Dialog International

Operation Barbarossa and the Myth of the Preventive War

This month marks the 70th anniversary of Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, code-named by the Nazis "Operation Barbarossa", which ultimately proved to be Hitler's demise - but at a terrible price. More than 27 million people in the Soviet Union - two-thirds of them civilians - perished following the invasion, along with five million German soldiers.  Today there is a concerted effort by right-wing groups in Europe to rewrite history and place the blame for Germany's invasion on the Soviet Union.  The efforts range from blatant attempts to rehabilitate Hitler and the Nazis as enemies of godless Bolshevism to historical revisionist efforts - stemming from the Historikerstreit of the 1980s - to put Stalin and Hitler on the same plane to render harmless or relativize the crimes of the Nazis. 

On cue, the latest example of historical revisionism can be found in the völkisch-nation al weekly Junge Freiheit with a contribution by the military historian Heinz Magenheimer.  In the piece, Magenheimer revives the myth that Stalin was poised to attack Germany so Hitler had no choice but to launch a preemptive invasion of the Soviet Union:

Während die Forschung über die deutschen Kriegsvorbereitungen 1941 seit vielen Jahren ziemlich genau im Bilde ist, tappte man über das, was auf sowjetischer Seite ablief, lange Zeit im dunkeln. Erst die Freigabe russischer Dokumente in den neunziger Jahren und die Publikation wichtiger Akten erlaubten einen tiefen Einblick in die sowjetischen Kriegsvorbereitungen ab 1940. Schon der strategische Aufmarschplan vom 18. September 1940 ließ eindeutig eine starke Massierung von Panzer- und motorisierten Truppen im vorgeschobenen Frontbogen von Lemberg–Sambor–Strij erkennen, die nur Angriffszwecken dienen konnte.

("While the research on German war preparations in 1941 has been complete for many years, we have been groping in the dark concerning what took place on the Soviet side. Only with the release of Russian documents in the 1990s and the publication of important files have allowed for a deeper look into Soviet war preparations from 1940 on.  The strategic deployment of troops starting on September 18, 1940 resulted in a concentration of tanks and motorized troops in the advanced front around Lemberg-Sambor- Strij, which could on serve the purposes of an attack.")

But the evidence that Stalin was initiating an attack is non-existent.  For readers of Mein Kampf, however, there is plenty of evidence that Hitler planned all along to invade the east - his Drang nach Osten - to create Lebensraum for the German master race.  The 3-million man strong German invasion force encountered little resistance initially in 1941 from a Red Army force that was pretty much in disarray thanks to Stalin's bloody purge of the officers' ranks. 

What is clear is that Magenheimer, Junge Freiheit, and the right-wing historical revisionist are simply repeating the lies that Hitler and Goebbels used to justify the invasion:

Damit aber ist nunmehr die Stunde gekommen, in der es notwendig wird, diesem Komplott der jüdisch-angelsächsischen Kriegsanstifter und der ebenso jüdischen Machthaber der bolschewistischen Moskauer Zentrale entgegenzutreten.

("So the hour has come when it is necessary to take action against this consipracy of Jewish-anglosachsen warmongers and likewise Jewish ruling powers in the Bolshevist Moscow headquarters.")

 

 

WikiLeaks a major coup for Der Spiegel

Der Spiegel is basking this week in the glory after it was among the three news publications - the others were the New York Times and The Guardian - that were given the 90.000+ pages of Afghan war documents. Der Spiegel crowed about being in such prestigious company - and scooping its rivals in Germany and Europe. 

"Es ist eine internationale Kooperationen zwischen Redaktionen, wie es sie in der Geschichte des Spiegels noch nicht gab".

(There has been international cooperation between editorial staffs that is unique in the history of Der Spiegel.)  

Unfortunately, the analysis of the documents of Der Spiegel has lacked the cool professionalism of the New York Times, with Der Spiegel preferring sensationalistic headlines  (Amerikas geheimer Krieg - America's Secret War)  when most of the actual information in the leaked documents was already known. Also, Der Spiegel used its magazine to highlight possible war crimes committed by US an NATO forces, while the New York Times delved into the potentially explosive evidence of collusion between Pakistan and the Taliban. 

