Peter Schiff: Joining our program now is Doug Casey, and if you don’t know Doug, he is a libertarian economist. He is a bestselling financial author. He’s an international investor, entrepreneur, and founder/chairman of Casey Research. They publish a monthly newsletter, Casey International Speculator, and most recently Doug has produced a 30-minute documentary called Meltdown America, which I watched just yesterday on the Internet for free. I would encourage everybody to watch it. It’s a very entertaining half hour.
Doug, welcome to The Peter Schiff Show.
Doug Casey: Thanks, Peter. It’s my pleasure.
Peter: So in particular about your movie, which I thought was well done, the story that was most compelling to me was the interview with the gentlemen from Zimbabwe who had lived there most of his life. He was prosperous, had a business, and then had the foresight to read the writing on the wall, leave everything behind, and flee to Australia. He warned his friends—who made fun of him—and they then ended up having their property seized.
Doug: Yes, it’s an absolutely true story, of course. I’ve spent a lot of time in Zimbabwe and before that in Rhodesia over the years. I think the first time I went there was in 1976. His story is quite accurate about what happened in Zimbabwe, but it’s happened in a number of places in the world, and it’s going to happen in other places in the future. This is because most people don’t realize that as big as their investment risks are today with many markets being overinflated and so forth, their biggest risks are actually political risks. The biggest danger to you is your own government. In his case it was the Zimbabwe government. I guess most of the people listening now are Americans, and actually the US government is like a predator stalking us on the African plains.
Peter: What really is compelling about the story and what people should really take to heart is the attitude that pervades is that, well, it’s not going to happen here. It can’t happen here. People don’t want to think about that worst-case scenario. They want to assume that things are going to be okay, and if somebody is warning about this potential doomsday, that is the person whom they ridicule, who they say, oh, you’re crazy, that’s never going to happen, and, it happens in places like Zimbabwe. But expand on it, because it’s happening in America.
Doug: Well look, I hate to sound like a Cassandra, a gloomy Gus. I hate to say the sky is falling, and I know you do too. But you’ve got to be realistic. I don’t call it America anymore. I call it the US because although America is a fantastic idea, a wonderful idea, America as a concept is rapidly disappearing from the land area called the United States. So yeah, I hate to sound gloomy, because there are lots of reasons for optimism that we can recount. We have more scientists and engineers alive today now than we’ve had in all previous history put together. So that’s cause for optimism. But there is a lot of cause for real pessimism certainly in the short term, in the next decade or so in the US, and it could get worse from there. So you and I are pretty much on the same page economically, and it makes me a little uncomfortable having to be gloomy, but I have to be. I have to assess the facts.
Peter: Yeah, you can’t ignore the facts. So you don’t like to say that the sky is falling, but then if you see it falling, you don’t want to just pretend that you don’t see what you see because that’s worse. I mean, it’s better to warn about the catastrophes. Maybe your warnings could help put into effect policies that might avert the catastrophe, or if you can’t do that, at least help as many people as possible prepare for it in advance so that they don’t get hit by surprise.
Doug: Yes, although I greatly discount the odds of things changing because policies and governments have a momentum of their own. Imagine a village at the bottom of a valley, and that 100 years ago collectivism and statism started out as a small snowball, and now that snowball has turned into a giant avalanche. Now once it gets to the giant avalanche stage, you can’t stop it. So I’m afraid that the village at the bottom of the valley is going to be smashed, so you’ve got to run for high ground. I don’t think we can stop it at this point. The trend is too entrenched, too far in motion, and the fact that 50% of Americans are reliant upon the government for their income alone is a guarantee of bad things to come.
Peter: Yeah, and Doug, you have been an observer, a critic of this trend that has been ongoing in America for a long time. I mean, it’s not like we suddenly find ourselves on the precipice of disaster. We’ve been on that precipice for a long time. It’s kind of amazing that we haven’t fallen over just yet, but it’s been a long time building. Even my dad was in this camp back in the ‘70s, issuing warnings. But what do you see today that might make you think that this is the endgame? I mean there can’t be another couple of decades where you’re going to be sounding the alarm.
Doug: Yeah, that’s a very interesting point, Peter. When do we reach the actual endgame as opposed to just an accelerating downturn? I would say that it started in 2007. I think that’s the endgame because the Fed’s balance sheet—which is the best indicator of how much actual new money they’re creating—has gone from $500 billion to $4.5 trillion just in the last five years, and they’re still creating more. So they’ve shot all their arrows and when the economy turns down again—and I think it is in process of doing that now—there’s nothing they can do. They have already reduced interest rates to near zero, the Chinese and the Japanese aren’t buying any more government debt, and the official number is $500 billion a year of deficit now, so the Federal Reserve is going to be printing up money wholesale. This is a very scary thing, so yeah, I think we actually have reached the actual edge of the precipice.
Peter: And the amazing thing, too, and you point this out is they’re telling us we’ve been in a recovery for five years. This means statistically we’re also getting close to the next recession. Just by the probability, how long the expansion has been, yet we’ve never begun a recession where rates are still at zero. We’ve never begun a recession while they are still stimulating us from the previous recession. And nobody seems to worry about the outcome of entering a recession from the position that we are in right now.
Doug: And the numbers that they crank out to make everybody feel good are almost as phony as the numbers that the Argentine government cranks out. I live in Argentina most of the year and there, the Cristina Fernández government says well, we only have 10% inflation. But everybody knows that it’s 30 to 40%. And here they say we have 1-2% inflation. I would say that inflation is realistically in the 8-10% range here in the US—and it’s going much higher.
Peter: And that makes a lot more sense to me, given what I’m observing in the actual economy. The critics who argue that that’s impossible, that the people who think that inflation is more than 2-3% percent, they say they must be wrong, because that would mean that the economy has not experienced any legitimate economic growth. And to that I would say, absolutely, it hasn’t. The growth is all a fantasy. It’s all a result of the assumption that there is no inflation, when there really is because what we have is inflation masquerading as economic growth. But the bottom line is the economy is really contracting, that’s why the labor force is shrinking, that’s why we’re using less energy, that’s why the people’s standard of living is going down, and real incomes are falling and job opportunities are disappearing. It’s because we’re in a recession and no one wants to admit it.
Doug: You are absolutely right, and from this point it is going to get much more obvious and get much worse. I just wonder what the social consequences are going to be when the economy goes into a free-fall again, maybe by the end of this year. I think certainly next year. I mean it’s an open question whether people will riot.
Peter: You can already see the frustration. I often joke, if this is the Obama recovery, imagine how bad the recession is going to be. And you know, we’re running these deficits. The president is bragging now that the deficit is finally below $1 trillion, that it might be $600-700 billion, but that’s the deficit in the recovery. If we slip into a legitimate or acknowledged recession, where are the deficits going to go, $1.5 trillion, $2 trillion? And how can we possibly finance that when the world is already saturated with the debt that we’ve issued to stimulate us out of prior recessions?
Also, I’ve got to get to gold and silver, something that I know you’ve been advocating for a while. When it comes to gold and silver, I’ve never seen an environment where you have so many central banks embracing inflation as a goal, that they want more inflation, and they somehow think that it’s going to help the economy; and at the same time you have complete complacency on the part of investors to any of the risks associated with inflation that all these central bankers are promising to create.
Doug: As you are well aware, Peter, it was Lenin who said the best way to destroy a country is to debauch its currency. It’s perverse and idiotic what all the central banks around the world are doing at this point. But some are worse than others. The Europeans are out of control. The Japanese are out of control. The Chinese Central Bank and of course the Fed here in the US are out of control. So that’s one reason why I continue accumulating gold. It’s the only financial asset that’s not simultaneously somebody else’s liability.
Peter: Yeah, and you’ve been a buyer for a long time, a regular buyer and holder of metals. What do you think it’s going to take, though, to convince the skeptics who are so in love with paper and who make fun of the gold bugs for their irrational obsession with this obscure obsolete yellow metal? What do you think it is going to take for the mainstream to start buying into gold and silver, and of course the mining stocks?
Doug: I think it’s going to take a financial and economic collapse. I hate to say it, but I think we are on the edge of something that is much worse than what we had in 2008 and 2009. I look around the world at places where you can put your capital, real estate is overpriced, the stock market is greatly overpriced, the bond market is in a historic bubble, that’s about the best short sale I can think of in the world. So what are you left with? Gold is not a giveaway the way it was in 2001 at $250 an ounce, but it is reasonably priced, so I’m going to continue to buy it. I think there’s going to be a panic into gold, quite frankly.
Peter: You know, Doug, I think it could be just as big a giveaway now. If you look at the cost of production of gold today versus what it was 12 years ago, it costs a lot more to produce gold, and if you look at the amount of money that the central banks have created over the past 12 years and the amount of money that they are threatening to create, I think you could make a case that gold is cheaper now at $1,200 than it was at $300.
Doug: Well, when you look at the cost of mining new gold, there are about 80 million ounces produced every year, and there are perhaps six billion in total existence. Most of the mining companies in the world, the big ones like Barrick and Newmont, it’s not profitable for them to produce gold even at $1,300 an ounce when you consider all the costs of mining. So yes, I wouldn’t argue with you.
Peter: You talk about a bubble in assets like stocks and real estate. The irony of it is, the professional investors who are happily paying ridiculous valuations for stocks, the only bubble that they can identify is the one that doesn’t exist—except in their minds—and that is the bubble that they see in gold.
Doug: Yes, that’s right. The real bubble is in the bond market, and the bond market is much bigger than the stock market, so when the bubble in bonds bursts, it’s going to be very ugly. I’ve got to make a distinction, and I think you will agree with this. I’ve bought gold my whole life. I’ve never sold one ounce because I buy it for safety, for savings, prudence, and insurance. But I’ve also been very involved in gold stocks for many years, and gold stocks are a different animal than gold itself, and I treat them as a speculative vehicle because gold stocks are perhaps the most volatile class of securities in the world. The Vancouver Stock Exchange, which trades about 1,500 supposed gold companies, regularly goes up ten for one and then collapses 95%. As we speak at this time, it’s at a cyclical bottom. So I think it’s an extremely high-potential speculation to get into gold stocks at this time.
(Editor’s note: You may want to check out our Casey International Speculator publication which specializes in finding high-potential speculative opportunities in junior mining companies.)
Peter: Yeah, I agree with you. Of the nations that you travel to, which would you consider to be the most stable, maybe the ones that offer the best not only investment opportunity, but opportunity to live if you want to leave the United States?
Doug: Well, the fact of the matter is that all over the world these governments collude with each other in these clubs they belong to like the United Nations, the IMF, and the OECD, and they are all going in the wrong direction, which is to say more state power, more taxes, and more control. I’ve been to most of the countries in the world, and where I spend most of my time is in Argentina. The people there are used to stupidity from their government and despise their government.
Peter: Well, that’s for sure, Doug. They are prepared for stupidity, unlike Americans who are going to be surprised by it.
Editor’s Note: Be sure to check out www.SchiffRadio.com for more on Peter’s superb radio show. Also, don’t forget to catch our new free documentary Meltdown America, which discusses how to survive an economic collapse with examples from Zimbabwe, Argentina, and Yugoslavia. You won’t want to miss it.
Reprinted with permission from Doug Casey.
It has been well established under the Constitution and throughout our history that the president’s job as the chief federal law enforcement officer permits him to put his ideological stamp on the nature of the work done by the executive branch. The courts have characterized this stamp as “discretion.”
Thus when exercising their discretion, some presidents veer toward authority, others toward freedom. John Adams prosecuted a congressman whose criticism brought him into disrepute, an act protected by the First Amendment yet punishable under the Alien and Sedition Acts, and Thomas Jefferson declined to enforce the Acts because they punished speech, and pardoned all those convicted. Jimmy Carter asserted vast federal regulatory authority over the trucking and airline industries, and Ronald Reagan undid nearly all of it.
The president has discretion to adapt law enforcement to the needs of the times and to his reading of the wishes of the American people. Yet that discretion has a serious and mandatory guiding light — namely, that the president will do so faithfully.
The word “faithfully” appears in the oath of office that is administered to every president. The reason for its use is to assure Americans that their wishes for government behavior, as manifested in written law, would be carried out even if the president personally disagrees with the laws he swore to enforce.
This has not always worked as planned. President George W. Bush once famously signed into law a statute prohibiting federal agents without a search warrant from reading mail sent to persons other than themselves — and as he was literally holding his pen, he stated he had no intention of enforcing it. That was a rejection of his presidential duties and a violation of his oath.
But today, President Obama has taken the concept of discretion and so distorted it, and has taken the obligation of faithful enforcement and so rejected it, that his job as chief law enforcer has become one of incompetent madness or chief lawbreaker. Time after time, in areas as disparate as civil liberties, immigration, foreign affairs and health care, the president has demonstrated a propensity for rejecting his oath and doing damage to our fabric of liberty that cannot easily be undone by a successor.
Item: He has permitted unconstitutional and unbridled spying on all Americans all the time, and he has dispatched his agents to lie and mislead the American people and their elected representatives in Congress about it. This has resulted in a federal culture in which the supposed servants of the people have become our permanent and intimate monitors and squealers on what they observe.
Item: He has permitted illegal immigrants to remain here and continue to break the law, and he has instructed them on how to get away with it. His encouragement has resulted in the flood of tens of thousands of foreign unaccompanied children being pushed across our borders. This has resulted in culture shock to children now used as political pawns, the impairment of their lives and the imposition of grievous financial burdens upon local and state governments.
Item: His agents fomented a revolution in Libya that resulted in the murder of that country’s leader, the killing of the U.S. ambassador and the evacuation of the U.S. embassy. His agents fomented a revolution in Ukraine that resulted in a Russian invasion, an active insurgency, sham elections and the killing of hundreds of innocent passengers flying on a commercial airliner.
Item: He has dispatched CIA agents to fight undeclared and secret wars in Yemen and in Pakistan, and he has dispatched unmanned drones to kill innocents there. He has boasted that some secret reading of public positive law permits him to kill whomever he wishes, even Americans and their children.
Item: His State Department has treated Hamas — a gang of ruthless murderers whose stated purpose is the destruction of Israel — as if it were a legitimate state deserving of diplomatic niceties, and this has encouraged Hamas to persist in attacking our only serious ally in the Middle East.
Item: His Department of Veterans Affairs has so neglected patients in government hospitals that many of them died, and it even destroyed records to hide its misdeeds. His Internal Revenue Service has enforced the law more heavily against his political opponents than against his friends, and it has destroyed government computer records in order to hide its misdeeds.
Item: He has relieved his friends of the burdens of timely compliance with Obamacare, and he has burdened his enemies with tortured interpretations of that law — even interpretations that were rejected by the very Congress that enacted the law and interpretations that were invalidated by the Supreme Court.
He has done all these things with a cool indifference, and he has threatened to continue to do so until the pressure builds on his political opponents to see things his way.
The Framers could not have intended a president so devoid of fidelity to the rule of law that it is nearly impossible to distinguish between incompetence and lawlessness — and I am not sure which is worse. Archbishop Fulton Sheen often said he’d prefer to deal with a smart devil than a stupid one.
But the Framers did give us a remedy, and the remedy is not a frivolous lawsuit that the federal courts will no doubt reject as a political stunt. The remedy is removal from office. This is not to be undertaken lightly, as was the case when this remedy was last used. But it is the remaining constitutional means to save the freedoms the Constitution was intended to guarantee.
The choice is between two more years of government by decree or two years of prosecution. It is a choice the president has imposed upon us all.
Reprinted with the author’s permission.
Judge Andrew Napolitano has written a book, Theodore and Woodrow. It is on the first decades of the 20th century, when the Progressive movement captured American politics. Except for the 1920′s — Harding and Coolidge — Progressivism has never surrendered political control in the United States.
I spoke with him on July 22, at Mises University, the annual week-long training program for undergraduates, which is sponsored by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He was presenting a week-long series of lectures on the Constitution and the free market. The students get very good training on how the United States Constitution has been reinterpreted over the years, especially during the Progressive era.
I gave him some background that almost nobody knows. The essence of the battle for constitutional interpretation in the 20th century is found in the names “Woodrow” and “Wilson.”
THOMAS WOODROW WILSON
Woodrow Wilson’s full name was Thomas Woodrow Wilson, but he never went by Thomas. He always went by Woodrow. Woodrow is a strange name for a little boy to have. It is certainly a strange first name. As a middle name, it was okay, because it was his mother’s maiden name. So is my middle name. But I do not call myself by this middle name.
Woodrow Wilson’s father was Joseph Ruggles Wilson. He was the senior permanent bureaucrat in the southern Presbyterian Church in the late 19th century. He maintained the position of Stated Clerk for a third of a century. He was part of what was known as Old School Presbyterianism. This was the most conservative theological faction in 19th-century America — the true hard-liners. They were committed to a long document, the Westminster Confession of Faith (1648), plus two other documents, the Shorter Catechism in the Larger Catechism. These are the most detailed creedal documents in American history.
The position of the Old School was this: in order to become an elder in the Presbyterian Church, you had to swear your allegiance to these three long, highly detailed documents. A candidate for eldership was allowed certain reservations or exceptions, but these had to be approved by the presbytery, the regional bureaucratic structure. This applied to teaching elders (ministers/preachers) and ruling elders (laymen who had votes in the local congregation and the presbytery). In terms of Constitutional language, these were “original intent” interpreters of the foundational documents, i.e., the strict constructionists.
In contrast to the Old School was the New School. New School Presbyterians were much looser with regard to the rigor by which they enforced ministerial allegiance to the documents. The New School became dominant in the North after the Civil War, but not in the Southern Presbyterian Church. There, the Old School was dominant from the denomination’s creation in 1861, when the Civil War began, until the early 20th century.
There was a third group. These were the liberals. The liberals hid under the loose-construction confessional umbrella of New School Presbyterianism, but they in fact had almost no use whatsoever for any of the creedal documents. In order to get ordained, and then get lifetime salaries as ministers, they crossed their fingers. That is why I titled my book, Crossed Fingers. The subtitle is straightforward, How the Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church. I specifically was referring to the Northern Presbyterian Church, but the same tactics were used by liberals in the middle the 20th century to capture the Southern Presbyterian Church. The two denominations reunited in 1983. The resulting denomination is liberal.
Woodrow Wilson’s mother had a brother, James Woodrow. James Woodrow was by far the most prominent liberal in the Southern Presbyterian Church in the late 19th century. He was a believer in theistic evolution. He openly stated his views, which was the cause of battles against him. His nephew Woodrow agreed with him. He was repeatedly brought to trial and officially sanctioned at the church’s national level, but the church never succeeded in removing him. He taught alongside his brother at Columbia Theological Seminary, the main seminary of the denomination. It trained ministers.
Woodrow was a Ph.D. in science (Heidelberg University). In 1884, he began to teach that the Bible’s account of man’s creation was not inconsistent with Darwin’s view. The furor grew. In 1886-87, the seminary shut down for a year because of the controversy. Yet it never fired him. He finally retired in 1905. The seminary then officially rescinded its previous criticisms. He was totally victorious. (For a detailed account of this controversy, click here.) He became the president of South Carolina College in 1891. Finally, in 1901, the denomination capitulated completely. He was elected as the moderator of the Synod of Georgia.
When Wilson became president of Princeton University in 1902, replacing an Old School minister, Francis Patton, he oversaw a complete transformation of the university. It began to teach straight Darwinism in its science courses — not a trace of theistic evolution.
James Woodrow died in 1907.
irplane was owned and flown by a Spanish contractor called Swiftair, on behalf of Air Algerie. This was a Spanish-registered aircraft staffed by Spanish crew, and not an “African airline,” as virtually every commentator and correspondent has erroneously described it.
Regardless, this was the third high-profile accident in less than ten days’ time, joining the MH17 catastrophe and the crash of an ATR turboprop in Taiwan. An awful week to be sure, with more than four hundred casualties. Plane crashes, like tropical storms and celebrity deaths, seem to happen in threes sometimes.
The temptation, understandably, is to link these recent incidents together and try to wring some scary significance out of them. The media is playing it like some aviation Armegeddon, making travelers everywhere nervous. What in the world is happening? What does such a terrible streak portend? What does it mean for the greater context of air safety?
Well, probably not much.
For starters, these were very different accidents in very different parts of the world, occurring under very different circumstances. And partly because air crashes have become so rare, we tend to fixate on them when they do happen, which messes with our perspective.
Go back to the year 1985, for example. In that twelve-month span, 27 — twenty seven! — serious aviation accidents killed almost 2,500 people. We had the JAL crash outside Tokyo with 520 fatalities; the Arrow Air disaster in Newfoundland that killed 240 American servicemen; the Air-India bombing over the North Atlantic with 329 dead, etc. Two of history’s ten deadliest disasters happened within two months of each other!
That’s a bad year.
Three crashes in a week? How about two in 24 hours. In the same place!
On March 5th, 1966, a Canadian Pacific (CP Air) DC-8 crashed on landing at Tokyo’s Haneda airport. Arriving in heavy fog, the plane went low, struck a sea wall and burst into flames. Sixty-four of the 72 people on the jet were killed. The next afternoon a BOAC 707 carrying 124 people took off from the very same airport, bound for Hong Kong. Apparently to give passengers a good view, the 707′s captain chose to make an unusual visual climbout away from the published departure path and toward the summit of Mt. Fuji — directly into an area of extreme turbulence and 70-knot winds. Approaching the peak, the plane hit a severe gust — a so-called mountain wave — and broke apart in mid-air, throwing wreckage over a ten-mile swath. One of the most gruesomely ironic things I’ve ever seen is a newspaper photograph of the crashed CP Air DC-8. Behind the wreckage, the BOAC 707 is clearly visible, taxiing for takeoff on its own doomed flight.
Imagine that in 2014.
The 60s, 70s and 80s were an era rife with horrific crashes, bombings, airport attacks and so on. But over the years sine then aviation accidents have become a lot fewer and farther between. There are twice as many planes in the air as there were 25 years ago, yet the rate of fatal accidents, per miles flown, has been steadily falling. The International Civil Aviation Organization reports that for every million flights, the chance of a crash is one-sixth what it was in 1980.
Worldwide, 2013 was the safest year in the history of modern commercial aviation — dating back at least to the dawn of the jet age. This year will be something of a correction, but we can’t expect every year to be the safest. There will be spikes, peaks and valleys. Three accidents in a week is unusual and serious. But the overall trend should not be affected.
Predictably the recent crash spate has a lot of people playing the “which airlines are safest?” game. I don’t like that game, and I consider most airline-to-airline safety comparisons to be an academic exercise not worth the traveler’s time. In practical terms, all commercial air carriers are safe. Perhaps some are slightly safer than others, statistically speaking, but that’s a hard thing to quantify in light of how rare crashes are to begin with. Is an airline with, say, one crash over a 20-year span really “safer” than one with two crashes in that same period?
And there are, and always have been, newer and smaller airlines that run highly professional, button-down operations up to the highest possible standards. At the same time, some of the world’s eldest and most highly respected carriers have been guilty of deadly malpractice. Averaged out, it’s essentially a level playing field, and asking which is the safest airline to fly is a bit like asking which is the best lottery to play. If you’re wondering which criteria to employ, whether you’re headed for Madison or Madagascar, stick with price, schedule and service.
Following is a list of airlines that have gone fatality-free for at least the past thirty years. All qualifying airlines have been in existence since at least 1980:
Air Jamaica (now part of Caribbean Airlines)
Air Niugini (Papua New Guinea)
Air New Zealand
All Nippon Airways
Monarch Airlines (UK)
Royal Brunei Airlines
Thomsonfly (formerly Britannia Airways)
Tyrolean Airways (Austria)
I chose 1980 to best account for the changeover period from older first-generation jets and propliners to modern fleets. Most of the companies listed have perfect records pre-dating that year. Several, including Air Jamaica, Oman Air, and Tunisair, have never recorded a fatality. Allowing for one fatal mishap since 1980 takes in, just for starters, Royal Air Maroc, TACA, and Yemenia, just to name a few. Even the much-maligned Air Afrique, a West African collective that went bust in 2001, listed but a single accident in over three-plus decades of flying. Ghana Airways, another African star until its demise in 2004, had an even cleaner record, marred by a single fatality in 1969.
Whether the fortunes of some of these carriers attest to exemplary levels of oversight and professionalism or merely to luck is somewhat open to argument. Royal Brunei Airlines, to pick one from the list above, is a tiny outfit with only a handful of aircraft. Compare to American Airlines, with hundreds of planes and thousands of daily departures. American has outcrashed Royal Brunei 5–0 since 1980, but plainly the comparison is lopsided. Nonetheless, any unblemished legacy lasting thirty years is impressive on its own accord, particularly when the setting is an underdeveloped nation with substandard facilities and infrastructure.
For more on the facts and fallacies of airline safety,see chapter six of Cockpit Confidential.
Reprinted with permission from Ask the Pilot.
