of Arc, the “100” Year War was won…

To make sure one will win, one doesn’t just need overwhelming force [2]. One needs overwhelming smarts. Heraclius, the Roman emperor who defeated the Sassanids, was one of humanity’s greatest generals, achieving an incredible Blitzkrieg. However, Heraclius had fallen ill and was unable to personally lead his armies to resist the Arab conquests of Syria and Roman Paelestina in 634 (he was sick in Alexandria). An incredibly stupid tactical engagement of the vastly superior Roman army, in a place that put it at a heavy disadvantage, using impatient, foolhardy tactics, led to its defeat by the much smaller (40,000) Arab army. The Arabs then did something no one expected: they killed all males in age of bearing arms. (So here we are!)

But the really deep question is: why had it become a fair fight between Romans and Barbarians? How come Barbarians had achieved military technological equality? In short: because Rome had become a stupid dictatorship. Excuse the pleonasm: all dictatorships are stupid, my dear Marx! 

What keeps the peace nowadays? Some erroneously believe that’s because we are all so civilized. They look at the plutocrats who feed them to say such inanities, and they love themselves for being so smart.  A casual look at leading politicians show that this is not the case: civilization is not improving, just Machiavellianism (as happened in Late Rome). 

Peace is kept, because the three leading military powers of the West have no interest to wage war; they already have what they want, profit from the status quo… And the leading Western military powers have had, recently, huge military technological superiority (now quickly fading, though…) 

***

Fourth Spy Unearthed in U.S. Atomic Bomb Project
His Soviet code name was Godsend, and he came to Los Alamos from a family of secret agents.”

The New York Times just ran an article exposing still one more spy at the heart of the Manhattan project, the nuclear bomb. A spy no one knew existed before, a physicist who was spying with the apparent help of his brothers. When the spies fled to the USSR in the early fifties, the FBI kept it secret (to keep the existence of its own informants secret). 

In any case, the Manhattan project leaked a lot; there were a lot of “Communists” at the time among intellectuals (“Communist” meant, in practice, at the time, infeodated to the fascist Stalin…) Carried over, the ebullient PM Churchill wanted to imprison indefinitively the top French atomic scientists… because they knew so much [3] 

The Manhattan project’s ancestor was launched in France in January 1938, thanks to the discovery by Nobel Irene Curie of the nuclear chain reaction with U235. [6]

Differently from the French, German scientists didn’t know a bomb was possible. French scientists and their plans fled to Britain, part of the materials was sheltered underground with the Crown Jewels, then the entire project transferred to Canada and the US. 

Secrecy in military matters is crucial: had the Nazis known in 1938 what the French knew, they would have developed a nuclear bomb. A better way to slow down neutrons was found (boron); then Plutonium created in reactors, the implosion pit invented with neutron triggers, etc. Lots of crucial details.

Too much Western (military) tech flows to the regime of dictator Xi, through armies of dual use spies, and Chinese investment in universities related startups.

Military superiority of (representative pseudo-) democracy, is a war the West can’t lose against blatant dictatorships. Rome, initially equipped with Gallic (!) weaponry, lost military superiority to Parthians, Sassanids, Goths. Yet, 

Constantinople was saved by Gregian fire (700 CE). Ever since Franks and their successors kept military technological superiority; that’s how the West (“democracy”) won!

Science for war, war for science. It has been going for millions of years. Progress doesn’t come cheap. It first have to fight those who want none. For a whole bunch of reasons. From the prosaic, to the most petty [4]. Those in power find progress hard, because, by definition, it means a move forward (forward (pro)-walk (gradi)), Any move is a threat to the establishment [5].

Science, and the scientific method, are as old as the genus Homo (and certainly older). How many today could go naked in the bush, and survive? Not many, because they don’t know much, starting with making and feeding fire… War rewards smarts, and reciprocally. Is it mean, is it hopeless? No, it just is. Science is about what is, and war about creating more of what is [7].

Progress is not innocuous: it’s a war, war against the unknown, war against the certainties of the past, and an understanding moving forward. In any case, it messes minds up, and many don’t like that… Especially when someone else starts the mess [8]. Well, they will still be pushed out of the way…

Ultimately, the giant walls of Constantinople fell to the giant guns of the Muslim invader. And a civilization fell. Did the famed (and imaginary) “Muslim science” (Islamophiles love to promote) succeed that feat? No. The engineers who made those guns were Hungarians. The assault troops who stormed Constantinople were “Janaissaries” Islamized slaves who had been captured as the Christian boys they were… and then brainwashed, imprinted, indoctrinated, and made offers they couldn’t refuse (everything they want, or impalement).

Dictatorships don’t play nice. Later printing was enough to earn the death penalty in Turkey, and that lasted centuries (in France too, but only if unauthorized, and it didn’t last; thanks Francois I for that). Right now the West’s technology is leaking to Xi, a dictator (he says it himself…) OK, maybe he is a “friend” of Trump, but that is still no excuse, let alone a guarantee, and the West should meditate the preceding…

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] Ironically, in the Seventh Century, after a horrendous war, the Romans, launching themselves south from Armenia, destroyed the Sassanids. However, this is just after this that the crafty Muhammad attacked… an exhausted Roman army, and a devastated Sassanid army and schizoid, civil war government. So, weirdly, Roman triumph was quickly followed by the destruction and occupation of ⅔ of the empire… 

***

[2] Overwhelming force failed during the Battle of France of 1940: all together, it looked as if France and Britain couldn’t be defeated. And actually the French Foreign Legion had put to flight, after two combined air-sea landings, elite Nazi divisions to flight in Norway. At the famous Midway battle. A small US fleet sank a more than twice bigger, in aircraft carriers alone Japanese fleet (and the Japs had a whole battleship fleet on top of that).

***

[3] Irene Curie and company were indeed dedicated Communists… until at the world intellectual Communist Congress in 1953 the Soviet delegate called Sartre a “dactylographic hyena”… The French delegation, headed by Irene, stormed out…

***

[4] A friend of mine a research Quantum Computing pure mathematician with chair and all the bells and whistles, medals and paid CO2 travelling, sent me a cartoon of Scott Aaronson, a revered figure of Quantum Computing software. The idea, apparently was to make fun of the ideas I proposed on Quantum and Brain. I am used to being made fun in that domain (50 years and counting)… And I sort of count Penrose among my students, so I am used to scoff.

However, why are paid intellectuals so motivated to be offensive to others, even at the price of being idiotic? It’s the old monkey coming out. They are looking for prestige, and want to pull rank. It’s not enough that they are paid to think. It’s even actually, a secret flaw: in spite of all the honors, isn’t it what prostitute do? Money for posing?