Will the WikiLeaks Afghanistan documents change the course of the war?  That is not clear.  But what is clear is that critics of the war effort now have ample evidence to support their call to withdraw troops, while war supporters (fewer and fewer each day) can find nothing in the mountain of information that they can point to for making the "stay the course" argument.

Ines Pohl, editor in chief of the Tageszeitung makes the following observation after examining the documents:  

Dass im deutschen Lager Masar-i-Scharif Scharfschützen beherbergt werden, die Männer, Frauen und Kinder töten - und das belegen die Dokumente -, verstößt eindeutig gegen das deutsche Mandat. Damit haben es jene, die schon lange den Abzug der Bundeswehr fordern, nun schriftlich: Auch nach Einschätzung der Militärs hat die Bundeswehr mit ihrem Mandat in Afghanistan nichts zu suchen. Sie muss abgezogen werden.

(The fact that the German Camp Masar I-Sharif has harbored sharpshooters who have killed men, women and children - as the documents show - is a clear violation of the German mandate (in Afghanistan). Those who for a long time have called for a withdrawal of German troops now have it in writing:  even according to the assessment of the military the deployment of the  Bundeswehr (German Army) has nothing to do with its original mandate. Withdrawal is the only option. )

Theodor Fontane: "The Tragedy of Afghanistan"

Two more US Marines killed in Afghanistan today, bringing the total number of US troop deaths for 2009 to 107.

Theodor Fontane wrote the ballad  Das Trauerspiel von Afghanistan while working as a foreign correspondent in London in 1857.  It is believed that the battle described here is from the first of the three Anglo-Afghan Wars. 

The excellent translation in English below the break is by Gabriele Campbell.

Das Trauerspiel von Afghanistan

Der Schnee leis stäubend vom Himmel fällt,

Ein Reiter vor Dschellalabad hält,
"Wer da!" - "Ein britischer Reitersmann,
Bringe Botschaft aus Afghanistan."

Afghanistan! Er sprach es so matt;
Es umdrängt den Reiter die halbe Stadt,
Sir Robert Sale, der Kommandant,
Hebt ihn vom Rosse mit eigener Hand.

Sie führen ins steinerne Wachthaus ihn,
Sie setzen ihn nieder an den Kamin,
Wie wärmt ihn das Feuer, wie labt ihn das Licht,
Er atmet hoch auf und dankt und spricht:

"Wir waren dreizehntausend Mann,
Von Kabul unser Zug begann,
Soldaten, Führer, Weib und Kind,
Erstarrt, erschlagen, verraten sind.

Zersprengt ist unser ganzes Heer,
Was lebt, irrt draußen in Nacht umher,
Mir hat ein Gott die Rettung gegönnt,
Seht zu, ob den Rest ihr retten könnt."

Sir Robert stieg auf den Festungswall,
Offiziere, Soldaten folgten ihm all',
Sir Robert sprach: "Der Schnee fällt dicht,
Die uns suchen, sie können uns finden nicht.

Sie irren wie Blinde und sind uns so nah,
So lasst sie's hören, dass wir da,
Stimmt an ein Lied von Heimat und Haus,
Trompeter blast in die Nacht hinaus!"

Da huben sie an und sie wurden's nicht müd',
Durch die Nacht hin klang es Lied um Lied,
Erst englische Lieder mit fröhlichem Klang,
Dann Hochlandslieder wie Klagegesang.

Sie bliesen die Nacht und über den Tag,
Laut, wie nur die Liebe rufen mag,
Sie bliesen - es kam die zweite Nacht,
Umsonst, dass ihr ruft, umsonst, dass ihr wacht.

"Die hören sollen, sie hören nicht mehr,
Vernichtet ist das ganze Heer,
Mit dreizehntausend der Zug begann,
Einer kam heim aus Afghanistan."

