Meanwhile, back at the OK corral.....Gosh, those fun-loving nostalgia guys are at it again!

From www.emperors-clothes.com
by Diana Johnstone
Sept. 6, 1999

NAZI NOSTALGIA IN CROATIA

[(c) Diana Johnstone, 1999. This article may be distributed non-commercially by any method including reposting on websites, email and printing, but please reproduce it in full including this note. For commercial distribution contact http://www.emperors-clothes.com to make arrangements.]

When I visited Croatia three years ago, the book most prominently displayed in the leading bookstores of the capital city Zagreb was a new edition of the notorious anti-Semitic classic, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Next came the memoires of the World War II Croatian fascist Ustashe dictator Ante Pavelic, responsible for the organized genocide of Serbs, Jews and Romany (gypsies) that began in 1941, that is, even before the German Nazi "final solution".

However, if the Croatian fascists actually led, rather than followed, the German Nazis down the path of genocide, that doesn't mean they have forgotten their World War II benefactors. After all, it was thanks to Hitler's invasion of Yugoslavia that the "Independent State of Croatia" was set up in April 1941, with Bosnia-Herzegovina (whose population was mostly Serb at the time) as part of its territory. And the hit song of 1991, when Croatia once again declared its independence from Yugoslavia and began driving out Serbs, was "Danke Deutschland" in gratitude to Germany's strong diplomatic support for Zagreb's unnegotiated secession.

In the West, of course, one will quickly object that the Germany of today is not the Germany of 1941. True enough. But in Zagreb, with a longer historical view, they are so much the same that visiting Germans are sometimes embarrassed when Croats enthusiastically welcome them with a raised arm and a Nazi "Heil!" greeting.

So it should be no surprise that this year's best seller in Croatia is none other than a new edition of "Mein Kampf". This is not a critical edition, mind you, but a reverently faithful reproduction of the original text by that great European leader, benefactor of Croatian nationalism and leader of the Third Reich, Adolf Hitler.

The magazine "Globus" reported that "Mein Kampf" is selling like hotcakes in all segments of Croatian society. For those who want to read more, there is a new book entitled "The Protocols of Zion, the Jews and Adolf Hitler" by Mladen Schwartz, leader of the Croatian neo-Nazi party New Right, and "Talks with Hitler" by the Fuhrer's aide Herman Rauschning, as well as various other memoires celebrating the Ustashe state whose violent massacres of Serbs shocked the Italian fascist allies and even German diplomatic observers at the time.

The dissident Croatian writer Predrag Matvejevic, who has Italian citizenship, has sent the Rijeka daily "Novi List" an open letter to the Association of Croatian Writers and the Croatian center of the International PEN club denouncing their failure to protest at this promotion of the absolute worst of racist Nazi propaganda. "Passing through the streets of Zagreb, Split, Dubrovnik and other cities in Croatia, countless Croatian citizens whose parents took part in the anti-fascist Partisan struggle are ashamed to see the works and photographs of Hitler and other Nazi and Ustashe criminals displayed in bookshop windows," he wrote. "Their publication is a disgrace to Croatia and its culture". This is "no accident", he said, "in Tudjman's Croatia." For this is the same regime, he noted, that has allowed the destruction of thousands of monuments to the victims of fascism, from one end of Croatia to the other, and in which mass is celebrated non-stop in honor of the Ustashe "fuhrer" Pavelic in the churches of Split and Zagreb, the Italian daily "Il Manifesto" reported on September 3.

In another report in "Il Manifesto", Giacomo Scotti reported from Zagreb that the terrorist campaign by nationalist bands led by the neofascist "Croatian Party of Rights" has been stepping up its pogroms against the small number of Serbs now living in the Krajina region. The overwhelmingly Serb population was driven from the Krajina by the U.S.-backed "Operation Storm" in August 1995. Officially, under heavy international pressure, the Croatian government has allowed some Serbs to come back, mostly old farmers. However, on August 25, the Croatian Supreme Court denied local tribunals the right to hear complaints from citizens who had not been allowed to enter their property, thus encouraging lawlessness.

