km. In the beginning, “the end of history”, that was first proclaimed in the summer of 1989 by US-American Francis Fukuyama in his essay for neo-conservative magazine “The National Interest” and that later was supported in a more detailed book, seems to have been more propaganda instead of reputable analysis. Fukuyama’s hypothesis could be translated as the “belief in an ultimate victory” of the US-based model for policy and economy and it fits very well to the US-American tradition of believing “manifest destiny” to lead the world. Indeed, in the 90s of the last century, US policy followed this ideology. Today, 25 years later, the shambles have become evident, and no sane person talks about the “end of history” anymore. Historical references and interpretations rightfully regain their importance, not least because of historic anniversaries. 2014 marked the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the First World War, 2015 was the seventy-year mark of the end of the Second World War and so on and so forth.
In his text, Willy Wimmer tries to illustrate how the same is true for 2017, how history is “alive” and continues to influence the present. Alas, not always in a manner suited to please us: Not only NATO’s first general secretary Lord Ismay’s statement concerning NATO’s role vis-à-vis Germany and Russia, but also the Eastern and South Eastern European states and peoples, Asia minor and the Arabic World who strive to revise the results of the Versailles treaties. And not least: Russia’s growing awareness of its own history in the 20th century, for the two revolutions in 1917, the Western states’ questionable role in these revolutions and their destructive goals in the years after that. For example: the Anglo-Saxon attempts to weaken Russia (and later the Soviet Union) not prior and during the Second World War, but as early as during the First World War, to disperse and to be able to manage it by instrumentalizing Germany. In order to “kill two birds with one stone”: to pit the two important European colonial forces against each other, to weaken them and thus to prevent understanding and collaboration.
In Germany however, according to Wimmer, the prescribed historical memory only reaches back to 1945. The consequence: So far, there is not only a lack of resistance, but active participation in the renewed march against Russia.
Looking back, the turbulent events of 2016 helped to shed light onto the global geopolitical entanglements, especially concerning the dodgy role played by the United States. In my book “Return of the gamblers” and, more recently, “The Moscow File” I summarized the developments and offer a glimpse into what will await us in 2017.
David Fromkin wrote a “bible” about the Middle East. His revolutionary work about the end of the First World War is unrivalled. The title holds true even today: “The peace to end all peace”. Internationally, those events leading up the First World War and its subsequent end resurfaced right after the end of its succeeding peace - the Cold War. The latter one was ceremoniously put to rest in November 1990 with the famous “Paris Charta”.
The world has changed since the end of the Cold War. The split characterising Europe had seemingly been overcome, only to rear up 25 years later at the NATO territory’s border to the Russian Federation, which is aligned with Lord Ismay’s motto that a western military alliance against Russia exists. According to that, it is the Anglo-Saxons dominated NATO’s sole purpose to keep “the Americans (in Europe), to keep the Russians (out of Europe) and to keep the Germans down”.
The period directly after the end of the Cold War was governed by three movements: The opportunities of the newly free states all over Europe were to be used according to the “Helsinki Charta”. The process named after the Finnish capital with the so-called “three baskets” was able to determine the newly free Europe. With the help of a “peace dividend”, the arms race from the Cold War was to be eliminated and the whole textbook of human and civil rights regulations was to be put into effect and economic developments to benefit people as well as states were to be advanced.
As is well-known, this process was always stalled as soon as the United States didn’t get to decide alone and exclusively upon the respective processes involved. Germany experienced this, when it came to the collaboration with its Baltic Sea neighbours that had begun so promisingly, as did the member states of the Rhine-Main-Danube convention. Wherever European states were prepared and ready to collaborate regionally, the United States intervened. If Washington wasn’t at the table and able to dominate, no further talks between European states were stalled. This type of procedure in politics had been cultivated in the states of the then recently dissolved “Warsaw Treaty”, where Soviet omnipresence guaranteed that no direct dialogue between the member states would occur.
Hungary gave another signal. Like the Polish, it was the Magyars, who upheld the desire for freedom in Europe during the darkest times of the European and global antagonism at greatest sacrifice. By the waiver of core regions beyond the Oder, Germany offered a painful sacrifice that arose from the End of World War II. However, with Hungary and other states in its neighbourhood, especially with the development in the Balkans, it became clear and highly impacted the work that the Cold War demanded from us. Versailles and the so-called “Paris Suburb Contracts” determined the agenda between Budapest, Bucharest, and Ankara, because finally one was allowed to speak frankly about the consequences that resulted from Versailles for “Middle Europe”. It was Turkey, which in spite of European ignorance had drawn a long line from the Anglo-French secret treaties of 1916 regarding a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and thus to the central turning point of the First World War and the subsequent impact of Versailles on a major part of Europe.
Whereas the trouble spot Balkans transitioned more and more into warlike embers in the 1990s, any serious discussion of the problem areas that were to be tackled after the end of the Cold War fell through. During these years, the United States had redefined its political priorities independently. The signals didn’t show “Helsinki” any more – and thus cooperation – but on “Baron Ismay”. The time of Russian weakness was to be used in order to expand the American influence to the east of the European continent. To achieve this, a serious cooperation between the European states and Russia had to be thwarted in all areas, and from the Adriatic Sea the traditionally good relations between Russia and the countries of this region were to be eliminated. This was confirmed by the course of the wars following the resolutions of the US Congress from 1990 onwards – the most impressive “relic” is the ”Camp Bondsteel” in Kosovo, the second largest US military base in Europe. It cannot be ruled out, that the Anglo-Saxon powers wanted to avoid any occupation with “Versailles” under all circumstances, because their responsibility for a disastrous century would have become clear.