Oh, and the cartoon shows Aaronson either doesn’t know Quantum Physics at undergraduate level, or doesn’t hesitate to mislead the public about it… Just to claim he has the awe and mystery, with his Quantum computing algorithm, and others have not. Hopefully more on this later… Got me to think about the axioms of Quantum Physics…

***

[5] This is why the establishment hates Trump so much; because he moves things, and ask why is it the son of Biden gets diamonds from a Chinese plutocrat? And the like. Amusingly, when Macron started to tax tech giants at 3% revenue (as yours truly had begged for for more than a decade…), Trump went all enraged… But apparently Macron was able to talk him out of reprisals against France… Trump, a pure product of the financial establishment and its entanglement with subsidized construction, has been so vilified over the years, that he turned into an enemy of the establishment, where it hurts. The opposite can happen, the most famous case being Perikles… who ended up passing anti-immigrant laws who hurt Athens and himself, and were completely contradictory to the start of his political career… Also, he destroyed Athens in the guise of saving it… Powerful men turn into rogue rockets at the drop of a pin. That’s why we should organize the world to do without them…

***

[6] Maybe because I pointed out the origin of the Manhattan project in France, the New York Times censored my comment in the article linked above. But that was so true the nuclear business with Norway was probably a factor in Hitler’s invasion. In any case, when Norway fell to the Nazis, so full of spies Norway was, that the flight carrying, supposedly, heavy water to France was intercepted by the Luftwaffe. However, French agents had secretly transferred the heavy water into another plane on the airfield, and the heavy water escaped the Nazis…  Long live the new York Times and its Uber Alles view of history!

***

[7] Civilization, as it is, was created by war (in particular, the USA, in its extravagant beauty). The PC establishment doesn’t want to be reminded of that, because it’s sponsored by the plutocratic establishment, which itself, would prefer to see everybody asleep, far from any rebellious passion…

***

[8] I have seen individuals who make a show to project equanimity, gravitas get all enraged… when I proposed to change something to the US Constitution… It’s funny how something so small spiritually can engage minds: Homo takes thinking seriously, even fatally… That’s actually a strength of the species as it provides an environment in which mental progress can thrive…

 

 

 

 

Warning: War Can Be Very Surprising. The Case of the Battle Of France, May-June 1940

August 27, 2019

This is my answer to the following question: “Why didn’t Britain and France throw their full force at the western German pincer instead of evacuating at Dunkirk?”

At first sight, on paper, the French army had plenty enough power to cut the Von Manstein/Guderian “Sickle Cut” (an expression invented later by Churchill, apparently), just after it happened. It was tried and nearly worked (from the north, and from the south).

However, the nine French armored division north of the Sickle Cut couldn’t move (their supply lines were cut, inter alia). Actually they couldn’t move enough: they attempted to move from the north, but a British failure prevented them to go all the way. Immediately north of the Cut the formidable Third Heavy Armored French division had its fuel cut off.

French Tank B Which Held the fortress at Dunkirk. Nazi picture

One of the reasons the Nazis succeeded to pierce at Sedan is that only one, just one, French Reserve infantry B division faced four elite Nazi formations, including three Panzer Divisions and the superlative Gross Deutschland regiment. Plus the entire Luftwaffe. Weirdly (Guderian marvelled), long range guns from the Maginot line south didn’t engage. Worse: the Second Armored British division was supposed to be there, behind the French B division, but was not. Overall strategy assumed it was there… but it was not. Had it been there, with its superior Mathilda tanks, the Sickle Cut would not have happened.

The other reason, of course was surprise, Pearl Harbor style. A high German officer with the earlier German attack plan was in a plane that landed in Belgium (which was secret and implicit ally to France and Britain, but not officially so). He tried to burn the plan. The captured documents confirmed the correctness of the French strategy. However, the Nazi High Command, supposing (correctly) that the plans had been captured, was then forced into preparing a completely different plan, which was highly unlikely.

The Belgians had evacuated the Ardennes to the point they barely opposed any resistance, so little resistance that the extent of the enormous size of the Nazi attack through the Ardennes went undetected for several days. The French had assumed the Belgians could and would, have told them, had an enormous thrust happen through the Ardennes. The Belgians didn’t. “Neutral” small powers such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland, were crucially helpful to the Nazis in various ways: the Belgian and Luxembourgian incapacity to detect two-third of the German army passing through their territory or their unwillingness to warn the French High Command of the presence of millions of Germans, and dozens of thousands of vehicles in southern Belgium, was a necessary condition for the Nazi victory of May-June 1940.

At Sedan in 1940, ONE French B Reserve Division got attacked by the Second, First and Tenth Panzer (left to right), plus other elite formations and the entire Luftwaffe… An enormous, nearly unbelievable concentration of force. The Nazis were fighting with the energy of despair, because they felt that, barring a miracle, they had already lost the war. In contrast, the French and British fought with the over-confidence of those who are sure to win: they didn’t bother looking fot the worst possible case.

When Commander in Chief Maurice Gamelin decided to send general Henri Girauld’s mobile reserve of seven armored divisions (7th army) to the Netherlands, north of Nazi general Bock’s army groups pushing through Belgium (!), Gamelin’s adjoint, and second in command of the French army, general Alphonse Georges, vigorously protested as he pointed out to Gamelin that this exposed the entire French defense system to exactly what happened: a Sickle Cut out of Sedan. Maybe Gamelin thought there would be time to react, he was not just an arrogant idiot full of himself. Nobody thought an entire army, let alone a motorized one, could sneak through the Ardennes. As the entire Nazi army went undetected (except by one Spitfire pilot, who was not believed), for many days, the surprise was total, and it was not all Gamelin’s fault.

Next, the Nazis, full of amphetamines, didn’t sleep for ten days or so. surprising Gamelin with what he called “torrents of tanks, which had to be stopped”.

At some point heavy French tanks, in the night, arrived well within shooting distance of the top Nazi generals (including Guderian, who was heading the entire armored thrust, on the battlefield)… but they didn’t detect them.

Had the French kept the mobile reserve in reserve, by the Maginot line, the “Sickle Cut would have turned into a crushing defeat for the Nazis and probably a coup against Hitler…

Nazi Panzer Korps invading France, 1940

But just one man, general Gamelin, took all the foolhardy decisions… And one man can be very wrong. As soon as Nazi engineers made successful kamikaze charges, exploding themselves against French fortifications at Sedan, the Battle of France was lost, because of the disposition of the French (and British) armored formations.

The ceasefire occurred at the end of June because France had little taste for waging war further against Japan, Germany, Italy, the USSR and, implicitly, the USA. (The gigantic losses of World War One, when France fought Germany basically alone for a year, were fresh in memory).

Roosevelt was first to recognize the Vichy Coup and sent his right hand man, four star admiral Leahy as ambassador. In Roosevelt’s view, dismantling the French empire and making (say) New Caledonia into a new Hawai’i, was Hitler’s main function… The rest was details. 

Conscious that the White House and the US Deep State had instrumentalized Hitler,to wrestle their empires from the Europeans, the US press stayed mum about the Holocaust of Poles and Jews which the Nazis had started, in 1939… for all to see. Shocking truth, but truth nevertheless. A (still) uncomprehending New York Times (they should read me more!) now bemoans that fact: that they knew, and didn’t tell.

If it had been told to the American people that an holocaust was ongoing, and the president was willing (he was not, as he only obsessed about new Caledonia), the US would have engaged in the war early in 1940, and the war would have turned against the Nazis right away… Also France would have kept fighting. France ceased fire at the end of June 1940, mostly because the US refused to open fireFrance refused to play the little US game leveraging Hitler, any longer, now that it was so clear. (That decision may have been subconscious, but it’s what happened, because, in retrospect, it was the most obvious reason on which to act…) 

Had France persisted to fight into July 1940, it could have held North Africa indefinitely… As it turned out, French Africa was back in the war, two years later. The French victory at Bir Hakeim, a modern Thermopylae on a grander scale May-June 1942) , crucially saved the British Eighth Army from annihilation, said Churchill, and evidence shows. Had the Eighth been annihilated, all the Jews in Israel, and all the oil in Iraq, would have been in Nazi hands…

A Nazi victory in 1940 was extremely unlikely, hence the overconfidence of the French and British High Command, and thus, paradoxically, their inattention to detail, or low probability, but extremely dangerous events… And overlooked the despair of the Nazi High Command, which led it to desperate, risky innovation. Thus the fact it was so unlikely for all to see, made it more probable, in the end.