With the complicity of the authorities, armed bands have been breaking into the few homes reoccupied by their Serb owners, beating and threatening old people and devastating their farms, chopping down trees and destroying crops to force them to leave. These facts are contained in two letters to the Croatian government from the Croatian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights.

By now, however, it is abundantly clear to everyone that crimes of intimidation, physical violence, murder, robbery, vandalism or "ethnic cleansing" are of no interest to Western governments, to international media or to any court in the world so long as the victims are Serbs.

www.wsws.com

24 June 1999

GERMAN INTERESTS IN THE WAR AGAINST YUGOSLAVIA

By Ulrich Rippert

Churchill once said that in war the truth is so precious it has to be surrounded with a bodyguard of lies. In Germany over the last two months one clearly saw the fabrication of such a bodyguard.

Even as air attacks proceeded against civilian targets-destroying factories, electricity works, refineries, bridges, streets, railway lines and apartment blocks-German government representatives spoke of a "humanitarian action". Despite the fact that the NATO attacks unleashed the massive wave of refugees and reduced towns and villages in Kosovo to ruins, it has been maintained to the very end that the aim of the war was the defence of the refugees and their repatriation.

When, however, one explores the real interests and aims pursued by German business and politicians, it becomes evident that the propaganda about humanitarian aims serves to bury the truth. Behind closed doors an entirely different discussion is taking place.

It is focused on the changed world situation arising from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The dissolution of the USSR left a power vacuum which all of the great powers are seeking to fill. A race has begun amongst the transnational corporations to secure control over raw materials, labour and markets. These conflicts are assuming increasingly aggressive forms.

Part of the conflict revolves around the huge energy resources in the Caspian region. It is believed that the world's largest reservoir of untapped oil and gas is to be found in the southern republics (Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan) of the former Soviet Union. Even though the reports over possible and confirmed reserves of mineral deposits differ wildly, the interest in the region is enormous.

The energy question is of great significance for Germany. Because of the concentration of industry in Germany, the demand for such minerals is enormous and must be met almost totally from imports. Already during the Wilhelminian empire there was enormous interest in the raw materials of the Caucasus. However German hopes of being able to cash in on the holdings of the declining Ottoman empire were shattered on the battlefields of the First World War. Hitler's own attempt to secure the oil wells in Baku collapsed in the face of the resistance of the Red Army.

The urgency on the part of Germany and Europe to acquire access to these energy resources is made clear in a study which was put before the Social Democratic Party (SPD) parliamentary fraction last June. It bears the title "The Region of the Future: The Caspian Sea-German Interests and European Politics in the Trans-Caucasian and Central Asian Republics." [http//www.gernot-erler.de/html/ot/ot1e.htlm] The paper emphasises that if energy demands remain constant, supplies of North Sea oil will hold out for between 10 (Great Britain) and 14 years (Norway)."Using current rates, in 2010 10 percent of Europe's total demand for natural gas will remain unmet. In 2020 that rate is expected to reach 30 percent."

The bombing of Serbia and the military occupation of Kosovo by NATO must be seen in this light. For the first time since the end of the Cold War, American interests as the leading NATO power are colliding with the interests of Russia and China. The first intervention of the alliance "out of area"-in Bosnia Herzegovina-was carried out with Russian agreement. Moscow was included in NATO activities and participated in the planning and carrying out of the operation. It was quite different in Kosovo. In order to head off an anticipated veto on the part of Russia and China, NATO simply ignored the United Nations.

As a result, German politics is now in a state of high tension. On the one hand, since the foundation of NATO, Germany has been closely tied to the Alliance and its economic and political development have been heavily dependent on the United States for the past 50 years. Based on this tradition Chancellor Schroeder stated on a number of occasions in the course of the war: "For reasons of state it is necessary to be loyal to the Alliance".