There has always been propaganda extolling Israel for being a democratic island in a sea of authoritarian regimes (although they also receive American aid). But a democracy can be as bloodthirsty or more and as callous with regard to human life or more than any other kind of nation-state, as the U.S. has shown in Iraq and Israel is showing in Gaza, again, and as it has been showing for a very long time. Two democracies have felt justified in inflicting wanton destruction totally out of proportion to its purported and trumped up justifications. Both have wielded power greatly superior to a weaker opponent militarily. Both have used that power in urban situations where civilians bear the brunt of the force inflicted. Both have created large numbers of refugees. Both have lashed out in fury and frustration at civilian targets when encountering resistance that was a surprise to them and used that resistance as an excuse. Both have endured their own casualties and killed at surprisingly high rates, given their superiority in numbers and firepower. Both have sizable numbers of their own people cheering from the sidelines. There is nothing whatever special about democracies in relation to classical liberal values. The values of each are actually in direct conflict.
Israel’s killing and injuring in Gaza suggests that Israel might better be compared to Boko Haram in Nigeria, and so may the U.S. as a result of its aggression on Iraq and its people. A high degree of killing, injuring and destroying without sufficient justification is the common element in all three cases. I quote
“Boko Haram (usually translated as ‘Western education is a sin’), is a militant Islamist organization based in northern Nigeria, influenced by the Wahhabi movement. Founded by Mohammed Yusuf in 2002, the organization seeks to establish an Islamic state in Nigeria. The group was designated by the U.S. Department of State as a terrorist organisation in 2013.
“In the first half of 2014 Boko Haram killed more than 2000 civilians, in about 95 attacks; and, in the preceding three years, more than 3000. In May 2014, Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan claimed that Boko Haram attacks have left at least 12,000 people dead and 8,000 crippled. Hundreds of thousands have fled their homes.”
Readers are asking for my take on the Israel-Gaza situation, and, believe it or not, Oxford University’s famous debating society, the Oxford Union, invited me to debate the issue.
I replied to the Oxford Union that I was unprepared to take responsibility for the Palestinians without undergoing the extensive preparation that an Oxford Union debate deserves and requires. Unless things have changed since my time at Oxford, one prevails in a Union debate by anticipating every argument of one’s opponent and smashing the arguments with humor and wit. Facts seldom, if ever, carry the day, and sometimes not even wit and humor if the audience is already committed to the outcome by the prevailing propaganda. There is no time or energy in my overfull schedule for such preparation plus time away and jet lag.
Moreover, I am not an expert on Israel’s conquest and occupation of Palestine. I know more than most people. I was rescued from Zionist propaganda by Israeli historians, such as Ilan Pappe, by Jewish intellectuals, such as Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, by documentary film makers, such as John Pilger, by Israeli journalists such as Uri Avnery and the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, and by an Israeli houseguest who is an Israeli member of an Israeli peace group that opposes Israeli destruction of Palestinian homes, villages, and orchards in order to build apartment blocks for settlers.
There is only one take on the current Israeli slaughter of Palestinians, which Netanyahu, the demonic Israeli leader, declares will be a “protracted campaign” this time. We are witnessing yet again Israeli war crimes that are supported by the Great Moral West that is so concerned about the deaths of 290 passengers on MH-17 that they are about to drive the world to a major war, while Palestinian casualties pile up so fast that they are out of date by the time you put the numbers in a column. So far more than 1,200 deaths, with injuries to 2,000 children, 1,170 women, and 257 elderly.
Reading the Western Media, watching Western TV, and listening to Western radio, one is left with the propaganda that the Palestinians are to blame for the Israeli attack on Gaza, just as one is left with the propaganda that the Malaysian airliner deaths are Russia’s fault. There is no evidence, but propaganda does not require evidence. Just repetition.
The Gaza strip, a ghetto full of Palestinians evicted from their homes and villages in the West Bank, is one of the most densely populated areas on earth where life with scant resources is difficult. Israel is currently in the process of shrinking Gaza by 44 percent, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, is preparing another “emergency” aid package consisting of US tax dollars to finance Israel’s slaughter and compression of Palestinian lives. (See here and here)
One would think that the Great Moral West would be discussing sanctions on Israel and on Washington’s stooge government in Kiev, which is bombing civilian homes, apartment complexes, and infrastructure in provinces where the people object to the Russophobic government installed by Washington in place of the one that they elected. But the Great Moral West only aids the perpetrators of death and destruction, not the victims.
Palestinians are being dispossessed and exterminated exactly as were the native American Indians. On occasion Israeli officials have said that they are only following America’s lead in clearing the land of undesirables. This is my take on what is one of the West’s great moral failings:
Israel Is Stealing and Murdering Its Way Through Palestine
In addition to being an engine of misery, corruption, and bloodshed, the War on Drugs should be seen as a multi-tiered criminal enterprise.
At the top echelon are found the political figureheads who recite pious bromides. That’s likewise where we encounter the bureaucratic scribes responsible for crafting those cynical pronouncements and the legislation that gives them substance. The operational level consists of federally subsidized, hyper-aggressive law enforcement agencies that carry out military-style raids and seizures. This includes squalid undercover police operatives and the petty criminals who act as “cooperating informants,” as well as the strutting armored sociopaths who act on that “intelligence” by terrorizing people in home invasions that are typically carried out before dawn or after sunset.
Beneath the lurid violence of narcotics enforcement can be found the gray, undistinguished local bureaucrats who are actually in charge of such task as stealing property said to be “connected” to drug trafficking, caging the people from whom it was taken, and dividing up the spoils. Official transcripts from several meetings of Oregon’s Malheur County Commission provide useful insights regarding the retail-level business of that vertically integrated criminal enterprise.
For nearly two years, the Malheur County DA’s office, working in collaboration with the federally syndicated High Desert Drug Enforcement task force, has been milking revenue out of a September 11, 2012 raid on the 45th Parallel, which was a medical marijuana dispensary located in Ontario, Oregon.
Police raids were carried out against both the co-op and more than a dozen “grow sites” in both eastern Oregon and western Idaho. A total of eighteen people were eventually charged with “conspiracy” to provide medical marijuana “for consideration,” under a version of the Oregon medical marijuana law that is no longer in effect.
During an April 9 meeting of the Malheur County Commission, Deputy District Attorney Michael Dugan, an ardent prohibitionist, explained that “Under Oregon law at that time you could not sell marijuana even to another medical marijuana participant.” (Emphasis added.)
“You have to have an enterprise or an organization,” elaborated Dugan to commissioners Don Hodge and Larry Wilson. “An enterprise can be a for-profit [or] a non-profit corporation, it can be a business, it can be an association however loosely assembled.” It isn’t necessary to be directly involved in a specific illegal act in order to be “wrapped up in the RICO,” Dugan told the two commissioners. In fact, “it could be the three of us if we associated to do something illegal.”
The purpose of the April 9 meeting was to persuade commissioners to continue funding the prosecution of William Esbensen and Raymond Kangas, the co-founders of the 45thParallel, who were the final defendants in the case. On June 6 they were found guilty in a bench trial of conspiring to provide medical marijuana “for consideration,” despite the fact that the statute under which they were prosecuted was dead-letter law.
Interestingly, in an earlier jury trial two other 45th Parallel defendants, Kelly and Kerry Rhoan, were found guilty on two RICO counts but acquitted on “conspiracy” charges.
That verdict “kind of makes me cross my eyes because in order to have a RICO you have to have … an agreement to associate, and conspiracy is an agreement to commit crimes,” Dugan recounted to the Malheur County commissioners. Somehow, the only jury that rendered a verdict in the 45th Parallel case ruled that the defendants had created an association to do something that wasn’t considered a criminal act – in this case, to distribute a legally recognized palliative medicine to people who needed it.
As it happens, the purpose of Dugan’s presentation on April 9 was to entice the commissioners into underwriting what amounted to a highly lucrative illicit enterprise: Prosecuting a RICO case without a clearly established “predicate offense,” through what appears to be a fraudulent county contract with the DA’s office, in collusion with a District Judge who had obliquely indicated her willingness to inflate the charges in order to impose draconian fines that would translate into larger profits for the county.
During the September 2012 raids, Dugan boasted, “we recovered” – that is, his armed accomplices stole at gunpoint – “a number of huge globs of money so to speak.” Among those “globs” was $53,000 in cash that was seized at Esbensen’s home in Boise, money that had no proven connection to the 45th Parallel. That stolen money “was subject to federal forfeiture,” which means it was available for “equitable sharing to … local law enforcement.” The Malheur County Sheriff’s office “received about 40 grand of that; [Sheriff Brian Wolfe] could tell you more exactly, but that goes into his forfeiture fund.”
This was explained, once again, during the April 9 commissioners’ meeting. Roughly two weeks later, Malheur County DA Dan Norris reported to the commission that $15,000 from the Sheriff’s forfeiture fund would “contribute to Mr. Dugan’s employment costs.” What this means, of course, is that the money stolen from Mr. Esbensen without due process of law would be used to fund his prosecution on charges filed under a law that was no longer in effect.
Norris asked the commission to provide “an additional $15,000 from [the] General fund to continue to contract with Mr. Dugan” and said that he would “generate additional funds needed” to underwrite the 45th Parallel prosecutions, which would cost “a total of $40,000.” How would the prosecutor “generate” the additional funds? Would he hold a bake sale, perhaps? Of course not: He “requested [that] monies from anticipated judgments in the 45th Parallel case be put into the revenue side of his budget” – in other words, that the prosecution would proceed in the expectation of additional forfeitures and fines.
Significantly, before the commissioners heard DA Norris’s pitch they were favored by a presentation from Circuit Court Judge Patricia Sullivan. In what one veteran attorney described to me as a clear violation of judicial ethics, Sullivan lobbied the commissioners to provide increased “resources” – that is, funding – for the DA’s office. At the time, Sullivan was presiding over the 45th Parallel case, yet she was advocating on behalf of the prosecution’s budget priorities.
Sullivan’s role in the case was also addressed by Deputy DA Dugan during the April 9 county commission meeting, in which he described the relationship between the severity of a RICO offense and the potential windfall for the county.
“I’ve got about $35,000 in prosecution costs that I’m asking the judge to impose against the first RICO defendant” – that is, William Esbensen – “add another 2,000 or [three thousand] for the second RICO defendant and it just keeps going up that way.”
“Now, these assets, other than money that you’ve recovered [sic], I assume you’re taking vehicles…?” inquired Commissioner Hodge.
“No, this is all cash, Don,” replied DA Norris, prompting an important clarification from Dugan.
“There are some land and houses involved; I’m not sure exactly how far we’ll go in terms of that,” Dugan stated. “I know that Mr. [Esbensen] owns a number of different properties in Idaho. County Counsel would have to be, I guess, assisting in terms of how we go about getting our judgments registered in Idaho and moving forward to recover [sic] some of the properties there.” Dugan told the commissioners that “you folks have to make the decision as to how much you want … to spend in terms of going after Idaho stuff” – that is, how far they want to pursue the theft of Esbensen’s property in the name of “asset forfeiture.”
As an incentive to carry out additional seizures, Dugan predicted that Judge Sullivan would be imposing significant “compensatory fines” against Esbensen and his partner, Scott Kangas. Getting those judgments would give the DA and the county counsel’s office funding to “do the house and foreclose on the house or do bank accounts, those sorts of things,” Dugan observed.
“We’re going to have a little bit … of an advantage because paying us is going to be part of their probation,” the deputy DA gloated. “The consequence of not paying that bill is more than say not paying your phone bill.”
This is entirely true: In the latter case, a legitimate business would simply cut off its useful service from somebody who refused to pay for it; in the former, a privileged extortion ring would kidnap a victim who failed to comply with its demands, and then put him in a cage.
Under Oregon law, Dugan continued, sentences are classified in severity “from one to eleven.” As an unclassified offense, a RICO conviction can be rated anywhere along that scale.
“I’m asking the judge to classify them [the 45th Parallel charges] at an eight,” Dugan informed the commissioners. “We’ll see what she does. An eight would be a potential prison sentence with an optional probation, and if they want to do the optional probation you can bet your bottom dollar that the optional probation is going to require a lot of payment on these prosecution costs.” (Emphasis added.)
The pronoun “she” referred to Judge Sullivan, the only female judge in the jurisdiction. By showing up at a commission meeting about two weeks later to lobby on behalf of a budget increase for the DA’s office, she clearly indicated what she intended to do if she had continued as the trial judge in the 45th Parallel case. As it turned out, Sullivan was forced to recuse herself from the case roughly a week after her participation in the April 22 county commission meeting – a development that had interesting consequences for the prosecution during the sentencing phase, as we’ll see anon.
Under the new medical marijuana law, Dugan pointed out to the commissioners, the county would be able to “impose a tax per gram and it’ll be paid… In Colorado it’s a 21 percent tax and they’re making millions of dollars.”
Until the commission decides how it will profit directly from the sale of medical marijuana under the new law, however, there was still the business of how to extract what revenue it could out of the prosecution of people under the old law. Norris emphasized that it would be necessary to fund Dugan’s efforts to “finish the 45th Parallel case,” then he and the commissioners would “have more in-depth discussions about additional collections and additional use of that money to see things through and do forfeitures next year. Which I think from a business standpoint would make sense.”
The “business” Norris referred to, once again, is a clearly unethical, patently immoral, and arguably illegal enterprise. In addition to its apparent collusion with Judge Sullivan, the Malheur County DA’s office had a dubious contract relationship with Dugan.
During a February 12 county commission meeting, county administrative officer Lorinda DuBois pointed out that Dugan’s contract “was up December 31st.” This would mean that he had no authority to act on behalf of the county until and unless a new contract was completed – and this was a matter of some urgency, DA Norris insisted, because of “some issues where attorneys in the drug case are seeking sanctions against the Sheriff’s Office and I don’t have anyone working on dealing with that issue. And it’s a time bomb ticking for the Sheriff’s Office. Mr. Dugan needs to be able to get back to work” – which he apparently couldn’t do unless and until a new contract was completed.
Or – perhaps he could, according to Norris.
“Now, as long as we have a temporary authorization for Mr. Dugan to return to work we certainly can wait until next week to get the paperwork done,” he told the commission.
“Is that legal?” inquired County Judge Dan Joyce, who clearly saw a problem in that proposal.
“It will be fine,” insisted an official identified as “Ms. Williams,” because “his contract’s going to be backdated to January anyway.” This is because “you really can’t do an amendment; it has to be a new contract from calendar year to calendar year,” she explained.
Yet somehow a curious document exists bearing the unwieldy title “First Amendment to Employment Agreement Between Michael T. Dugan and Malheur County Recorded with Malheur County Clear as Instrument Number 2013-0597.” That document, an impermissible amendment to a backdated (which is to say, likely fraudulent) contract, specified that Dugan’s employment “shall automatically end on June 30, 2014 or when [he] has worked 541 hours, whichever occurs first.”
There’s reason to believe that Dugan had expended his allotment of hours before the 45th Parallel trial was over. But that matter is academic if the backdated contract itself was invalid. Although some might regard this to be a matter of petty technicalities, it should be remembered that the defendants in this case were convicted of operating a criminal conspiracy to “deliver” a legally protect medicine in ways that supposedlyviolated arcane provisions of a medical marijuana law that is no longer in effect.
As noted earlier, Judge Sullivan’s participation in this case was central to the prosecution’s strategy. After Sullivan was replaced by Judge Gregory Baxter, Dugan prosecuted Esbensen and Kangas as level 4 offenders. Following their conviction, Dugan asked Judge Baxter to revise – or “backdate,” if you prefer – the offenses as qualifying for level 8 sentences, which would justify the imposition of heavier “compensatory fines” – with the threat of lengthy prison sentences as leverage.
Unlike Sullivan, Baxter didn’t appear sympathetic to the financial needs of the Malheur County DA’s office. He ruled that the defendants would be sentenced under level 4 guidelines, which meant two years of probation rather than a prison term. The final amount of “compensation” has yet to be decided, but it will most likely be a less lucrative pay-out than the DA’s office had anticipated – pending additional forfeiture actions, of course.
From teeth to tail, the 45th Parallel case has been a criminal enterprise on the part of the prosecution. It began with the corrupt actions of Boise-based DEA Agent Dustin Bloxham, who committed multiple felonies (including interstate wire fraud and falsifying medical records in order to obtain an Oregon medical marijuana card) during the course of an unauthorized undercover operation on a medical marijuana clinic outside his jurisdiction.
One of the key witnesses for the prosecution, Tricia Gardner, is a repeat narcotics offender and serial check forger who continues to operate a medical marijuana facility in Ontario despite a county-wide moratorium. A former staffer at the 45th Parallel, Gardner filed the necessary paperwork to open that clinic on September 10, 2012 – the day before the task force raided the co-op.
In November, Oregon voters will consider a measure that would de-criminalize recreational use of marijuana for residents who are at least 21 years of age. As Dugan indicated to the Malheur County Commission, the loosening of restrictions on marijuana use would require updating the local plunderbund’s business plan to emphasize taxation, rather than prohibition. In the meantime, they will have to be satisfied with using whatever means are at their disposal to wring the last trickle of revenue out of Esbensen, Kangas, and their fellow victims of the prohibition racket.
By Dr. Mercola
Earlier this month, we ran a report on the CDC anthrax blunder. As if that weren’t bad enough, there have been additional exposures since we posted that report. This time, it involved the shipment of live, highly contagious, and deadly H5N1 avian influenza samples.
As previously reported, as many as 841 scientists and staff members at a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) biolab were exposed to live anthrax in June. The live pathogen had been sent from a higher-security facility.
Biosafety protocols were apparently not followed at either of the facilities. The anthrax sample was supposed to have been inactivated prior to transfer, but due to multiple protocol breaches, it was still “live” upon arrival.
In addition to failing to properly inactivate the pathogen, samples were also found to have been transferred in Ziploc bags, and stored in unlocked storage refrigerators in an area where unauthorized personnel were free to wander by.
The director of the CDC’s Bioterror Rapid Response and Advanced Technology Laboratory, Michael Farrell, was reassigned,2 from his posts, voluntarily resigned on July 22.3, 4 Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, head of the CDC, has now issued a report5that admits to sloppy work ethics at the lab.
The Old Adage Holds True: If You Fail to Plan, You’re Planning to Fail…
According to the CDC’s internal investigation, senior staff members at the receiving facility had not created a written plan for the researchers to follow when studying the deadly pathogen.
Scientists also did not review existing literature before beginning their work. What few instructions were obtained were given over the phone, and poor communication led to some of the errors. As noted by Rutgers University chemistry professor Richard H. Ebright:6
“It is ironic that the institution that sets US standards for safety and security of work with human pathogens fails to meet its own standards. It is clear that the CDC cannot be relied upon to police its own select-agent labs.”
The report also admits to two additional anthrax incidents, both of which occurred in 2006. Neither of these incidents had previously been disclosed to the public. In both instances, the CDC “accidentally” shipped live anthrax to two different labs.
A third erroneous shipment involved live botulism bacteria. It seems we can all count ourselves lucky that the CDC hasn’t killed large numbers of people yet through all these sloppy mistakes!
As noted in a recent Scientific American article,7 intentional and/or unintentional releases of deadly agents from high security laboratories have actually proven far
CDC Accidentally Ships Wrong Flu Virus to Poultry Researchers
Incredibly, there’s been yet another accidental release of a deadly virus since the anthrax debacle, and CDC leaders didn’t even learn about it until a month after it occurred.
Turns out CDC scientists shipped deadly H5N1 avian influenza samples to a Department of Agriculture poultry research lab.8 They were supposed to send a far more benign variety for study… The error appears to have been discovered when all of the exposed chickens died.
The Agriculture Department reported the frightful mix-up on May 23, but CDC staffers didn’t report the error to senior management at the CDC until July 7! Dr. Frieden was reportedly “stunned and appalled” upon hearing the belated news.
“The recent revelations have created a crisis of faith in the federal agency, prompting calls for an independent body to investigate such episodes in the future, as well as for sweeping changes at the agency and to a sprawling web of research labs…” the New York Times9 writes.
One can only wonder: had this accidental exposure actually resulted in some sort of mini pandemic, would this mistake ever have seen the light of day? More than likely, it would have been covered up and used as justification for additional vaccinations.
Deadly Pathogens Discovered in an Old Storage Room
The bad news doesn’t end there, I’m afraid. Several weeks ago, scientists were shocked to discover a number of old, unapproved vials of the deadly smallpox virus in a “forgotten storage room” on the National Institutes for Health (NIH) campus in Bethesda, Maryland. Now, they’ve reportedly uncovered a total of one dozen boxes containing nearly 330 vials of an array of pathogens, including dengue and spotted fever.10 The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the responsibility of overseeing the lab.
Apparently, the vials had been sitting in that storage room for nearly 50 years! Some estimate the specimens date back to somewhere between 1946 and 1964. The smallpox vials were dated 1954. How all of these pathogens got there, and how they could possibly have been overlooked for this long, is still a mystery.
Smallpox killed hundreds of millions of people before being eradicated in 1977, and there it is—sitting in an old cold-storage room in an unapproved lab. What if a natural catastrophe had wiped out the building? What if they’d gotten stolen? Clearly, they would not have been missed! Thankfully, the vials were well-packed and intact, and no accidental exposure appears to have occurred.
Karen Midthun, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), told reporters: “The fact that these materials were not discovered until now is unacceptable. We take this matter very seriously, and we’re working to ensure that this doesn’t happen again.” Indeed, it seems several of our federal agencies have their hands full with biosafety investigations, from the USDA and CDC, to the FDA… As reported by CNN,11 the CDC has created “a high-level group of leaders who will work on lab safety issues,” and is also working on the creation of an external lab safety advisory group.
The agency also claims to have devised a rapid-response command structure, which has been lacking. How the premiere agency responsible for biosafety could be lacking a rapid-response structure in the first place is yet another mystery, if you ask me… The CDC promised to clean up its act back in 2012 when repeated safety lapses came to light.12 It didn’t happen, and we ended up with the largest accidental exposure to a bioweapon in US history. Let’s see if the agency gives the task the time and attention it deserves this time.
The Dreadful History of Biolab Errors
The sad truth is that, over the years, there have been many other deadly biolab mistakes, including but not limited to the following:In 1971, a former Soviet biological weapons testing facility released a deadly strain of hemorrhagic smallpox—allegedly during an open-air test. Hundreds were quarantined, 50,000 people were vaccinated, and three people died.13 In 1978, a University of Birmingham laboratory inadvertently released the smallpox virus, which ended up killing a British medical photographer.14 In 1979, there was an “accidental atmospheric release” of anthrax in Sverdlovsk, Russia,15 which killed 64 of the 94 infected individuals.16 During the mid-1980s, Bayer sold millions of dollars worth of an injectable blood-clotting medicine to Asian, Latin American, and some European countries, knowing it was tainted with the AIDS virus. This is yet another example of how deadly pathogens can make their way out of the lab, and into the human population. In 2001, US Army biodefense scientist Bruce Ivins allegedly mailed letters containing a live research strain of anthrax from the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) in Fort Detrick, Maryland. Shortly thereafter, he committed suicide. Five people died from the exposure. In 2004, a lab in Maryland accidentally sent live anthrax to a California children’s hospital. The CDC investigated the incident and created recommendations designed to make sure something like this would never happen again, yet the near-identical chain of mistakes and protocol failures just occurred at their own facility.17 In 2009, Baxter accidentally sent vaccines contaminated with live and deadly avian (bird) flu to a research facility in Europe. The mistake originated in a Baxter plant operating under Bio Safety Level 3 (BSL3) status — meaning that high-level precautions are supposed to be in place to make sure an accident like this never happens. The company blamed the incident on human error, again demonstrating that, apparently, it takes just one absent-minded dingbat to circumvent the highest level biosafety system currently in existence. In 2012, it was discovered that the bioterror germ lab at the CDC in Atlanta (the same building where the latest anthrax safety breach occurred) has had repeated problems with airflow systems designed to help prevent the release of infectious agents such as anthrax, dangerous strains of influenza, the SARS coronavirus, and monkeypox. Air from a research lab in one of the Biosafety Level 3 buildings was being vented into a so-called “clean” area, where visitors are not required to wear protective gear. While no one was infected, the problems were major violations of laboratory operating standards.18, 19 Also in 2012, a vaccine researcher at the Northern California Institute for Research died shortly after being infected with the Neisseria meningitides bacteria at work. He was working on a vaccine against the pathogen, and according to the site chief was following required precautions for working with the deadly pathogens.20
New Biorisk Management Standards Are Clearly Needed
There’s no doubt that biosafety problems such as the ones discussed above pose a grave danger to public health. And when the gold standard of biorisk safety—the CDC—itself repeatedly fails to follow its own safety protocols, you know we’re in trouble… Even with new biorisk management standards, such as those backed by the World Health Organization (WHO), it’s questionable whether the risks associated with bioterror research labs can really be eradicated.
Pandemic viruses that could kill off large portions of the population are generally kept for vaccine development. We’re repeatedly warned that a deadly outbreak could occur at any moment, and we’re told that it’s imperative to give vaccine manufacturers the leeway needed to create new vaccines, fast.