Insufficient Vergangenheitsbewältigung

Vergangenheitsbewältigung ("coming to terms with the past") is a key word for understanding the success of democracy in post-war Germany.  Germany confronted its historical responsibility for the crimes of the Nazi era, and as a result the principles of enlightened democracy were embraced.  Unfortunately, the process for the most part did not take place in the eastern states of the former GDR, and as a consequence both right-wing extremism and authoritarian leftism are prevalent in the region.

But the process of Vergangenheitsbewältigung is also needed for Russia and the former Soviet satellite states. The Russian philosophy professor Michail Ryklin sees the roots of the conflict in the Caucusus as the outcome of insufficient Vergangenheitsbewältigung in an important essay that appears in Die Zeit:

Und überhaupt: Wer sind diese »Russen« und »Georgier« eigentlich? Vor allem sind sie alle postsowjetische Menschen, denen es nur so scheint, als seien sie nach dem großen Terror in ihre nationalen Nischen zurückgekehrt – ganz so, als hätte der Terror bei ihnen keine tiefen Wunden hinterlassen, die noch jahrzehntelang nicht ausheilen werden, als würden sie am Körper ihrer Nation keine Phantomschmerzen aus der Sowjetzeit spüren. [...} Dieser Unwille, sich mit der eigenen Geschichte auseinanderzusetzen, beschert dem postsowjetischen Raum Kriege und ethnische Konflikte. Unabhängig von der jeweiligen Rhetorik blüht der Nationalismus, wobei auch die demokratische Rhetorik keine Ausnahme bildet.Eine Rückkehr nach Europa ist nur durch die Auseinandersetzung mit der jüngsten totalitären Geschichte möglich, mit jenen Mechanismen, die Russen, Ukrainer, Weißrussen, Kirgisen und Georgier gleichermaßen unterjocht haben. Erst wenn diese Arbeit getan ist, werden unsere Vorstellungen von Europa komplexer, differenzierter und – was das Wichtigste ist – realistischer, auch wenn sie dann nicht so hochtrabend klingen werden wie die der »Übereuropäer«.
(And who are these 'Russians' and 'Georgians' anyway? Most of them are post-Soviet people who think they have returned to their national niches after the end of the Great Terror - as if the Terror had not left them with deep wounds that would take decades to heal, as if their nation would not feel the phantom pains of the Soviet era. ...  The refusal to confront their own past is bringing wars and conflict to the post-Soviet region. Regardless of the form the rhetoric takes nationalism is flourishing, and democratic rhetoric is no exception here. ... A return to Europe can only be achieved by confronting the recent totalitarian past and those mechanisms that reduced the Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Kyrgyz and Georgians to the same servitude. Only when this work has been done can our concepts of Europe become more complex, nuanced and - what is more important - realistic.)

Open Letter to ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo

Jurgen Todenhöfer is the manager of a German media group and for 18 years was a Christian Democrat representative in the Bundestag. He has studied the situation in the Middle East extensively and has traveled frequently throughout the region.  His book on Islamic extremism - Warum tötest du, Zaid? (Why do you kill, Zaid?) - will shortly appear in English translation.

His open letter to Luis Moreno Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor to the International Criminal Court, appeared in the Berliner Zeitung on July 19, 2008. (Thanks to Omar for the reference.)

The following is my translation:

Dear Mr Moreno Ocampo,

Like many who believe in the universal validity of human rights, I welcome your intention to investigate  the actions of the Sudanese President Omar Hassa al Baschir in court. Crimes against humanity must in any case be prosecuted. As you have correctly made clear, it does not make a difference if the perpetrator is an acting head of state. Once you have the evidence you must indict.

As a former justice, however, I have to ask why you are not exercising the same perserverence and the same demand for justice against those who are responsible for the Iraq War - namely US President George W. Bush or the former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.