The Sickle Cut through the Ardennes should have failed… And would have, had the British Second Armor Division been there, or the French Reserve been in reserve, or had simply the 200 kilometers of jammed Nazi troops and armor on three little roads been detected.

The one advantage the Nazis had on the French and British is that they had waged war for more than three years in Spain. So crucial little details worked perfectly on the Nazi side in 1940, like radios in tanks and ground to planes communications. Although the French and British and the Foreign Legion had just beaten elite Nazi units in Norway, that was not involving armored thrusts… The French and British learned, in a week, but by then the battle of France was lost. It was the most crucial battle of WW2, as it made the Nazi occupation of Europe possible: roughly 200,000 killed, including 50,000 elite Nazis, never to be seen again, 4,000 planes destroyed, half of them Nazis (and sorely missed during the air Battle of Britain, a few weeks later…[1]

In a drawn out war, the Franco-British naval blockade would have made Nazi Germany even more dependent upon Stalin than it already was…

Fighting a war is rolling the dice. The most unlikely events can occur. They did, in May 1940, when God was Nazi… And Roosevelt smiling. The USA just had to bark in 1940, to stop the Nazi charade, but didn’t. While the Canadians courageously landed in Brittany to stop the Nazi tide, the US, propagandized, dominated and perfused by base plutocrats, refused to help France, its parent…

The defeat of France in 1940 was nearly as surprising as if Russia and China pulled off a successful surprise attack on the USA, right now. Yes, French hubris played a role, as did Nazi despair. One may want to keep this in mind

Not to repeat history the same way, one should learn it, right. But be careful what you learn. The most significant history is not the history of art, or pretty princesses. The most significant history is that of military history, and holocausts. It’s surprising how much it repeats itself helped by astounding twists and turns in what initially looked like details.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] Far from being a walk in the park, the Battle of France cost the Luftwaffe 36 percent of its front line strength, some 1,236–1,428 aircraft were destroyed. A further 323–488 were damaged. Luftwaffe casualties amounted to 6,653 men, including 4,417 aircrew (1,129 were killed and 1,930 were reported missing). No wonder the Luftwaffe lost next the (aerial) Battle of Britain, over Britain…

85,000 French soldiers died in combat (in 6 weeks; considering the size of the populations concerned, that would be as if 700,000 US soldiers died in combat in 6 weeks, nowadays). 3,000 Senegalese Tirailleurs were murdered after being taken prisoner (as the racial Nazis viewed them as dangerous half apes)… Britain had fewer than 10,000 killed in action (extending the atrocities visited even on some French officers, not just French troops, the Nazis cold blooded assassinated dozens of British prisoners who had surrendered)

 

Lies All Over, Not Just Germany: We Need Reality, Not Frivolity

August 25, 2019

Our great “democratic” emperors are meeting in Biarritz, flushed with the arrogance of a small oligarchy imprinted to believe they have a moral right to tell a planet what to suffer.

Seventy-five years ago, Paris was freed, after 50 months of Nazi occupation (Nazism would not have happened to the extent it did, without help from the world oligarchy, direct ancestor of the one we enjoy). It happened a few weeks after the tragedy in Warsaw: civilian insurrection of the FFI (Forces Françaises Interieur), with the full participation of police and firefighters. On August 19. Within five days, it was done: the Second Armored French Division (Leclerc) followed by the US Fourth Infantry Division were in the capital, ahead of several Nazi divisions converging towards it. In five days, 5,000 people had died in combat in Paris.

Could it get worse, in the future?  Watch the Amazon, it was supposed to burn in the distant future, it’s burning now. Of course, some will sneer, evil operators are setting those fires, in the usual slash and burning technique, so it’s not really the greenhouse causing this… Yeah, remember humans are evil, especially when in power, as many of these slash and burn operators are in the Amazon?

The extent of fires in Siberia and the Amazon is entirely due to the drought the CO2 catastrophe has brought.

Not any better with our leaders: evil, and, or, dumb: the CO2 catastrophe was entirely avoidable. In 2019, around 11% of the world’s electricity is generated by about 450 nuclear power reactors. About 60 more reactors are under construction (but not in the West), equivalent to about 15% of world existing capacity. 4,000 nuclear reactors could be making 100% of the world electricity carbon free. However, because of the likes of Merkel, it has become a platitude that CO2 is better than nuclear.

To make things worse, while corrupt Germany is burning coal massively, other countries have sacrificed themselves to reduce their CO2 emissions. France, once one of the world’s largest CO2 emitters, now emits half per capita of what Germany does.

Lignite mine in Germany. For scale, notice the church in the distance… Doing such a crime is one thing, pretending one is not doing it joins insanity to criminality.

So Siberia is burning, and so is the Amazon… where, so far, there has been 80% more fires than last year, 2018. The dry season ends in October…

What’s clear is that France made huge efforts in cutting down CO2 production in the last 60 years, and China exploded its CO2 production, a testimony to how much industry got implemented there:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL5Hjg30b_M

***

Consider France: Why So Stupid Now? (Because Stupidification Enables Plutocratization!)

That country, France, produces no indigenous energy (except for hydro power all over: any river and brook is getting dammed, never mind if it damns the ecology). The country has a prestigious intellectual and technological history, arguably, the world’s most prominent. One would expect such a country to invest massively in hydrogen, nuclear, photovoltaics, and deploy battery systems, electric and hybrid vehicles. This is what France would have done, had France the mentality it had 50 years ago.

Yet, it’s not the case: only .5% of French cars are electric or hybrid, in 2019 (half of one percent, yes!) Yet, fracking for GAS was outlawed in France (although France has one century of frackable gas, that’s apparently best being purchased from Putin in French PC opinion; and although French fracking would have been more ecologically correct than German lignite). Meanwhile France ruins itself purchasing energy all over the world… And doesn’t invest enough in the needed research and development to make its own energy (as the USA, or Russia do).

France has much more sun than Germany, yet, French Photo Voltaic is tiny relative to German PV (no development!)

Germany preaches the religion of no indebtment to other countries… like the Borgia pope preaching abstinence to naive children… Indeed, Germany cheats with public subsidies: it has them and deny them to others. Germany has thousands of Landers banks, which are bankrupt, thus supported by local government, yet crucial to the German economy … a discrete arrangement not extended to other European countries.  bringing lots of them to near-bankruptcy, economic stagnation, and research dissolution. 

The world has a Germany problem, ecologically (thus economically). Germany gave up on nuclear power, instead of deploying, safer nuclear systems. Thus Germany replaced nuclear by lignite (dirtiest coal)… a sordid example, imitated in many countries. It is the same instinct to cling to the past, deploy nothing really new.     