On the other hand, Germany's traditional orientation towards the East has increased in significance. Even under the conditions of the Cold War, Germany's economic and political collaboration with Moscow was never completely severed. Since the end of the 60s the same Deutsche Bank which financed Hitler's campaign for " Lebensraum" in the East has been pushing ahead with the new Eastern policy introduced by the government of Willy Brandt.

In his book Paths to Russia, Wilhelm Cristians, chairman of the executive committee of Deutsche Bank until 1988, describes how as a young Wehrmacht lieutenant he was wounded on the Eastern front. Two decades later he was personally responsible for setting up an office in Moscow for Germany's biggest bank and initiated large-scale economic projects such as the delivery of pipes from the Mannesmann concern for Soviet pipelines.

Immediately after German reunification in 1990 the government made unmistakably clear that it looked upon Eastern Europe as its own backyard for economic and political influence. The recognition of Slovenia and Croatia in 1991 in the face of many warnings made clear Germany's claim to leadership in this region. Since then the German government has followed the intensified interventions of the American government in this area with mixed feelings. Above all, the German government is seeking to prevent or limit a confrontation with Russia.

In the course of the war Defence Minister Rudolf Scharping (SPD) resorted to theatrics to describe the "unimaginable cruelty of the Serbs", so as to boost the war propaganda. Meanwhile in the Defence Ministry itself, intense discussions took place over a period of months on how to rebuff the aggressiveness of the Americans and prevent an escalation of the confrontation with Russia.

A study by a German military political advisor is revealing in this respect. Nearly a year before the NATO attack on Serbia, August Pradetto, professor at the German Military Academy in Hamburg, published a lengthy contribution on the theme "Management of Conflict through Military Intervention? The Dilemma of Western Policy".

In the paper he criticises the Kosovo policy of NATO and warns against a military intervention. Under the title "Aspects of the Political Power Struggle in the Kosovo Conflict between Russia and the USA" he emphasises that the intervention by NATO in the Balkans has not simply "humanitarian, political, international legal and military aspects", but is based above all on "strategic, power-political" considerations.

"The issue at stake is the conflict over the competence and extent of political decision-making, as well as the military sway, of the Western Alliance. Following the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union diverse power resources in Europe and beyond have been newly re-divided."

The various conflicts bound up with this turn of events are patently visible. Together with the issue of the extension of NATO towards the East, Pradetto expressly identifies "influence over the oil reserves in the region around the Caspian Sea, which is at the moment under the immediate control of Moscow".

He shows that Russia's own fears are fully justified. NATO has established intensive collaboration with Albania and Macedonia and set up "communication offices" in both countries. The Alliance also uses their military installations and carries out joint manoeuvres in both countries. At the same time Russian anxieties have grown that NATO, under the guise of restraining the conflict in Kosovo, is increasing its influence in South East Europe and thereby establishing new options and strategic positions against Russia.

"The intervention of NATO military forces in Kosovo, without the sanction of the UN Security Council and founded on a mandate which NATO awarded itself on the basis of its own definition of an insecure situation requiring military measures, is regarded as a precedent for possible future interventions in the immediate vicinity of Russia, such as the Caucasus, using ethnic conflicts and disputes between countries. This under conditions where a vigorous struggle has emerged between Western and Russian oil concerns and between the strategic interests of Washington and Moscow over the exploitation of oil resources in the Caspian region."

As already noted, Pradetto wrote this article nearly a year before the NATO air attacks began, providing an exposure, prior to the fact, of the official war propaganda. Since then substantial conflicts have taken place behind the scenes. While the US government drove ahead with preparations for the war, a number of European governments, including the Germans, were keen to find a diplomatic solution.

Following the American success in forcing through its position, the German government participated in the bombing of Serbia and is now taking part in the occupation of Kosovo with its own troops. Alongside "loyalty to the alliance" the conviction is growing that the economic interests of a unified Germany can only be advanced through the vigorous creation of its own military force.

A new phase of German militarism has begun. Up until German unification 10 years ago the task of the German army was exclusively limited to the defence of its own territory. All political parties agreed that the constitution excluded any intervention for aggressive purposes and interventions outside NATO territory. With the end of the Cold War a new strategic orientation has begun.

