NATO’S “Drang Nach Osten” and the Anglo-Saxon Roots of German Nazism
12-04-2011, 07:03 PM
NATO’S “Drang Nach Osten” and the Anglo-Saxon Roots of German Nazism
NATO’S “Drang Nach Osten” and the Anglo-Saxon Roots of German Nazism
NATO’S Thrust to the east and the Anglo-Saxon Roots of German Nazism
By Wayne MADSEN
NATO is accomplishing what Adolf Hitler could only dream of: a Euro-Atlantic military alliance that dominates the entire world…
Since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has made no secret of its goal to expand to the east, as well as into North and sub-Saharan Africa.After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet bloc, many observers believed that NATO’s raison d’etre had ceased to exist and that the collective “defensive” organization would join the Warsaw Pact in historical oblivion. However, those Americans, Canadians, and Europeans who believe in a “new world order,” led politically by the United States in concert with the European Union and Canada and militarily by NATO, re-invented NATO as an aggressive military pact with the goal of enforcing the will of a North American-European “axis” on a expanded stage far beyond Europe or the North Atlantic.
NATO’s expansion to the east and south has been marked by a number of NATO-linked “Pentagonese” alphabet soup fast track membership and associate member programs, including the Partnership for Peace (PfP), Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI), Membership Action Plans (MAPs), Individual Partnership Plans (IPPs), and the Mediterranean Dialogue (MD).
NATO’s Nazi-like drang nach osten, or “thrust to the east,”began in earnest after the Czech-born U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright pressed hard for NATO membership for the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary, while re-assuring Russia’s leadership in 1997 that such expansion would not result in NATO military bases or troops in the new NATO nations. Arch-Cold Warrior Zbigniew Brzezinski, a native of Poland, backed Albright and was a strong force behind what he called NATO’s “double enlargement.” The influence of Eastern European émigrés like Albright (née Korbel) and Brzezinski, with their anti-Russian “baggage,” influenced U.S. foreign policy in a way that was not in the best national security interests of the United States. As has been seen with the influence of American jewish people on Middle East policy, Irish-Americans on the problems of Northern Ireland, and Cuban exiles on Latin American policy, the American “melting pot” usually does not prevent generational biases against certain nations and regions of the world from worming their way into American foreign policy.NATO expansion to the borders of Russia stands as a case in point…
It was also inferred by Clinton administration officials that NATO would never take in members along the Russian border. Both promises were hollow. On May 21, 1998, President Bill Clinton signed the NATO Enlargement Pact admitting the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary to NATO. The three nations became members of NATO the following year. Nine years later, the United States announced plans to establish anti-missile bases in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic.
In 2004, three years following NATO’s invocation for the first time of Article 5 of its charter after the 9/11 attack on the United States, stipulating that an attack on one member is an attack on all, NATO expanded to the Russian border when Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania (in addition to Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia) were admitted to membership. In 2009, NATO expanded to Albania and Croatia. That same year, France rejoined NATO’s military command structure, reversing Charles de Gaulle’s decision to withdraw from NATO’s military component in 1967.
Through the MAP, Ukraine and Georgia, deep within the former Soviet Union, were being actively considered for NATO membership and four Balkan states, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and NATO-occupied Kosovo, were angling for NATO membership. NATO also sent signals to three other nations that if there was a change in the political leadership and a subsequent change in foreign policy, Moldova, Belarus, and Serbia would be considered for NATO membership. Cyprus and Malta, members of the EU, have been under strong pressure to join NATO, especially as a result of the Libyan war and the regime changes in Egypt and Tunisia.
Albright and other Clinton administration foreign policy and military officials also presided over an eleven week NATO military air campaign against Yugoslavia. In another throwback to Nazi policies, the NATO campaign featured the first aerial bombardment of Belgrade since the German Luftwaffe pummeled the city during World War II.
By 2002, NATO forces were fighting far to the east in Afghanistan as part of the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). During the following years, NATO operations in Afghanistan began penetrating across the border into Pakistan. A number of NATO nations provided troops for the United States-led invasion and occupation of Iraq. NATO forces also became active in “peacekeeping” operations in Sudan at the same time the United States was consolidating its new U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), a major step by the United States to extend its military reach into Africa. In fact, AFRICOM’s headquarters are maintained under the NATO command infrastructure in Stuttgart, Germany. NATO personnel also arrived at a “technical liaison” unit at the headquarters of the African Union in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
During the NATO Summit in Bucharest in 2008, the issue of NATO’s expansion to Ukraine, Georgia, and Macedonia met with internal NATO resistance. For the time being, NATO expansion was tabled. However, the decision in Bucharest only resulted in other mechanisms for NATO expansion to go forward.