What they never tell you, however, is that this research in and of itself poses the greatest risk for creating the outbreak in the first place! It seems quite clear that we cannot blindly accept safety assurances from our federal agencies, not even the CDC, which is in charge of biosafety. It’s also clear that we’re in dire need for independent oversight of these kinds of facilities.
Sources and References
- 1 Reuters June 29, 2014
- 2 Reuters June 23, 2014
- 3 New York Times July 23, 2014
- 4 TechTimes July 23, 2014
- 5 New York Times July 13, 2014
- 6 New York Times July 13, 2014
- 7 Scientific American June 23, 2014
- 8 Reuters July 15, 2014
- 9 New York Times July 13, 2014
- 10 Washington Post July 16, 2014
- 11 CNN July 16, 2014
- 12 Reuters July 17, 2014
- 13 New York Times June 18, 2002
- 14 BBC History, Smallpox
- 15 PNAS March 27, 2006: 103(20); 7589–7594
- 16 Frontline, Sverdlovsk Plague
- 17 Reuters June 29, 2014
- 18 The Federal Times June 13, 2012
- 19 CNN June 22, 2012
- 20 CBS News May 4, 2012
Do we live in a police state?
What other state forces non-criminals to submit to fingerprinting in order to obtain permission to drive?
Or merely to exist?
The state of Texas does. So do the states of California, Georgia and Colorado. Soon, the entire UnitedState (singular usage, in the interests of editorial accuracy) is likely to require it. Indeed, already does – under the auspices of the REAL ID Act, passed back in ’05 by the Heimatsicherheitsdeinst.
That’s Homeland Security, in English.
But it amounts to the same thing.
Like Clover overtaking a garden, this business is spreading across the land. It’s been pruned here and there – for the moment – but the general trend is depressingly clear. Within a decade, at most, it will probably be impossible – legally – for any person in this country to avoid being fingerprinted. Perhaps also retina scanned and DNA swabbed, for good measure.
Under the USA Patriot Act (gag me - and hopefully gag you, too) the state of Michigan (and other states) requires over-the-road truckers not merely to be fingerprinted but also that they submit to a background check once every four years, if they wish to be able to transport “hazardous” materials. That is, to be able to work. See here.
How does all this make you feel?
The state will – does – claim that forcing people to queue up like cons and submit to being “inked” is merely (here it comes) for their own good. To protectthem against identity fraud and so on. But what has this to do with driving?
Oh. I forget. We do not have a right to drive. That is, to freely travel. We are allowed the conditional privilege to operate motor vehicles which we’re similarly allowed to possess – for awhile – providedwe abide by various conditions (and continue to pay the requisite fees). If we wish to travel by motor vehicle, we must accept the state’s terms and conditions. That is the reasoning.
It’s silly reasoning, of course. As well as vicious reasoning.
Vicious, because being (legally) unable to travel freely is a denial of a very basic human right. How is it possible that anyone not entirely asleep at the switch can entertain the idea that he’s a free man if he’s not free to come and go as he pleases, without the state’s permission?
Shingles (herpes zoster) is a secondary outbreak of the chicken pox virus. It can happen decades after the original infection. It is usually less severe the second time. It may occur for people who have had either chicken pox or the chicken pox vaccination. It is often caused by the vaccine, and people who get the vaccine strain years after a vaccination get a much worse version of shingles. It is an opportunistic virus that will strike whenever the immune system is sufficiently impaired. Those who have never contracted chicken pox are at risk of contracting it from people with shingles. When it first occurs, shingles usually appears in circular patterns.
You Should Not Visit Your Doctor
Doctors will prescribe just about anything for shingles, except for something that actually works. Some prescribe painkillers, anti-depressants, and topical petrochemical creams. The establishment’s resultant help-to-harm ratio is rather disturbing. More often than not, standard treatments actually stress the immune system to make the outbreak last longer. Prescribing anti-depressants for a shingles outbreak is insanity, and places the patient at more risk than the original virus. Pharmaceutical anti-depressants are known to cause suicidal and homicidal behaviors, especially in those not needing them. All of the orthodox treatment options have risks, and are rarely effective. Shingles will eventually disappear without treatment, and the amount of time depends on the strength of the immune system.
A natural, holistic approach to shingles takes into account that it is part of the herpes family of viruses. When it is treated appropriately, the virus outbreak will be short-lived. Herpes can only thrive in a body with a weakened immune system. The herpes family of viruses are particularly effected by a person’s L-arginine to L-lysine ratio. These are natural amino acids that are found inside the human body, but they come from foods. There must be a greater level of arginine in the body for herpes viruses to thrive.
Lysine is found in proteins, dairy, and most vegetables. Arginine is found in nuts, chocolate, and tomatoes. Use the chart below to ensure that the diet is higher in lysine foods, until the outbreak passes.
A chiropractor will generally be more helpful than a standard doctor. The shingles virus dwells in the spinal column, where the virus may remain dormant for decades. Spinal misalignment is a strong contributing factor in outbreaks, and their duration. Therefore, chiropractic adjustments can dramatically speed the recovery process.
In order to reduce pain and stimulate recovery, soak a cloth rag in apple cider vinegar. Next, sprinkle cayenne pepper powder over the lesions, and cover them with the damped rag. Put a hot water bottle on top of the rag, or use some other safe source for heat. Be careful not to burn the person. This procedure should dramatically reduce recovery time if repeated regularly. It will also provide much needed relief to the itching.
It would be wise to temporarily supplement with large doses of lysine of up to 2000 mg. per day (2 grams), until the shingles outbreak is gone. However, this large dosage may cause health problems if it is continued for an extended period. A mere handful of peanuts is usually enough to unfavorably shift the balance in favor of arginine, so a carefully planned diet is absolutely critical for fast recovery. Oral doses of colloidal silver can be helpful too, because colloidal silver is harmful to viruses. Large doses of vitamin C are known for being helpful in reducing the recovery time. We intentionally neglected to list herbs as an option, because herbs have almost no effect on herpes, chickenpox, or shingles.
Reprinted from The Health Wyze Report.
The U.S. is giving Russia, China, and all their allies one stark choice–SURRENDER AND SUBMIT TO THE U.S. IMPERIAL TYRANNY OR PREPARE FOR ALL OUT WAR.
We are at one of the great turning points of human history, but Americans and Europeans are all out to lunch, enjoying their state sponsored bread and circuses.
The U.S. tyrants see clearly that their Global Empire is disintegrating, so they are desperately trying to destroy the rapidly growing, rising nations with a Global “Preventive” War, WWIV.
They seem completely convinced that Russia, China, et al. will surrender and submit rather than fight and that this will happen before the U.S. Global Empire implodes.
I don’t know if they will fight, but I think that, if there is any serious fighting that cuts off oil and gas from the Persian Gulf and Russia to Europe, Europe and the U.S. will implode.
IF Russia and China and Iran come to believe that, the obvious “preventive” war for them is to shut down the oil and gas to destroy the U.S. Empire.
Like the Peloponnesian War, WWI and WWII and the U.S. wars against Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, WWIV is being started as a “preventive” war by a dominant empire that feels threatened by rising powers, but the “solution” of preventive war will lead to the defeat of the dominant empire and its implosion, the fate of all the major empires desperately fighting WWI and WWII–except the U.S. Empire, the sole major survivor of those wars.
Oil and gas and a vast Super Bubble of paper-asset bubbles are two of the many Achilles heals of the E.U., U.K. and U.S. Any major war against major nations will trigger implosion by attacking those Achilles heals. The Russian and Chinese economists and global strategists are well aware of these trigger points of U.S. and E.U. implosion. They are trying to avoid war and continue growing very rapidly in all ways as they have been doing, while the U.S. has been sinking into a vast Black Hole of financial and economic debts and distortions and begun disintegrating and have pumped themselves up only with the vast paper-asset Super Bubble.
IF the U.S. forces them to fight, they will use indirection to find direction out–they will attack the distant Achilles heels of the U.S. Empire to bring down the whole rotten house of cards on us all.
Back in 2007, the Weekly Standard magazine described Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, and Paul Ryan as the “Young Guns of the House GOP.” Make that just McCarthy and Ryan.
Cantor recently lost his Republican primary election and resigned as House Majority Leader. Ryan was the losing Republican vice presidential nominee in 2012. He is the chairman of the House Budget Committee and architect of the rotten Ryan Republican budget. McCarthy is the new House Majority Leader.
In 2010, Cantor, McCarthy, and Ryan authored Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders (Simon & Shuster). It made the New York Times Bestseller List. The trio of House Republicans then did a series of interviews about the book and their particular conservative ideas.
In 2011, John Murray, then Cantor’s deputy chief of staff, founded the Young Guns (YG) Network, “a non-profit 501(c)(4) dedicated to supporting conservative policies and the efforts of policymakers who fight for those policies” that operates “independently of any officeholder, candidate or political party.” In 2012, the organization hosted its first “issue summit,” and began to put out “issue advocacy” ads, conduct polls, and commission focus groups.
This past May, on the 50th annivesary of LBJ’s “Great Society” speech, leading policymakers and thinkers gathered at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think tank, to discuss conservative policy options. Speakers included Senators Tim Scott (R-SC) and Mike Lee (R-UT), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), then House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), Arthur C. Brooks, the president of AEI, and Ramesh Ponnuru of AEI and National Review. These conservative policymakers and thinkers discussed “practical, conservative domestic reform solutions.” The highlight of the conference was the release by the YG Network of a manifesto titled Room to Grow: Conservative Reforms for a Limited Government and a Thriving Middle Class.
The 120-page book contains an introduction and ten policy essays “to outline an innovative agenda that empowers individuals by increasing competition and replacing failed government
- “Health-care reform to lower costs and improve access and quality”
- “Tax reform to strengthen the economy and lighten the burdens families bear”
- “K-12 Education reform to give the next generation a chance to thrive”
- “Higher-education reform to make college and career training more effective and affordable”
- “Safety-net reforms to protect the vulnerable and expand the middle class”
- “Employment policies to get Americans working again”
- “Energy reforms to cut utility bills and enable growth and innovation”
- “Regulatory and financial reforms to combat cronyism and modernize our economy”
- “Labor, tax, and fiscal reforms to help parents balance work and family”
- “Pro-family policies to strengthen marriage and give kids a better shot at the American dream”
The essays were the subject of a conference that took place in March in Middleburg, Virginia. There is also a conclusion by Ramesh Ponnuru on “Recovering the wisdom of the Constitution.”
David Brooks of the New York Times hails the manifesto as “the most coherent and compelling policy agenda the American right has produced this century.”
Matthew Continetti of the Washington Free Beacon describes it as:
The best primer I have seen on the various proposals that constitute reform conservatism. I do not doubt for a moment that if the Republican Party adopted Room to Grow as its platform tomorrow, then both the GOP and the country would enjoy a better future.
The editors of National Review Online opine that Room to Grow is “the latest evidence that conservatism may be experiencing an intellectual resurgence as well as a political one.”
Danny Vinik of the New Republic comments that “liberals should take reform conservatives—and their ideas—seriously.”
Since no libertarians were asked for their opinion of Room to Grow, I feel compelled to provide mine: a conservative plan for the welfare state.
In “Health-care reform to lower costs and improve access and quality,” James C. Patretta correctly points out that “the core problem in American health care has been, and continues to be, that there is not a functional marketplace in health insurance or health services to discipline costs and promote quality and value for consumers.” Health care “has been dominated for decades by the federal government” and “before Obamacare was very far from a genuine marketplace.” Patretta criticizes Obamacare as a wrong and harmful solution that needs to be repealed. The problem is that Patretta wants to replace Obamacare with Republicare. Under Republican reforms, insurance companies must provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, lower-income households will need public subsidies, and Medicaid and Medicare will be reformed, not repealed. Real medical freedom is not an option.
In “Tax reform to strengthen the economy and lighten the burdens families bear,” Robert Stein mentions how “Social Security and Medicare have ‘crowded out’ the traditional incentive to raise children as a protection against poverty in old age.” But instead of proposing that these unconstitutional programs be eliminated, he proposes that there be a new child tax credit. He specifically mentions the proposal of Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) that would add a new credit of $2,500 per child. This would be “paid for” by “getting rid of all itemized deductions except for the mortgage interest and charitable deductions” and limiting “the deduction for new mortgages to $300,000.” But to achieve “revenue neutrality,” Stein would raise the current 25 percent bracket to a tax rate of 35 percent or “more quickly limiting the mortgage interest deduction to the middle class or perhaps limiting the exemption for interest on municipal bonds.”
In “K-12 Education reform to give the next generation a chance to thrive,” Frederick M. Hess says “the time is ripe for a principled, conservative K-12 agenda.” he sees a role for the federal government in education that is limited to “creating platforms for reform and reinforcing the work of policymakers (at the state and local level), educators, and administrators who are trying to modernize American education.” In stead of abolishing the federal Department of Education, “conservatives should adopt a trust-busting mindset, wielding the Department of Education and the federal education apparatus to reverse decades of bureaucratization.” To deny “that Washington has any role to play in education—is both insincere and counterproductive.” Hess sees no problem with public education itself.
In “Higher-education reform to make college and career training more effective and affordable,” Andrew P. Kelly states his belief that conservatives can foster “a fundamental shift in our approach to higher-education policymaking.” He criticizes the current federal student loan system, but believes it should be reformed, not eliminated. He also believes that “conservatives have an opportunity to counter the Left’s shortsighted, counterproductive agenda, but only if they put forth a concrete alternative.” Unfortunately, that alternative is not real education freedom.
In “Safety-net reforms to protect the vulnerable and expand the middle class,” Scott Winship says that “by advocating an attractive, reform-minded anti-poverty agenda, conservatives have a chance to do what Great Society liberalism did not—increase upward mobility out of poverty and into the middle class.” He wants federal welfare programs to be reformed and consolidated “to transparently encourage people move to work.” A safety net of some sort should remain “available to those who confront barriers to work and in times of weak demand.” It should just be reformed “to promote work.” Conservatives should “arm disadvantaged parents who want to do well by their children with a voucher to fund one of any number of investments in their human capital.”
In “Employment policies to get Americans working again,” Michael R. Strain advocates “rolling back oppressive licensing requirements” or “scaling back unnecessary occupational licensing,” not eliminating occupational licensing altogether and temporarily lowering minimum wages “for the long-term unemployed,” but not eliminating the minimum wage altogether. Government should “help workers connect with jobs.” Conservatives should rethink “the way unemployment benefits are provided and allow workers interested in moving in search of employment to receive relocation assistance in place of continued unemployment benefits.” The Social Security disability program should be “much more work friendly.” The Earned Income Tax Credit, which Strain admits “functions as an earnings subsidy for low-income households,” should be reformed to make “work more attractive” and “expanded,” not have its refundability eliminated.
In “Energy reforms to cut utility bills and enable growth and innovation,” Adam J. White criticizes the bureaucracy and the myriad of regulations that prevent the building of new pipelines, but doesn’t call for the elimination of any agencies or regulations. The permitting process needs to be reformed by Congress passing more legislation and exercising “persistently strong oversight of the regulators.” White criticizes governments granting private companies the power of eminent domain, but not governments exercising that power. And although he rightly points out that “in recent years, middle-class households have had an energy policy imposed upon them by regulators and ideologues,” he still believes that the United States should have an energy policy.
In “Regulatory and financial reforms to combat cronyism and modernize our economy,” James Pethokoukis argues that “American workers deserve a safety net that protects them from the worst effects of the economy’s inevitable ups and downs.” But then he goes on to say that “business deserves no such firewall.” Corporations “shouldn’t get a state-supplied edge—whether a regulation, spending program, or tax subsidy—over a competitor.” Government shouldn’t “provide a backstop to prevent failure.” After all, “there is a big difference between crony or state capitalism and free-market, entrepreneurial capitalism.” So Pethokoukis favors individual welfare over corporate welfare. The “Too Big to Fail” doctrine needs to be ended and the “regulatory and legal barriers more directly eroding America’s startup culture” need to be dismantled. Okay then, but why should there be “as few government hurdles as possible between a person with a good idea and the transformation of that idea into a small business” instead of no “government hurdles”?
In “Labor, tax, and fiscal reforms to help parents balance work and family,” Carrie Lukas states that “rather than seeking to create one-size-fits-all leave policies for all employers and all working parents, policymakers ought to target their assistance to low-income families in need of support following a child’s birth.” She criticizes the proposed Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act—legislation to expand the Family and Medical Leave Act by requiring employers to provide qualified employees with a maximum of 12 weeks of paid leave at two-thirds of their salary—but not the original Family and Medical Leave Act that made the new legislation possible. Congress needs to reform the Fair Labor Standards Act, but not abolish it. Likewise, existing labor laws should be reformed, but not abolished. Parents should be given “greater power to direct the use of government subsidies that are provided for their children.”
In “Pro-family policies to strengthen marriage and give kids a better shot at the American dream,” W. Bradford Wilcox laments “the retreat from marriage in Middle America,” the “recent growth in nonmarital childbearing,” teen pregnancy, and “cohabiting families.” He believes that “public policies should target the range of economic, legal, and cultural forces now eroding marriage and family life in the United States.” The “first step policymakers should take is to end the marriage penalty often associated with means-tested public benefits,” not end the means-tested public benefits. Wilcox proposes that the Earned Income Tax Credit be transformed into “a wage subsidy for individual low earners.” For other means-tested tax and transfer policies, “couples could receive a refundable tax credit for the amount of money that they lose by marrying.” Wilcox feels that the “marriage penalty associated with Medicaid should be eliminated,” but not Medicaid itself.
In his conclusion, “Recovering the wisdom of the Constitution,” Ramesh Ponnuru begins with a statement that every libertarian could agree with:
The federal government inserts itself into every nook and cranny of American life, with no decision too local, or trivial, to escape its attention. Federal courts micromanage institutions—schools, prisons—and make policy judgments traditionally confined to legislatures on issue after issue. Companies face multiple and sometimes conflicting regulators in an atmosphere of pervasive uncertainty. Presidential orders revise laws without a vote of Congress. Agencies combine judicial, legislative, and executive powers while staying far removed from the control of voters.
But he goes downhill from there.
The problem is that this federal tyranny also existed during the presidency of the conservative Republican George W. Bush. And for over four years of Bush rule, the Republicans had a majority in both Houses of Congress.
Ponnuru applauds the “constitutionalist turn in conservative politics,” but argues that “this constitutionalism should be political rather than legal.” He explains:
A political constitutionalism should be practical and incrementalist rather than apocalyptic. In rejecting a judicial monopoly on constitutional interpretation, the constitutionalist also gives up the fantasy that any particular institutional arrangement can guarantee perfect fidelity to the Constitution. If he sees laws and programs that do not fit with our constitutional commands and ideals, he will not vainly demand that they all be abolished straightaway. Instead he will move patiently and intelligently to bring government closer to its proper bounds. If he finds himself unable to abolish a program he thinks a poor fit for our constitutional order, he will try to reform it to render it less obnoxious or destructive.
This is a perfect example of the curse of conservatism. Unconstitutional federal agencies and programs—as if there were any other kind—should be reformed, reorganized, reconstituted, or run by Republicans, but never abolished.
For a specific example, here is Ponnuru on Medicare: “Reforming Medicare so that it no longer attempts to set prices throughout the medical sector is a way to make American health care less expensive and more efficient, but it is also a step toward the modest federal role envisioned by the constitutional design.” The modest federal role? How about: Medicare should be abolished because the Constitution has no role whatsoever for the federal government to play when it comes to health care.
Ponnuru wants to have the impossible: a welfare state and a limited government:
We have to show that we can have wider access to health care, an affordable safety net, opportunities to learn, and the like, without granting ever more power to government. Sometimes we will be able to make progress by ending ill-considered government policies, sometimes by replacing them with ones more respectful of human nature, economic incentives, federalism, and individual rights.
I should also mention that Ponnuru, like most conservatives, invokes the name of Abraham Lincoln. But in doing so, he makes this absurd statement: “Abraham Lincoln explained that the logic of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence was incompatible with slavery.” I guess this is why Lincoln said in his first inaugural address: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists” and expressed his support in 1861 for the Corwin amendment that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with slavery.
Speaking of Room to Grow, Ponnuru remarked that “if there are conservative candidates looking for an agenda, this is going to be on the shelf.” And that is the trouble with conservatives: they are always looking for an agenda that will get votes instead of actually being defenders of individual liberty and the minimal government that it requires.
Conservative plans like the Contract with America, Pledge to America, Path to American Prosperity, Path to Prosperity, Back to Basics, Saving the American Dream, and now the latest plan, Room to Grow, all have one thing in common: they all have room for the welfare state.
The extraordinary propaganda being conducted against Russia by the US and UK governments and Ministries of Propaganda, a.k.a., the “Western media,” have the purpose of driving the world to war that no one can win. European governments need to rouse themselves from insouciance, because Europe will be the first to be vaporized due to the US missile bases that Europe hosts to guarantee its “security.”
As reported by Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge, the Russian response to the extra-legal ruling of a corrupt court in the Netherlands, which had no jurisdiction over the case on which it ruled, awarding $50 billion dollars from the Russian government to shareholders of Yukos, a corrupt entity that was looting Russia and evading taxes, is telling. Asked what Russia would do about the ruling, an advisor to President Putin replied, “There is a war coming in Europe.” Do you really think this ruling matters?”
The West has ganged up on Russia, because the West is totally corrupt. The wealth of the elites is based not only on looting weaker countries whose leaders can be purchased (read John Perkins’Confessions of an Economic Hit Man for instruction on how the looting works), but also on looting their own citizens. The American elites excel at looting their fellow citizens and have wiped out most of the US middle class in the new 21st century.
In contrast, Russia has emerged from tyranny and from a government based on lies, while the US and UK submerge into tyranny shielded by lies. Western elites desire to loot Russia, a juicy prize, and there stands Putin in the way. The solution is to get rid of him like they got rid of President Yanukovich in Ukraine.
The looting elites and the neoconservative hegemonists have the same goal: make Russia a vassal state. This goal unites the Western financial imperialists with the political imperialists.
I have recorded for readers the propaganda that is used in order to demonize Putin and Russia. But even I was stunned by the astounding and vicious lies in the UK publication The Economist on July 26. The cover is Putin’s face in a spider web, and, you guessed it, the cover story is “A Web of Lies.”http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21608645-vladimir-putins-epic-deceits-have-grave-consequences-his-people-and-outside-world-web?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709
You need to read this propaganda both in order to see the gutter level of propaganda in the West and the obvious drive to war with Russia. There is no evidence whatsoever in the story to support The Economist’s wild accusations and demand for the end of Western “appeasement” of Russia and the harshest possible action against Putin.
The kind of reckless lies and transparent propaganda that comprises The Economist’s story has no other purpose than to drive the world to war.
The Western elites and governments are not merely totally corrupt, they are insane. As I have previously written, don’t expect to live much longer. In this video one of Putin’s advisors and Russian journalists speak openly of US plans for a first strike on Russia:http://financearmageddon.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/official-warning-u-s-to-hit-russia-with.html
Kiev’s hastily assembled, post-coup coalitions couldn’t hold, and Ukrainian PM Arseniy Yatsenyuk threw in the towel last Thursday. On his way out, news stories said, the PM expressed his “disappointment with Ukrainian parliament’s decision to reject a bill that allows the government to hand over up to 49 percent of the country’s gas transport system to investors from the European Union and the United States.”
In other words, what the U.S. and the E.U. have got themselves up to in Ukraine isn’t so much a demented, madhouse mirror set of policies built on bluster and gross deceit as it is a high-powered burglary.
Ukraine should craft attractive terms to facilitate foreign investment, especially of those technologically-advanced energy companies capable of locating and developing whatever energy assets Ukraine does enjoy. But what does foreign ownership of 49% of the nation’s functioning gas transport system have to do with energy exploration and development?
For 23 years, succeeding Ukrainian governments have survived in large part by playing off E.U.-U.S. and Russian interests. A fickle electorate has repeatedly endorsed whichever political players appeared to have the greatest potential as extortionists. (In 2009, then Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko cut an underappreciated gas deal with the Russians and was rewarded with imprisonment.)
But now, we learn favored U.S. and E.U. interests intend to snatch away for their own pockets the single card the Ukrainians have had to play, i.e. 100% ownership of the national gas transport system. Without full control of the gas transport structure the country inherited from the defunct Soviet Union in national hands, Ukraine will be of no particular interest except to Nato, which majorities amongst all Ukrainians have repeatedly stated they do not wish to join.
The 2% advantage Ukraine would retain under the proposed sale will easily be finessed over time by the many billions in initial and future IMF loans any Ukrainian government will need to retain power. Trading the impairment of Ukraine’s single asset of multinational interest for $17 billion in loans now, an ongoing infestation of IMF and associated multilateral parasites, a trade deal of no consequence, since Europe has no need for Ukrainian manufacturing, and logistical support for a bellicose military alliance’s misadventures from the frontline is not much of a deal. But it was no improvisation. It was, instead, a carefully planned E.U.-U.S. double-cross.