At the beginning of 1992 leading military officers and Defence Ministry officials presented a strategy paper which completely redefined the tasks of the German army. In future its task was to consist of the following: "The prevention, limitation, and ending of any conflict which could hamper the unity and stability of Germany", "the promotion and securing of worldwide political, economic, military and ecological stability" and "the retention of free international trade and access to strategic raw materials".

The significance of this change is made clear by another paper from the German army. In September last year an information brochure for officers was circulated with the title "Oil Poker in the Caucasus-Security and Political Aspects of Oil and Gas Reserves in the Caspian Sea".

Lieutenant Colonel Helmut Udo Napiontek, who served previously in Georgia as a member of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), reviews over 15 pages the conflicts bound up with the exploitation of oil and gas in the region, as well as problems arising from transport routes. He writes: "For potential oil and gas producers the geographical situation is problematic enough: the Great Power China shares an eastern border with the producer Kazakhstan. To the north of the Caspian basin is neighbouring Russia, which controls all of the export routes at the moment. To the south lies war-torn Afghanistan and the Islamic fundamentalist Republic of Iran. To the west of the Caspian basin lie the Transcaucasus-rent by ethnic divisions-and Turkey, which is striving for hegemony in the region. The situation is further complicated by the most varied economic, religious and political situations."

There then follows a long list of existing and potential points of conflict. "In the meantime it is a fight of one against all with regard to the question of the pipeline." Although the author takes a generally benevolent position towards the US, and on a number of occasions emphasises that the US is seeking to prevent Russian domination of the area, critical tones are also to be found: "The 'timing' of Washington, as it seeks to intensify its links in the region, indicates on the whole that democratic and market economy reforms are little more than a pretext. More important are the enormous oil and gas reserves. With the exception of Georgia, the states in the region have predominantly authoritarian governments and Washington is doing little to change the situation, as long as the interests of the American oil concerns, which have invested half of the capital in the region, are not affected."

In order to make clear the extent of the conflicts of interest, it is informative to look once more at the above-mentioned strategy paper of the SPD parliamentary fraction: "The Region of the Future-the Caspian Sea". An initial comment warns that the paper is not designed for a broad public or for purposes of propaganda: "This publication by the SPD parliamentary fraction is purely for informational use. It should not be employed in election campaigns."

The introduction was written by the chairman of the SPD fraction and current Defence Minister Rudolph Scharping. He emphasises: "The SPD parliamentary fraction pays a great deal of attention to the developments in Central Asia and the Caspian Sea. In this 'region of the future' a number of conflicts and problems exist which can intensify because of the worldwide interest in oil and gas reserves."

Then he draws attention to the fact that the SPD fraction had raised these themes previously in the German parliament. In addition, the SPD Frederich Ebert Institute has held international conferences on the issue in Berlin and Washington.

The paper complains about the aggressive intervention of American companies "which have between 40 percent and 50 percent shares of the most important concerns in Kazakstan and Azerbaijan". The Federal Republic of Germany has no representation among the 100 most important oil companies, the paper notes regrettably. It concentrates therefore on being "oriented heavily towards infrastructure contracts, especially in road creation, the building of transportation systems and communal infrastructure, telecommunications, radio and television, and the production and distribution of electricity," but still the situation with regard to treaties "has been modest".

"For example, German investors have gathered that transnational corporations of the mineral oil sector often use their investments for the creation of favourable conditions for other bidders coming from their own home countries. The business done with raw energy materials paves the way for further contracts in infrastructure. German policy must in this case make great efforts to demand fair trade conditions, and a balancing out of the present competitive distortions."

As has often been the case in the history of colonialism, those who come onto the scene late raise a warning finger and caution about the social and ecological consequences arising from the ruthless exploitation of raw materials. The SPD study emphasises that the hasty deals made over the past few years has favoured a "completely one-sided appropriation of this wealth to families, clans or oligarchies". As a result, the crisis in the region has intensified. "Such presently comfortable and profitable agreements will prove in the future extremely costly, when the price is the abetting through silence of those regional rulers who would delay or even refuse to institute reforms."