We are all "Good Germans" now

The other day the Canadian government released a video of Canadian intelligence officers interrogating a 16-year old detainee.  The entire video is painful to watch, since the kid pleads to have his life ended.  Suffice it to say, the video received extensive media coverage all over the world.  In Germany, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung was shocked by the images:

Zum ersten Mal ist im Fernsehen und im Internet ein Video von einem Verhör im US-Gefangenenlager Guantánamo Bay auf Kuba ausgestrahlt worden. Der Sender CNN zeigte einen Ausschnitt, in dem der als mutmaßlicher Terrorist festgehaltene junge Kanadier Omar Khadr sich voller Verzweiflung sein Hemd vom Körper reißt, um vernarbte Schusswunden zu zeigen. (For the first time an interrogation at the US prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is broadcast on television and on the Internet. The news channel CNN showed a segment in which the young Canadian, a terrorist suspect, tears the shirt off his body in despair in order to show the scars of bullet wounds he had received.)

It turns out that prior to the interrogation the US military had subjected the boy to several weeks of a specific program of sleep deprivation called "the Frequent Flyer Program". Sleep deprivation is considered a form of torture under the Geneva Conventions, which the Bush administration has disavowed in its War on Terror.

The video received some attention in the US media for a single news cycle, but was quickly pushed off the the screen and off the newsprint with breathless reports of Angelina Joilie's twins.

This week also marks the publication of an important book on the subject of torture: Jane Mayer's The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals. I have blogged several times about Jane Mayer's strong investigative pieces in The New Yorker which formed the basis of her book. Fellow blogger Gary Farber just read the interview with Jane Mayer ub Harper's and is fed up with the complacency and passivity of his fellow Americans:

"It's your country. It's your choice. It's your former rights that have been disappearing, while you stood by, good Germans, wrapped up in your own lives, leaving it to others to prevent crimes, to pay attention, to work to prevent torture, spying, law-breaking, war crimes, and the criminally unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. 

What have you done to stop it?"

Far too little.  But the sad thing is, most of us didn't care enough to even try and stop it.

 

China is Funding Bush's Iraq War

Der Tagesspiegel has a lengthy excerpt from a new book to be released next week: Der globale Countdown by Harald Schuman and Christiane Grefe.  The book is about the risks inherent in the globalized economy  - risks that are all too apparent in the worldwide crisis spawned by the US real estate meltdown.  The excerpt here, however, is an excellent discussion of how the Bush administration has dramatically raised the stakes - and increased the likelihood of a global meltdown - with its reckless fiscal policy.  Among other things, the Bush administration has relied exclusively on China to fund its disastrous Iraq War. America's trade deficit with China increases the Chinese US dollar reserves by about $1 million per minute - which roughly equals the cost burden of Bush's wars:

De facto finanziert auf diesem Weg ausgerechnet der US-Rivale China Amerikas militärische Abenteuer mit milliardenschweren Billigkrediten für die Bush-Regierung. Die aufgewandten Summen stimmen erstaunlich überein. Die Kriege in Irak und Afghanistan kosteten von 2003 bis Ende 2006 rund 400 Milliarden Dollar amerikanischer Steuergelder. Etwa im gleichen Zeitraum erwarben die Mitarbeiter der Devisenverwaltung am Pekinger Platz der Luftfahrt amerikanische Staatsanleihen und staatliche garantierte Pfandbriefe im Wert von 464 Milliarden Dollar.

(It is ironic that in this way China - America's great rival - is financing America's military adventures with $$billions of cheap loans to the Bush administration. Astonishingly,  expenditures nearly match each other. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost the US taxpayers from 2003 to 2006 about $400 billion. Over the same period the staff at the State Foreign Exchange Center on Fucheng Road in Beijing acquired US Treasury Bonds in the amount of $464 billion.)

The Bush administration's fiscal policy is leading inexorably to a prolonged period of hyperinflation and the replacement of the US$  by the Euro as a reserve currency.  The final consequence will be a run on America.