Hambach Lignite Mine, Rheinland… A SMALL portion of it: it’s going to be 85 square kilometers. An ancient forest used to be there. Now it is an unbelievable 500 meters DEEP. Just that mine produces 40 million tons of lignite, a year. Germany lies about its climate effort. It’s actually devastating the world, for comparative advantage. OK, the US is worse… but the US is trying harder…’

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hambach_surface_mine

Europeans are so afraid to do anything wrong, they prefer not to do anything new at all… and cling to the tried and true... In a world which makes yesterday so far away as to be useless. This is enforced by the 3% Euro deficit limit (imposed on all, yet eschewed by Germany, as I said).

[Only 12 NYT readers recommended the preceding comment of mine…]

***

Comments in the NYT were illuminative, often for the character they displayed, from down below: the following one, approved by 135 sheeple, was neither here, nor there; it just shows the party of stupid wins: 

Ernest Montague

Oakland, CA Aug. 19

@Patrice Ayme Seriously? France gets something like 75% of its power from nuclear power plants. It has 68 of them. It gets over 90% of its power from nuclear and hydro. You’re not making sense, sorry. They are the world’s largest net exporter of electricity.

[135 Recommend]

***

Notice the aggressivity: I make “no sense” Montague says. And no, he is not sorry sorry, just an arrogant twerp who doesn’t know how to read, and make Trump look like Einstein… Actually, his comment doesn’t address what I said. He is not sorry, his goal is to make a fool of me, and my sophisticate opinion. 135 readers of the NYT approve this dereliction of logic and exhibition of the Dark Side. In truth:

@Ernest Montague

France gets 40% of its power from nuclear energy, and 71% of its electricity from increasingly obsolete nuclear reactors (see the difference?) You are also confusing what France did 50 years ago, investing in new energy, before the obsession with debt, and deficits, versus what France is doing now, with a maximum 3% deficit to GDP ratio. The 58 French nuclear reactors are second generation, they were conceived and built in the 1970s, all are obsolete and somewhat dangerous (safe reactors could now be designed and built to replace them… but that’s not done). 

My point is that France has not seriously invested in energy… for 50 years. The EPR reactor has been an ill conceived disaster, symbolic of the decay of French technological investment. Tellingly, the EPR tech was purchased in Germany, not evolved in France from existing reactors.

The dearth of French investment in, say, photovoltaics, is striking in France, especially in comparison with Germany. 

[Nobody recommended my reply: readers love to kill, not learn!]

***

David in Le Marche

Italy Aug. 19

@Patrice Ayme

The quantity of wrong “information” in your comment is astounding, given the ease with which one can get reliable basic (real) information from a 20-second Google search. France is famous for the Eiffel Tower, rich cuisine, and it’s massive investment in and reliance upon nuclear energy. Oh yeah, there’s Notre Dame…. the Mona Lisa. Pretty famous country. 

Germany does still use lots of coal, but is aiming for 80% reliance on renewable energy by 2050, not good enough but better policy than the USA has, given that our president and the GOP still deny human-caused climate change.

And don’t get me started on universal German healthcare and overall quality of life compared to most countries, including ours…

27 Recommend

I replied:    

@David in Le Marche

Please read my reply to Ernest. What Paul Krugman talked about is the situation now. Notre Dame was built 8 centuries ago, and the Eiffel Tower, 132 years ago. France was indeed a very high tech country, the most very high tech country since the collapse of the Roman state, 16 centuries ago. First heavy ploughs (14 centuries ago), first hydraulic hammers (ten centuries ago), first steam engine and steam boat (Papin, 17C), first balloons, first cars (18C), first photography (black and white, color), first planes (Ader, long before Wright brothers), first discovery nuclear chain reaction (Irene Curie, 1937), first transistors mass produced (1948), first integrated circuits, discovery of optical pumping (Kastler, Nobel 1953), etc. Relativity was even discovered by Poincare, including E = mcc (1899; Einstein just repeated Poincare’s work).

However, this is now Paul was talking about, and so I am… The debt obsession is recent, hypocritical, and of recent German origin (duplicating the erroneous policies of France in the 1930s, ironically enough…)

I know France extremely well (this is written from there, miles from my birthplace). 

Reading the Internet superficially and not critically will lead to believe lots of false information and fake news, and comforting but deluded, non applicable data. Let me recommend my site instead (it’s in English). You will find there a very different view of history (different because it’s more true than traditional lies…)

***

David replied to my comment very nicely (to be continued…)

Others focused on doing what they do best, aggressive lying:

Alan

Germany Aug. 20

@Patrice Ayme:

What? Germany is reducing coal mining and the use of coal, not replacing nuclear with coal. Energy costs in Germany are considerably higher than in the USA, due to  investments in ecologically better sources. Not always successfully, for instance the photoelectric industry has suffered from larger scale and cheaper manufacturing in China. But Germany is not going back to lignite.

***

Well, Alan promoted lies: Germany depends more on lignite than on any other energy source. It’s not going back, because it’s already there. 

@Alan

Learn and meditate: In 2017, 171.2 million tonnes of lignite were mined in the whole of Germany compared to 169.8 million tonnes in 2009. Do you call this a decrease?

Lignite provides 35.3 % of energy in Germany. Highest percentage in the world, highest production in the world. How many more German misinformation do we still need?

German CO2 production has stagnated for five (5) years. Here is a heads up in the last few weeks: Michael Schäfer of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) spoke of the “disastrous results” of German environmental policy.

Opposition politician and Green Party environmental expert Lisa Badum called the latest reduction (due to warm weather) “a drop in the bucket,” demanding that the government “take a much more robust approach” to emissions reductions, including steps toward an “immediate phase-out of coal.”

Genug!

***

Several comments accused me of various forms of French, or German hating (won’t show them all). 

Kenneth Thomas

Boston Aug. 20 @Patrice Ayme France gets over 70% of its electricity from nuclear power (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country). This is nothing new. France is the biggest user of nuclear power in the world. How do you not know this? That you don’t know it makes me doubt all of your factual claims.

Reply to that: I never said France was not big on nuclear power. Inventing a false statement one denounces then as a lie is an old trick to build an ad hominem disparagement, as above. Disingenuous. Thomas believes in prophets, leaders to believe, he is not about knowledge, but faith. 

***

Others opted for the pseudo-cogent approach: they want to correct “facts”, but they don’t know what “facts” are. Real facts are sincere. 

Nicolas Berger

FranceAug. 20

@Patrice Ayme

French nuclear reactors were not all built in the 1970s, the latest ones before the EPR (the so-called N4 designs) came online in the early 2000’s. French investment into nuclear power has been fairly constant since the 1960s, and it is not the case that “France has not invested in energy… for 50 years”. Please consider doing a quick internet search of your “facts” before posting incorrect information. (in this case, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France)

My reply: Those N4 reactors, four of them, came online in 2000, but they were slight modifications of the old design of the 1970s, and those modifications were designed before 1984. Defects delayed them into 2000, and there are only 4 of them; so to call them 1970s design is fair, that’s what they are. They’re officially considered to be second generation… This sort of vicious comment appearing to be cogent is characteristic of disingenuous Internet manipulations. 