The study warns of the danger of emerging power blocks, whereby an American-led alliance confronts a Russian bloc. The current development is proceeding in a "disastrous direction".

"Under the influence of powers from outside the region, there are two camps emerging. These opposing groups, the line of division of which runs straight through the middle of the Caspian Sea, refer to themselves as 'strategic alliances'. The one group aligns Azerbaijan and Georgia with foreign powers Turkey and the United States. The other includes Iran, Armenia, the Russian Federation, and (with reservations) Turkmenistan. The antagonism between these 'alliances' reminds one of the ill-fated geopolitical developments of the last century, which ended in a high death toll for Europe."

A joint European policy must counteract this development and support "regional co-operation". In this respect two things are important from the European standpoint: first, a strengthening of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Although the Russian federation "maintains garrisons in the entire region apart from Azerbaijan", a vacuum of power has emerged since the end of the Soviet Union which has to be filled by the OSCE. The OSCE has won trust and recognition in the region "with its missions in Tadzhikistan, Georgia, Chechnia and Nagorno-Karabach".

Secondly, the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), which came into effect on April 16, 1998 and has been ratified by 32 states-including all eight of the republics to the south of Russia-must become the general basis for business. "The ECT creates dependable and equal conditions for investments in exploration, upstream projects and pipeline network projects. It includes instruments to guarantee the fulfilment of contracts, secures the free flow of oil and gas, and offers an effective arbitration procedure for disagreements. It can act as a bulwark against the threatened politicisation of the exploitation and promotion of raw materials and transport of energy sources in the region. In addition, it can prepare the way for an economical and rational decision about the variants in question."

There are a few hitches: up until now the US government has refused to participate in ECT and regards the whole thing first and foremost as an attempt to create obstacles for American concerns.

The war in Kosovo has reshuffled the cards in this new "Great Game". The role of the UN and OSCE has been minimised. The aggressive approach of the United States against a sovereign state, with the participation of the rest of the NATO countries, has not only made clear the brutality with which the Great Powers are prepared to secure their economic and political interests, it also heralds new, even greater conflicts. The dishonest propaganda of Foreign Minister Fischer and Defence Minister Scharping, who are both thoroughly informed of the discussions taking place in their respective ministries, is the incidental music to the re-emergence of the German war machine, which carried out the greatest crimes of the twentieth century.

I went to the WSM web site at: http://www.worldsocialism.org/
and pondered their introduction.

What struck me was the total absence of any notion of "individual responsibility and individual ownership." In fact the concept of individual responsibility and individual ownership seems so scrupulously avoided (even scorned) that a reasonable person should not find it at all surprising when "true believers" try to avoid ownership of and responsibility for effects of their nutty, half-baked ideas.

Its seems obvious to me that socialists have absolutely no insight into the ties humans have to their possessions. That these bonds begin with the ties we have to the land we're born on and pervades every aspect of our lives lasting until we die seems utterly lost on them (maybe that's because most of them are college students who don't have a pot to piss in and have never owned or been responsible for anything in their brief miserable lives.)

It seems to me that socialist thinkers are in deep denial when it comes to acknowledging the degree to which the human animal identifies with its possessions going so far as to ordering its life and even attributing self-worth based upon perceived value of possessions. This denial is never more evident than in their reaction when one points out that the notion of "ownership" predates our "oral tradition" and is manifested in one way or another in virtually every life form on this earth.

The apparent unwillingness or inherent inability to acknowledge and understand the nature of these ties has resulted in many botched attempts at developing societies based upon preciously held but nonetheless nutty short sighted socialistic percepts. The most blatant failure of these nutty half-baked goofy ideas was the USSR.

But what the hell, they're idealists and everybody loves a good "class struggle" based on "paranoid delusions of oppression" which means there will "always" be someone else to blame for their failures, which is reassuring. phil

I visited the Socialist Labor Part of Am's fact web site at: http://www.slp.org/facts.htm
and came upon this jewel.