When looked at dispassionately, the developments that have lasted over decades, an impression intrudes that all problems, which we have to deal with in Europe, can be directly linked to fundamental disputes: Versailles with the above-mentioned subcontracts once again comes into focus. The spectacular memory of the outbreak of the First World War a hundred years ago, and thus of the Europe of 1914, also speaks for this. This had nothing to do with the victorious history, as it has manifested itself in those Germans, who had a clear Nazi-past themselves, as the historian Fritz Fischer, and who blamed their country for anything and everything. To this day, British historians in Germany interpret our history and certainly want to avoid initiating a critical analysis of English responsibilities.
Two years ago, it needed the American strategist George Friedman, a former chief of an important controlling component of the US military-industrial complex, to focus on the strategic direction of American policy since the founding of the German Reich in 1871 against Germany and Russia. However, also Christopher Clark, who with his “Sleepwalkers” worked out the general European responsibility for the outbreak of World War I, evoked interest on the British responsibility, by concealing the British central responsibility for the European development towards war. How were the mechanisms working, with which long before the First World War, questions of the naval blockade against the imperial German Reich were already being planned?
The current signal comes – how can it be otherwise – in twofold manner from the east. In his last “speech on the situation of the nation” to his Russian countrymen on 12 December 2016, the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, indicated the historical stroke rate of the following years for us in Europe. In 2017, one had to deal with the two revolutionary processes of 1917 and thereby with the revolution in February and the one in October, because the current development within the Russian Federation had its causes there. True, and the appropriate supplement was given during these days, when prominent Ukrainian representatives of Polish nationality demanded economic autonomy for the West of Ukraine with the capital Lvov, as they expect an economically better development only in conjunction with Poland. Hence, everything about the secret treaties of Sykes/Picot and the Jewish question in the Middle East as well as the effects on the First World War appears on the agenda again, what the Europeans call “Fourteen Points by US President Wilson” up to the Versailles agreement and the so-called Paris suburbs contracts, with their impact on history known to this day.
It might be to a lesser extent in the focus of the public how long before the outbreak of World War I influential British circles purposefully bypassed government and parliament and took Germany to task which was competing successfully as society and state. The same applies to President Wilsons handyman in the foreign policy sector, Colonel House, who is said to have appeared in person at the up to then in terms of war victorious German Emperor Wilhelm II on occasion of his visit in 1916. The war against the western powers England and France had to be ended, namely exclusively out of political considerations, so allegedly Colonel House on occasion of the conversation with the emperor.
In return the Tsarist Russia could be annihilated. The splitting of Russia into 20 individual states was scheduled anyway as a possible outcomes of World War I. No wonder that informed personalities are fundamentally convinced of one thing, if we want to believe it or not: Todays western historical view of the last two centuries was a “British artistic synthesis”. It starts with Napoleons’ wars and the British proposal to its allies Austria and the royal France, one should embrace the opportunity to annihilate the Russian alliance partner in its own heartland through vast pooled forces consisting of the imperial Austria, the royal France and England. Mind you, this shortly after Napoleons fruitless endeavour who tried it once before in Moscow.
Over here it might be that the German Federal Republic traces back its national existence to the German Empire. This does by no means apply for an adequate understanding of history and thereby politics. Therefore, future generations will pay a high price. All other nations and governments live in the history of their people and their nation and not only of a limited part of it. The mistakes will be done at home then even if the causes trace back to others. Indeed, it has become apparent, that our western partners obviously only ascribed a role in history to us if it became serious: either to see our role in annihilating Russia or to be destroyed ourselves. 1914 caught up with us in 2014, and it will be the same with 1917, 1918 and 1919 thru 1922. A little later at that time allegedly the American military attaché of Berlin impinged upon the financial conditions of an ambitious politician named Adolf Hitler in Munich. The Germans were familiar with this, they had done the same before with a man named Lenin. And think of those, too, who marched off a Trotzki in New York at the same time.
The question arises today and tomorrow: Do we want to let us bleed to death? On the one hand in the confrontation against Russia. It is carried out nearly secretly. We admittedly read about it, but nothing about how it is exactly taking place, at least not in understandable pictures in our news programmes. In the course of this it would be easy to demonstrate it from the NATO naval base in Kiel: About 2000 fighting vehicles of an American brigade shall be redeployed to the eastern front with consent of the German Federal Government. Certainly, under the pretext of defence.
On the other hand, through the Americans waging one war after the other around us, unlike us protecting their borders and don’t accommodate war refugees. The instigators of so called “NGOs” and others torpedo the sustainable protection of our borders with their organized network. Migration movements are used to remove the legal order of our state and our young people are sent to the slaughter in other people’s wars. Where are the governments who protect our interests? Where is the German politics which has in mind national interests and takes a stand for a good neighbourhood in Europe? How is it written in the constitution according to which Germany shall contribute to peace in the world? •
(Translation Current Concerns)
Unsere Website verwendet Cookies, damit wir die Page fortlaufend verbessern und Ihnen ein optimiertes Besucher-Erlebnis ermöglichen können. Wenn Sie auf dieser Webseite weiterlesen, erklären Sie sich mit der Verwendung von Cookies einverstanden.
Weitere Informationen zu Cookies finden Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.
Wenn Sie das Setzen von Cookies z.B. durch Google Analytics unterbinden möchten, können Sie dies mithilfe dieses Browser Add-Ons einrichten.