How the Allied multinationals supplied Nazi Germany throughout World War II 

b

  

 

The following excerpts thoroughly document how capitalists really acted during the Second World War. Behind the patriotic propaganda that encouraged the working class to slaughter each other in the interests of competing national interests, international capital quietly kept the commodity circuits flowing and profits growing across all borders.

Trading with the Enemy - war means
 business as usual for international capital.

We begin with some excerpts from "Trading With the Enemy: An Exposé of The Nazi-American Money-Plot 1933-1949" by Charles Higham; Hale, London, 1983.

From the "Trading With the Enemy" cover blurb:

"Here is the extraordinary true story of the American businessmen and government officials who dealt with the Nazis for profit or through conviction throughout the Second World War: Ford. Standard Oil, Chase Bank and members of the State Department were among those who shared in the spoils. Meticulously documented and dispassionately told, this is an alarming story. At its centre is 'The Fraternity', an influential international group associated with the Rockefeller or Morgan banks and linked by the ideology of Business as Usual.

Higham starts with an account of the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland - a Nazi-controlled bank presided over by an American, Thomas H. McKittrick, even in 1944. While Americans were dying in the war, McKittrick sat down with his German, Japanese, Italian, British and American executive staff to discuss the gold bars that had been sent to the Bank earlier that year by the Nazi government for use by its leaders after the war. This was gold that had been looted from the banks of Austria, Belgium, and Czechoslovakia or melted down from teeth fillings, eyeglass frames, and wedding rings of millions of murdered Jews.

But that is only one of the cases detailed in this book. We have Standard Oil shipping enemy fuel through Switzerland for the Nazi occupation forces in France; Ford trucks transporting German troops; I.T.T. helping supply the rocket bombs that marauded much of London ; and I.T.T. building the Focke-Wulfs that dropped those bombs. Long and shocking is the list of diplomats and businessmen alike who had their own ways of profiting from the war."

Preface to the book TRADING WITH THE ENEMY: An Exposé of The Nazi-American Money-Plot 1933-1949 by Charles Higham; Hale, London, 1983.

Preface

It would be comforting to believe that the financial Establishment of the United States and the leaders of American industry were united in a common purpose following the Day of Infamy, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Certainly, the American public was assured that Big Business along with all of the officials of government ceased from the moment the war began to have any dealings whatsoever with the enemy. That assurance sustained the morale of millions of Americans who bore arms in World War II and their kinfolk who stayed at home and suffered the anguish of separation.

But the heartbreaking truth is that a number of financial and industrial figures of World War II and several members of the government served the cause of money before the cause of patriotism. While aiding the United States' war effort, they also aided Nazi Germany's…

READ MORE:

https://libcom.org/library/allied-multinationals-supply-nazi-germany-world-war-2

WATCH THE MOVIE:

JFK to 911: Everything Is A Rich Man's Trick

VIDEO (3:27:55)  Published on Nov 19, 2014

The who, how and why of the JFK assassination. Taken from an historical perspective starting around world war 1 leading to present day. We hope after watching this video you will know more about what happened in the past and how the world is run today.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM&feature=youtu.be

Watch a short clip (9:04) from the movie.

It will make you think very differently about World War 2: 
https://www.facebook.com/iAMCaveman420/videos/10205111193372227/?fref=nf

The Caesar Photo Fraud that Undermined Syrian Negotiations

by Rick Sterling / March 3rd, 2016

EXTRACTS:

There is a pattern of sensational but untrue reports that lead to public acceptance of US and Western military intervention in countries around the world. All these reports were later confirmed to be fabrications and lies:

* In Gulf War 1, there were reports of Iraqi troops stealing incubators from Kuwait, leaving babies to die on the cold floor. Relying on the testimony of a Red Crescent doctor, Amnesty International ‘verified’ the false claims.

* Ten years later, there were reports of yellow cake uranium going to Iraq for development of weapons of mass destruction.

* One decade later, there were reports of Libyan soldiers drugged on viagra and raping women as they advanced.

* In 2012, NBC broadcaster Richard Engel was supposedly kidnapped by pro-Assad Syrian militia but luckily freed by Syrian opposition fighters, the “Free Syrian Army”.

This report is a critical review of the “Caesar Torture Photos” story, documenting the alleged torture and killing of 11,000 detainees by the Syrian security establishment.

On 20 January 2014, two days before negotiations about the Syrian conflict were scheduled to begin in Switzerland, a sensational report burst onto television and front pages around the world. 