An Uncomfortable Silence

Tageszeitung correspondent Bernd Pickert makes a good point in his column Das grosse Schweigen (The great silence).  During the Patreaus hearings this week on Capitol Hill no one brought up the issue of how multiple deployments in the US military were leading to a extreme psychological stress, which, in turn, is played out in how Iraqi civilians are treated (or rather mistreated):

"Dabei würde es sich lohnen, einmal einen Blick auf die Erfahrungen jener insgesamt mehr als 500.000 Soldaten zu werfen, die im Irak stationiert waren - nach fünf Jahren sind sie inzwischen ja recht ausführlich dokumentiert. Was sie über ein systematisch menschenverachtendes Verhalten der Soldaten gegen die Zivilbevölkerung in diesem Krieg ohne Fronten berichten, kann eigentlich nur zu einer Schlussfolgerung führen: die Iraker so bald wie möglich von dieser Besatzung zu befreien." (It would be worthwhile to have  a look at the experiences of the 500,000 or so soldiers who have been stationed in Iraq so far. These have not been sufficiently documented even after five years of war. What they say about the systematically brutal behavior of these soldiers towards the civilian population in this endless war without fronts can only lead to one conclusion: the Iraqis need to be freed of this occupation as soon as possible.)

Read my translation of Pickert's entire piece over at Watching America.

Last month the US military dropped all charges against one of the marines involved in the Haditha Massacre, when 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians - mostly women and children - were killed. The story was barely noticed in the press as President Bush celebrated the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War.  And earlier in March dozens of veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan testified at the Winter Soldier event in Silver Springs, Maryland.  The event was ignored by the mainstream media outlets in the US, as noted by the Web site FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting):

On the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War, it is particularly important that the media reverse this silence, and include the voices of the vets who are speaking out about their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan in national news coverage.

Videos of the testimonies can be found here.  The German press did cover the event, and it was also picked up by bloggers.

Let's face it: we don't consider Iraqi lives as valuable as Americans.  We keep detailed records of every US casualty in Iraq, but no one knows or cares how many Iraqis have been killed or injured as a result of the US-led invasion and occupation.  General Tommy Franks: "We Don't Do Body Counts".

Iraq and Postwar Germany

Quite often apologists for the Iraq War point to American success in postwar Germany as a rationale for the the military occupation of Iraq.  Both Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice often draw parallels to postwar Germany as a reason to stay the course: Democracy  will eventually blossom in Iraq the same way it did in Germany thanks to the American occupation.  And recently Republican presidential candidate John McCain has held out the possibility of America "staying in Iraq for one hundred years" the same way we have had a military presence in Germany for more than half a century.

Now historian David Stafford continues this argument in a piece in the Washington Post: Iraq is a Mess. But Germany Was, Too. Stafford's reasoning, however, it muddled.  He does point out the significant differences between post-invasion Iraq and defeated Germany:

It would be harder to think of two more different societies than Germany in 1945 and contemporary Iraq. The former -- despite Hitler and the Third Reich -- had a long tradition of law, order, constitutional government and civic society to draw on in rebuilding democracy. Nor was it riven by deep-rooted ethnic and sectarian religious tensions that erupted to the surface once the dictator's iron fist was removed. And although Germany certainly had hostile neighbors -- especially to the communist East -- the threat they posed served to create, not crack, political cohesion.

But then he draws parallels between the de-Baathification efforts in Iraq and the American attempt to purge Nazi's from positions of power in Germany.

Critics of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq point to the decisions by L. Paul Bremer, Garner's replacement, to dismiss Baathists from public office and to dissolve the Iraqi army as critical and disastrous turning points that created a vast legion of the unemployed and disaffected. Yet in 1945, the Allies implemented a similarly draconian policy in Germany. They dissolved the Nazi Party, carried out a thorough purge of Nazis in public office and even abolished the ancient state of Prussia, which they believed was at the root of German militarism. Millions of Wehrmacht soldiers languished in prisoner-of-war camps while their families struggled to survive.

But the American occupation forces in Germany were far more pragmatic than the neocon ideologues in charge of Iraq: they quickly changed course and brought former Nazis into the governance structure and economic reconstruction programs.

Ultimately, Stafford concludes, the American occupation of Germany was pretty much a failure several years in, and it was only the economic assistance of the Marshall Plan that finally changed the game and brought some stability:

Even so, despite this willingness to rethink and adjust, occupation policy floundered. Two years after Allied victory, Germany was in desperate straits, facing an economic crisis that threatened to nip democracy in the bud. Only the Marshall Plan, with its massive program of financial aid, saved the country from disaster. Self-government did not come until 1949, and Allied troops remained in West Germany as occupiers until 1955, a full decade after the defeat of the Third Reich.