The idea of “associate membership” of NATO was being proffered to nations outside of Europe. Article 10 of the NATO charter offers expanded NATO membership to European nations only. In addition, Article 6 of the charter explicitly states that NATO’s geographic “area of operation” includes “territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.”
While serious consideration is now being given by NATO to amending Articles 6 and 10, NATO concocted Individual Partnership Plans through the auspices of the Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. Through the MD, an Individual Cooperation Program (ICP) was launched between NATO and Israel, the first for the alliance and a step toward something long-sought by Israel and its powerful lobby in Washington, NATO membership for Israel. The MD also laid the groundwork for “associate membership” status in NATO for Egypt, Jordan, Mauritania, Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria. If NATO’s military campaign against Muammar Qaddafi’s government in Libya is successful and the NATO-backed Transitional National Council takes over in Tripoli, NATO’s “associate membership” regime will include all of North Africa. Even under Qaddafi, Libya was an “observer” at the MD.
At the 2004 NATO Summit in Istanbul, the ICI was launched as a way to move NATO into the Arabian Peninsula. Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates, all members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), joined the ICI. Two other GCC nations, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, remained outside the ICC. However, Morocco and Jordan, MD members, recently joined the GCC in what many observers in the Gulf region believed was the cementing of NATO’s hold over the Gulf states and a consolidation of Arab monarchies under an informal NATO guarantee of security. As icing on the cake, Blackwater founder Erik Prince recently launched a mercenary force in Abu Dhabi, called Reflex Responses (R2) under the patronage of the government of Abu Dhabi. R2 consists of Colombians, Chileans, and South African ex-special forces personnel.
The linkage of the Gulf states to NATO has been realized through the participation of United Arab Emirates battalions with the NATO’s Kosovo Force (KFOR) in northern Kosovo, near the border with Serbia, and with Qatar and UAE fighter squadrons participating in the air assault on Libya from NATO bases in the Mediterranean. In addition, Tunisian-flagged vessels have been caught smuggling NATO weapons to Libyan rebels, a further indication that the MD and ISI have become working arms of NATO outside of NATO Articles 6 and 10.
A number of NATO Secretaries-General, including the previous NATO chief, Jaap de Joop Scheffer and the current chief, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, both habitués of Bilderberg conferences, have called for NATO expansion beyond the confines of the NATO charter. The contrivance being used is through the PfP and IPPs. “Associate membership” status has been offered to Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, India, Brazil, and South Africa. Only Australia, New Zealand, and Japan have been keen on the idea. However, NATO has achieved some success at expansion with a neutral Scandinavian country. Swedish fighter jets are participating in the NATO campaign against Libya, a sign that NATO will not stop expanding until it includes every nation of Europe. NATO is accomplishing what Adolf Hitler could only dream of: a Euro-Atlantic military alliance that dominates the entire world…
Anglo-Saxon Roots of German Nazism
More than six decades after Berlin's capitulation which capped World War II, the war is still raging, now in the form of revisionist attempts to cast a shadow over the memory of Soviet soldiers who fought in it.Among other things, the efforts aimed at equating fascism – a monster nurtured by the West in the 1930ies-1940ies - and Russia's XX century wartime past are supposed to divert attention from the continuity between the Anglo-Saxon imperialism and the German national socialism. The nature and key traits of the continuity are exposed in “From Imperialism to Fascism: Why Hitlers' India was to be Russia” by renown historian and sociologist Prof. Manuel Sarkisyanz, an ethnic Armenian who was born in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, in 1923, held positions at the University of Heidelberg, and currently resides in Mexico. The availability of the book tends to be limited – I came across its 1997 German-language edition before it was published in Russian in 2003. “From Imperialism to Fascism” saw the light of day in English only in India and Ireland, the two countries burdened with painful memories of the British domination, and, as one could easily guess, has never been printed in Great Britain.
“From Imperialism to Fascism”, with chapter titles such as “England as the model for Hitler's 'Folk community'", “Training new fuhrers by imitating England”, “Houston Stewart Chamberlain: British Pathbreaker, pioneer, seer of the third Reich”, “Britain's home-grown Fascism”, and “Admiration of Hitler from Britain's establishment”, is loaded with truly shocking revelations. Describing the fascist system of education and indoctrination, Sarkisyanz cites original sources to prove that Germany's Napolas - National Political Institutes of Education – were modeled by the SS on British public schools. From the early days of the Third Reich, Great Britain's believers of racial supremacy met on a regular basis with their German imitators (who in the long run went far ahead of their teachers) and were fully aware of the fact that the fascist elite's training used to be a replication of that given to the British circle of the chosen.