The urgency that inspired Yatsenyuk to place this particular legislation at the top of his to-do list lies in the fact that foreign ownership of even a minority interest in the country’s energy transport system is critical to the success of the US-EU’s true goal, which is to undermine the Russian economy using Ukraine as a lever.
Throughout the 1990s, what Europe had thought to be a benefit – a neighbor with affordable gas to spare and eager to sell – was, the U.S. said, in fact a threat. Cold war warrior Ronald Reagan had repeatedly warned Europe that by relying upon the Russians for the transport and supply of 30% of their energy needs would one day enable the Russians to hold their economies hostage.
In fact, the only disruption to Europe’s energy supply from Russia have been on account of Ukraine. Ever since the nation’s 1992 independence, Ukraine has been siphoning Russian gas for its own needs without paying for it. And throughout those 23 years, Russia not only bore Ukraine’s thievery in order to fulfill its European contracts, but continuously offered Ukraine low rates for gas so that the country might actually be in a position to pay its bills.
Exceptions occurred in 2006 and 2009 when Russia locked horns with Ukraine over billions in arrears to Gazprom and reduced the flow for a handful of days in January of those years, thus temporarily putting the chill on Europe. It was the hiatus of supply during these two disputes, which allowed the U.S. to mount an effective public clamor regarding E.U. vulnerability.
There was no mention of a deadbeat Ukraine’s thievery of gas meant for Europe as being the source of the problem. Instead, Russia was portrayed as a bully, demanding billions from a sadly impoverished Ukraine. Western media was far too polite to mention that Ukraine’s energy arrears were accumulating while their government officials grew fat and sleek by buying Russian gas cheap and selling it dear, pocketing the difference.
Nobody commented that it was actually U.S sanctions on Iran which prevented the subservient E.U. from pursuing contracts with a competing supplier of gas; except Vladimir Putin that is, who did observe dryly that an independent E.U. could organize an additional supplier. Some years later, during the U.S. assault on Libya, no E.U. voices of concern were raised regarding those particular energy contracts with European nations, just one of which was to deliver a 50-year supply to Switzerland.
Once the E.U. absorbed the geostrategic message the U.S. was sending, Brussels developed a legislative and regulatory attack on Russia’s Nord Stream pipeline and the proposed South Stream pipeline. Both pipelines’ routing was designed to avoid the Ukrainian problem.
The E.U. response to Russia’s pipeline resolution has been three measures: the 2006 Energy Community declaration, the 2020 Climate and Energy Package (CEP) and the Third Energy Package (TEP). The effect of those measures is to force all of Europe, nations both inside and outside of the E.U., into a single energy market subservient to EU policy, which is one of reverse economic blackmail against Russia.
A perverse consequence of the TEP, for instance, would be to permit the EU’s anti-monopoly initiatives against Gazprom to kill Russia’s hefty investment in the South Stream and Nord Stream projects and even theoretically allow the EU to expropriate Russian assets to non-Russian companies. (For a thorough discussion of the E.U. initiatives and their likely consequences, see here.)
Once Ukraine’s elected government was eliminated, the U.S. went right to work developing further its contribution to the scam.
Hunter Biden’s earlier March appointment to the board of Burisma Holdings Ltd, Ukraine’s largest natural gas producer, at first appeared to be a garden variety example of nepotism involving a US vice-president improperly arranging a no-work cash flow for his son. But, to the contrary, it turns out Hunter Biden has a full plate, insuring that the anticipated spoils of the US-led intrusion into Ukraine fall into the correct hands; big pairs of which will belong to the Biden family’s and the heist’s other multinational and congressional key players’ supporters.
In fact, Hunter Biden is an old Ukrainian hand. Prior to his appointment to Burisma’s board, Biden fils was a director of the U.S. State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy subsidiary National Democratic Institute, where he built up opposition parties first for the 2004 U.S.-engineered “Orange Revolution” and, later, the 2014 U.S.-engineered “Euromaidan” protests.
In the course of those ten years, Hunter Biden would have gotten to know steel and pipeline billionaire Victor Pinchuk, an enthusiastic supporter and financier of the Maidan protests earlier this year, who is also former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma’s son-in-law and is well-known for sponsoring an annual gabfest for international political and financial elite at a Tsarist-era palace on the Black Sea. Despite being a generous multimillion dollar donor to the Clinton Foundation, Pinchuk was smart enough to acquire allies on both sides of the aisle, developing a relationship with Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) when he was mayor of Nashville. Pinchuk then parlayed his Corker relationship into ones with various top shelf neocons, including Karl Rove and that ever present spitball of American imperialism, Senator John McCain.
This spring Corker rounded-up Senators McCain, Marco Rubio and Lamar Alexander and 23 others in support of Senate Bill 227, the Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014. The bill is a veritable cornucopia of imperial dreaming, imposing as it does travel bans on and asset freezes of Russian officials, including Vladimir Putin and Sergei Medvedev, and corporate officers of prominent Russian banks and energy firms. It provides for a stepped-up program of broadcasting propaganda into countries of the former Soviet Union, including Russia, along with the transfer of U.S. intelligence to Ukraine.
The bill further targets Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldava for de facto if not de jure Nato membership with $100 million in lethal military equipment and assistance, which means Nato bases and joint military exercises. It increases funding for NGO fifth-column cover operations in targeted FSU countries and former “captive nations.” The bill also provides for a stop to nuclear arms reductions authorized by the 2010 New START treaty between the U.S. and Russia. And, of course, the bill bestows further gifts on the U.S. fracking and liquefied natural gas industries, the latter being a somewhat fanciful substitution for Russian energy in that decades of FedGov energy policies have insured that the U.S. has no liquid gas export terminals.
Global Research.ca suggests the bill targets “former officials of its Nato allies, including Germany and the Netherlands.” The heads of BASF AG, Wintershall AG, E.ON AG, E.ON Ruhrgas AG, Gasunie of the Netherlands, along with officials connected to the South Stream pipeline project hailing from Italy, France, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Greece, Germany, Bulgaria and Hungary, all Nato members, as well as Austria, Serbia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The most remarkable figure the bill might target for a travel and asset freeze is former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder for his chairmanship of the board of North Stream AG, which is 51% owned by Gazprom and whose pipe insures Germany’s energy needs.
Last week’s brawl in the Ukrainian Rada (legislature), which foreshadowed our man Yats’s no doubt temporary departure from government, indicates that Senate Bill 2277 may perhaps be somewhat premature if not the high water mark of neocon lunacy.
The worry is that it’s not the latter, and that Ukraine’s future lies in becoming one big, super-sized military base and a super-wide, multilane expressway transporting wealth sucked from Eurasia to Europe.
The Ukrainian people will, of course, be left stumbling along the highway’s soft shoulders as mere pedestrians.
- Against the State: An Anarcho-Capitalist Manifesto - Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ - Roger Stone
White House Call Girl: The Real Watergate Story - Phil Stanford
The Break - Sean Gabb
A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State - John Whitehead
Evil Town - John David Bethel
Defy Your Doctor and Be Healed - C. Thomas Corriher
No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority - Lysander Spooner
Imperial Washington is truly running amuck in its insensible confrontation with Vladimir Putin. The pending round of new sanctions is a counter-productive joke. Apparently, more of Vlad’s posse will be put on double probation, thereby reducing demand for Harry Macklowe’s swell new $60 million apartment units on Park Avenue. Likewise, American exporters of high tech oilfield equipment will be shot in the foot with an embargo; and debt-saturated Russian state companies will be denied the opportunity to bury themselves even deeper in dollar debt by borrowing on the New York bond market. Some real wet noodles, these!
But it is the larger narrative that is so blatantly offensive—that is, the notion that a sovereign state is being wantonly violated by an aggressive neighbor arming “terrorists” inside its borders. Obama’s deputy national security advisor, Tony Blanken, stated that specious meme in stark form yesterday:
“Russia bears responsibility for everything that’s going on in Eastern Ukraine” and “has the ability to actually de-escalate this crisis,” Blinken said.
Puleese! The Kiev government is a dysfunctional, bankrupt usurper that is deploying western taxpayer money to wage a vicious war on several million Russian-speaking citizens in the Donbas—-the traditional center of greater Russia’s coal, steel and industrial infrastructure. It is geographically part of present day Ukraine by historical happenstance. For better or worse, it was Stalin who financed its forced draft industrialization during the 1930s; populated it with Russian speakers to insure political reliability; and expelled the Nazi occupiers at immeasurable cost in blood and treasure during WWII. Indeed, the Donbas and Russia have been Siamese twins economically and politically not merely for decades, but centuries.
On the other hand, Kiev’s marauding army and militias would come to an instant halt without access to the $35 billion of promised aid from the IMF, EU and US treasury. Obama just needs to say “stop”. That’s it. The civil war would quickly end, permitting the US, Russia and the warring parties of the Ukraine to hold a peace conference and work out the details of a separation agreement.
After all, what is so sacrosanct about preserving the territorial integrity of the Ukraine? Ever since the middle ages, it has consisted of a set of meandering borders in search of a nation that never existed owing to endemic ethnic, tribal and religious differences. Its modern boundaries are merely the fruit of 20th century wars and the expediencies of a totalitarian state during the decades of its rise, rule and disintegration.
There was until recently a neighboring “state” of equally artificial lineage called Czechoslovakia. It was carved out of the German and Austrian empires by the vengeful victors at Versailles, urged on by scheming Czech nationalists who coveted the resources of the Slovaks. But notwithstanding revolutions, the Stalinist oppression, the Cold War, the Prague Spring and all the rest of the 20th century mayhem—-the machinations at Versailles didn’t birth a state that was viable or sustainable. Accordingly, separation has been had, and the parties are better off for it—as are its neighbors and the larger world.
And on the topic of partition there is the ghost of Yugoslavia–another state that emerged in whole cloth from the madness of Versailles. Yes, it has been partitioned now into half a dozen smaller states—-Slovenia, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Kosovo and Bosnia. But the operative point is that the partitioner was none other than Washington and its European groupies who had no regard for those happenstance 20th century-made borders when it suited their purpose.
So the sanctimonious yelping from Washington about the sacred territorial integrity of the Ukraine is ahistorical tommyrot. In fact, however, it is a thin fig leaf for a far more insidious purpose. Namely, the self-aggrandizement of the Warfare State machinery that was left stranded in Imperial Washington without purpose or justification when the Cold War ended two decades ago.
So the Warfare State machinery—including its spy network, state department, aid agencies and NGO supplicants— invented enemies and missions to justify their continued existence and their massive dissipation of fiscal resources. Those are upwards of $1 trillion annually if you count everything including veterans and homeland security.
Thus, after arming the mujahedeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s, their Taliban successors were deemed our enemy after the cold war ended—even though they never poised a scintilla of threat to the citizens of Lincoln NE or Worcester MA. So too with our 1980′s ally Saddam Hussein, and also with Khadafy, Assad and the warring tribal potentates and cutthroats of Yemen, Somalia and Waziristan, to name just a few.
But it is in eastern Europe that the Warfare State machinery has most egregiously made an enemy and mission out of whole cloth. As the Cold War was drawing to a close in the late 1980s, then Secretary of State James Baker made a sensible deal with Gorbachev. In return for Soviet acquiescence in the reunification of Germany, the US would insure that NATO did not expand by a “single inch”.
Since then, of course, there has been a senseless bipartisan betrayal and stampede in the opposite direction. Starting under Clinton and extending through Bush and Obama, NATO has been expanded from 16 nations at the end of the Cold War to 28 countries today.
Yet the very recitation of its new members underscores the historical farce that this needless expansion amounted to. For better or worse, the formation of NATO in the late 1940′s involved what were perceived to be vital national security interests against a Stalinist policy that by the lights of the hawks and militarists of the day amounted to a violation of his Yalta obligations. Accordingly, NATO constituted an alliance of real nations—England, France, Italy and West Germany—-that could make a meaningful contribution to collective security against the perceived Soviet threat of the times.
But Albania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Slovakia and Slovenia? And that is not to forget Moldova, Georgia, Macedonia and the Ukraine—all of which are still coveted for membership by the NATO apparatchiks. What could these micro-states possibly contribute to American security? That’s especially the case since the Warsaw pact had been dissolved; the Soviet Empire has erased from the pages of history; and the Russian successor was left with an Italian-sized GDP encumbered with the destructive legacy of a state-dominated economy that had been appropriated by a passel of thieves, opportunists and oligarchs.
In short, today’s Ukrainian crisis is the outcome of the mindless 20-year drive of the Warfare State to push an obsolete NATO to the very doorstep of Russia, and into the messy remnants of the Soviet disintegration. Stated differently, Putin has been in power for 15 years, yet during 13 of those years there was no hue and cry from Washington, London and Brussels that he was an incipient Hitler bent on sweeping conquest. Even the so-called invasion of Georgia in 2008 was a tempest in a teapot provoked by local pro-Russian separatists who did not want to be ruled by a de facto American interloper in Tbilisi.
In any event, it was the $5 billion that Washington spent during the last decade meddling in Ukrainian politics, and finally inciting and financing the February overthrow of the country’s constitutionally elected government that precipitated the current civil war. It brought to power a new gang of crooks and thugs who could not govern for a day without tapping the Washington/Western financial lifeline. Indeed, the civil war now raging, the brutal military attacks on civilian populations and the hundreds of thousands of refugees now streaming out of the eastern regions are the result of a crisis made in Washington, not the Kremlin.
So the rebels— who properly fear for their lives and property were the nationalists and neo-fascists who run the Kiev government to prevail—are not “terrorists” by any stretch of the imagination. That is just insipid Washington propaganda. Instead, they are the Russian-speaking remnant of the Soviet empire who fear an ethnic cleansing and who noted well the fate of their kinsmen in the hands of Ukrainian thugs during the fire at Odessa.
Once again, the American Warfare State has confected a false narrative to justify policies and missions that have nothing to do with the safety and security of the citizens of Lincoln NE and Wooster MA. About 55 years ago such a false narrative arose in the form of the “domino theory” that lead to the carnage of Vietnam. Ten years ago it cropped up in the form of the WMD story that led to the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. Today, it is the preposterous story of Ukrainian territorial integrity, terrorists in the East and a latter-day Hitler in the Kremlin.
Unfortunately, false narratives are what the Warfare State does.
Reprinted with permission from David Stockman.
My daughter Jessi was complaining that there is too much sugar in many coffee drinks and other beverages sold at various restaurants. That started us on a search of how much sugar is actually in commonly ordered beverages. Keep in mind the American Heart Association recommends that women ingest no more than 25 grams of sugar per day and men ingest less than 37.5 grams per day.
When I looked at how much sugar was in some of these drinks, I cringed. When I was a teenager, I used to love drinking Coke. However, in my adult life, I can state that I have not had a soda in a very long time—it must be over 20 years. In order to compare the coffee and other drinks, let’s look at how much sugar is in Coke. A 12 ounce bottle of Coke has 39 grams of sugar, which already exceeds the American Heart Association guidelines.
I must be one of the few adult Americans who does not drink coffee at Starbucks. I don’t understand the Starbucks lingo—a tall is small? Grande is medium? A Starbucks Grande Java Chip Frappuccino contains a whopping 66 grams of sugar—nearly the same amount of sugar as two bottles of Coke. Even the Grande Hazelnut Macchiato contains a whopping 31 grams of sugar. Tim Horton’s medium iced cap coffee (flavored with milk) contains 46 grams of sugar. Pot Belly’s 16 ounce mocha shake contains 93 grams of sugar. Wendy’s large chocolate Frosty contains 139 grams of sugar. (Full disclosure: I used to love Wendy’s Frosty drinks when I was a teenager.) That is the equivalent amount of sugar in three and a half bottles of Coke.
Over the years I have occasionally expressed doubts over the tenets of evolutionism which, perhaps wrongly, has seemed to me a sort of political correctness of science, or maybe a metaphysics somewhat related to science. As a consequence I have been severely reprehended. The editor of a site devoted to genetic expression furiously began deleting any mention of me from his readers. Others, to include Mr. John Derbyshire of Taki’s Magazine, have expressed disdain, though disdaining to explain just why.
In all of this, my inability to get straight answers that do not shift has frustrated me. I decided to address my questions to an expert in the field, preferably one who loathed me and thus might produce his best arguments so as to stick it to me. To this end I have settled on Mr. Derbyshire.
He has the several advantages of being highly intelligent, an excellent writer, ardent of all things evolutionary and genetic, and well versed in them. I would profit by his instruction in things in which I am only an amateur—should he be so inclined. (He may well have other things to do.) To this end, I submit a few questions which have strained my admittedly paltry understanding for some time. They are not new questions, but could use answers. I agree in advance to accept his answers (if any be given) as canonical.
(1) In evolutionary principle, traits that lead to more surviving children proliferate. In practice, when people learn how to have fewer or no children, they do. Whole industries exist to provide condoms, diaphragms, IUDs, vasectomies, and abortions, attesting to great enthusiasm for non-reproduction. Many advanced countries are declining in population. How does having fewer surviving children lead to having more surviving children? Less cutely, what selective pressures lead to a desire not to reproduce, and how does this fit into a Darwinian framework?
Two notes: (1) The answer cannot rely on contraception, which is not a force imposed from outside. Just as people invented spears because they wanted to kill food and each other, they invented condoms because they wanted not to have children. The question is how that desire evolved. (2) The non-evolutionary explanation is clear and simple. “We could have two children and a nice condo, or fifteen and live in a shack.”
(2) Morality. In evolution as I understand it, there are no absolute moral values: Morals evolved as traits allowing social cooperation, conducing to the survival of the group and therefore to the production of more surviving children. The philosophical case for this absence of absolutes usually consists in pointing out that in various societies everything currently regarded as immoral has been accepted as acceptable (e.g., burning heretics to death).
I cannot refute the argument. However, I thnk it intellectually disreputable to posit premises and then not accept their consequences.
Question: Why should I not indulge my hobby of torturing to death the severely genetically retarded? This would seem beneficial. We certainly don’t want them to reproduce, they use resources better invested in healthy children, and it makes no evolutionary difference whether they die quietly or screaming.
(3) Abiogenesis. This is not going to be a fair question as there is no way anyone can know the answer, but I pose it anyway. The theory, which I cannot refute, is that a living, metabolizing, reproducing gadget formed accidentally in the ancient seas. Perhaps it did. I wasn’t there. It seems to me, though, that the more complex one postulates the First Critter to have been, the less likely, probably exponentially so, it would have been to form. The less complex one postulates it to have been, the harder to explain why biochemistry, which these days is highly sophisticated, cannot reproduce the event. Question: How many years would have to pass without replication of the event, if indeed it be not replicated, before one might begin to suspect that it didn’t happen? For all I know, it may be accomplished tomorrow. But the check cannot be in the mail forever.
(4) You can’t get there from here. Straight-line evolution, for example in which Eohippus gradually gets larger until it reaches Clydesdale, is plausible because each intervening step is a viable animal. In fact this is just selective breeding. Yet many evolutionary transformations seem to require intermediate stages that could not survive.
For example there are two-cycle bugs (insects, arachnids) that lay eggs that hatch into tiny replicas of the adults, which grow, lay eggs, and repeat the cycle. The four-cycle bugs go through egg, larva, pupa, adult. Question: What are the viable steps needed to evolve from one to the other? Or from anything to four-cycle?
Here I am baffled. As best I can see, the eggs of the two-cycler would have to evolve toward being caterpillars, which are enormously different structurally and otherwise from adults. Goodbye legs, chitinous exoskeleton; head, thorax, and abdomen, on and on. Whatever the first mutation toward this end, the resulting newly-hatched mutant would have to be viable—able to live and reproduce until the next mutation occurred.
It is difficult to see how the evolution from insect to caterpillar could occur at all, or why. But if it did, it would lead to a free-standing race of caterpillars, a new species, necessarily being able to reproduce. Then, for reasons mysterious to me, these would have to decide to pupate and become butterflies. Metamorphosis from caterpillar to butterfly is enormously complex and if you don’t get it right the first time, it’s curtains. Where would it have gotten the impossibly complex genetic blueprint of the butterfly?
Among intellectual loin-cloth-wearers like me, there seems no answer. I do not doubt that Mr. Derbyshire can provide one. Upon receiving same, I promise to shut up.
(5) You can’t get anywhere else from here. Mr. Derbyshire believes strongly in genetic determinism—that we are what we are and behave as we do because of genetic programming. I see no flaw in this. From the baby’s suckling through walking and talking, the adolescent’s omniscience, making love and war, and cooling off with age things seem undeniably genetic.
Behavior less obviously biological also seems built-in. Political orientation, for example. Note that conservatives usually see the world as dangerous and life as struggle; to have intense loyalty to the pack (patriotism), to reverence the military, to feel empathy for members of their tribe (our fallen heroes, etc.) and none at all for enemy dead; to favor capitalism; and to be hostile to or disdainful of other racial and ethnic groups. That these traits tend strongly to appear together though they are logically independent suggests a genetic basis.
In his book, We Are Doomed, Mr. Derbyshire describes the brain, correctly as far as I can tell, as an electrochemical mechanism, and somewhat delicately hints at chemical determinism in that organ. I see no way of avoiding this conclusion.
But again, does one not have to accept the consequences of one’s suppositions? A physical (to include chemical) system cannot make decisions. All subsequent states of a physical system are determined by the initial state. So, if one accepts the electrochemical premise (which, again, seems to be correct) it follows that we do not believe things because they are true, but because we are predestined to believe them. Question: Does not genetic determinism (with which I have no disagreement) lead toa paradox: that the thoughts we think we are thinking we only think to be thoughts when they are really utterly predetermined by the inexorable working of physics and chemistry?
(That was fun. I recall Samuel Johnson’s remark on the existence of free will: All theory is against it, but all experience is for it.)
(6) The evolutionary noise level. In principle, traits spread through a population because they lead to the having of greater numbers of children. Consider the epicanthic fold, the flap that makes the eyes of East Asians seem slanted. In evolutionary writings this is often described as an adaptation either to save energy or to protect the eyes from icy winds. We will here assume that actual studies have shown that it actually does so.
I do not understand how the fold evolved.
Unless it results from a point mutation, (and I do not think it does), it must have evolved gradually. This means, does it not, that even a partial fold conferred so great an advantage in survival that the possessor had more children than their unfolded relatives.
Being as I am untutored in these matters, the idea seems ludicrous. Did the eyes of the unfolded freeze, leaving the Folded One to get all the girls? Did the folded conserve so much energy that they could copulate more vigorously?
While grounds can doubtless be found for dismissing the example of the epicanthic fold, countless instances exist of traits that become universal or nearly so while lacking any plausible connection to greater fecundity.
Here I sink into a veritable La Brea of incomprehension. Genes already exist in populations for extraordinary superiority of many sorts—for the intelligence of Stephen Hawking, the body of Mohammed Ali, for 20/5 vision, for the astonishing endurance in running of the Tarahumara Indians, and so on. To my unschooled understanding, these traits offer clear and substantial advantage in survival and reproduction, yet they do not become universal, or even common. The epicanthic fold does. Question: Why do seemingly trivial traits proliferate while clearly important ones do not?
(7) The universality of the unnecessary. Looking at the human body, I see many things that appear to have no relation to survival or more vigorous reproduction, and that indeed work against it, yet are universal in the species. For example, the kidneys contain the nervous tissue that makes kidney stones agonizingly painful, yet until recently the victim has been able to do nothing about them. Migraine headaches are paralyzing, and would appear to convey little advantage in having more children. (“No, honey, I have a violent headache….”)
Sensing pain clearly has evolutionary advantages. If you fall on your head, it hurts, so you are careful not to, and thus survive and have more children (though frankly I have sometimes thought that it might be better to fall on one’s head). Wounds are painful, so you baby them, letting them heal. But, Question: What is the reproductive advantage of crippling pain (migraines can be crippling) about which pre-recently, the sufferer could do nothing?
(8) Finally, the supernatural. Unfairly, as it turned out, in regard to religion I had expected Mr. Derbyshire to strike the standard “Look at me, I’m an atheist, how advanced I am” pose. I was wrong. In fact he says that he believes in a God. (Asked directly, he responded, “Yes, to my own satisfaction, though not necessarily to yours.”) His views are reasoned, intellectually modest, and, though I am not a believer, I see nothing with which to quarrel, though for present purposes this is neither here nor there. Question: If one believes in or suspects the existence of God or gods, how does one exclude the possibility that He, She, or It meddles in the universe—directing evolution, for example?
A belief in gods would seem to leave the door open to Intelligent Design, the belief that the intricacies of life came about not by accident but were crafted by Somebody or Something. The view, anathema in evolutionary circle, is usually regarded as emanating from Christianity, and usually does.
Though this column is not about me or my beliefs, to head off a lot of email let me say that I am not remotely a Christian but a thoroughgoing agnostic, more so it seems than Mr. Derbyshire, and my suspicions regarding Intelligent Design—suspicions is all they are—are not deductions from Christianity but inferences from observation. To my eye, the damned place looks designed. By what, I am clueless.