The story was that a former Syrian army photographer had 55,000 photographs documenting the torture and killing of 11,000 detainees by the Syrian security establishment. The Syrian photographer was given the code-name ‘Caesar’. The story became known as the “Caesar Torture Photos”. 

There is strong evidence the accusations are entirely or substantially false. With few exceptions, Western media uncritically accepted and promoted the story.

Why does it matter if the CIA is connected to the ‘Caesar’ story? Because the CIA has a long history of disinformation campaigns. In 2011, false reports of viagra fueled rape by Libyan soldiers were widely broadcast in western media as the U.S. pushed for a military mandate. 

Decades earlier, the world was shocked to hear about Cuban troops fighting in Angola raping Angolan women. The CIA chief of station for Angola, John Stockwell, later described how they invented the false report and spread it round the world.  The CIA was very proud of that disinformation achievement. Stockwell’s book, “In Search of Enemies” is still relevant.

In contrast, there is clear and solid evidence that a “Crime against Peace” is being committed against Syria. It is public knowledge that the “armed opposition” in Syria has been funded, supplied and supported in myriad ways by various outside governments. 

Most of the fighters, both Syrian and foreign, receive salaries from one or another outside power. Their supplies, weapons and necessary equipment are all supplied to them. Like the “Contras” in Nicaragua in the 1980s, the use of such proxy armies is a violation of customary international law.

It is also a violation of the UN Charter which says:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other matter inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The government of Qatar has been a major supporter of the mercenaries and fanatics attacking the sovereign state of Syria. Given that fact, isn’t it hugely ironic to hear the legal contractors for Qatar accusing the Syrian government of “crimes against humanity”?

Isn’t it time for the United Nations to make reforms so that it can start living up to its purposes?  That will require demanding and enforcing compliance with the UN Charter and International  Law.

Rick Sterling is a retired engineer and co-founder of Syria Solidarity Movement.  He can be emailed at:
 rsterling1@gmail.com.   Read other articles by Rick.

READ ENTIRE STORY: 
http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/03/the-caesar-photo-fraud-that-undermined-syrian-negotiations/

A 30 page investigative report on the “Caesar Torture Photos” has been released and is available online here. 

Why is most western media reporting of Syria and other important issues “woefully misleading” and “convoluted nonsense”? Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky pointed out long ago in their book Manufacturing Consent that the corporate media is designed to reflect the interests of power – and the corporations that control our media are power.

They select journalists through a long filtering process (school, university, journalism training, apprenticeships) precisely designed to weed out dissidents and those who think too critically. Only journalists whose worldview aligns closely with those in power reach the top.

The Deeper Truths Journalists Are Blind To
By Jonathan Cook

EXTRACTS:

As I have found out myself, there is nothing media outlets like less than criticising other media publications or the “profession” of journalism. So one has to commend the Boston Globe for publishing this piece by Stephen Kinzer, a former foreign correspondent, warning that the media is not telling us the truth about what is going on in Syria: “…most western reporting of Syria is convoluted nonsense…”

Media coverage of Iraq was just as woefully misleading during the sanctions period in the 1990s, when I worked in the foreign department at the Guardian, and later in the build-up of the US-led attack on Iraq. In those days, when there was no shortage of resources being directed at foreign reporting, the coverage also closely hewed to the official view of the US and UK governments.

The problem is not just that foreign reporting is being stripped of financial resources as the media find it harder to make a profit from their core activities. It is, as Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky pointed out long ago in their book Manufacturing Consent that the corporate media is designed to reflect the interests of power – and the corporations that control our media are power.

They select journalists through a long filtering process (school, university, journalism training, apprenticeships) precisely designed to weed out dissidents and those who think too critically. Only journalists whose worldview aligns closely with those in power reach the top.

As Chomsky once told British journalist Andrew Marr, when Marr reacted with indignation at what he inferred to be an accusation from Chomsky that he was self-censoring:  “I don’t say you’re self-censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is, if you believed something different you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.”

Journalists get into positions of influence to the extent that they are unlikely to rock the boat for elite interests. The closer they get to power, the more likely they are to reflect its values. Much like politicians, in fact.