***

To come back to the gist of the first essay, erroneous German policies, could be done next, commenting on an arrogant and misleading comment by a German economist commenting unfavorably on Krugman’s editorial. But then I would have to repeat myself some more. Even Krugman didn’t hit the main point, namely Germany subsidizes itself, while preventing others to do the same…

We need reality, not frivolity. We live in dictatorship: a few dictate to the multitude. There is a war on truth. We can win it only by telling the truth about war. War is what all too many people love to do: it gives them meaning, analgesia. Like many of these asinine commenters at the New York Times… And of course our stupid, and, or corrupt leaders, who had the means to stop the CO2 catastrophe before it got rolling on its own, as it is presently starting to do.

Patrice Ayme

August 1944 Landing In Provence: The Real Thing. D Day Was A Lure.

August 15, 2019

During the Landing In Provence, more than four times as many soldiers fought as during D Day. They were all French, and US Americans. More than twice the number of Allied soldiers died during this Operation Dragoon as in Normandy on D Day. And Dragoon was much more important than D Day strategically… because it provided the Allies with ports.

So why is the Landing in Provence, Operation Dragoon, so studiously ignored? Was it because more than half of the army was from French Africa? Or is it because the logical universe in which Dragoon occurred tells us a lot about how today’s world, complete with why finance supreme, fracking, Uberization, and spying all over blossomed so magnificently?

I read thousands of books and articles on World War Two, and interviewed exhaustively people who took part in it including my grandparents and mom (resistance, saving of more than 100 Jews, among others, personalized hunting by Gestapo in 1944), or my dad (African army), or uncle (officer in the French army, fighting for six years).

Toulon and Marseilles fell within ten days, thanks to remarkable assaults by the French army. Smaller ports in France or the Netherlands, would stay under Nazi control for 8 months, until the reddition of the 1,000 years Reich… 7,301 US soldiers died, during the Provence Landing, including lots of elite paratroops…

The same things are always said, presumably to please the same authorities, and because authors, anxious to publish what works, read each others. So here a few points, never emphasized.

The Vercors mesa fighting was a major diversion: the French Resistance was made to prepare an airfield, to get heavy weapons and Allied troops. But that was a lie. The Resistance believed in it, so did the Nazis. Thus elite SS and paratroops landed on said airfield… instead of intervening in Normandy, where they would have made a difference. 

The real disembarkment was supposed to be in Provence, not Normandy. The reason is obvious: Normandy had no significant port, and especially no port expected to survive Nazi sabotage. Normandy, like Versors, was a lure. Provence has two huge, indestructible ports, so huge they were: the vast bay of Marseilles and the nearly enclosed, gigantic rade de Toulon.

Sure enough, the Provence disembarkment had three times more soldiers (450,000!) than the famous “D Day”. All the units were elite and very experienced from fighting the Nazis in North Africa (where 160,000 elite Afrika Korps personnel were captured in Tunisia, and sent to the USA to be watched by black US soldiers…)  The armies landing in Provence had also fought the Nazis in Sicily and in a grueling war up the mountainous dorsal of Italy.

Initial US plans had Normandy and Provence simultaneously, but, supposedly fighting among US commanders about the availability of ships, delayed Provence.

French African troops en route for the Reich, Operation Dragoon.

In any case, two thirds of the army was French, the other, US. All combat proven elite troops. The US army chased the Nazis up north, while the French army wheeled around, and besieged the extremely well defended Toulon and Marseilles… Many Nazi held French ports surrendered only May 8, 1945, when Nazi Germany capitulated without conditions. But seizing Toulon and Marseilles was crucial to the assault on Nazi Germany, and the French captured them quickly. 

The French? Some have scoffed: those were African troops. That sort of remark is racist. These were French troops of African origin: my uncle and my dad (born in Algeria) are examples. Those troops may have been born in Africa, but they were Franco-French in mentality. They hated Nazism, because they hated racism (they may have suffered from it a little bit, some of them, motivating them even more). Those French troops born in Africa wanted to kill racism. They made war by choice. (Although there was a draft, in Algeria, that was just in Algeria, and those who wanted to get into combat volunteered for combat; my dad wanted to become a fighter pilot, but his eyesight was not good enough, he ended up in anti-aircraft unit, and saw combat there as Nazi jets tried to destroy those units first…)

A small part of Operation Dragon invasion fleet. The invasion was spread over 100 miles of coastline…

The preceding is official history. Let me now put my grain of sand in this well oiled US propaganda: why didn’t the southern attack against Nazi Germany not occured before? After all, this is what Churchill had been begging for… for years. After the French army of general Juin (same army as later in Provence) broke through the Hitler Line, east of Monte Cassino, Juin asked for more divisions and means: he declared he could be in Austria in three weeks. Juin, nicknamed “Hannibal” by his US colleagues, could have done it (long story). He had no Nazi forces in front of him. Instead Allied command removed divisions from Juin. 

What was the US Deep State game? According to my general theory, Nazism was all about the US leveraging Nazism for US benefit. As Hitler was clearly on his way out, he had to be replaced, as a dictator occupying Europe, and Stalin was the obvious choice. If General Juin’s proposal of operating a Blitzkrieg straight into the core of the Third Reich had been accepted, having a French army cavalcading into central Europe was not part of the plan: Comrade Stalin was supposed to do that, and did… a year later. More generally this is why Churchill’s insistence at displeasing Stalin by attacking from the south was always rejected. 

Clausewitz said war is politics by other means. To understand a war, one has to understand the politics underlying it. World War Two was the extension of the darkest politics, the same festering today. Progressives would gain by understanding what really went on then, because it’s the same which is going on right now.

To relax our US friends (most of them Trumpists at heart, even if they don’t suspect it), a contemporary case is Hong Kong: the People Republic of China wants to recover it… And that means recovering it to the same Chinese imperial mentality which cost the degeneracy of China to start with. Clearly, Hong Kong is too democratic, and Beijing, not enough.

After the landing in Provence, the US army rolled north in record time through disorganized, Resistance harassed, Allied planes hounded Nazi defenses. They arrived just in time to save my family fleeing the Gestapo through the woods, south of Grenoble. 

Under US (racist) insistence, the French army was then dis-Africanized, and painted white: all too many French African troops were disbanded, in spite of their great combat experience. Some of them, in Algeria, would launch the Algerian independence movement, as they were mistreated as they celebrated May 8, 1945, when the Nazis surrendered.

Was it because the French and the Americans got only a bit more than 25,000 casualties? Is it because the US forces got only 7,301 killed (plus hundreds of MIAs)?

By comparison, *only* 4,402 died on D Day!

D Day had an invasion force of 156,000 (with a bit less than half from the USA). Operation Dragoon, the Landing in Provence had an invasion force of 573,833 men, including 260,000 French infantry, plus 75,000 French FFI (French Forces Interior), fighting the Nazi from inside.  

800 French Special Forces launched the assault shortly after midnight on August 15 by climbing up the vertiginous rock cliffs of Cap Negre (named for the volcanic rock’s dark colour). On top of the cape laid giant guns, which they destroyed (those guns would have been a problem for the 2,200 ships of the invasion force approaching the coast).

So why was the landing in Provence forgotten?

Because a massive attack from the south could have been done earlier (Churchill begged for it). Because one has to hide the truth: the US Deep State’s mood was to keep Europe under dictatorship, as much as possible. That meant an orderly transition from Hitler to Stalin (both US clients), giving enough time to Stalin to conquer half of Europe, that meant not having a Franco-African army in Austria, after conquering industrial Northern Italy. That was not just racially insufferable, that defeated the US Deep State vision, the entire purpose of World War Two, keeping Europe weak, divided, confused, self-defeating.