To close, I ask these questions in a spirit of inquiry, not of ideological warfare. Mr. Derbyshire is far deeper in these matters than I, who can barely distinguish a phosphodiester bond from a single-nucleotide polymorphism. All I seek are clear, straightforward, unambiguous answers devoid of the evasion I have so often encountered. I do not doubt that he can help me if so inclined.
I now belatedly realize, with crystal clarity, that being an “inert carbon blob” is a reachable goal for me. Thus, ‘tis my new plan for my remaining retirement years, since it has no age restrictions, takes no effort, and has zero cost, but, happily, does involve a lot of TV and tasty snacks.
I am re-evaluating such things now, now that my wonderful plans to be a rich champion golfer/ rich movie star/ rich love god/ rich living legend/ rich international playboy are all in utter ruins, thanks to a profound lack of any discernable talent, looks, intelligence, money or actual effort on my part.
Now that I am starting to accept my fate, I am much more serenely Buddha-like, and less concerned that the Federal Reserve and the federal government have been proven to be corrupt, treacherous liars colluding to continually deficit-spend a trillion dollars per year, using nefarious, slimy and heretofore illegal secret tactics made legal under a cancerous expansion of the Exchange Stabilization Fund, in order to desperately prevent any losses (“deflation”) in debt instruments, equity shares or housing prices, because that is where everybody’s money is.
Nowadays, I am much more calm about things, as shown by my seeming nonchalance at the evil Federal Reserve increasing Total Fed Credit by another $14 billion last week, and $12 billion the week before that, or how the monetary base jumped to over $4 trillion last week, a mighty rise of $114 billion in, as I said, One Freaking Week (OFW).
And notice my easy demeanor, instead of choking on my own vomit or my eyes rolling back in my head, at the news that 523,000 full-time jobs were lost last month.
So with my new peaceful tranquility, there is no use getting upset and sending myself into another famous Mogambo Primal Scream Of Outrage (MPSOO) at the absolute horrors to be inflicted because of the inflation in prices that will necessarily follow such massive inflation in the money supply.
And let us not forget that a MPSOO is always replete with loud obscenities, incoherent ramblings, vague death threats, inciting Thomas Jefferson as a reason to riot, take over the Federal Reserve, and get America back on a stable money supply, letting nothing stand in our way.
The usual modus operandi of MPSOO is to proceed to more death threats, anonymous phone calls, annoying emails, police being called, embarrassment at being hauled off, kicking and screaming “We’re Freaking Doomed (WFD)!” at the top of my voice, neighbors jeering, family cheering, and the unpleasantness of court-ordered psychiatric evaluations.
Like that one where I said “You’re asking me what I see in that inkblot? You call yourself a psychiatrist? Any IDIOT can see that the ink smeared on that paper is a perfect graphic representation of the evil Federal Reserve! See where that big, ugly splotch that looks like a cancerous, poisonous spider, dominating the page? That is the Federal Reserve destroying us by creating so much new credit that it causes ruinous inflation in prices, which is represented by those blobs that look like drops of blood all over the place!
“And see those little squiggly things on the side of the page? That is the CIA aiming thought-control waves into our heads, seizing control of our brains, making us actually believe this bizarre Keynesian deficit-spending stupidity could work!”
With a shock, I realized that I had, perhaps, said too much. “Oops!”, I thought! “I’ll never get out of this place talking like that!”
So I cleverly explained it away by saying “Okay, I don’t know for sure about that last part, about the thought-control waves and all, as it could be rays coming from outer space. It could be space monsters who want to conquer Earth and turn our women into pole-dancing temptresses and the men us into slave labor to mine gold and silver, because even the damned aliens all over the freaking cosmos know the value of gold and silver! It could be! I just don’t know! But I mean, what else COULD it be?”
He didn’t say anything, but he wrote something down in his little notebook. I was encouraged that he did not have that usual look of disgust on his face, so naturally I figured that he was suddenly enlightened about the Austrian school of economics, and was making a note to buy gold and silver! “Out of the mouths of raving lunatics” and all that.
So, to show him what I helpful, harmless old man I was, I quickly continued “But the part about the evil Federal Reserve destroying us is manifestly true! Get up and look around at how high prices are! If you can’t see it, then you’re a moron! And if you don’t think that rising prices hurt people and economies, then you’re a double moron! You’re all morons! You hear me, people behind that two-way mirror? Morons! And you’re all going to suffer humiliation, suffering and ruination as a result, unless you buy gold and silver, which is the Indelible Lesson Of The Ages (ILOTA), and which works even for morons like you, your stupid two-way mirror, and your stupid inkblot test, which I passed with flying colors!”
But that is all in the past now, and with the new, Easy-Going Mogambo (EGM), I also realized, with this unstoppable Congress/Federal Reserve treachery that makes investing such a one-way street, I don’t really have to look at statistics or reports anymore to time investments! I don’t have to do anything!
I can now relax, spending my time seeking the tranquility of some introspective Nirvana, now Randall G. Holcombe’s new book “Advanced Introduction to the Austrian School of Economics” has been published, and that runaway best-seller “Economica Mogambo” has been published, and now that people are actually submitting their own “Write Like The Mogambo” essays at MogamboGuru.com. Some of them say it better, and funnier, than I can, too. Nicely done!
And thus I suggest that you all do the same. Write of your monetary and fiscal nightmares, your paroxysms of fears, screaming aloud at the suicidal violation of every tenet of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, the entire totality of economic history, and every shred of common sense.
And, perhaps, with such a quantity and quality of word-smithing excellence to carry on into the future, extending the proud legacy of The Brilliance Of The Mogambo (TBOTM), then my work here on this planet, that you call Earth, will be done, and I can go back to my home planet, wherever that is, where nobody is as stupid as the people of this planet, and thus is a happy, peaceful place where the money supply is stable, the government is small and taxes are low, where free-enterprise and capitalism produce the bounteous benefits of an expanding supply of goods and services, with prices always gently falling and quality always rising, where little children contentedly play with cute little puppies, the skies are blue and sunny, and it’s always a perfect day for golf, so grab your clubs and let’s go.
And then, casually driving contentedly to the clubhouse, happy and secure that economic future and prosperity are assured thanks to the wise buying of gold and silver, one’s thoughts probably drift unbidden towards some pesky new fault in one’s backswing.
It’s probably just a side effect of thought-control waves from the CIA. I say don’t worry about it. You bought gold and silver! You can buy a cure for whatever it is that’s bothering you! A tin-foil hat perhaps!
Ahhh! The skies are blue and sunny, and it’s a perfect day for golf! Whee! This investing stuff is easy!
This update includes relevant dates from the book “Roosevelt and Stalin: The Failed Courtship,” by Robert Nisbet, as well as other minor additions. The new items are in red. Items in parenthesis refer to (book:page).
a. Three partitions of Poland, the division of land between Russia, Prussia, and Austria. (1:424)
i. 1772: Pomerelia and Ermland to Prussia; Galicia to Austria (1:427)
ii. 1793, 1795: heart of Poland is fully divided (1:427)
a. German-French Peace Treaty negotiated. (1:565)
a. German-Austrian Peace Treaty negotiated. (1:565)
a. German-French Peace Treaty negotiated. (1:565)
a. Austria and Germany, out of their parts of the previously partitioned Poland, found a new Poland. (1:424)
a. 2 April
i. Wilson: “The world must be made safe for democracy.” (5:92)
i. Point 13 of Wilson’s Fourteen Point Peace proposal is toward the establishment of a new state of Poland. (1:421)
i. Russian Communists sign Brest-Litovsk Treaty with Germany, ceding about 1 MM square kilometers to the Germans. (2:3)
c. 27 August
i. War reparations agreement between Russia and Germany, with Russia obligated to pay 6 billion marks. (2:3)
d. 11 November
e. 13 November
i. Lenin and Trotsky issue order for the Red Army to begin offensive operations against Europe, in an attempt to continue the war toward world revolution. (2:4)
f. 29 November
i. Communist government of Estonia formed. (2:4)
g. 4 December
i. Communist government of Latvia formed. (2:4)
h. 8 December
i. Communist government of Lithuania formed. (2:4)
i. 17 December
i. Manifesto published in Riga, naming Germany as imminent objective of Communist revolution. (2:4)
i. Poland claims a greater Poland – “Great Lithuania” – claimed based on marriage in 1569. (1:426)
ii. Polish army established from remnants of former German, Austrian, Hungarian, and Russian soldiers (now Polish nationals). Poland use army to attack in three directions at the expense of its neighbors. (1:424)
iii. Poland and Czechoslovakia each claim the Teschen region, with the Allies awarding a portion of it to Czechoslovakia. (1:433)
iv. Finnish army, immediately upon winning independence from the Russian Bolsheviks, begins building extensive defenses on the Karelian Isthmus. (2:136)
i. German Reichstag calls for elections. In Silesia, combined with a Polish boycott of elections, 75% vote for German political parties. (1:451)
ii. Soviet republic declared in Bremen, Germany. (2:5)
i. Hungarian Soviet Republic is formed. (2:5)
i. Bavarian Soviet Republic declared. (2:5)
i. Poland attacks Russia, weakened by the revolution, and independent Lithuania. (1:427)
i. Despite January election outcome, Allies demand surrender of Upper Silesia to Poland. It is the third industrial zone (after the Saar and German Lorraine) to be taken from Germany. (1:451)
ii. Churchill, before the Aldwych Club in London: “of all tyrannies in history the Bolshevik tyranny is the worst, the most destructive, the most degrading. It is sheer humbug to pretend that it is not far worse than German militarism.” (1:543)
i. Against French objections, Allies grant elections in Upper Silesia. (1:451)
ii. After German soldiers withdraw, but before the arrival of Allied soldiers, an uprising of Poles breaks out in order to prevent the referendum. (1:451)
g. June 28
i. Signing of Versailles Treaty (2:7)
i. Poles blow up three railway and road bridges, sealing off the disputed territory from Germany. (1:452)
i. Allies set the borders between Poland and the White Russians / Ukraine – the Curzon Line – from Grodno south, then along the Bug River. (1:429)
ii. Poland refuses to leave conquered territory east of this line; Soviets deploy troops to the region; Poland attacks Russia without a war declaration. (1:430)
i. French soldiers, under Allied authority, take over political power in Upper Silesia. French General, Le Rond, makes no secret of his sympathy for Poland. (1:452)
i. Poland overruns Ukraine as far as Kiev. (1:430)
i. Soviets push Polish troops back to Warsaw. (1:430)
ii. Polish troops then turn the tables and drive Russians back to Minsk, essentially wiping out Russian army. (1:430)
d. 22 September
i. Lenin sets as objective Warsaw (desiring a common border with Germany from which to advance), seeing the Versailles Treaty as sowing the seeds for the necessary revolution in Germany. (2:9)
i. Poland occupies Vilnius, Lithuania and the surrounding area. (1432)
i. Germany must give up West Prussia, Posen, and East Upper Silesia to Poland as a consequence of Versailles. (1:436) No referendum is allowed. (1:441)
ii. “Free State of Danzig” placed under protection of the League of Nations. Neither Germany nor Poland is satisfied. (1:445)
iii. Every German government since 1920 is dissatisfied with the decisions of the Allies at Versailles (1:468)
g. 6 December
i. Lenin, in a keynote speech before the Moscow organization of the Communist Party of Russia regarding England and France on the one side and Germany on the other (both sides capitalist, and therefore the enemy), declares: “Until the final victory of socialism over the whole world,” the fundamental rule remains valid that “one must exploit the contradictions and conflicts between two groups of imperialist powers, between two groups of capitalist states, and one must set them on each other.” [It is] impossible to defeat both of them, “so one must understand how to group his forces so that the two come into conflict with each other….” (1:528)
1. Is this what Stalin is playing in 1939?
a. 19 February
i. France and Poland conclude an alliance treaty. The core of the treaty is a promise to stand by each other in the case of unprovoked attack by a third country. This treaty is supplemented on the same day by a secret military convention, stipulating the details of French support in the event of a German or Soviet attack against Poland. (1:479)
b. 18 March
i. Peace of Riga, Russia renounces its claim to “East Poland” on the east side of the Curzon line; losing 5 million Ukrainians, 1.2 million white Russians, and about 1 million Jews – along with 1.5 million Poles. (1:431) Only about 1.5 million are Poles. (1: 458)
ii. This event is described by the French Slavic professor Martel: “There were shootings, hanging, torturing…. Many Ukrainian priests were executed.” (1:462)
c. 21 March
i. Referendum for Upper Silesia takes place, amidst bloody clashes; reportedly 1520 Germans meet there deaths while going to the polls. The results are 61% for annexation to Germany, 39% for Poland – with no clear ethnic boundaries. (1:453)
ii. As opposed to applying the election results to the region, the French prevail amongst the Allies, with a border drawn that includes 400,000 German in Poland. (1:453)
d. 22 March
i. General strike declared in industrial central Germany (2:11)
e. 24 March
i. Communists take control of government buildings in Hamburg. (2:11)
f. 1 May
i. The Poles disagree with the split proposed by France. (1:453)
g. 3 May
i. In a fourth uprising, Poles use weapons sent by France for the battle with Russia against the Germans. (1:453) General Le Rond allows the weapons and Polish infantry to come in unchecked. At the same time, Italian troops attempt to oppose the uprising. (1:454)
h. 5 May
i. Polish troops and insurgents capture East Upper Silesia as far as the upper reaches of the Oder. The Reich government protests these actions to the Allied governments. (1:455)
i. 13 May
i. British Prime Minister Lloyd George offered the following in the Lower House: “This step was a complete rupture of the Peace Treaty of Versailles…Poland is the last country that should go against the Treaty of Versailles…If Poland should get permission to overrun these German provinces, that would come to a bad end.” (1:455)
j. 21 May
i. Volunteers gather from Germany and Austria, and begin to recapture the lost and destroyed land: the critical battle is the battle in Annaberg. (1:455)
k. 24 May
i. Paris decrees that every German volunteer in the battle for Upper Silesia is subject to a fine of up to 100,000 marks. (1:455)
l. 5 July
i. German volunteer units have liberated most of Upper Silesia. (1:456)
a. 17 June
i. East Upper Silesia is forced from the Germans in favor of Poland. (1:456)
b. 26 November
i. Soviets sign agreement with German aviation firm Junkers Flugzeugwerke toward the production of metal airplanes. (2:17)
c. 30 December
i. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) is born. (2:11)
i. Poland becomes party to the “Geneva Convention for the Protection of Minorities.” (1:458)
ii. Poland expels minorities who entered after 1908 if they do not “opt” for Poland. Initially, those deported are not compensated for property. Officials with Russian or German as their mother tongue are dismissed from their posts. Half of Russian, German, and Jewish schools are closed. Bilingual teaching is prohibited by Law. Many business and professional licenses held by minorities are revoked. (1:459)
iii. Soviet Russia and Germany conclude the Treaty of Rapallo, as a means to break the isolation each country is experiencing. (1:527)
i. Soviet agreement with Germany regarding production of munitions and military agreement, and a second regarding construction of a chemical plant. (1:17)
b. 9 November
i. Date fixed by Stalin for a communist coup in Germany. (2:12)
i. The expanded Poland consists of 30 million people: 19 million speak Polish as their mother tongue, 5 million are Ukrainian, 2.5 million Jews, 2 million Germans, 1.2 million White Russians, and lessor amounts of Lithuanian, Czech, Hungarian, Kashubian, and Slozaken. (1:458)
ii. Polish were Roman Catholic; most of the minorities were Orthodox, Protestant, or Jewish. This created another dividing line and litmus test. (1:461)
i. In Mein Kampf, Hitler mentions Poland only twice, vaguely and in one case critical of the Germans and Austrians for attempting to Germanize their Polish minorities. (1:507)
a. 15 April
i. Agreement signed between Soviets and Germans toward creation of a secret air force center near Russian city of Lipetsk for training German military pilots. (2:17)
i. In a letter, German Foreign Minister Stresemann (a Nobel Peace Prize winner and father of the Franco-German reconciliation) expresses that “no German administration, from the German Nationalists to the Communists, would ever recognize the boundary of the Versailles Treaty.” (1:468)
i. The Gazeta Gdansk writes: “Poland must insist that without Königsberg, without the whole of East Prussia, it cannot exist. We must now demand in Locarno that the whole of East Prussia be liquidated…. Should this not happen in a peaceful way, then there will be a second Tannenberg…” (1:472)
1. Referring to the battle of 1410 in which the Polish-Lithuanian army defeated the army of the Teutonic Order, precipitating its political decline. (1:472)
ii. Germany recognizes France’s territorial gains from the Great War. Due to this, France weakens its treaty with Poland – no longer offering a guarantee against a Russian attack, and second, tying any assistance to a prior decision by the League of Nations. (1:480)
i. In a keynote speech at the Locarno negotiations (in which France’s borders and its possession of Alsace-Lorraine were confirmed), Stresemann added: “The League of Nations leaves open the right to make war if an agreement cannot be attained on Political issues… I seek indeed no military conflicts, but also do not exclude changes of borders in the East, if the impossible boundary drawing in the East should bring about conditions to make that necessary.” (1:468)
ii. Great Britain, in the same Locarno negotiations, explicitly refuses to make a guarantee in favor of Poland concerning the former German territories. (1:468, 482)
i. Soviet Russia and Berlin conclude the Berlin Treaty, a neutrality Treaty for a period of five years.
ii. Near the Soviet city of Kazan, a tank school is created for training of Germans. (1:18)
iii. Soviet Union begins construction of the “Stalin Line,” thirteen fortified regions along the western borders of the USSR; this effort continues through 1937. The line is built deep in Soviet territory, in order to provide a security pale – a region designed to bog down an aggressor, ensuring no chance at surprise attack. (2:171)
i. During a meeting of the League of Nations, Poland again asks Britain to guarantee its borders. Britain again refuses. (1:482)
i. Stalin consolidates power in Soviet Union. (1:28)
i. Poland is party to the “Kellogg Pact,” renouncing war as a means to settle international disputes. (1:436) Additional parties include the United States, Belgium, France, Great Britain, and Germany. (1:506)
i. 29 February
1. The Soviets, Poland, Romania, and the Baltic states sign the “Litvinov Protocol,” according to which wars between these countries is to be excluded in the future as solutions to international disputes. (1:483)
1. The buildup of Finnish defenses in the Karelian Isthmus (known as the Mannerheim Line), increases significantly. The bulk of Finland’s military expenditures over the next ten years is spent in this buildup. The line is considered impenetrable by various military experts. (2:136)
i. Three years before Hitler’s rise to power, the Polish Foreign Minister Zaleski tells the President of the Danzig Senate that only a Polish army corps can solve the Danzig question. (1:473)
b. 24 December
i. Two disassembled tanks, products of American George Walter Christie, were shipped to the Soviet Union, falsely labeled as tractors. Purpose was for Soviets to study design. (1:50)
i. Archbishop Szeptyćkyj, Metropolitan of the Greek Catholic Church of Lemberg writes to a friend: “We are living through terrible times. The punitive expeditions ruin our villages, our schools, our economic institutions. Thousands of villagers have been beaten…. There is a critical aggravation of a system of persecution that has not stopped since 1920.” (1:463)
ii. The newspaper linked to Pilsudski, Mocarstwowiec (The League of Great Power), writes: “We are aware that war between Poland and Germany cannot be avoided…we will see…a new victory at Tennenberg…. But we shall fight this Tannenberg in the suburbs of Berlin. Our ideal is to round Poland off with frontiers on the Oder in the West and the Neisse in Lausatia, and to incorporate Prussia, from the Pragel up to the Spree. In this war no prisoners will be taken, there will be no place for humanitarian feelings. We will surprise the whole world with our war against Germany.” (1:472)
i. Head of Warsaw government, Marshal Józef Piłsudski, to US President Hoover: “Poland must counter an imminent attack by irregular German troops and invade Germany in order to settle things once and for all.” (1:473)
i. The Manchester Guardian describes the Polish policy towards minorities as “hell.” “The minorities in Poland are supposed to disappear…. This policy is recklessly pursued, without the slightest attention to public opinion in the world…” (1:461)
a. 23 March
i. Soviet Union becomes first country in the world to create a heavy bomber corps. (1:35)
i. Before the House of Lords, Lord Noel-Buxton reports on many of the issues and atrocities in Poland regarding the minorities. (1:459)
c. 25 July
i. Warsaw and Moscow conclude the Polish-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact: “…in the event of a Polish-German conflict, [the Soviet Union] will provide help and assistance to the German Reich neither directly nor indirectly.” (1:474)
d. 31 July
i. Hitler’s Nazi Party amasses 13.7 million votes, its highest total ever; represents only 37.3% of total votes. (1:39)
i. Polish fleet stationed in the port of Danzig, against protest of the senate of the Free State of Danzig (1:448)
f. 6 November
i. Hitler’s Nazi party receives fewer votes, now 11.7 million. Goebbels writes in his diary: “All hope has disappeared….We are on our last breath.” (1:29)
ii. The communists come in third, but under orders from Stalin (and instead of forming a coalition with the Social Democrats and bringing an end to the Nazis) form a coalition government with the Nazis, propelling Hitler into power. (1:30)
g. 24 November
i. Churchill, at the time a conservative MP, in a speech to the Lower House: “If the British government really wishes to promote peace, then it should take the initiative and re-open the issues of Danzig and the Corridor while the victorious powers are as yet superior. If these matters are not resolved, there can be no hope for a lasting peace. (1:482)
a. February or March
i. The first of “Piłsudski’s Pre-emptive Plans” – in total, three attempts to enlist France in a pre-emptive war against Germany – is attempted. (1:475) These three attempts were considered relatively safe given the Russian-Polish Treaty, as Poland felt safe to attack Germany without threat from Russia. (1:476)
i. Roosevelt scuttles the World Economic Conference in London, shortly after he takes office. (5:93)
c. 6 March
i. Marshal Piłsudski reinforces Polish troops in the Free State of Danzig. This is beyond the authority granted by the League of Nations; Poland withdraws the additional troops. (1:475)
i. The second of “Piłsudski’s Pre-emptive Plans” is attempted. This one comes to the attention of Hitler. (1:476)
e. 15 November
i. At the request of Polish Ambassador Lipski, German Ambassador von Moltke presents a draft “friendship and non-aggression” treaty. This is followed by silence, and Piłsudski’s third attempt to enlist France in a pre-emptive war against Germany. (1:476)
i. From 1933 – 1938, 557,000 Jews leave Poland for Germany (or through Germany to other countries) due to the harsh anti-Semitic movement.
a. 9 January
i. The German-Polish Friendship and Non-Aggression Pact is concluded, and with it comes peace for four years (although terms in the treaty called for ten years). (1:476, 487)
b. 5 May
i. The Polish-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact from 1932 is renewed, with a scheduled term of ten years. (1:475)
i. Poland unilaterally renounces the Minority Protection Treaty which it had concluded in 1919 at the demand of the Allied powers. (1:466) This treaty is sometimes referred to as the “Little Versailles Treaty.” (1:479)
i. Hitler approaches Poland with the objective of better relations between the two countries and better treatment of German minorities in Poland. The first result is the Friendship and Non-Aggression Treaty of 1934. (1:466)
ii. The Polish Academy of Sciences prints picture postcards show the Polish King Boleslaw Chrobry in front of a map of Poland – including East Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania, the Margraviate of Brandenberg and Lübeck are represented as the western part of Poland. (1:473)
a. 21 November
i. Soviet pilot Vladimir Kokkinaki sets world altitude record of 14.575 meters with the I-15 fighter. (2:61)
i. The German armed forces surpass in strength those of Poland, with the Soviet army several times the size. (1:478)
i. As a reaction to various breaches by both Germany and Poland regarding access to East Prussia, Poland imposes the Corridor Blockade, significantly reducing rail transit traffic between East Prussia and Germany. (1:443)
b. 18 July
i. Signal given by radio to begin the uprising against the Spanish Republic. (2:98)
i. Gamelin weakens the details of the exact nature of the French commitment to Poland in case of German attack. (1:480)
i. German troops march into the Rhineland; this action is not prevented by France. (1:480)
ii. Stalin convinces Spanish Republic’s government to hide gold reserves in the Soviet Union for safekeeping and for payment for supply of weapons. Reserves were not seen again. (1:99)
i. President of the Reichstag Hermann Göring to State Secretary of Poland’s Foreign Ministry Count Szembek: “The only thing that we are interested in is a corridor through the Corridor.” (1:445)
b. 5 November
i. Germany and Poland consummate the Minority Protection Agreement, toward the improvement of the treatment of Germans in Poland. (1:466, 511)
ii. Hitler speaks for the first time in front of his generals and Foreign Minister von Neurath about war and his plans to incorporate Austria into Germany and annex Czechia. Poland is only peripherally mentioned – hoping that in any wars with third countries, Poland will remain neutral. (1:511)
c. 19 November
i. British MP (and later Foreign Minister) Lord Halifax visits Hitler to explore possibilities of cooperation between Germany and England. Halifax speaks about a “change in the European order, which will probably occur sooner or later. Among things at issue are Danzig and Austria and Czechoslovakia. England is only interested in ensuring that these changes are brought about by way of peaceful developments.” (1:511)
i. Rydz-Śmigły instructs the Inspector of the Polish Army, General Kutzreba, to design a war plan against Germany (this, while the German-Polish Treaty still has seven years to run). (1:478)
i. Polish Foreign Minister Beck lets French Ambassador Noel in Warsaw know that “Czechoslovakia must disappear in the near future” and that in Poland one is preparing “to take part of the legacy for oneself.” (1:485)
ii. Warsaw rescinds passports of Jews who have left due to anti-Semitic actions in the previous five years, rendering them stateless.