MEMBERSHIP

"Membership in the SLP is open to any responsible person of good character who is (1) in basic agreement with the Party's principles and
program, (2) willing to abide by its Constitution and majority decisions, (3) at least 18 years old, and (4) has severed all ties with other political
parties. Applications for membership must be approved by the membership of the local section, or by the National Executive Committee when no section exists where the applicant resides.
Applications for membership, or to form a section composed of five or more persons, are available from the Party's national office... "

Translation...Everyone need not apply... I'll tell you if I want you...You go by my rules buba...

Of course that's the nature of every other organization in existance today. So....Why should anyone leave their present organization to join the Socialist Labor Party merely to get what they already have? phil

Re: Diana Johnstone's Sept. 6, 1999 article.

"When I visited Croatia three years ago, the book most prominently displayed in the leading bookstores of the capital city Zagreb"

Does this mean that the book was displayed in 90% of all mainstream bookstores…What does leading bookstore mean to the author…Does "prominently displayed" mean top 10 of the best seller list…Is the author unfairly smearing the Croatian people in general with her insinuation?

"And the hit song of 1991, when Croatia once again declared its independence from Yugoslavia and began driving out Serbs, was "Danke Deutschland" in gratitude to Germany's strong diplomatic support for Zagreb's unnegotiated secession."

How does the author 'know' this to be the case…Has she interviewed the song writers or its distributors…If so, what did they tell her…Is it probable that the popularity of the song has nothing to do with Germany's current support of Zagreb?

"…they are so much the same that visiting Germans are sometimes embarrassed when Croats enthusiastically welcome them with a raised arm and a Nazi "Heil!" greeting."

How many out of 100 Croatians give this greeting…Could those who give this greeting have an agenda…How does this observation effectively generalize such that it can be validly said that the Germans of today are the same as those of 1941?

"So it should be no surprise that this year's best seller in Croatia is none other than a new edition of "Mein Kampf". This is not a critical edition, mind you, but a reverently faithful reproduction of the original text "

What does the author mean by 'best seller'…Best seller relative to what…How does the author 'know' the book is a 'reverently faithful' reproduction…Is this an obvious reflection of the author's predisposition toward a bias?

" "Their publication is a disgrace to Croatia and its culture". This is "no accident", he said, "in Tudjman's Croatia." For this is the same regime, he noted, that has allowed the destruction of thousands of monuments to the victims of fascism, from one end of Croatia to the other, and in which mass is celebrated non-stop in honor of the Ustashe "fuhrer" Pavelic in the churches of Split and Zagreb "

Is their publication an exercise in freedom of speech…How does the author rule this possibility out…How are the publications and the vandalism of shrines connected …Did the author interview the vandals…Has she turned them into the authorities…How does the author know that no efforts to find the vandals was ever made…Is her indictment of the churches of Split and Zagreb and incitement of all churches of Croatia…Of the Croatian population in general?

"Officially, under heavy international pressure, the Croatian government has allowed some Serbs to come back, mostly old farmers. However, on August 25, the Croatian Supreme Court denied local tribunals the right to hear complaints from citizens who had not been allowed to enter their property, thus encouraging lawlessness. "

Is the author saying that those who came back and who occupy their property are also not being permitted to lodge complaints …Or is it those who came back but can who not properly establish legitimate ownership?

"With the complicity of the authorities, armed bands have been breaking into the few homes reoccupied by their Serb owners "

How exactly are the authorities being complicit…How has the author established this complicity…How has the author determined that no efforts are being made to find and capture those who are responsible?

"By now, however, it is abundantly clear to everyone that crimes of intimidation, physical violence, murder, robbery, vandalism or "ethnic cleansing" are of no interest to Western governments, to international media or to any court in the world so long as the victims are Serbs. "

How is it abundantly clear? It seem obvious that the author has a point of view and looked for anything that could be variously construed to support her position. She made no great effort to check her facts out or rule out other possibilities. God forbid should she quote anyone.

In short a pretty shabby piece of journalism.