This is why D Day was organized the way it was, before the landing in Provence, which was the real Reich killing move.  

Some will search the Internet for a link certifying this revelation. They will not find it: I came to this synthesizing conclusion by studying a lot of documents. 

In recent years, the US has been in full subjugation mode versus European industry, and France has been the number one target. The US Deep State has weaponized the US “Justice” system to do so. Macron was even a (maybe unwitting) accomplice of this. Now he shows some sign of understanding. Thus he celebrated with gusto the Provence landing.

Said Macron to veterans in Saint-Raphael: “The glory of all these soldiers of the Liberation is immense, and our gratitude must never fade. We will never forget anything, nor anyone”.

He was joined by the presidents of Guinea and Ivory Coast, Alpha Condé and Alassane Ouattara, for a ceremony marking the 1944 operation which saw French forces take a lead role in freeing their mother country from Nazi Germany’s grip. The all too US friendly Senegalese president was absent.

The Provence offensive included remnants of France’s free forces from 1940 and thousands of soldiers from its African colonies. Macron rightly insisted: “For decades these African fighters did not have the glory and the esteem they deserved for their bravery… France has a part of Africa in it…These men make all of Africa proud, and express the essence of France: a commitment, a love of liberty and greatness, a spirit of resistance united by courage,” Macron said.

Condé also lauded the “shared memory of the French and African people,” even more important, though, are the shared values. France will be hosting the G7 in Biarritz in a few days. More significantly, Macron will host personally Russian semi-eternal president, Vladimir Putin, on the Fort Bregancon micro peninsula, before that.  

Time to revisit history, and, especially, what it all means, seriously misunderstood, so far…

Could a landing in Provence have worked in 1943, using Corsica as a giant aircraft carrier? Probably.

Starting September 9, 1943, a complex war against the Nazis started in Corsica, first with the Corsican Resistance and the Italian army (soon under French command). 10,000 French troops (and 400 US Special Forces) soon defeated 42,000 Nazis. By October 5, 1943, Corsica had been liberated. It became an important air base for the Allies. It’s only 100 miles from the beaches of Operation Dragoon, and an invasion could thus have been mounted there quickly.

To have started with the landing in Provence, or to have provided Juin with the support he needed in Italy, while the Nazis were bottled at Anzio, would have considerably shortened the war: the Nazis were not ready for either, they would have been taken from behind (the best way to take Nazis). Neither happened, because shortening the war from the West was not the mood in the highest spheres of the USA. In the absence of reasons to the contrary, malevolence has to be suspected.

Patrice Ayme

Dispelling Lies Exalting 1776 To Smear 1789.

July 5, 2019

It’s traditional among Anglo-Saxon historians and pundits of the sort who get on the payrolls of the “best” (that is, wealthiest, most plutocratic) universities, and top media, to spite the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1789, and propagandize against it…

While celebrating the US Declaration of Independence of 1776. It’s condemning apples to celebrate death caps. 1776 was anti-plutocratic, right, yet tribal: it didn’t free the slaves. 1789 is universal, and did free the slaves. Ironically, the US Constitution also appeared in 1789… but was not as universal as the French constitution, so that US ersatz has been hardly mentioned ever since as a competitor to France 1789… Most US citizens, pundits and propagandists don’t realize the French and US Constitutions were elaborated simultaneously in 1789… And everybody knows about the French one, because of its universal claims.  

Typical of the plutocratically inspired spite for 1789, is this from the New York Times, July 4, 2019: Robespierre’s America

We need to reclaim the spirit of 1776, not the certitudes of 1789.

You mean we should forget the certitudes of the United Nations’ charter? And the New York Times to insist: 

“Armed with the ‘truth,’ Jacobins could brand any individuals who dared to disagree with them traitors or fanatics,” historian Susan Dunn wrote of the French Revolution. “Any distinction between their own political adversaries and the people’s ‘enemies’ was obliterated.” 

Amusing, if said in elementary school, by an exalted toddler, but not funny if considered to be serious scholarship. And even less so when it is used, as it is, to smear the entire French Revolution. When one speaks of the Terror one speaks of a period during which the French Republic was at war with the rest of Europe, which was controlled by bloody plutocrats threatening to kill millions, and boasting of it, to further their rule of terror. The counter-terror of the Republic festered only during a short period in 1793, and part of 1794… and it arose for reasons exterior to France. The word “Jacobin” was initially an insult, and was invented well after 1789.[2]

Pseudo-humanists can say whatever catches their fancy, completely irrelevant to any sort of reality: this is how the United Nations Charter was born, at Valmy, September 20, 1792… Thanks to superior French explosives… And the Republican élan…

The French Revolution of 1789 was such an excellent thing that the Charter of the present day United Nations is founded on it. However, in their will to hatred, and plutocracy, many smear the Human Rights and Citizen Rights Proclamation of 1789 with what happened in 1793: total war, invasions by several monarchies, the Jacobins tearing each other up, the Terror, 17,000 executed. They also omit to say that, in the meantime, all of Europe monarchies had attacked France in 1792, promising Paris “military execution”, and that the king and queen had betrayed the country, France, that they had been put in charge of leading. [1]

Smearing 1789 with 1793, omitting 1792, is conducive to… hatred. Hatred for progress, human rights, etc.. Thus smearing 1789 is to embrace the love of plutocracy, inequality, fracking, excess CO2, over-exploitation of resources, disregard for human rights, or even human lives (see US life expectancy going down, ever since the latter rule of Obama the Great), etc. Exactly the agenda the English North American colony leaders tended to exhibit and cherish since 1610 CE.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] On the Valmy Battle, September 20, 1792: After threatening Paris with “military execution”, the coalition plutocratic army invaded France. France was still a monarchy, and France was still led by the king who launched the revolution, Louis XVI, who had been king for EIGHTEEN (18) years.  

The military execution threat was made in July 1792, raising the stakes of the total war of plutocracy against the Rights of Man and the Citizen.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/how-genocide-starts/

Just over half of the French infantry were regulars of the old Royal Army, as were nearly all of the cavalry and, most importantly, the artillery,[3][5] which were widely regarded as the best in Europe at the time.[6][7] These veterans provided a professional core to steady the enthusiastic volunteer battalions.[8]Combined, Dumouriez’ Army of the North and Kellermann’s Army of the Centre totalled approximately 54,000 troops.[9] Heading towards them was the Duke of Brunswick’s coalition army of about 84,000, all veteran Prussian and Austrian troops augmented by large complements of Hessians and the French royalist Army of Condé.[9]

 

The invading fasco-plutocratic army of proto-Nazis handily captured Longwy on 23 August and Verdun on 2 September, then moved on toward Paris through the defiles of the Forest of Argonne.[6] In response, Dumouriez halted his advance to the Netherlands and reversed course, approaching the enemy army from its rear.[3] From Metz, Kellermann moved to his assistance, joining him at the village of Sainte-Menehould on 19 September.[6] The French forces were now EAST of the Prussians, behind their lines. Theoretically the Prussians could have marched straight towards Paris unopposed, but this course was never seriously considered: the threat to their lines of supply and communication was too great to be ignored. With few other options available, Brunswick turned back and prepared to do battle.