iii. US government sells to Stalin the production license and the necessary equipment for the production of the Douglas DC-3 (PS-84) transport plane. (1:77)
b. 26 January
i. General Kutzreba submits to Rydz-Śmigły the requested war plan. According to this plan, Poland will fight in 1939. The plan assumes that Poland can withstand Germany for eight weeks, by which time France will join and then Germany will be beaten. (1:478)
i. Poland uses Sudeten crisis to annex West Teschen against the wishes of Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. The British, French, and Soviets all reject this claim. The Soviets threaten to terminate the Polish-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of July 1932. (1:434) London is very upset with Poland’s action. (1:483)
ii. Hitler does not object to Poland’s claim over West Teschen. (1:435, 488)
iii. Poland deploys an army corps near Teschen and threatens the Czech government with war. The Czech government yields. (1:435)
i. Poland occupies Teschen. (1:435)
ii. Soviets renounce the Non-Aggression Pact with Poland. (1:435, 484)
e. 24 October
i. Hitler, in a first for a Reich government, recognizes Polish gains in former German territories of Upper Silesia, West Prussia, and Posen in exchange for annexation of Danzig to the Reich and extra-territorial access (a corridor) to Danzig. (1:488) The proposal would allow Poland a free port in Danzig, along with transit rights; an extension of the German-Polish Treaty from 10 years to 25 years. This is the first of six attempts by Hitler (with ever-improving terms) over the next ten months to resolve this issue by negotiation. (1:489)
f. 11 November
i. Secret cooperation agreement between Soviet NKVD and German Gestapo was signed. (2:xxi)
g. 19 November
i. Polish Ambassador Lipski lets von Ribbentrop know that, due to domestic political reasons, Poland cannot comply with German wishes about Danzig. (1:490)
i. Agreement on a German-French Non-Aggression Pact (1:491) NEED MORE DETAILS ON THIS!!!!!!
i. 2 December
i. From Professor Burckhardt, the High Commissioner of the League of Nations for Danzig, regarding his impression of a conversation with Anthony Biddle, Roosevelt’s Ambassador in Paris: “He declared to me with a curious satisfaction: The Poles are ready to wage war over Danzig…. In April the new war will break out. Never since the torpedoing of the Lusitania has such a religious hatred of Germany existed in America like today. Chamberlain and Daladier will be blown away by the public opinion. It is about a holy war.” (1:524)
i. French Ambassador in Berlin, André François-Poncet: “Hitler suggests that they install an extraterritorial throughway with an auto highway and railway line through the Corridor, so that East Prussia has a direct connection with the Reich. Beck had stated that such a solution appeared acceptable to him.” (1:513)
b. 4 January
i. Roosevelt has the US fleet from the Pacific pass through the Panama Canal to the Atlantic side for maneuvers in the Caribbean. On the same day, he requests $1.3 billion for arms production and asks Congress to repeal or relax the US neutrality laws (this latter being refused). (1:524)
c. 5 January
i. Poland’s Foreign Minister Beck visits Hitler in the Alpine residence near Salzburg. Hitler, still hoping that his agreement regarding Teschen would result in some gratitude, offers again to concede all lost territories to Poland in exchange for Danzig and extra-territorial transit rights, with some further clarification: “Danzig comes politically to the German community and remains economically with Poland.” Beck doesn’t budge, but offers to consider further solutions. The peace is not lost. (1:490)
d. 11 January
i. The People’s Commissariat of Defense Industry is disbanded; it is replaced with four new commissions: shipbuilding, weapons, aviation, and ammunition. (2:127)
e. 25 January
i. German Foreign Minister visits Warsaw – a third attempt on the German side to resolve Danzig. Once again, there is no progress, but also the door is not closed: “…agreement that both the present and the future issues that concern jointly both states should be examined and resolved, with protection of the legitimate interests of both nations.” (1:490)
f. 26 January
i. French Foreign Minister Bonnet gives a speech on the broad outlines of his foreign policy before the National Assembly in Paris: “In the event of war, …if England and France should be drawn into it, all the forces of Great Britain are available to France as all the forces of France are to Great Britain…. Regarding the relations with Poland, it suffices to recall that the Polish Foreign Minister Beck has declared that the Polish-French friendship invariably represents one of the foundations of Polish politics.” At the same session, Prime Minister Daladier says “That it is fitting to oppose a categorical no to the demands of some neighbors.” This is before Hitler occupies the remainder of Czechia. (1:491)
i. The Polish General Staff work out guidelines for the operations of their armed forces in a war against Germany. (1:492)
ii. Roosevelt undermines the ongoing German-British negotiations on a trade agreement through his own offer of a trade treaty [with Britain] which excludes a German-British Treaty. (1:525)
i. Hitler reincorporates Memel into the Reich. The poor treatment of German minorities in Poland intensifies. (1:466)
ii. After German advance into Czechoslovakia, Polish Foreign Minister Beck makes use of British anger at the Germans and asks the British for a protection agreement. Britain agrees. (1:493-494)
iii. Poland makes a partial mobilization of troops in Danzig, contrary to the German-Polish Treaty. (1:494)
iv. Polish newspapers in West Prussia-Pomeralia call for a boycott of Germans: shops, market stalls, restaurants, hiring, etc. (1:555)
i. 4 March
i. Polish military begins work on “Plan Operacyny Zachud” (Operation Plan West), one month before Hitler orders the Wehrmacht to work on “Case White.” (1:492)
j. 10 March
i. At the Eighteenth Congress of the Communist Party, it is declared that Great Britain wants to trigger a war between the Germans and the Soviet Union – while Britain remained on the sideline. (2:233)
k. 16 March
i. Hitler marches troops into the rest of disintegrating Czechoslovakia. (1:492)
ii. This action perhaps spoiled his chances of bringing Danzing through diplomatic means, as Hitler went beyond his previous agreement with Britain. (1:523)
iii. France’s Foreign Minister Bonnet proposes French-Soviet deliberations to the Soviet Ambassador in Paris regarding possible joint action against Germany in case the Germans take new action toward another East European country. (1:539)
l. 18 March
i. Soviet Foreign Minister Litinov offers a proposal similar to that offered by Bonnet on March 16 – this to include the governments of Paris, London, Warsaw, Bucharest and Ankara. Poland pushes back on any agreement with the Soviets. (1:540)
m. 19 March
i. The English Foreign Office asks the American one to a) continue the cooperation between the two navies and b) to transfer the US Navy to Hawaii in the Pacific – freeing up the British fleet for the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. On the 23rd, Roosevelt agrees to both. (1:525)
n. 20 March
i. Roosevelt introduces a bill in Congress to revise the neutrality laws. (1:525)
ii. Britain makes its initial offer to Poland to take on a guarantee for its security. (1:526)
iii. Britain wants to include the Soviets in a guarantee arrangement for Poland, but Poland refuses. (1:532)
o. 21 March
i. Von Ribbentrop petitions to Ambassador Lipski for passage to Warsaw, to request new negotiations. This is the fourth attempt. (1:494)
p. 25 March
i. A “Directive of the Führer,” filed in the German Foreign Office: “Führer wants however to solve the Danzig question non-violently. Would not like to push Poland thereby into the arms of England. A possible military occupation of Danzig would only come into consideration if Lipski intimates that the Polish Government cannot publicly support a voluntary surrender of Danzig….” (1:515)
q. 26 March
i. Lipski returns to Berlin with a memorandum in response to German proposals; fundamentally a clear “no.” Von Ribbentrop replies that the only clear solution is reintegration of Danzig to the Reich. Lipski answer is that “he has the unpleasant duty to point out that any further pursuit of these German plans, particularly so far as they concern the return of Danzig to the Reich, means war with Poland.” This is the first overt threat of war between the two countries. (1:495)
ii. Von Ribbentrop replies: “That, for example, a violation of the Danzig sovereign territory by Polish troops would be considered by Germany in the same manner as a violation of the Reich’s borders.” (1:496)
iii. Hitler, when informed by von Ribbentrop of the conversation, replies: “Of war, of course, there may be no talk here.” (1:497)
iv. With negotiations between Britain and Poland regarding a guarantee at an “impasse,” [perhaps due to Britain’s desire to include the Soviets in the guarantee and Poland’s refusal of same?] Roosevelt exerts influence over Chamberlain. He sends Ambassador Kennedy to Chamberlain, indicating the danger of an insufficient guarantee for the Poles and for peace. (1:526)
r. 27 March
i. German Chargé d’Affaires in Washington, Hans Thomsen to Minister von Ribbentrop in Berlin: “The announcements and measures of the American government in the last few weeks show ever more clearly that President Roosevelt’s claim to leadership in world political affairs is directed at the objective of destroying National Socialist Germany with all available resources….” (1:526)
s. 28 March
i. Back in Warsaw, Beck summons German Ambassador von Moltke to give him his views. Beck: “That any intervention by the German government for a change of the existing status quo in Danzig will be regarded as an attack against Poland.” (1:497)
ii. Von Moltke replies: “You want to negotiate on the points of bayonets.” (1:497)
iii. All that is left for Germany is abandonment or war regarding Danzig. (1:497)
iv. Von Moltke reports to Berlin regarding the Polish illusion of its armed-forces to those of the Wehrmacht, and a statement from Vice-Minister of War Gluchowski: “…therein he states that the German Wehrmacht is a big bluff, for Germany lacks the trained reserves to fill out its units. When asked whether he believes that Poland is seriously superior to Germany, Gluchowski answered: ‘But that is self-evident.’” (1:567)
v. Madrid falls to Franco and the nationalists, ending the Spanish Civil War. (2:100)
t. 31 March
i. After arguments in favor by Lord Halifax before the Lower House, the British government announces the guarantee of Poland against Germany. (1:498, 533)
ii. Paris also declares a guarantee for Poland. (1:529)
u. 3 April
i. Hitler gives the order for “Case White,” for the Wehrmacht to prepare for an attack on Poland anytime from 1 September and on. (1:498) It is a conditional directive. From the directive: “German relations with Poland remain determined by the principle: avoid disturbances. If Poland changes its policy towards Germany, which up to now has been based on the same principle, and adopts a threatening attitude toward the Reich, a final reckoning may be required.” (1:516)
ii. The Polish Foreign Minister travels to London to obtain in writing the British guarantee. Both parties now assure each other that they will assist each other in case of an indirect or direct threat by other states. (1:534)
v. 7 April
i. Italy attacks Albania. (1:534)
w. 13 April
i. France and England offer a joint guarantee for Greece and Romania (1:534)
x. 14 April
i. Roosevelt sends a letter to Hitler and Mussolini, demanding guarantees not to attack 31 named states. (1:526)
ii. French, British, and Soviet mediators begin discussing a possible alliance against Germany. (1:540)
y. 15 April
i. The American naval attaché informs the French Navy High Command in Paris that Roosevelt, without asking Congress, could order the American navy into the Irish Sea or to the Philippines, if there should be any indications about the military plans of the Axis powers. (1:526)
z. 17 April
i. Soviets propose a triple alliance to include France and Britain, against Germany. (1:540)
ii. Soviet Ambassador Merekalov in Berlin calls State Secretary Weizsacker, declaring: “that ideological differences of opinion need not upset the German-Russian relationship, as they do in fact the Russian-Italian relations…. The Soviet Union has not used against Germany the current frictions between Germany and the Western democracies, and also does not wish to do that.” (1:540)
aa. 19 April
i. Roosevelt lets the British know it is indispensable that Britain adopt universal conscription. Such a law is passed in the Lower House on 28 April. (1:526)
bb. 24 April
i. General staffs of Britain and France meet in London (through May 4) to discuss Poland; mostly discuss the British-French cooperation in case of war. (1:534)
ii. Britain promises 32 divisions to support France, Gamelin reports the number as 40 to the French cabinet. (1:535)
cc. 27 April
i. Hitler announces the cancellation of the German-Polish Friendship and Non-Aggression Treaty of 1934, via memorandum to the Polish government and the next day in a Reichstag speech. In the speech, he offers once again to negotiate on the status of Danzig, while renouncing all claims to territories lost to Poland. This is Germany’s fifth offer. (1:498)
dd. 28 April
i. Hitler one more time makes an offer to the Polish Government: Danzig returns as a Free State to the German Reich; Germany receives a road and railway corridor to Danzig. In exchange, Germany recognizes Poland’s complete economic rights in Danzig, with a free port and totally free access; remaining boarders between Poland and Germany remain as present; a twenty-five year non-aggression pact between Germany and Poland. (1:517)
i. On the border between Mongolia and China near the river Khalkhin-Gol, armed conflict occurred between the Soviets and Japanese; the Soviets in Mongolia and the Japanese in China. (2:105)
ff. 4 May
i. British Ambassador writes from Berlin to Minister Lord Halifax in London: “Once again the German case on the immediate issue is very far from being either unjustifiable or immoral…. My thesis has always been that Germany cannot revert to normalcy…until her legitimate (in German eyes) aspirations have been satisfied…. According to my Belgian colleague, practically all the diplomatic representatives here regard the German offer in itself a surprisingly favourable one. The Dutch Minister, the United States Chargé d’Affaires and my South African colleague have themselves spoken to me in that sense.” (1:500)
gg. 5 May
i. Foreign Minister Beck, regarding the demands of Germany, in the Sejm (the parliament in Warsaw) says that the status of the Free City of Danzig is not based on Versailles, but on traditionally belonging for centuries to Poland. (1:499)
ii. The Polish government, by note, replies to the German cancellation of the Non-Aggression Pact: Poland wants to negotiate, Germany has always pledged to respect Polish rights in Danzig, and Poland has already met the Germans halfway via the 26 March response brought by Lipski. (1:499) The rights Poland claims for Danzig are those same rights offered by Germany in the previous German proposals. (1:500) Poland demands Germany continues to respect the Non-Aggression Treaty (ignoring the Polish army deployments to the outskirts of Danzig on 24 March. (1:500)
hh. 15 May
i. General Gamelin of France promises to Poland’s Minister of War Kasprzycki to attack Germany with the mass of the French Army in the event of war over Danzig. (1:478, 529)
ii. When asked by members of the French military delegation regarding Poland’s border defenses, and if these will withstand a German attack, Polish Minister of War General Kasprzycki replies: “We have no fortifications, for we intend to wage a mobile war and right at the beginning of operations to penetrate into Germany.” (1:567)
ii. 19 May
i. An outcome of the meeting between the war ministers of France and Poland is a written agreement obliging the French army to start an offensive against Germany by the 15th day of conflict. The document does not differentiate if Poland is attacked or first attacks. (1:529)
ii. Churchill, in a speech before the Lower House, justifying the desire to form alliance with the Soviets: “without an Eastern front there can be no satisfactory defense in the West. And without Russia, there can be no effective Eastern front.” (1:543)
iii. In the same speech, Churchill offers justification for the necessary sacrifice of the Baltic states in any alliance with the Soviets: :What about the Baltic States of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia for whose sake Peter the Great went to war? Russia has the greatest interest that these countries not fall into the hands of Nazi Germany.” (1:545)
jj. 23 May
i. Poland until May has been in Hitler’s “wishful thinking” a potential partner. Now Poland becomes a victim. For the first time, Poland enters more concretely into Hitler’s vague notions of “Lebensraum.” In a speech on this date to his top generals, Hitler says as much.
kk. 31 May
i. Gamelin writes the guidelines in support of the agreement to come to the aid of Poland. It is not clear that any offensive will begin within the 15 days, as stipulated in the agreement. (1:530)
1. Was Poland merely baited, with Gamelin having no intention to follow through?
i. In a fact-finding mission for the London foreign office, two officials report on the confidence of the Polish military in any battle with Germany: “…one is thinking to attack East Prussia at the start of the war because it would be difficult for the Germans to reinforce the province promptly and adequately…” “Anyway the general view seemed to be that East Prussia must be annexed by Poland.” (1:472)
i. Harassment of minorities in Poland increases in such a way that tension-free negotiation is no longer possible. The situation also deteriorates “psychologically.” Hitler wants success, price is beside the point. (1:501)
ii. Roosevelt fails in Congress; Congress refuses to lift the arms embargo against warring nations and to soften the neutrality laws. (1:527)
nn. 1 June
i. Soviets declare “We will defend the borders of the Mongolian People’s Republic as we defend our own.” (2:105)
oo. 8 July
i. Paris and London present a draft treaty to Moscow. (1:541)
pp. 17 July
i. Paris and London present a second draft treaty to Moscow. (1:541)
qq. 20 July
i. From the weekly newspaper “Narod W Walce” (People in the War): “Danzig must remain Polish, and Germany must be forced to relinquish the East Prussian area without population to Poland.” (1:473)
rr. 24 July
i. A treaty is initialed (but not signed) between France-Britain-Soviets. (1:541)
ss. 3 August
i. Berlin offers to Moscow talks regarding an agreement. (1:545)
tt. 4 August
i. Stalin approves a document entitled “Agenda for the Negotiations with England and France,” with five different plans of attack with up to 120 army divisions against Germany. (1:541)
uu. 5 August
i. Chargé d’Affaires of the Soviet Embassy in Berlin, Astakhov, pays a visit to the Senior Counselor in the Foreign Affairs Office, Schnurre. From Foreign Minister Molotov, he conveys that the Soviet Union is interested in normalization and improvement of its relations with Germany. (1:541)
ii. Customs dispute erupts in Danzig. The tensions escalate significantly. From the Polish Commissioner-General, if directives issued by the Danzig Senate are not reversed: “The Polish government without delay will take retaliatory measures against the Free City.” Hitler advises the head of the Danzig Senate to find a way to ease tensions. (1:557)
vv. 8 August
i. British Ambassador Henderson comments on the Danzig customs incident, in a note to Foreign Secretary Halifax in London. He suggests that these actions tend to humiliate Hitler; if the actions are not of His Majesty’s government, then all efforts should be taken to not drive Hitler to react promptly, because of pride.(1:558)
ii. Swedish mediator Dahlerus suggests a secret German-British-French-Italian talk about peaceful settlement of the disputes. The German Reich agrees immediately; England lets it be known that it cannot answer at this time. (1:570)
ww. 11 August
i. British and French delegations arrive in Moscow to discuss joint actions against Germany. (2:106)
xx. 12 August
i. Hitler notifies Italian Foreign Minister Count Ciano that he will attack Poland after the next provocation. To Ciano’s further query, Hitler replies “End of August.” In the meantime, Hitler is hindered by British and French attempts to bring the Soviet Union to their side – an event which by Hitler’s own account would have stopped him from any invasion plans. (1:520)
ii. Astakhov contacts Schnurre a second time, informing him on behalf of Molotov that “on the Soviet side one is interested in a discussion of the individual groups of questions which have so far come up,” including the “Polish problem.” (1:546)
yy. 13 August
i. Talks begin in Moscow, including the military missions from Paris and London. From Marshal Voroshilov: “Soviet troops operating against East Prussia and in Galicia, and England and France operating in the West, it would be the end of Germany.” (1:542)
ii. Poland continues its refusal to consent to such an alliance, (rightly) fearing that the Soviets, in order to attack Germany, would have to march through Poland…and might then never leave. (1:542)
zz. 15 August
i. Soviet-German talks begin in Moscow. Moscow wants from Germany: a moderating influence on Japan, as the two are still at war; a non-aggression pact with Germany; a trade treaty with Germany; a joint guarantee of the Baltic States (meaning a Soviet domination). (1: 546)
aaa. 16 August
i. From British Ambassador Henderson in Berlin, to Lord Halifax, by telegram: “I would recommend myself that the Polish Government should be persuaded – and persuaded at once – to instruct the Polish Ambassador here to make some form ofdémarche which he should easily be able to do through Göring …. Lipski after all is a ‘persona grata’ here…. The Poles could deplore deterioration of the situation and suggest the maintenance of the status quo ante March…to allow diplomatic negotiations to start again.” (1:561)
bbb. 17 August
i. Two telegrams from Halifax to Kennard, the British Ambassador in Warsaw, show no reaction to Henderson’s telegram of yesterday. (1:562)
ii. In a written response delivered to the German Ambassador, Molotov reiterates points made on 15 August. Additionally, he writes that, because of Germany’s anti-Soviet stance, the Soviet Union has been forced “to take the first measures to prepare a defensive front against a possible aggression against the Soviet Union from Germany’s side.” He continues: “that the Soviet government has never had any aggressive intentions against Germany.” (1:547)
iii. Molotov proposes a “special protocol,” but does not at this time reveal the contents. It will later be shown that the protocol includes: the German government will recognize that east Poland, Bessarabia, Finland, and the Baltic sphere belong to the Soviet sphere of interest. (1:547)
ccc. 19 August
i. Attempt by Britain-France to bring Soviets into alliance against Germany fails. (1:536) They explain this is due to objections by the Polish government. (1:548) Russians believe that a) France only wants to protect its borders, and b) as the British delegation does not have full authority to negotiate, that the objective for the Western democracies is for Russia to bleed alone against Germany. (1:542)
ii. Stalin explains to the Politburo his decision for alliance with Germany, and not England-France: a trio of England-France-Soviet Union against the Germans would end the war too quickly. Germany fighting only against France and England would drag out longer, wearing out the forces of the participants further. (1:543)
iii. Stalin decides to stop talks with Britain and France. (2:108)
iv. Stalin begins mobilization of Red Army in Mongolia. Zhukov defeats the Japanese with lightning speed. (2:108) at 0545, 153 Soviet bombers, covered by fighter aircraft, carried out a surprise raid on Japanese air bases and command posts. (2:114)
v. Stalin holds a secret meeting of the Politburo. He gives a speech, suggesting that Germany will certainly invade Poland once the treaty between Soviets and Germans is signed; England and France will then enter the war. The capitalists will then wear each other out, and the Soviets must do all they can to prolong this – in order to exhaust the two sides. For this reason, the Soviets side with Germany. (2:109) Stalin: “If we make a pact of mutual aid with Great Britain and France, Germany will give up Poland and…the War will be averted.” (2:122)
vi. By 1600 hours, the German Ambassador is summoned to Molotov at the Foreign Office, handing him a treaty with a provision that it is valid only with the signing of the previously mentioned “special protocol,” not yet available. (1:548)
ddd. 19 August
i. Politburo decision authorizes the formation of troops in inner districts to later move these to the western front. (2:224)
eee. 20 August
i. Hitler sends a telegram to Stalin, informing him that he accepts the draft of the Non-Aggression Pact, and he wants to send von Ribbentrop with “comprehensive Proxy Power” for the signing of the treaty and the drawing up and signing of the protocol. (1:548)
fff. 21 August
i. Stalin invites von Ribbentrop to Moscow, arrival date of 23 August. (1:548)
ggg. 22 August
i. In a speech to his generals, Hitler says: “It was clear to me that sooner or later it had to come to a conflict with Poland.” This statement would not have been surprising to the generals, given Poland’s actions against Germany over the previous two decades. (1:477)
ii. From the same speech: “The relationship with Poland has become intolerable. My suggestions to Poland about Danzig and the Corridor were foiled through the intervention of England. Poland changed its tone towards us. This stressful situation is intolerable in the long run…. Now the time is more favorable than in two or three years.” (1:521)
iii. Hitler also mentions that he took the decision of the attack as early as the Spring of 1939. If true, this was the time of Poland’s movement toward the British and French. (1:521)
iv. Hitler at this time does not yet know that the “special protocols” will include, not a joint guarantee for the Baltic States, but the inclusion of the Baltic States and other parts of East Europe, including Eastern Poland, in the Soviet “sphere of influence.” (1:548)
hhh. 22 August
i. Roosevelt, at Daladier’s suggestion, calls for a World Peace Conference in Washington. (1:570)
iii. 23 August
i. Morning newspapers are filled with reports of the flight of von Ribbentrop from Berlin to Moscow. (1:572)
ii. Chamberlain sends Henderson with a letter to see Hitler. Hitler assures Henderson of his personal appreciation, then complains of England’s attitude regarding Danzig: “Germany has made Poland a decent and fair offer,” to which Henderson replies “that the German offer was indeed made, but it had the character of a diktat.” “He (Hitler) sees no possibility by way of negotiations because he is convinced that the British government is not interested in such a settlement.” Hitler regrets that England “makes him her enemy, he who himself wanted to be England’s greatest friend.” Hitler stresses “that Germany has never undertaken anything to the detriment of England, nevertheless England places itself against Germany. “…at the slightest Polish attempt to take actions against Germans, or against Danzig, he will intervene immediately….” (1:572)
iii. Chamberlain’s letter contains two new offers: the first is a play for time – that negotiations between Poland and Germany be put on hold until the situation has cooled down; the second is more substantial – Chamberlain holds out the prospect for later negotiations parallel to those on the Danzig question “in which it might be possible to discuss wider problems affecting the future of international relations, including matters of interest to us and you.” (1:573)
iv. Hitler replies to Chamberlain’s letter on the same day. Germany has tried in vain to win England’s friendship; Germany has never sought conflict with England; Germany was prepared to settle the Danzig question on terms of “unparalleled magnanimity”; England has sabotaged this effort through cheap propaganda and the guarantee to the Poles; Germany will no longer tolerate pressure and ultimatums to the minority Germans in Poland and against Danzig. The letter ends: “The question of the treatment of European problems on a peaceful basis cannot be decided by Germany but primarily by those who, since the crime committed by the Versailles dictate, have stubbornly and consistently opposed any peaceful revision…. I have all my life fought for German-English friendship; the attitude adopted by British diplomacy – at any rate up to the present – has, however, convinced me of the futility of such an attempt. Should there be any change in this respect in the future no one could be happier than I.” (1:575)
v. Hitler has the High Command of the Wehrmacht prepare for attack on Poland on 26 August at 430 hours. (1:575)
vi. Hitler sends a telegram to Daladier: “I harbor no enmity against France. I have personally renounced Alsace-Lorraine, and I have recognized the German-French border…. Now, the Polish challenges have produced a situation for the Reich which cannot last…. I will not attack France. But if it participates in the conflict, I will go to the end.” (1:575) Daladier’s reply is four days later. (1:576)
vii. Hitler and von Ribbentrop conclude a Non-Aggression Pact with Stalin and Molotov. (1:520) The pact is to be valid for ten years. (1:549)
1. Immediately after the signing of this pact, Stalin forms the 9th Army on the borders of Romania. (2:197)
viii. Neither side is to come to the aid of Poland to protect it from the other. (1:550)
ix. As to the “special protocol,” von Ribbentrop is now surprised to learn of the Soviet sphere of influence requirement. Additionally, Stalin wants two ports in Lithuania and Latvia – without this concession, there will be no treaty. Von Ribbentrop, despite having full authority, is not sure how far he may proceed. (1:549)
x. At 2000 hours, von Ribbentrop phones Hitler. Hitler agrees, without much hesitation. Everything is thereafter signed. (1:549)
xi. The suddenness by which the German-Soviet treaty is signed, so shortly after the efforts of England and France have failed, is a shock throughout Europe. Yet, Poland still makes no concessions on Danzig. (1:550)
xii. The French cabinet takes stock to determine if – even without Russia’s help – it can meet its treaty obligations to Poland. Through this, the following thoughts of Gamelin are revealed: a) he sees at the earliest an aid to the Polish army only in the Spring of 1940, and not 15 days after the conflict, b) he viewed the point of the May agreement as one where Poland would help France against Germany – as there was no German threat against Poland when the agreement was made in May, he did not believe the promise would be called, and c) there are not any plans to come to the rescue of Poland in case of attack by Germany. (1:531)
1. Bonet, the French Foreign Minister, does nothing to warn his Polish counterpart of these facts. (1:531)
xiii. In Mongolia, Zhukov completes his encircling operation against the Japanese. (2:114) Zhukov is given the title of Hero of the Soviet Union. (2:115) Stalin does not publicize this victory; implication is in order to hide capability of Soviet military in order to surprise Germany in the near future. (2:116)
jjj. 24 August
i. Moscow immediately notifies Roosevelt of the treaty with Germany. Including the “secret protocol” which divides Poland in two. Roosevelt does not immediately notify either Warsaw, London, or Paris. Instead, that evening he sends a message to Warsaw and Berlin that one might find solutions via peaceful negotiations. (1:551, 579)