Jonathan Cook is a Nazareth- based journalist and winner of the Martha Gellhorn 
Special Prize for Journalism http://www.jonathan-cook.net/ 

READ MORE: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44281.htm

Hillary Clinton and the Syrian Bloodbath

By Jeffrey Sachs February 16, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "Huffington Post" - In the Milwaukee debate, Hillary Clinton took pride in her role in a recent UN Security Council resolution on a Syrian ceasefire: But I would add this. You know, the Security Council finally got around to adopting a resolution. At the core of that resolution is an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva, which set forth a cease-fire and moving toward a political resolution, trying to bring the parties at stake in Syria together. This is the kind of compulsive misrepresentation that makes Clinton unfit to be President. Clinton's role in Syria has been to help instigate and prolong the Syrian bloodbath, not to bring it to a close. In 2012, Clinton was the obstacle, not the solution, to a ceasefire being negotiated by UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan. It was US intransigence - Clinton's intransigence - that led to the failure of Annan's peace efforts in the spring of 2012, a point well known among diplomats.  Despite Clinton's insinuation in the Milwaukee debate, there was (of course) no 2012 ceasefire, only escalating carnage. Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead. As every knowledgeable observer understands, the Syrian War is not mostly about Bashar al-Assad, or even about Syria itself. It is mostly a proxy war, about Iran. And the bloodbath is doubly tragic and misguided for that reason. Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the leading Sunni powers in the Middle East, view Iran, the leading Shia power, as a regional rival for power and influence. Right-wing Israelis view Iran as an implacable foe that controls Hezbollah, a Shi'a militant group operating in Lebanon, a border state of Israel. Thus, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel have all clamored to remove Iran's influence in Syria. This idea is incredibly naïve. Iran has been around as a regional power for a long time--in fact, for about 2,700 years. And Shia Islam is not going away. There is no way, and no reason, to "defeat" Iran.  The regional powers need to forge a geopolitical equilibrium that recognizes the mutual and balancing roles of the Gulf Arabs, Turkey, and Iran. And Israeli right-wingers are naïve, and deeply ignorant of history, to regard Iran as their implacable foe, especially when that mistaken view pushes Israel to side with Sunni jihadists. Yet Clinton did not pursue that route. Instead she joined Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and right-wing Israelis to try to isolate, even defeat, Iran.  In 2010, she supported secret negotiations between Israel and Syria to attempt to wrest Syria from Iran's influence. Those talks failed. Then the CIA and Clinton pressed successfully for Plan B: to overthrow Assad. When the unrest of the Arab Spring broke out in early 2011, the CIA and the anti-Iran front of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey saw an opportunity to topple Assad quickly and thereby to gain a geopolitical victory. Clinton became the leading proponent of the CIA-led effort at Syrian regime change. In early 2011, Turkey and Saudi Arabia leveraged local protests against Assad to try to foment conditions for his ouster. By the spring of 2011, the CIA and the US allies were organizing an armed insurrection against the regime. On August 18, 2011, the US Government made public its position: "Assad must go." Since then and until the recent fragile UN Security Council accord, the US has refused to agree to any ceasefire unless Assad is first deposed. The US policy--under Clinton and until recently--has been: regime change first, ceasefire after. After all, it's only Syrians who are dying. Annan's peace efforts were sunk by the United States' unbending insistence that U.S.-led regime change must precede or at least accompany a ceasefire.  As the Nation editors put it in August 2012: The US demand that Assad be removed and sanctions be imposed before negotiations could seriously begin, along with the refusal to include Iran in the process, doomed [Annan's] mission. Clinton has been much more than a bit player in the Syrian crisis. Her diplomat Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi was killed as he was running a CIA operation to ship Libyan heavy weapons to Syria.  Clinton herself took the lead role in organizing the so-called "Friends of Syria" to back the CIA-led insurgency. The U.S. policy was a massive, horrific failure. Assad did not go, and was not defeated. Russia came to his support. Iran came to his support. The mercenaries sent in to overthrow him were themselves radical jihadists with their own agendas. The chaos opened the way for the Islamic State, building on disaffected Iraqi Army leaders (deposed by the US in 2003), on captured U.S. weaponry, and on the considerable backing by Saudi funds.  If the truth were fully known, the multiple scandals involved would surely rival Watergate in shaking the foundations of the US establishment. The hubris of the United States in this approach seems to know no bounds. The tactic of CIA-led regime change is so deeply enmeshed as a "normal" instrument of U.S. foreign policy that it is hardly noticed by the U.S. public or media.  Overthrowing another government is against the U.N. charter and international law. But what are such niceties among friends? This instrument of U.S. foreign policy has not only been in stark violation of international law but has also been a massive and repeated failure.  Rather than a single, quick, and decisive coup d'état resolving a US foreign policy problem, each CIA-led regime change has been, almost inevitably, a prelude to a bloodbath. How could it be otherwise? Other societies don't like their countries to be manipulated by U.S. covert operations. Removing a leader, even if done "successfully," doesn't solve any underlying geopolitical problems, much less ecological, social, or economic ones. A coup d'etat invites a civil war, the kind that now wracks Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. It invites a hostile international response, such as Russia's backing of its Syrian ally in the face of the CIA-led operations.  The record of misery caused by covert CIA operations literally fills volumes at this point. What surprise, then, the Clinton acknowledges Henry Kissinger as a mentor and guide? And where is the establishment media in this debacle? The New York Times finally covered a bit of this story last month in describing the CIA-Saudi connection, in which Saudi funds are used to pay for CIA operations in order to make an end-run around Congress and the American people.  The story ran once and was dropped. Yet the Saudi funding of CIA operations is the same basic tactic used by Ronald Reagan and Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s (with Iranian arms sales used to fund CIA-led covert operations in Central America without consent or oversight by the American people). Clinton herself has never shown the least reservation or scruples in deploying this instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Her record of avid support for US-led regime change includes (but is not limited to) the US bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Iraq War in 2003, the Honduran coup in 2009, the killing of Libya's Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, and the CIA-coordinated insurrection against Assad from 2011 until today. It takes great presidential leadership to resist CIA misadventures. Presidents get along by going along with arms contractors, generals, and CIA operatives. They thereby also protect themselves from political attack by hardline right-wingers. They succeed by exulting in U.S. military might, not restraining it.  Many historians believe that JFK was assassinated as a result of his peace overtures to the Soviet Union, overtures he made against the objections of hardline rightwing opposition in the CIA and other parts of the U.S. government. Hillary Clinton has never shown an iota of bravery, or even of comprehension, in facing down the CIA. She has been the CIA's relentless supporter, and has exulted in showing her toughness by supporting every one of its misguided operations. The failures, of course, are relentlessly hidden from view.  Clinton is a danger to global peace. She has much to answer for regarding the disaster in Syria. Jeffrey Sachs  Director, Earth Institute at Columbia University. Follow Jeffrey Sachs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffDSachs

Why the Syria Ceasefire is a Long Shot

By Finian Cunningham

SUMMARY: 

Washington and its allies want regime change, while Russia and Iran insist that President Bashar Assad and his government are the legitimate ruling authorities in Syria. 

Western powers and their regional partners, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar in particular, are insisting – explicitly or implicitly – on their objective of ousting Assad. 

This premise of unlawful interference in the affairs of a sovereign state is the crux of the problem.

The nub of the proposed truce is that Syria and Russia are legally entitled to eradicate ISIS, Al Nusra and related groups. However, “the related terror groups” also include many other militants whom Western governments and Western media mendaciously refer to as “moderate rebels.” This is a risible fiction constructed by Western governments, their regional partners and the Western media.

It is well documented that groups like Jaish al-Islam, Jaish al-Fateh, Ahrar al-Sham and Farouq Brigade – heavily sponsored by Saudi Arabia and Qatar – are integrated with the officially recognized Al Qaeda terrorist organizations. 

Even the so-called “secular” Free Syrian Army – much championed by Washington – is in league with ISIS and Al Nusra, as are the Turkmen brigades openly supported by the Turkish government.

That’s why John Kerry has been so concerned to stymie Russia’s intervention. That intervention ordered by President Vladimir Putin less than five months ago is wiping out terror assets that Washington and its allies have invested in for regime change in Syria over five years. 

Washington and its allies are not interested in peace. They want regime change – by hook or by crook.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44212.htm

Who Stole 143 Tons of Gold From the Libyan People?

Clinton’s Emails Have Disclosed the Real Reason for Gaddafi’s Overthrow

Read more:    https://awfulavalanche.wordpress.com/2016/01/10/who-stole-143-tons-of-gold-from-the-libyan-people/

JANUARY 8, 2016

Does North Korea Need Nukes to Deter US Aggression?

     by MIKE WHITNEY

Here’s your U.S. foreign policy quiz for the day:

Question 1– How many governments has the United States overthrown or tried to overthrow since the Second World War?

Answer: 57  (See William Blum.)

Question 2– How many of those governments had nuclear weapons?

Answer— 0

Does that mean North Korea needs nuclear weapons to deter US aggression?