 

When the Prussian manœuvre was nearly completed, Kellermann advanced his left wing and took up a position on the slopes between Sainte-Menehould and Valmy.[6] He centered his command around an old windmill, which he quickly razed to prevent enemy artillery spotters from using it as a sighting location.[11] His veteran artillerists were well-placed upon its accommodating ridge to begin the so-called “Cannonade of Valmy“.[3] Brunswick moved toward them with about 34,000 of his troops.[9] As they emerged from the woods, a long-range gunnery duel ensued and the French batteries proved superior. The Prussian infantry made a cautious, and fruitless, effort to advance under fire across the open ground.[3]

The French troops sang “La Marseillaise” and “Ça Ira“, and a cheer went up from the French line.[12] Confronted to this discouraging and thoroughly unexpected élan, to the surprise of nearly everyone, Brunswick broke off the action and retired from the field. The Prussians rounded the French positions at a great distance and commenced a rapid retreat eastward.

Never doubt the efficiency of the Marseillaise…

The First French Republic was proclaimed the next day in Paris, as the news of the victory arrived.

French troops soon struck forward into Germany, taking Mainz in October. Dumouriez once again moved against the Austrian Netherlands and Kellermann ably secured the front at Metz…

***

[2] I studied on the exact street from which the word “Jacobin”, initially a put-down, comes from. There was an old Catholic institution partisans of the secular Republic took over, to work from. It was on rue Saint Jacques… So the enemies of the Republic called the secularists that way, to make fun of them, as if they had embraced Saint Jacques (now, as in 1789, French topmost high school and the Sorbonne bracket the rue Saint Jacques).. 

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Given the Situation, They Forced the Most Humane Solution

July 5, 2019

The Bomb as a friend of humanity: who would have thought? I have some family problems with inheritance, an interesting moment when greed is revealed to trump all other considerations, in some individuals, and one experiences the sadness of finding out what really makes them cockroaches, tick… The kind of situation when one seeks comic, or, if that doesn’t work, cosmic, relief. 

Further sinking me deeper, a friend, a tenured research physicist from a top institution, so really a brain, told me he couldn’t read my essays, they were too deep. I must admit the pressure is great, I am without any doubt, a creature of the abyss, similar to Damascius, the last philosopher of Antiquity, who had to flee Athens in 529 CE, chased by the rabid Christian terrorists… And went to seek refuge among the Sassanids.

Paradoxically deep and dark, where the light and explanation needs to be brought in, but hasn’t been brought in yet, provides the relief of tragedy. When one compares one’s sedate life to the tragedies visited onto others, immediate relief ensues. So it is when the climber finally finds a flat, grassy meadow.

***

My friend Chris Snuggs, is visiting Japan: Hiroshima, Nagasaki… Yes, Chris, a polyglot, and professional teacher of many a nation, turned at some point into a fanatical Brexiter, and he has been baffled by my fostering the evil fascist EU when so many of my own lessons brought him to condemn it! See, how tolerant I am:

Chris Snuggs: “Had to visit the Peace Memorial Museum, but it was as expected not a bundle of laughs. It is beautifully done as one expects in Japan, but too sad. I have to do some research. I tried already, but it is all a bit confusing and I have no definitive answer. Patrice might know! The thing is, did the Americans HAVE to drop a second bomb after Hiroshima? Was the Emperor really so stubborn not to order his men to stop fighting after Hiroshima? Or were the Americans trying to make a point to the Russians and/or just practising with their new toy? 

It is true that after the first bomb, the Japanese still DID NOT surrender, but could not the Yanks have bombed an uninhabited island to drive the point home that surrender was the only option? In Nagasaki (only chosen because the primary target that day – Kokura – was obscured by cloud), 70,000 people died instantly when the bomb exploded, ALMOST ALL CIVILIANS, including thousands of Koreans, Chinese and others, as Nagasaki was/is a major international port and entry point to Japan. Another 70,000 or so died in the days, weeks and months that followed, and an unknown number of cancers years later. 

But the terrifying thing for us today is that the bombs that fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were TINY compared to what exists today…”

***

It wouldn’t take many of those for civilization to have really a bad day.

The Strategic Nuclear Bombings Were Planned with Extreme Care:

Yes, Patrice knows, Patrice has written a lot on the subject, for an immense variety of reasons, not limited to the way people react to the subject!

Atomic Bombings Were An Emergency. More Than 10,000 People Died Each Day, From Japanese Occupation, all over Asia:

Only 672,000 Japanese civilians died from World War Two, virtually all of them killed in American air raids (including the two atomic bombs).

To draw a thoroughly inappropriate laughter, one could say Hiroshima and Nagasaki were emergency care in more ways than one.

The rest of this essay will address the questions Chris brought, with my usual method to dig deep here and there. But the short of it is that the nuclear bombings were nearly miraculously timed to force Japanese leaders into a different state of mind, which imposed peace to their agitated selves. Overall, the nuclear bombings, the way they happened, saved millions of lives. 

Atom bombing an uninhabited island would have made the immensely tough generals and admirals leading Japan laugh at the stupidity of the Americans. It would have given them hope that they were fighting imbeciles. So, maybe, after all, they had a chance to defeat the idiots…

Top Japanese leaders knew, from the in-house Japanese nuke programs, that the Americans couldn’t have that many atom bombs. Militarily, the Japanese cities were production centers (differently from Germany which, because of heavy British and then US bombing, had to displace production out of cities). Kokura’s arsenal was the target of the day. The Japanese navy, with thousands of fully functional medium to small ships and hundreds of small subs was a big problem for US war planners, as they approached the Japanese archipelago, with its inner seas and complex waterways. 

Many options, and would even say, all the options were discussed before the atomic bombings, including a demonstration atomic bombing at night over Tokyo Bay, to enlighten the Japanese leadership. Or bombing a deserted island. Or tell in advance of a demonstration. Or forget the bomb. Each option had drastic negatives…

What if the bomb was a dud? Would the evil dictators of Japan laugh out loud? What if the Japanese air force brought up 100 fighters to oppose the B29s, after they were told where and when they were coming? What if the damage to rice fields failed to persuade?

In any case it was the population of Japan who needed to feel the heat, and that heat needed to be transmitted to the young officer corps. Only them could persuade the military dictators of Japan to surrender. As it turned out, Emperor Hirohito’s courageous intervention prevented the third planned strategic nuclear bombing (the third Pu core, the Demon Core, was ready by August 16 to be dropped on August 19. Japan surrendered the 15th).

***

After being attacked for two hours by hundreds of US aircrafts, super battleship Yamato, on suicide mission to Okinawa, explodes. The mushroom cloud rose seven kilometers high. More than 3,000 crew pulverized.

We have bigger and better today:

Indeed a typical warhead in a French or US nuclear tipped missile is 250K, about 17 times Hiroshima. Each submarine missile can carry up to 10 atom bombs. The new Sarmat heavy Russian ICBM whose capabilities Putin said “are much higher” than the Cold War Soviet SS-18 ICBM because it will carry “a broad range of powerful nuclear warheads” and the Sarmat “has practically no range restrictions.” The Sarmat is reported by the Russian state  as capable of carrying 10 warheads of 800-kilotons or 15 warheads of 350-kilotons. 10 warheads of each 40 times Nagasaki…

In theory there is a limit of 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads, for the USA and Russia, each. But how to check that? Considering that Putin gloated about having a nuclear propelled, indefinite range cruise missile, the Russian leadership sounds wacko. Yes, nuclear propelled, that’s what Vladimir said. I am for nuclear propulsion… but in space. Running tests of such devices in the atmosphere is idiotic. 