1. But when did it become public? Was it not already public? Or is the secret in the “secret protocol”?
ii. Hitler confides to State Secretary Ernst von Weizsäcker that he believes England will drop Poland (with the Soviet switch to the German side), and Warsaw will concede to Hitler’s demands. (1:521)
iii. Roosevelt sends a peace message to Hitler and Polish President Moscicki. His message: “refrain for a certain time from any aggression,” and agree to direct negotiations. Hitler, who has been asking for direct negotiations for some time, ignores the message from Roosevelt. (1:570)
iv. Prime Minister Chamberlain, addressing the Lower House, reaffirms the allegiance of Britain to Poland, and notes the uncompromising attitude of Germany regarding Danzig: “[The Poles] have always been ready, as I am sure they would be ready now, to discuss differences with the German Government.” (1:577)
v. Ambassador Henderson reports to London: “With the Russian pact in his hands the initiative is now Hitler’s….I anticipate an ultimatum to Poland.” “It was heartbreaking since, as you know, I have held from the beginning that the Poles were utterly foolish and unwise.” (1:577)
vi. Hitler receives a message that today could see the signing of an English-Polish Assistance Treaty. Hitler decides he must gain time for further negotiations. Hitler orders the attack on Poland, previously scheduled for 26 August to an unknown date. (1:578)
vii. Poland closes the borders of Danzig. Supply shortages soon follow. (1:580)
viii. A commercial Lufthansa aircraft is shot by Polish guns. (1:593)
kkk. 25 August
i. Hitler offers London an alliance if the British government will be helpful in the recovery and resolution of Danzig. Germany will then guarantee Poland’s new frontiers, and will provide German assistance in the defense of the British Empire wherever in the world it is needed. After Czechia, London puts little faith in German guarantees. (1:536)
ii. Swedish mediator Dahlerus departs Berlin for London. (1:580) After his visit, he conveys to Göring that there is hope for resolution. (1:587)
iii. London and Warsaw conclude the assistance agreement previously pledged. The agreement includes support for military resistance deemed necessary to counter a threat (whether direct or indirect) against the independence of a treaty partner. With this, it is left to Poland to decide when the indirect threat becomes an act of war. (536)
1. There is a secret additional protocol to the agreement: it is only valid against Germany, and not, for example, against the Soviet Union. (1:538)
iv. Hitler receives several reports of clashes and strikes overnight on both sides of the Polish-German border. (1:580)
v. Hitler sends a message to Mussolini, attempting indirectly to gain Italy’s support for the dispute with Poland. (1:581)
vi. Hitler receives confirmation of the London-Warsaw agreement. (1:581)
vii. Hitler meets with Henderson, reporting on the border clashes, and again holding hope for a German-British agreement. “If the British Government would consider these ideas, it could produce a blessing for Germany and also for the British Empire. If they reject these ideas, there will be war.” Henderson re-affirms the Polish-British alliance, and that the German offer of alliance cannot be considered until Danzig is solved via negotiation. Hitler retorts that he has tried negotiation for six months. (1:582)
viii. Hitler follows this conversation with a note to Henderson. (1:583)
ix. Hitler confirms the new date for attack on Poland at 31 August, if there is no other solution by then. His generals have previously told him that they cannot begin after 2 September due to the risks of weather. (1:583)
x. Hitler meets with French Ambassador Coulondre, and asks him to send a message to Daladier: “I bear no enmity whatever towards France….I find indeed the idea that I might have to fight France on account of Poland a very painful one…. I will not attack France, but if she joins in the conflict, I will go to the end.” Coulondre replied that France would most certainly come to the aid of Poland. He conveys that the reason for giving blanket support to Poland goes back to Germany’s occupation of Czechoslovakia, beyond the Sudeten region. (1:584)
xi. Mussolini replies to Hitler that Italy is not prepared to join a war with Germany at this time. (1:585)
xii. Halifax tells Kennard in Warsaw to tell the Poles that they should do nothing to be seen as the aggressor. France has delivered a similar message the day before. (1:586)
xiii. A second Lufthansa aircraft is shot at by Polish guns; also a seaplane was shot. (1:593)
lll. 26 August
i. Henderson returns to London with Hitler’s latest proposal. (1:588)
ii. Dahlerus returns to Berlin, with a seemingly positive report. (1:588)
iii. Hitler, after midnight, summons Dahlerus and suggests that Henderson has perhaps not understood Hitler. (1:588)
1. Hitler asks dahlerus to travel again to London to convey his views: Hitler wants an immediate alliance with England, not contingent on a solution for Danzig; England to provide assistance to Germany to obtain Danzig and the Corridor; Germany will guarantee Poland’s borders; etc. (1:589)
iv. Halifax receives Count Raczynski, the Polish Ambassador; he sees the German solution as no solution.
v. Ambassador Coulondre reports to Paris from Berlin with a new proposal – an exchange of population in the areas of the Polish-German border, relieving the minority problem through deportations. Warsaw is notified and agrees to this proposal. (1:590)
vi. Daladier responds to Hitler’s message; no reference to the possibility of a population exchange is mentioned. Beyond this, the letter confirms France’s support of Poland. (1:590)
vii. A Polish cavalry unit in the East Prussian district of Neidenburg is confronted by soldiers of a Königsberg artillery battery. Forty-seven Poles fall in machine gun fire. (1:591)
mmm. 27 August
i. Dahlerus returns to Berlin after receiving London’s reply. He arrives late in the evening. (1:591) Göring views the response negatively. (1:592)
nnn. 28 August
i. Beck, responding now to open threats by Hitler and via third-party mediation, declares he is agreeable to new German-Polish negotiations on the future of Danzig. At the same time, he is evasive regarding specific talks. (1:501)
ii. Hitler views the London reply (brought by Dahlerus) favorably. Most valuable is London’s apparently agreeable reply to an alliance not conditioned on settlement of the Danzig issue. He looks forward to England’s assistance in bringing about a fair settlement. Finally, he agrees to the borders of Poland being guaranteed not just by Germany, but also England, France, Italy and the Soviet Union. Presumably this request by London was in reaction to Hitler’s actions in Czechoslovakia. (1:594)
iii. Meanwhile, London is preparing an official reply, which contains not a single word about Danzig and the Corridor. This leaves open the question- just what is Poland to negotiate? (1:596)
iv. Hitler receives the official reply from Henderson, with the promise to study it carefully. (1:597)
ooo. 29 August
i. It appears in Berlin that morning that peace is coming. (1:597)
ii. The Soviet High Command announces reinforcements on its western border. Mobilization preparation begins in the several countries. The border between Italy and France is closed. Switzerland convenes 100,000 border troops. (1:598)
iii. From German Chargé d’Affaires in Washington: “Roosevelt holds neutrality to be reprehensible….” Roosevelt wants to intervene militarily if England and France fall into danger of defeat, or if it looks like there is certain prospect of the English-French victory. (1:598)
iv. Upon careful study of the response brought by Henderson the night before, certain passages seem confusing – to indicate England will not commit to aid in the negotiations with Poland. (1:599)
v. Hitler replies that negotiations must commence in 29 hours: a Polish dignitary with full authority to arrive in Berlin for this purpose. (1:601) Hitler justifies this urgency with a statement that a serious disturbance can, at any time, start the war. “Remember that my people are bleeding day after day.” (1:602)
vi. Henderson attempts to secure such a Polish negotiator, even through the French and Italian Ambassadors in Berlin. He then notifies London of Hitler’s reply. “Hitler is not bluffing and at any moment a clash may occur…” (1:602)
vii. In Poland, they decide they must not concede on Danzig, and the only solution is military, despite being advised by Britain to negotiate. Poland will announce the general mobilization the next day. (1:603)
viii. Göring, quite upset that peace is once again slipping away, sends for Dahlerus: “Hitler intends to send to Poland in the course of the next day a note which will contain such light conditions that they certainly could be accepted by Poland and supported by the English Government.” (1:604)
ppp. 30 August
i. At 1000, Kennard from Warsaw reports the situation in Poland to London. He believes Beck will not go to Berlin and does not accept the short deadline. As Poland did not accept similar proposals from Germany in March (prior to England’s backing), Kennard see no reason why today – with England’s backing – things would change. (1:610)
ii. Dahlerus arrives in London. He believes Chamberlain has lost his patience and lost faith in the usefulness of further negotiations. (1:605)
1. Chamberlain considers Hitler’s offer of a new proposal a “ruse to gain time.” Or perhaps a concern that it will be Poland that then starts the war. (1:606)
iii. Against England’s advice, Poland has mobilized. (1:606) At 1730 hours a report arrives from the German Embassy in Warsaw that since this morning all over Poland the general mobilization has been effectively proclaimed. (1:609)
iv. Hitler forwards a new offer (the sixth) – or a new demand, as the Poles see it: a referendum for the people in the Corridor. (1:501)
1. The people of West Prussia-Pomeralia would determine the belonging to Germany or Poland; the vote is to be under an international commission made up of Italy, the Soviet Union, France, and England; the region of Gdingen is excluded from this referendum, this region is strictly Polish sovereign territory; for the benefit of the loser of the referendum, an extra-territorial traffic zone will be established, consisting of a highway and four-track rail line. (1:502, 522) Hitler is quite confident that this very moderate proposal will bring Chamberlain to the German side. (1:612)
v. Poland has until midnight to send a fully authorized negotiator to Berlin. Beck accepts neither the time pressure nor Berlin as the negotiating venue. (1:502)
vi. Regarding this proposal, French historian Rassiner writes (after the war): “It seems correct that, if the French and British peoples had known of these propositions on 30 August, Paris and London could not have declared war on Germany, without unleashing a wave of protestations that would have imposed peace.” (1:504)
vii. From the wife of the just resigned First Lord of the British Admiralty Cooper: when hearing of the proposal, she finds it quite “reasonable.” Her husband, fearing the British public would view it the same, calls the editors of the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, asking them to present the proposal in the most unfavorable light. (1:504)
viii. At 1900 hours, Halifax sends a telegram to Kennard in Warsaw: the Germans have accepted the English proposal to direct German-Polish negotiations and the five-powers guarantee. He mentions nothing of the new information from Dahlerus, instead stating that a new German proposal is forthcoming. (1:610)
ix. Hitler postpones again the start of the attack, from 31 August to 1 September. (1:609)
x. Washington, Paris, and Warsaw implore each other to remain steadfast – no effort to reduce the risk of the outbreak of war is discussed. (1:609)
xi. France’s Chief of the Foreign Office Leger commits Daladier to the policy of not compelling Poland to negotiate with the Germans; he does this in the presence of the American Ambassador Bullitt. (1:609)
xii. In Warsaw, American Ambassador Biddle is notified of what the Poles think about Hitler’s proposal. Biddle notifies Secretary Hull in Washington: Beck has said “no 40 times” to Hitler’s offer to negotiate. (1:610)
xiii. By 2300 hours, von Ribbentrop no longer expects an emissary from Poland. (1:611)
xiv. French Ambassador Coulondre in Berlin, writing to Prime Minister Daladier: “The trial of strength is turning out in our favor. …reports speak of a growing dissatisfaction among the population…. Now, as before, we must stand firm, stand firm and again stand firm.” (1:622)
qqq. 31 August
i. Henderson and von Ribbentrop meet just after midnight. Henderson indicates the complaints of the Poles regarding German atrocities at the border. To this, von Ribbentrop loses control – just last night there are reports of more than 200 murders of ethnic Germans in Poland. The conversation becomes icy. Henderson indicates that the British government is not in a position to demand a fully-empowered Polish negotiator to Berlin on such short notice. Von Ribbentrop comes to believe the British have no desire to compel the Poles to yield. (1:613)
ii. Von Ribbentrop pulls out of his pocket a paper with a new, 16-point proposal from Hitler. He reads this to Henderson, but refuses to give a copy, saying “It is outdated anyway, since the Polish negotiator has not appeared.” Henderson later presses Lipski to call von Ribbentrop directly and demand the proposal. After Lipski stonewalls, Henderson gets personal: Lipski has done nothing for four months; this will be held against him if war comes. (1:614)
iii. Meanwhile, Dahlerus returns from London, optimistic. Göring informs him of the new, 16-point proposal: “Hitler in his wish to reach an agreement with England has worked out an offer to Poland, which is a great concession from the German side and which, soince it is obviously democratic, just and implementable, must cause a great sensation and can be accepted by Poland as well as England.” Both men believe they are near success in their struggle for peace. (1:615)
iv. By 900 hours, Henderson has the written proposal; also Dahlerus sees Henderson. Dahlerus and Ogilvie-Forbes go to see Lipski at 100 hours. They find Lipski, and moving boxes, but otherwise an almost empty Embassy. (1:615)
v. Dahlerus reads the proposal. Lipski, despite being fluent in German, claims he does not understand it. Lipski states privately to Ogilvie-Forbes that he has no interest in the proposal. Once war begins, there will be riots in Germany and Polish forces will soon be in Berlin. Thereafter, Dahlerus returns to the room and hands Lipski the proposal. (1:616)
vi. Dahlerus is complaining to London that the Poles are deliberately destroying any possibility of negotiation. He holds the German 16-point proposal to be “extremely liberal.” This phone call is extremely disturbing in London, with Halifax finally slamming the phone; Halifax notifies Henderson that he will accept no further such calls. (1:616)
vii. Henderson receives the order by phone at 1300 hours to inform the Reich Government that the Polish Government will now send its Ambassador to the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (1:617)
viii. Kennard receives a telegraph at 1345 to advise the Polish Government to send its Ambassador in Berlin to receive the proposal and forward this to Warsaw. There is no mention of sending an authorized negotiator. (1:617)
ix. In the meantime, Poland via radio has sent a message to Lipski to visit von Ribbentrop, telling him that Poland has been notified by London of a desire to enter direct negotiations, and that Warsaw will formally reply to London in a few hours. Additionally, Lipski is not to take the proposal, and has no authority to discuss any proposal. (1:618) Hitler, via intercepting the radio message, is aware of these instructions, and views the last hope for peace as lost (It is now 1300 hours, just 16 hours from the planned time of the invasion). (1:619)
x. Hitler, despite by now being skeptical, approves a direct talk between Göring and the British, only with Dahlerus present. (1:619)
xi. At 1630, Henderson, Ogilvie-Forbes, Göring, and Dahlerus meet. Göring suggests negotiations with Britain negotiating on behalf of the Poles. Henderson does not believe this will lead to any solution. Henderson asks Göring not to announce the details of the 16-points over the radio. The conversation ends at 1900, with nothing accomplished. (1:620)
xii. At 1830, Lipski meets von Ribbentrop. He notifies him that Poland will shortly inform England regarding the request to negotiate. Von Ribbentrop, despite already knowing the answer, asks Lipski if he is empowered now to receive the proposal or negotiate. Lipski replies he is not. (1:621)
xiii. As an exclamation point on the significant deterioration of the situation on both sides of the Polish-German border, Poles in Krakow murder the still acting German Consul. (1:562)
xiv. German radio intelligence hears the instruction from Foreign Minister Beck to Lipski in Berlin that he should not accept delivery of any new German proposal for negotiations. (1:571)
xv. Swedish mediator Dahlerus along with a British diplomat attempts to bring to the Polish Ambassador Lipski in Berlin another offer from Hitler for negotiations. Lipski is not interested in receiving the offer. According to Dahlerus: “…he in no wise has any cause to be interested in notes or offers from the German side. He well knows the situation in Germany after five and a half years of activity as Ambassador…. He is convinced that, in the event of war, riots will break out in this land, and the Polish troops will march successfully against Berlin.” (1:568)
xvi. Mussolini invites the government heads from Germany, Poland, France and England to a Peace conference 5 September. The chief theme of the conference is to examine certain provisions of the Treaty of Versailles – the root of the specific issue at hand. As Hitler is aware of the order from Beck to Lipski, the offer from Mussolini is of no meaning. (1:570) French Foreign Minister Bonnet is of the opinion that the proposal should first be approved by Paris and London before Hitler is invited. A process is established by which no outcome is possible until late in the evening. The English government sees the proposal as a trap, and advises not to brusquely reject it, but to first demand a demobilization of all armies. (1:622)
xvii. French Ambassador in Berlin, Coulondre, to Foreign Minister Bonnet: “The German government, according to sure information, is very angry that it has received no reply from Poland…. It would be entirely in the interest of the Polish government to communicate without delay to Berlin that it endorses the plan and will send Lipski with all the necessary instructions as a fully empowered agent to negotiate.” The message and tone is opposite from Coulondre’s communication with Daladier just one day before. (1:622)
xviii. Roosevelt, who has known of the secret protocol between the Soviets and Germans (with the agreement that East Poland will be lost), on this day wraps himself in silence. (1:623)
xix. US Ambassador in Paris, Bullitt, assures his Polish colleague, Count Łukasiewicz, that there is a secret protocol, but it only involves the three Baltic States – not Poland. (1:624)
xx. At 2100 hours, German radio broadcasts the 16 Point Proposal. Between 2100 and 2200 hours, State Secretary von Weizsacker presents written copies of Hitler’s proposal to the Ambassadors of Great Britain, France, Japan, and the Chargés d’Affaires of the USA and the Soviet Union. (1:624)
xxi. The Daily Telegraph in London, in the evening edition, reports that after receipt of the negotiation offer from Germany, Poland mobilizes its armed forces instead of acknowledging the offer. The edition is pulled, replaced with an edition that does not mention the mobilization. (1:624)
i. Roosevelt begins secret correspondence with Churchill, before Churchill is Prime Minister. (5:93)
sss. 1 September
i. Germany invades Poland at 445 hours, without a formal declaration (perhaps because, after Russia, France and England mobilized in 1914, Germany was the first to declare war; Germany later was deemed the party responsible). (1:625)
ii. During the fourth emergency session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, a universal draft was ratified. This had not occurred previously in Russian history. It occurs not when tensions with Germany are high, but only after the mutual non-aggression pact is signed. (2:123)
ttt. 3 September
i. Paris and London declare war on Berlin. (1:625) Colonies join as well: Australia, Burma, Ceylon, India, Jordan, Cambodia, Laos, Morocco, New Zealand, Tunisia, and Vietnam. (1:626)
ii. The war for Danzig is now a world war. (1:626)
uuu. 4 September
i. English bombers attack German ships which lie at anchor. (1:626)
vvv. 5 September
i. German submarines and the Royal Navy begin their war in the Atlantic. (1:626)
ii. Polish High Command orders the Rudnicki Army in northwest Poland to give way before the German army after destroying the food in the yielded area, leaving behind a “desolate, devastated land.” (1:628)
www. 6 September
i. The Reich issues instructions neither to shoot no control French merchant ships, attempting to keep France out of the battle. (1:627)
ii. The Polish newspaper Express Poranny reports that the French army is marching into the Rhineland and that the Polish air force is bombing Berlin. Neither is true. (1:628)
xxx. 9 September
i. The Wehrmacht has already taken all of West Poland up to the line formed by the Narew River, the city of Warsaw, and the Bug River. (1:628)
yyy. 10 September
i. In violation of Belgian neutrality, British bomber overfly that country. (1:627)
zzz. 12 September
i. British troops land on the continent, reinforcing the French. (1:628)
ii. France deploys 80 divisions, against only eleven German division initially deployed. (1:628)
aaaa. 13 September
i. The Polish newspaper Express Poranny has the headline “German Offensive Smashed in Poland.” (1:628)
bbbb. 15 September
i. The activity of the German air force substantially drops; the German army was almost out of fuel. (2:118)
i. The London Daily Express reports that the French have surrounded Saarlouis, somewhat meaningless as the city lies on the border. And the announcement is wrong in any case. (1:628)
dddd. 17 September
i. Soviets attack Poland without a war declaration; recapture area east of the Curzon line, just as awarded in 1919. (1:431, 435, 628)
1. The Soviets justify this: “The Polish government has ceased to exist, and the Soviet Union therefore has had to take under its protection the Ukrainians and White Russians living on Polish territory.” (1:628)
2. There is no repercussion to this by Britain. (1:538)
ii. The Polish government, including President Moscicki and Commander in Chief Rydz-Ŝmigly withdraw to Romania.
eeee. 18 September
i. The armed forces of all of Poland west of the Curzon line up to Warsaw are captured. (1:629)
ffff. 19 September
i. Britain and France urge the Soviet government to withdraw its troops from Poland, else a declaration of war will follow. (1:629)
gggg. 29 September
i. Warsaw falls. England and France have neither taken serious action against Germany, nor declared war on the Soviet Union. (1:629)
i. Stalin begins dismantling the “Stalin line,” a line of defenses along the western border; this after consolidating regions further to the west, ensuring a common border with the Germans. (2:174)
i. England and France begin secret contacts with the Russians inviting them to join forces against Germany. (1:629)
ii. Stalin demands concession from Finland of the Karelian Isthmus, in exchange for other lands. The Isthmus is strategic to the defense of Finland. (2:136)
jjjj. 13 November
i. From TELEGRAM OF THE PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE USSR IN GREAT BRITAIN I. M. MAISKY TO THE PEOPLE’S COMMISSAR FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE USSR V. M. MOLOTOV, relaying his conversation with Churchill: (3)
1. I had today an appropriate occasion to talk during a breakfast with Churchill in spirit of your telegram from November 11. Churchill did not hide his satisfaction because in Moscow there is a desire to improve Anglo-Soviet relations, and for this he noticed: “The main thing is that there was a desire. If the desire exists, there will be ways and means for its realization”.