Yes and no. Yes, nuclear weapons are a credible deterrent but, no, that’s not why North Korea set off a hydrogen bomb last Tuesday. The reason North Korea detonated the bomb was to force the Obama administration to sit up and take notice. That’s what this is all about. North Korea’s supreme leader, Kim Jong Un, wants the US to realize that they’re going to pay a heavy price for avoiding direct negotiations.  In other words, Kim is trying to pressure Obama back to the bargaining table.

Unfortunately, Washington isn’t listening. They see the North as a threat to regional security and have decided that additional sanctions and isolation are the best remedies. The Obama administration thinks they have the whole matter under control and don’t need to be flexible or compromise which is why they are opting for sticks over carrots.  In fact, Obama has refused to conduct any bilateral talks with the North unless the North agrees beforehand to abandon its nuclear weapons programs altogether and allow weapons inspectors to examine all their nuclear facilities. This is a non-starter for the DPRK. They see their nuclear weapons program as their “ace in the hole”, their only chance to end persistent US hostility.

Now if we separate the “hydrogen bomb” incident from the longer historic narrative dating back to the Korean War, it’s possible to twist the facts in a way that makes the North look like the “bad guy”, but that’s simply not the case.   In fact, the reason the world is facing these problems today is because of US adventurism in the past. Just as ISIS emerged from he embers of the Iraq War, so too, nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula is a direct result of failed US foreign policy in the ’50s.

US involvement in the Korean War precluded a final settlement, which means the war never really ended.  An armistice agreement that was signed on July 27, 1953, ended the hostilities, but a “final peaceful settlement” was never achieved, so the nation remains divided today. The reason that matters is because the US still has 15 military bases in South Korea, 28,000 combat troops, and enough artillery and missiles to blow the entire country to smithereens.  The US presence in South Korea effectively prevents the reunification of the country and a final conclusion to the war unless it is entirely on Washington’s terms.  Bottom line: Even though the cannons have stopped firing, the war drags on, thanks in large part to the ongoing US occupation.

So how can the North normalize relations with the US if Washington won’t talk to them and, at the same time, insists that the North abandon the weapons program that is their only source of leverage?  Maybe they  should do an about-face, meet Washington’s demands, and hope that by extending the olive branch relations will gradually improve. But how can that possibly work, after all, Washington wants regime change so it can install a US puppet that will help create another capitalist dystopia for its corporate friends. Isn’t that the way US interventions usually turn out? That’s not compromise, it’s suicide.

And there’s another thing too: The leadership in Pyongyang knows who they’re dealing with which is why they’ve taken the hardline. They know the US doesn’t respond to weakness, only strength. That’s why they can’t cave in on the nukes project.  It’s their only hope.  Either the US  stands down and makes concessions or the stalemate continues. Those are the only two possible outcomes.

It’s worth noting, that before Syria, Libya, Iraq, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Vietnam and the long catalogue of US bloodbaths across the decades, there was the Korean War. Americans have swept it under the rug, but every Korean, North and South, knows what happened and how it ended. Here’s a short  refresher that explains why the North is still wary of the US 63 years after the armistice was signed.  The excerpt is from an article titled “Americans have forgotten what we did to North Korea”, at Vox World:

“In the early 1950s, during the Korean War, the US dropped more bombs on North Korea than it had dropped in the entire Pacific theater during World War II. This carpet bombing, which included 32,000 tons of napalm, often deliberately targeted civilian as well as military targets, devastating the country far beyond what was necessary to fight the war. Whole cities were destroyed, with many thousands of innocent civilians killed and many more left homeless and hungry….

According to US journalist Blaine Harden…

“Over a period of three years or so, we killed off — what — 20 percent of the population,” Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Strategic Air Command during the Korean War,told the Office of Air Force History in 1984. Dean Rusk, a supporter of the war and later secretary of state, said the United States bombed “everything that moved in North Korea, every brick standing on top of another.” After running low on urban targets, U.S. bombers destroyed hydroelectric and irrigation dams in the later stages of the war, flooding farmland and destroying crops……

You can glimpse both the humanitarian and political consequences in an alarmed diplomatic cable that North Korea’s foreign minister sent to the United Nations… in January 1951:

“On January 3 at 10:30 AM an armada of 82 flying fortresses loosed their death-dealing load on the city of Pyongyang …Hundreds of tons of bombs and incendiary compound were simultaneously dropped throughout the city, causing annihilating fires, the transatlantic barbarians bombed the city with delayed-action high-explosive bombs which exploded at intervals for a whole day making it impossible for the people to come out onto the streets. The entire city has now been burning, enveloped in flames, for two days. By the second day, 7,812 civilians houses had been burnt down. The Americans were well aware that there were no military targets left in Pyongyang….