So, Stafford seems to think, a Marshall Plan for Iraq and a long-term military occupation might  bring stability to the ruined country.  Trouble is, the success of the Marshall Plan has never been duplicated.  President Kennedy's Alliance for Progress - a Marshall Plan for Latin America - was a bust. And the attempts in the 1980s to establish a Marshall Plan for the Third World failed miserably. 

Two key elements are missing in Iraq for a successful Marshall Plan effort.  The first is security.  Tony Judt points out in his great work of history Postwar that the Korean War was an enormous benefit to Europe, since the US invested significant security resources there to prevent a "second front" from opening in the west.  The other missing factor is ownership.  By 1949 Europe had functioning governments everywhere - including Germany - and took complete ownership of the Marshall Plan.  Iraq, on the other hand, has a corrupt, dysfunctional government which lacks legitimacy in the eyes of most Iraqi citizens.  Also, the Bush Administration has awarded reconstruction projects to American firms, often under no-bid contracts as a way of rewarding political allies.  I fear reconstruction in Iraq can never succeed as long as the country is occupied by American troops. I wish I could see the success of postwar Germany as a reason to celebrate a hundred-year occupation for Iraq, but I can't.  There are no parallels and Stafford is sadly mistaken.

Bush's War Enters its Sixth Year

Today President Bush will be giving a speech where he will declare the Iraq invasion, launched 5 years ago this evening, "a strategic success" and "well worth the price" in terms of American blood and treasure (no mention, of course, of Iraqi blood and treasure).

Germany opposed the invasion, and we are still feeling the effects of that transatlantic rift, although Angela Merkel has managed to improve relations between America and Germany to a large extent.

Scanning the German press, there are quite a few commemorative efforts on both the war and Germany's decision to break with its strongest alliance partner:  Zeit, Die Welt, Der Spiegel. The best  - most infuriating - presentation can be found in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung.  The Munich daily goes through Colin Powell's PowerPoint presentation to the UN on Februrary 5, 2003, which outlined the case for war (based on completely fraudulent information):  The Long Nose of Colin Powell. Also in the Sueddeutsche is an interview with Gunter Pleuger, Germany's ambassador to the United Nations during the run-up to the war.  Pleuger speaks about his impressions of Powell's presentation and the knowledge that it was based on lies:

Pleuger:"Das war alles sehr gespenstisch. Die meisten im Saal wussten, dass das, was Colin Powell da vortrug, nicht der Realität entsprach. Aber wir haben uns damals nicht vorstellen können, dass Colin Powell bewusst die Unwahrheit sagen würde." ("It was all very surreal.  Most of us in the UN auditorium knew that what Powell was presenting had no basis in reality.  But we couldn't imagine that Colin Powell would deliberately present falsehoods.")

Plueger then speaks about the enormous pressure that the US brought to bear on him and the other diplomats at the UN to go along with the Bush invasion.  In the end, the UN refused to vote approval for the invasion, and then suffered the vilification of the US.  But in retrospect the UN acted honorably:

Pleuger: "Schauen Sie sich die Welt doch an. Heute können wir sagen, dass die Entscheidung des Sicherheitsrates völlig richtig war, gegen diesen Krieg zu sein. Die Mehrheit der Staaten und die Mehrheit der Bevölkerung selbst in den Koalitionsstaaten waren gegen diesen Krieg. Mehr als die Hälfte der Amerikaner ist heute auch dieser Auffassung." ( Just look at the world. Today we can say that the Security Council was correct in opposing this war. The majority of the nations, and the majority of the people in the Coaltion countries, were against the war. Today more than half of all Americans share this opinion.)

We can now see that the Bush War has led to the Bush Recession (Wars are never good for the economy in the long run).

Today I grieve for the four thousand American troops killed, the tens of thousands who return home with permanent physical and emotional scars, the thousands of families across the country who have been destroyed by an unnecessary war, the deaths of untold tens of thousands of Iraqis and the displacement of over 4 million from their homes.  How many more anniversaries of this nightmare will we have to endure?