2. To my question, how in this case it is explained that the policy hostile to the USSR, which the British authorities now conduct in the various ends of the world (I gave a number of examples), and to my indication that without change of this policy, it is difficult to speak about improvement in the Anglo-Soviet relations, Churchill answered:” You should consider that a sudden turn of the Soviet policy at the end of August was big shock for England.” …It is no big work for me on a number of examples to show that it not so. Then Churchill began to recede and eventually declared that he will take a closer interest in the matter and, that if the British diplomacy really conducts now the anti-Soviet line, he will try to change a present state of affairs, because he, Churchill, is a stau[n]ch advocate of the kind relations between both countries.
3. At the initiative of Churchill and in connection with our general conversation on the Anglo-Soviet relations we spoke about Finland much. Churchill’s views are on this matter reduced to the following: The USSR has all bases to be the dominating power in the Baltic Sea, and it corresponds to the British interests. Our requirements (border change on the Karelian Isthmus, islands in the Gulf of Finland, sea base at an entrance to the Gulf of Finland) are in essence quite natural and lawful.
4. The situation where a center similar to Leningrad, is under fire of long-range guns from the Finnish border is ridiculous. England cannot object to implementation of the Soviet requirements, especially in view of that from the Soviet side Finland is offered a certain compensation….England should not only keep from objecting to the implementation of Soviet requirements, but she even has a moral obligation to facilitate the USSR in their implementation as Russia lost the positions, including Baltic, as a result of participation in last war on Entante’s side…
kkkk. 23 November
i. Speaking at a meeting with the High Command of the German Army, Hitler said a war with the Soviet Union can only begin after the war with the west had ended. (2:234)
llll. 25 November
i. The People’s Commissar of Defense of the USSR signed a directive to the Leningrad military district; the directive regards conditions of war only against Finland. (2:149)
mmmm. 26 November
i. Seven artillery shells allegedly flew into Soviet territory from Finland. (2:137)
ii. Soviet Union invades Finland. (1:554)
nnnn. 30 November
i. The Red Army crosses the Finnish border, with the objective to take Helsinki by 21 December. (2:138)
ii. Units of the Red Army take the small village of Terioki; a Finland communist government is declared, with Kuusinen at the head. (2:138)
oooo. 1 December
i. The Finnish communist government establishes diplomatic ties with the Soviet Union. (2:138)
pppp. 2 December
i. The Finnish Communist government signs an agreement on mutual help and friendship between the Soviet Union and the Finnish Democratic Republic. (2:138)
i. Confidence is so high that Polish newspapers print maps in anticipation of a certain victory over Germany with borders extending to the Elbe. The dreams of the Poles do not remain hidden from the Germans throughout these two decades due to the many official and unofficial statements regarding the acquisition of these territories. (1:472)
ii. Soon after the war’s start, British Ambassador in Berlin comments: “[Germany’s] post-war experiences had unfortunately taught Nazi Germany that nothing could be achieved except by force or display of force.” (1:566)
a. 13 March
i. The war between the Soviet Union and Finland was ended, after 105 days of winter fighting; daylight was short, night was long. The Soviets took the Karelian Isthmus; Finland retained her independence. Having broken through the defensive lines, the Soviets did not continue the advance. (2:140)
1. The effort by the Soviets was undertaken in the harshest conditions – average temperatures of 21 to 24 Celsius below zero – and against one of the most impregnable defensive lines. (2:140)
2. Instead of viewing the Soviet effort as weak, considering the situation the lesson to be learned is that nothing is impossible for the Red Army. (2:144) The Red Army was capable of carrying out impossible orders, and it would not be stopped by any number of casualties. (2:144)
b. 8 May
i. German radio announced that the talk of two German armies being transferred to the border with Holland was a “ridiculous rumor,” being circulated by “British inciters of war.” (2:218)
c. 10 May
i. Germany invades the Netherlands.
d. 28 May
i. Belgium capitulates. (2:234)
e. 31 May
i. The unfinished German cruiser Lutsow, renamed the Petropavlovsk, arrived in Leningrad during the time of war with Britain! This was preceded (date TBD) by the sale to Stalin of an Italian warship, the Tashkent. (2:128)
f. May / June
i. Germans drive British forces off of the continent. (2:234)
ii. Germans allow evacuation
1. Flotilla of commercial vassals – tugs, fishing sloops, lifeboats, etc. – used to rescue soldiers: 220,000 Tommies and over 100,000 French support troops. (4:3)
2. Hitler says to Göring “The war is finished. I’ll come to an understanding with England.” (4:5)
g. 22 June
i. France falls. (2:234)
h. 25 June
i. Churchill writes to Stalin, warning of German invasion. (2:234) Stalin receives message 1 July. (2:234)
i. 30 June
i. German forces capture Guernsey, one of the Channel Islands. (2:234)
i. Stalin orders river warships to the Danube delta at a time when allied with Germany. (2:192)
k. 16 July
i. Hitler signs directive concerning preparations for landing troops in Great Britain, to be completed by 15 August. Hitler changes plans upon Soviet annexation of Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania; Hitler sees risk to oil from Romania and other resources from the north. (2:157)
l. 21 July
i. Hitler, for the first time and in a tight circle, raises the idea of the “Russian problem.” General Field Marshall W. Brauchitsch receives an order from Hitler to begin developing a specific plan of war in the east. (2:156)
m. 29 July
i. Major General Erich Marcks began planning a military campaign against Russia. (2:156)
n. 21 August
i. Leon Trotsky murdered in Mexico by Spanish communist and NKVD agent Ramon Mercador. Mercador returned to the Soviet Union and received the title “Hero of the Soviet Union.” (2:178)
i. Molotov tells Hitler that a new division of Europe is required. This proposed new division places at risk Germany’s access to oil and other strategic resources. (2:182)
p. 13 November
i. Hitler relays to Molotov the need to retain a large number of German troops in Romania, hinting that he felt the Soviet military posed a threat to Romanian oil. (2:192)
q. 14 November
i. Molotov leaves for Moscow. (2:183)
ii. After Molotov’s departure, Hitler conveys that Germany must plan to invade Russia. (2:183)
r. 25 November
i. German ambassador to Moscow was told that German troops must withdraw its troops from Finnish territory immediately. Further previous demands were reiterated: the establishment of Soviet bases on the Bosporus and Dardanelles. (2:183)
ii. People’s Commissar of Defense wrote a directive to prepare a plan for a new war of aggression against Finland. (2:183)
s. 29 November
i. German generals played strategic map battles, invading Russian territory, ending 13 December. (2:187)
i. Hitler signs Open Directive No. 21 ordering Operation Barbarossa – the attack on the Soviet Union. (2:242)
u. 23 December
i. Secret conference of the High Command of the Red Army held for eight days, ending 31 December. 274 Marshals, generals, admirals attended. Most lectures focused on the tactics of sudden attack – by mechanized forces, air forces, etc. There was no meaningful lecture on defensive tactics. (2:184)
v. 31 December
i. Forty-nine of the highest ranking generals remained after the Red Army conference of 23 December and staying until 11 January, 1941. Their purpose was to participate in a strategic game on maps, depicting a battle between “Easterners” and “Westerners.” All strategies were aimed at offensive operations by the Soviets – “Offensive Operations of the Front with Breaks through the Fortified Regions.” (2:186)
i. Stalin and highest members of Politburo and commanders of Red Army discuss “special operations at the initial stage of the war,” coded language for invasion of Germany. (1:77)
a. 11 March
i. Marshall Timoshenko and Generals Zhukov and Vasilevsky, heads of USSR People’s Defense Commissariat, forwarded to Stalin the plans to invade Germany. (2:xxii)
i. Japanese minister of foreign affairs, Iosuke Matsuoka, arrives in Berlin for talks with Hitler. He does not commit to a deadline for action against the Soviets, leading to a clash with Hitler. (2:266)
c. 3 April
i. Churchill writes to Stalin. It reaches Stalin on 19 April. (2:235)
1. Churchill writes that the Germans, having secured Yugoslavia, are transferring significant forces to Poland. (2:235)
a. Significant to Churchill was deemed not very significant to Stalin (2:236)
d. 12 April
i. Rommel’s forces reach borders of Egypt. (2:235)
e. 13 April
i. Soviets and Japanese sign a pact. (2:202) Iosuke Matsuoka, on his return from Berlin to Tokyo, stops in Moscow to sign a pact of neutrality between the Japanese and Soviets. (2:266)
ii. German army seizes Belgrade. (2:235)
f. 16 April
i. St. Paul’s Cathedral in London damaged in German air raid. (2:235)
g. 17 April
i. Yugoslavia surrenders to the Germans (2:235)
h. 18 April
i. Greek Prime Minister, Korisis, commits suicide. (2:235)
i. 23 April
i. Greek armed forces surrender to Germans. (2:235)
j. 4 May
i. Stalin becomes chairman of the Soviet government, consolidating for the first time the head of both party and government. (2:202)
k. 5 May
i. Stalin speaks to graduates of the military academies; he spoke of the situation in Europe and Germany. (2:204) Stalin made clear that there would be war with Germany. (2:205)
l. 6 May
i. The tone of Pravda propaganda suddenly changes, toward a stance of war. (2:206)
m. 20 May
i. German forces commence airborne operations to capture Crete. 32,000 British and 14,000 Greek troops were defeated. (2:235)
n. 24 May
i. Britain’s largest ship in the Atlantic, the Hood, clashes with Germany’s largest battle ship, the Bismarck. The battle lasted eight minutes, with one direct hit sinking the Hood. Of 1421 crew members, three survive. (2:235)
o. 25 May
i. Command of the 31st Rifle Corps from the Far East arrives in the Kiev district. (2:210)
i. Soviets decide to create five air assault corps. (1:75)
q. 11 June
i. A letter found on the captured son of Stalin, dated this day; from a junior lieutenant: “I would like to be home by fall, but the planned walk to Berlin might hinder this.” (2:258)
r. 12 June
i. Kiev military district commander receives secret orders, announcing the arrival between 15 June and 10 July of the 16th Army (2:209); the relocation from beyond the Baikal to the Ukraine began on 26 May. (2:210)
s. 13 June
i. TASS announces that “Germany was following the conditions of the Soviet-German pact as flawlessly as the Soviet Union, “that the rumors of an impending German attack on the USSR “were clumsily fabricated propaganda…” The words were recognized as Stalin’s. (2:207)
1. No directives followed, leading generals to conclude the message could be ignored. (2:208)
2. The TASS announcement was written to allay the fears of Germany. (2:217)
ii. Orders given for final preparation for war to tens of thousands of Soviet paratroopers – indicating a planned offensive action. (2:75)
iii. Orders for the Kiev military district are given, to move all deep-rear divisions closer to the state borders. (2:208)
iv. 114 divisions in western military districts are moved toward the border. (2:213) Preparations were not defensive, but offensive. (2:216)
t. 14 June
i. Military council of the Baltic district approved a plan for the relocation of a row of divisions to the border zone. (2:211)
u. 14 – 19 June
i. Military councils of all western border districts directed to send to the frontline their army field commands by 22/23 June. (2:211)
v. 15 June
i. The commands of several rifle divisions concentrated in the forests just east of the city of Beltsy. (2:212)
w. 18 / 19 June
i. Soviet forces of the Black Sea fleet conduct training exercises, landing on “enemy” shores. (2:194)
x. 21 June
i. Soviets practicing airborne assault operations. (1:75)
ii. Hitler writes to Mussolini: “Russia is trying to destroy the Romanian oil fields…The task for our armies is eliminating this threat as soon as possible.” (2:159)
y. 22 June
i. Germany invades Soviet Union
ii. On the Southwestern front, three of the most powerful Soviet Armies (the 12th mountain, 6th, and 26th) were in the Lvov bulge, surrounded on three sides by the Germans. (2:228)
1. The 1st German Tank Group hit Lutsk, Rovno, and Berdichev, cutting off the three Soviet armies in the bulge. The Germans quickly went through the Soviet rear, capturing weapons, ammunitions, etc. (2:228)
iii. On the Western front, in Byelorussia, the Red Army had four armies (3rd, 10th, parts of the 4th and 13th - altogether almost 30 divisions), concentrated in the Byelostok bulge. (2:229)
1. Two German tank groups struck the flanks and linked east of Minsk. (2:229) From here, the path was direct to Smolensk and Moscow. (2:230)
2. Zhukov’s formations were not here (which would have been appropriate for defensive operations), but further to the south. (2:231)
iv. Included in Hitler’s “blitzkrieg” army was a force of 750,000 horses; a convoy of 220 horses with carts followed each tank. (2:241)
v. Only 17 out of 253 German divisions were tank divisions. (2:241)
z. 23 June
i. Soviet marines receive their “battle baptism” during the defense of the naval base at Liepja. (2:194)
aa. 25 June
i. Stalin’s “Danube flotilla” landed reconnaissance and sabotage units of the NKVD on the Romanian shores (indicating offensive actions). (2:192)
bb. 26 June
i. A red flag goes up in the Romanian city of Kilia. (2:192)
i. German U-boats sink 61 British merchant ships during the month. (2:235)
dd. 1 July
i. Churchill, in a letter to Stalin, reiterates an outstretched hand of friendship. (2:203)
ee. 7 July
i. Stalin, still considering offensive operations, telegrams General Tulenev, demanding that the Soviet Union retains Bessarabia at any cost as a springboard for organizing invasion. (2:193)
ff. 10 July
i. Stalin’s planned date for the full concentration of Soviet forces on the borders. (2:216)
gg. 14 July
i. Roosevelt urges Churchill to make a statement, “making it clear that no postwar peace commitments as to territories, populations or economies have been given.” (5:98)
hh. 25 July
i. Harry Hopkins asks FDR for permission to travel to the Soviet Union to meet with Stalin regarding his exact war needs. “Roosevelt assented immediately.” (5:21)
ii. 1 August
i. Upon receipt of Hopkins’ cable summarizing talks with Stalin, “Roosevelt called a cabinet meeting in which, according to Harold Ickes’s notes, the President ‘started in by giving the State Department and War Department one of the most complete dressing-downs that I have witnessed.’” Per Morgenthau: “He said he didn’t want to hear what was on order; he said he only wanted to hear what was son the water.” (5:23)
i. In response to FDR’s orders to ship hardware to Russia, General Marshall writes to Secretary of War Stimson: “…our entire Air Corps is suffering from a severe shortage of spare parts of allkinds. We have planes on the ground because we cannot repair them….” (5:26)
ii. Roosevelt meets Churchill at Argentia Bay, Newfoundland, to discuss and conclude the Atlantic Charter. (5:94)
kk. 5 September
i. German units surrender to the Soviets at the bend of the frontline, near Elnya – the most strategically significant region of the theater of operations. (2:265)
i. FDR, in a press conference, emphasized the freedom of religion and conscience afforded in the Russian constitution. (5:25)
a. 19 February
i. Secret contacts between Stalin and Hitler, during time when Stalin was allied with Roosevelt and Churchill (2:xxi)
b. 10 March
i. Roosevelt to Churchill, suggesting that India is today what the American colonies were during the American Revolution. (5:100)
c. 18 March
i. Roosevelt writes to Churchill: “I know you will not mind my being brutally frank when I tell you that I think I can personally handle Stalin better than either your Foreign Office or my State Department. Stalin hates the guts of all your top people. He thinks he likes me better, and I hope he will continue to. (5:15)
d. 1 April
i. FDR writes Churchill; Hopkins and Marshall will travel to London to present the plan for an allied invasion across the channel, to be undertaken as early as the fall of 1942. (5:32)
e. 11 April
i. FDR writes to Stalin, proposing a meeting next summer near the common border of Alaska: “I have in mind a very important military proposal involving the utilization of our armed forces in a manner to relieve your critical Western Front. This objective caries great weight with me….” (5:39)
1. Stalin offers no satisfactory reply. (5:40)
f. 24 April
i. Churchill writes to Hopkins of his desire to reduce shipments to Russia until the shipments can be better protected. (5:28)
g. 26 April
i. Roosevelt responds to Churchill (from 24 April above): “I have seen your cable to Harry this morning relative to shipments to Russia. I am greatly disturbed by this…any word reaching Stalin at this time that our supplies were stopping for any reason would have a most unfortunate effect. (5:28)
h. 1 May
i. Churchill replies “With very great respect what you suggest is beyond our powers to fulfill.” (5:29)
i. Late May
i. Molotov travels first to London, then Washington, in quest for a second, western front no later than the coming fall. (5:35)
j. 30 May
i. Molotov meets with Roosevelt: all land secured in the agreement with Hitler will remain with the Soviets; a “straight answer” regarding the immediate opening of a second front must be given. Marshall replied “Yes.” (5:35)
k. 9 June
i. On the way back to Moscow, Molotov stops in London with a draft communiqué regarding the urgent task of opening a second front in Europe in 1942. Churchill dismissed the communiqué “out of hand.” (5:35)
l. 14 July
i. Churchill writes FDR: “Only four ships have reached Archangel…out of thirty-three…” (5:29)
m. 29 July
i. FDR writes Churchill: “We have got always to bear in mind the personality of our ally…” (5: 29)
ii. FDR to Churchill, pushing for an immediate grant of independence for India. (5:101)
n. 7 October
i. FDR writes Churchill: “I think there is nothing more important than that Stalin feel that we mean to support him without qualification and at great sacrifice.” (5:31)
i. FDR writes Stalin again, asking for a meeting – this time in Africa. Stalin remains uninterested. (5:40)
p. 30 December
i. Roosevelt asks Stalin about establishing US air bases in the eastern Soviet Union for purposes of attacking Japan. Stalin refuses. (2:268)
a. 8 January
i. Again, Roosevelt asks Stalin about establishing US air bases in the eastern Soviet Union for purposes of attacking Japan. Again Stalin refuses. (2:268)
b. 13 January
i. Stalin writes to FDR: “…what we need is not air force units, but planes without pilots, because we have more than enough pilots of our own…” Stalin goes on to question why FDR proposes a visit by General Bradley to inspect Russian military objectives; also Stalin does not understand why General Marshall should visit the USSR. Finally, Stalin expresses displeasure that operations in North Africa have come to a standstill. (5:41)
i. Roosevelt first speaks to the notion of unconditional surrender – “Uncle Joe might have made it up himself.” (5:43)
d. 13 March
i. German generals begin planning in secret for the Battle of Kursk. (2:245)
e. 27 March
i. Stalin informs Anastas Mikoyan of the German intent for battle in the summer – the Battle of Kursk. (2:245)
f. 7 April
i. After previously promising (then backing out of) a cross-channel landing for the prior fall, now the Americans were not able to land in Sicily. Eisenhower writes to Churchill that the invasion of the island would have to be postponed until the Allies had greater military strength. (5:37)
g. 5 May
i. Roosevelt again asks Stalin for a meeting, via Joseph Davies (and not, Admiral Standley, Ambassador in Moscow) (5:41)
h. 25 June
i. Churchill writes FDR, expressing concern that FDR wants a private meeting with Stalin – excluding Britain. (5:42)
i. 5 July
i. Battle of Kursk begins. (2:245)
j. 9 November
i. Roosevelt proposes a single European command – for both Normandy and the Mediterranean; Churchill turns him down immediately. (5:62)
i. At Teheran, Stalin informs FDR that he does not like unconditional surrender. Churchill agrees. (5:44)
l. 29 November
i. Churchill is a target of Stalin’s verbal jabs; FDR and Stalin joke about selecting 50,000 German officers for execution after the war. (5:50)
m. 1 December
i. FDR agrees to support the shift of Poland to the east, but conveyed to Stalin that he could not publicly support any such move, as six or seven million Poles lived in the US, and an election was upcoming. (5:45)
n. 21 December
i. Roosevelt writes to Churchill, conveying his desire to offer one-third of the Italian naval fleet to Stalin. (5:53)
a. 16 January
i. Churchill writes to FDR, noting that offering one-third of the Italian fleet to the Soviets was never discussed at Teheran. (5:53)
b. 29 February
i. Roosevelt sends to Churchill the Hurley report on Iran, suggesting that Britain’s imperialism must cease; the report further emphasizes the Soviet place in the world, include their positive relations with Iran. (5:99)
c. 2 March
i. Roosevelt announces in a news conference that he had “given” one-third of the Italian fleet to Stalin. (5:53)
d. 7 March
i. Churchill drafts and sends a strong letter of displeasure to FDR regarding the gift of Italian ships to Stalin. Britain has borne the brunt of the naval losses since the beginning of the war. (5:54)
e. 21 May
i. Churchill replies to Hurley report, defending British Imperialism as a force for spreading democracy. (5:100)
i. Stalin informs Marshal A.M. Vasilevsky that he would be chief commander in a war against Japan. (2:268)
ii. For the most part, those entrusted with preparing the plan for invasion of Germany in 1941 were also entrusted to develop this war plan. (2:276)
i. Beginning of the three-month Warsaw Uprising. Despite the capability to do otherwise, Stalin did not offer assistance to the Poles against the Germans. (5:57)
h. 25 August
i. Churchill writes draft letter to Stalin and sends to FDR. The purpose is to encourage Stalin to support the Poles. FDR strongly objects to sending the letter. (5:58)
i. 9 September
i. Churchill letter to his chiefs of staff: “Once again I draw attention to the extreme importance on grounds of high policy of our having a stake in central and southern Europe and not allowing everything to pass into Soviet hands with the incalculable consequences that may result therefrom.” (5:61)
j. 6 November
i. Stalin calls Japan an aggressor for the first time. (2:268)
i. Yalta conference legitimizes for the Soviets various territories taken by force. (5:69)
b. 6 March
i. Churchill is apprised about mass arrests by the Soviets of Polish intellectuals, priest, professors, etc., taking place in Cracow. Six-thousand former Home Army officers were put in a camp. The fruits of Yalta were beginning to become plain to the world. (5:78)
c. 8 March
i. Churchill writes to Roosevelt, apprizing him of the picture taking place in Eastern Europe – particularly the “cruel joke” perpetrated on the Poles regarding free elections. He asked Roosevelt to join him in a letter of protest to Stalin. Roosevelt did not. (5:78)
d. 21 March
i. Ambassador to Moscow, Averell Harriman to Roosevelt: “I feel the time has come to reorient our whole attitude, and our method of dealing with the Soviet government. Unless we wish to accept the 20th century barbarian invasion, with repercussions extending further and further, and in the East as well, we must find ways of arresting the Soviet domineering policy.” (5:81)
e. 24 March
i. Harriman to Roosevelt, regarding the brutal and callous treatment by the Soviets of Americans being freed from German prison camps. (5:81)
f. 26 March
i. Roosevelt replies to Harriman: “It does not appear appropriate for me to send another message now to Stalin…” (5:81)
g. 28 March
i. Eisenhower telegram directly to Stalin, outlining Eisenhower’s strategy for the remainder of the European war. The telegram did not identify Berlin as an Allied objective. Churchill saw the telegram only after it was sent to Stalin; shocked regarding the gift of Berlin to the Soviets. (5:84)
h. 2 April
i. Harriman to Roosevelt: “I feel certain that unless we do take action in cases of this kind, the Soviet government will become convinced that they can force us to accept any of their decisions on all matters and it will be increasingly difficult to stop their aggressive policy.” (5:81)
i. 5 April
i. Soviet Union cancels the Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact. (2:268)
j. 11 April
i. US Army reaches the Elbe River, 60 miles from Berlin. (5:85)
k. 6 August
i. US drops nuclear bomb on Hiroshima
l. 8 August
i. At shortly before midnight, Japanese Ambassador in Moscow is notified: “Starting the next day, August 9, the Soviet Union will consider itself in a state of war with Japan.” As the day in Vladivostok starts seven hours before it does in Moscow, in fact the attack referenced in 9 August below had already begun! (2:272)
ii. In eleven days, Soviet troops covered more than 800 kilometers. (2:274)
m. 9 August
i. US drops nuclear bomb on Nagasaki
ii. Soviets carry out sudden and crushing attack on Japanese in Manchuria and China. (2:272)
i. Soviets remove 2 million Poles still living east of the Curzon line, sending them west as part of the forced migrations. (1:431)
1) 1939 – The War That Had Many Fathers, Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof; 2011 Olzog Verlag GmbH, Munchen Germany
2) The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II, Viktor Suvorov; 2008 Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD.
3) THE TELEGRAM OF THE PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE USSR IN GREAT BRITAIN I. M. MAISKY TO THE PEOPLE’S COMMISSAR FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE USSR V. M. MOLOTOV
4) The Last Lion, William Manchester
5) Roosevelt and Stalin: The Failed Courtship, Robert Nisbet; 1988 Regnery Gateway, Washington, D.C.
Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.