The number of inhabitants of Pyongyang killed by bomb splinters, burnt alive and suffocated by smoke is incalculable…Some 50,000 inhabitants remain in the city which before the war had a population of 500,000.”

(“Americans have forgotten what we did to North Korea“,  Vox World)

Get the picture? When it became clear that the US was not going to win the war, they decided to teach “those rotten Commies” a lesson they’d never forget. They reduced the entire North to smoldering rubble condemning the people to decades of starvation and poverty.  That’s how Washington fights its wars: “Kill ’em all and let God sort it out.”

This is why the North is building nukes instead making concessions; it’s because Washington is bent on either victory or annihilation.

So what does North Korea want from the United States?  

The North wants what it’s always wanted. It wants the US to stop its regime change operations,  honor its obligations under the 1994 Agreed Framework, and sign a non aggression pact. That’s all they want, an end to the constant hectoring, lecturing and interference.  Is that too much to ask? Here’s how Jimmy Carter summed it up in a Washington Post op-ed (November 24, 2010):

 “Pyongyang has sent a consistent message that during direct talks with the United States, it is ready to conclude an agreement to end its nuclear programs, put them all under IAEA inspection and conclude a permanent peace treaty to replace the ‘temporary’ cease-fire of 1953. We should consider responding to this offer. The unfortunate alternative is for North Koreans to take whatever actions they consider necessary to defend themselves from what they claim to fear most: a military attack supported by the United States, along with efforts to change the political regime.” (“North Korea’s consistent message to the U.S.”, President Jimmy Carter, Washington Post)

There it is in black and white. The US can end the conflict today by just meeting its obligations under the terms of the Agreed Framework and by agreeing that it will not attack North Korea in the future. The path to nuclear disarmament has never been easier, but the chances of Obama taking that road are slim at best.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/08/does-north-korea-need-nukes-to-deter-us-aggression/

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition.          More articles by:MIKE WHITNEY

Some of my personal thoughts about North Korea’s alleged ‘H-bomb’ test.

The current “outrage” after North Korea announced it had detonated a ‘H-bomb’ should be balanced by some deeper thinking, and less hypocrisy. In an ideal world, there would be no nuclear weapons and no nuclear weapons tests. However, this is not an ideal world.

North Korea has good reason to feel threatened by hostile forces on its border, with the USA, a nuclear superpower, having branded them part of the “Axis of Evil”. How many countries has North Korea invaded and destroyed by war? How many countries has the USA and its allies invaded and destroyed by war? Which is the only country to have actually used nuclear weapons to destroy two cities and kill hundreds of thousands of people?

North Korea will never forget how the USA overthrew a popular Korean government seeking independence in 1945, slaughtering numerous Koreans in the process, and then imposed a brutal military dictatorship on the country to serve US interests. This was even before the so-called Korean War, but most people in the West will know nothing about it.

Later, during the Korean War, American planes dropped 635,000 tons of bombs on Korea, including 32,557 tons of napalm, compared to 503,000 tons of bombs dropped in the entire Pacific theatre of World War 2. After the Korean War, the north of the country was completely obliterated: buildings, factories, the electricity network and its dams were destroyed.

These horrors of war imposed on Korea by the USA have been sanitized out of public consciousness in the West, so most people have no idea what the Korean War was really all about, and therefore have no empathy for why North Korea behaves as it does today.

North Korea spends resources it should be spending on improving the lives of its people to instead develop weapons as a deterrent to prevent future US aggression. Look what happened to Libya and Iraq, countries that gave up their weapons to please the West, only to then be destroyed.

The nuclear-armed powers have done little or nothing to reduce their nuclear stockpiles, and work for nuclear disarmament. Hostile forces frustrate efforts to peacefully resolve the tensions on the Korean Peninsula. In that context, perhaps North Korea is not behaving as irrationally as its critics like to suggest.

My thoughts here are not fully developed, and will probably be controversial, but hopefully they will stimulate further research.

Bruce McPhie

January 8, 2016

Read more background on Korea:

The Unknown Truth About Korea: U.S. Sanctioned Death Squads and War Crimes, 1945-1953:
http://www.brianwillson.com/the-unknown-truth-about-korea-…/

History News Network: Korean War article:
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/9245

The Korean War, A History.
VIDEO interview with Bruce Cumings, Chairman of the Department of History at the University of Chicago, on the historical origins of the Korean war, to the more recent history of North Korea:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37079.htm