Hitler openly admired Great Britain's system of education with its overarching strategy of cultivating a cast of masters of the world. Sarkisyanz points to the January 30, 1941 speech delivered by the Nazi leader in which he praised lavishly this distinctly British type of catechism. Sarkisyanz cites a report on the upbringing of future Nazi leaders, which was prepared in 1938 by the Royal Institute of International Affairs and stressed that the Nazi learning institutions were largely patterned on the British public schools. Quite a few of the Third Reich's top officers – for example, J. Ribbentrop, R. Ley – dreamed of seeing their children educated in Great Britain. Hitler boasted being the only German leader sufficiently tough to pursue goals as the British routinely did, and his model of colonizing Russia which he actually described as Germany's India – drew heavily from the British colonial policies. Interestingly, the British administration in India imposed a ban on the demonstration of movies about German Nazism, evidently for fear that the similarities between the German fascists and British colonizers would not evade the local population.
The lengthy list of Great Britain's open sympathizers of fascism included such figures as W. Churchill's son Randolph, the family of Lord Ridsdale, Lord Lamington, Lord Londonderry, and sociologist and commentator Houston Chamberlain. Goebbels organized a dinner – with Hitler attending! - on the occasion of the marriage between Lord Ridsdale's daughter who used to wear a swastika-shaped brooch and British fascist Oswald Mosley. The Daily Mail, a British media outlet of the German Nazi, was owned by Lord Rothermere. The English Reviewwrote that the fascist supporters of Franco were Spain's top-commendable people. Leader of the House Of Lords Lord Halifax was fascinated by Hitler during a 1937 visit to Germany and readily credited him with reviving Germany's self-respect. According to Sarkisyanz, at least five of Great Britain's parliamentarians were among the group of deeply impressed British guests at the 1936 Nazi party congress during which, by the way, Hitler mentioned a plan to conquer Ukraine.
The attraction between the German and British racists was so strong that until 1938 Hitler avoided imposing a ban on the operations of the British intelligence service in Germany. Hitler said that the two races – the British and the German – were cousins and therefore were destined to jointly rule the world. The view widely held in Great Britain at the time was that the country would dominate the seas, leaving to Germany the overland primacy.
Sarkisyanz notes that eugenics, a doctrine widespread in the fascist Germany, was a purely British invention. Eugenics was believed to confirm the right of the Anglo-Saxon race – naturally, including Germans – to dominate the world. Granting citizenship based on racial regards became a norm in Germany under Hitler, but eugenics as a philosophy can be traced back to Great Britain, where its foundations were laid by Charles Darwin's cousin Francis Galton. Galton held that both individuals within a particular race and individual races can be divided into various grades and authored the racist theory subsequently adopted by the German fascists. Galton also called for a crusade in the name of racial dominance and offered eugenics as an element akin to a new religion to be built into national mentality. Obviously, the ideas were taken over by the German Nazis. Author of The Invisible ManHerbert Wells was similarly convinced that “There is only one sane and logical thing to be done with an inferior race, and that is to exterminate it”.
Hannah Arendt wrote in the 1940ies that Great Britain was the only country where racist ideology stemmed directly from a national tradition. In the British case, the tradition was based on Old-Testament puritanism and, moreover, reinforced by the entrenched perception of social stratification as a legitimate phenomenon: in Great Britain the social lows invariably harbored deep respect for the upper classes while the latter treated them with undisguised contempt.
British biographer of Germany's ideologist of racism A. Rosenberg admitted that graduates of elite British universities would have felt embarrassed to see what role was ascribed to former generations of their alumni by the German Nazi. Hitler largely attributed Great Britain's success in politics (such as the ability to maintain a grip on India for ages with minimal reliance on power) to the skills British colonial administrators owed to the national system of upbringing. In his 1934 “Houston Stewart Chamberlain as the Prophet of the Third Reich”, Georg Schott urged Germans to always keep in mind that, regardless of the two figures' belonging to different countries, Chamberlain was the first to call Hitler the leader of the German people and to realize that the German fuhrer was driven by a kind of predestination.
One of the striking findings in Sarkisyanz's book is that the British courts on the Channel Islands, a British territory occupied by Germany, prosecuted residents of the area on charges of resisting the occupants. The Channel Islands authorities viewed as a felony any type of conduct that led to conflicts with the Germans, plus a part of the local population was drawn into degrading treatment of inmates of the German-run labor camps.
One can only regret that Sarkisyanz's “From Imperialism to Fascism” is practically unknown both in Russia and in the West. The treatise is banned in Great Britain, and in Germany Sarkisyanz faced two lawsuits over his piece of research...
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)