***

The Japanese High Command Intended To Fight To Death For Another Year:

Japanese nuclear bomb physicists saw the Hiroshima mushroom cloud rising. So a highly qualified part of the Japanese government knew immediately that a nuclear bomb had been used. Looking at its evil red streaks, the physicist could immediately tell that it was a Uranium 235 device.  

The population in Hiroshima had no doubt what happened: within hours 35 US prisoners were dead at the hands of the vengeful populace of the Hiroshima metro area. 

The Japanese high command had no intention to surrender. It had launched the war, it intended to finish it. As it is, Japan has just two places favorable to a large disembarkment. One is next to Tokyo, and the Japanese high command had massed an extravagant quantity of weapons, including 5,000 planes underground in one facility alone. The other places, the southern tip of Kyushu, the southernmost island, was so heavily defended, the Japanese high command couldn’t imagine how the western allies could land. Moreover, three Japanese emergency nuclear bomb programs were making very fast progress, and Japanese generals hoped to use a nuclear bomb on the US troops.  

While Japan no longer expected to win the war, Japan’s leaders believed they could make the cost of invading and occupying the Home Islands too high for the Allies, leading to an armistice rather abject surrender. The Japanese plan for defeating the invasion was called Operation Ketsugō (決号作戦 ketsugō sakusen) (“Operation Codename Decisive”). The Japanese planned to commit the entire population of Japan to resist the invasion, and from June 1945 onward, a propaganda campaign calling for “The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million” commenced.[48] The main message of “The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million” campaign was that it was “glorious” to die for the god-emperor of Japan, and every single Japanese man, woman, and child should aspire to do so when the white devil Americans arrived.[48] Analysis by both American and Japanese officers at the time indicated that the Japanese death toll would have numbered in the millions. Scaling up what had happened at Okinawa reinforced the dismal prospects: at Okinawa, stupid civilians gathered around grenades, and blew themselves up, rather than suffering being ordered around by big ugly American monsters they were conditioned to excoriate.

***

The US planned to land in Kyushu, Operation Olympic, and the Japanese knew it: US command knew that the Japanese military, expecting 90 US divisions, was massed there, Iwo Jima style (plenty of tunnels). The Japanese armed forces ready to reject the US in Kyushu numbered one million… and 10,000 kamikaze planes, which would be harder to detect on radar than at Okinawa, because of the mountains. Japanese planners expected to sink one third of the invasion forces’ transport, from the Kamikaze alone.

So the US command planned to use not just five (5) million men, 42 fleet aircraft carriers, but also massive quantities of neurotoxic gas, and nuclear bombs. US planners expected up to one million US casualties. Seven Fat Man-type plutonium implosion bombs would be available by X-Day, which could be dropped on defending forces. American troops were advised not to enter an area hit by a bomb for “at least 48 hours”; the risk of nuclear fallout was not well understood, and such a short amount of time after detonation would have resulted in substantial radiation exposure for the American troops.

***

Because of cloud cover, the Nagasaki bomb dropped into the wrong valley. One of the biggest Roman Catholic churches in Asia at the time, the Urakami Cathedral was hit by the nuclear shockwave. It was rebuilt in 1959.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki Psychologically Rammed the Japanese Leaders Into Where They Would Not Have Otherwise Gone: Peace

Hiroshima, a Uranium bomb, then Nagasaki, a Plutonium device. The next one to be atom bombed was supposed to be the capital of the north, Sapporo. After the second strategic nuclear bombing, the emperor, a scientist, had all he needed to explain to the generals that this had to stop. And the only way to stop it was unconditional surrender. Hirohito was the formal leader of the co-conspirators of the war of imperial Japan onto the world, and he was supposed to be a god, so… 

The emperor ordered an end to the suffering, a ceasefire of all Japanese forces, “bear the unbearable. The other war criminals didn’t take it lightly. The top general actually tried a coup, 4 days later (by then the US had been told of the coming surrender, and the Sapporo bombing was delayed) . When he realized the enormity of what he was doing, he committed seppuku:”My death is my apology for my crime”. This was the first time the Japanese heard his voice. The entire Kamikaze command, including the famous admiral leading it, took flight in dozens of planes, and was never heard of again. They probably all plunged into the sea somewhere. 

A few days later, the first US soldiers showed up in a tense, but disciplined, subdued Japan. The nuclear bombing gamble had worked. 4 months later, McArthur, head of the US/UN forces in Japan, learned of the Japanese nuclear bomb programs, thought he had been lied to, and infuriated, ordered all and any Jap nuclear equipment to be destroyed. The New York Times, learning of the cyclotron thrown at the bottom of Tokyo Bay, not privy to the reason of the general’s rage, accusing him of war crimes.

*** 

We have bigger and better bombs today, and this is THE major problem:

Yes, even more than biosphere collapse. The MAD doctrine doesn’t just rest on mutually assured destruction, but on the fact Russia and China and the USA are giant land empires. The other two official nuclear weapon states, Britain and France have gigantic maritime Exclusive Economic Zones (France has the world’s largest, about 8% of total world EEZ). The USA, controls around 21 million square kilometers of the planet, only behind Russia, which controls a total of around 25 million square kilometers.

So the permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) have no interest to disturb the present world order, which they profit from (this makes Brexit even more infuriating, as it threatens the UK, hence the present structure of the UNSC…)

However, war is possible by short circuit, because of idiotic launch-on warning systems which the US and Russia have… That should be discontinued ASAP.

Restricting nuclear weapons to a few states which have neither historical inclinations, nor any interest to launch a world war, has been a factor of peace.  

But things are changing.

***

Savage Japan got away lightly from the mayhem it launched in Asia, up to 50 million killed: 

Even the German Third Reich lost only around 10% of its population, killed. However, civilizations completely annihilated in rather short wars have happened in the past. Not just the Aztecs, or Incas, but the Assyrians, the Baghdad Caliphate (Islam with a civilized face, didn’t last), but also the Tangut empire, also known in Mandarin as the Xi Xia, a huge Buddhist empire which shouldn’t have contradicted the Mongols too much.

A catastrophic nuclear war is entirely possible. Two avenues to avoid it: arms reduction, the Non Proliferation Treaty, and then, the old fashion way, technological superiority. The US, Europe, Israel, are developing increasingly anti-missile systems. Tough, yes.

But remember this: there is such a thing as being more civilized. When Western soldiers (French, British, Dutch, Australian, New Zealander, Americans; by chronological order of apparition) surrendered to Japanese forces while they could still resist, it was viewed as a crime. Yes, you read that right. Japan Bushido code was that demanding. Actually, by 1945, the Japanese high command, ordering capital ships to make a suicide attack on Okinawa, also ordered sailors explicitly to violate the Bushido code: Japanese sailors were to save themselves, if they could, to rebuild Japan after the war,

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: rarely was the cost of saving face so high.    

Patrice Ayme

Not the first time I consider all the preceding:

LEARNING TO THINK RIGHT BY STUDYING THE ETHICS OF ATOMIC BOMBINGS ON JAPAN.