491 Wie veroorzaakte WO2? Wie wilde die oorlog?

Een artikel van Pat Buchanan.

Buchanan was heel lang senator in het Amerikaansew Congres.   Hij is een traditionele conservatief , een Republikein dus.  Zeker geen Neoconseravtief, wat iets heel anders is.

De wijze van redeneren van Buchanan spreekt mij erg aan.
Ik gebruik die ook zelf, als wordt beweerd dat Hitler van plan was om alle joden te vergassen.
Dit zou dan blijken uit de goede organisatie van dat vergassen.
Maar daar klopt niks van.
Pas in febr. 1942, tijdens de Wannsee Conferentie, is min of meer besloten dat het niet erg zou zijn als alle joden van ellende zouden sterven.  Over vergassen is niet gesproken.
Pas in 1942 is men begonnen met crematoria te bouwen.  Maar dat zijn geen gaskamers.
Het is bekend dat er twee gaskamers waren, in twee gebouwen net buiten Auschwitz.  Die waren er al voor 1940, en er zijn een aantal communisten vergast, als ik me goed herinner.
Van gaskamers ìn Auschwitz is geen enkel hard bewijs, zover ik weet.  Zie: David Cole.
Wel heel veel getuigenissen.
In 1946 waren er getuigenissen over 22 Duitse kampen dat daar  gaskamers zouden zijn. David Cole.
De Amerikanen hebben alles nagetrokken, en vonden nergens een spoor van gaskamers.
De concentratiekampen waarvan we nu aannemen dat ze gaskamers hadden, liggen allemaal in Oost Duitsland en Polen, dus in Russisch gebied waar de Amerikanen geen onderzoek konden doen.

Raul Hilberg was een van de eersten die over de concentratiekampoen schreef, ca 1960.  Hij schreef toen ook dat Hitler opdracht had gegeven om dse joden te vernietigen.  Maaar ca 1990 moest Hilberg deze bewering intrekken: er is nergens een spoor van zo'n opdracht. Volgens Hilberg is de moord op 5,1 miljoen joden ( Hilberg telt er geen 6 miljoen)  min of meer zonder opdracht gedaan.  Dat is toch weer iets anders dan een plan dat al vòòr de oorlog bekend was.
Er is ook nooit budget voor vrijgemaakt.

Maar we hadden het over Buchanan en de vraag of Hitler van plan was om de wereld te  veroveren.
Hier de logische analyse van Buchanan:



Did Hitler want war ? 

 by Patrick J. Buchanan

On Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier. On Sept. 3, Britain declared war.

Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished. Britain was broken and bankrupt, Germany a smoldering ruin. Europe had served as the site of the most murderous combat known to man, and civilians had suffered worse horrors than the soldiers.

By May 1945, Red Army hordes occupied all the great capitals of Central Europe: Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Berlin. A hundred million Christians were under the heel of the most barbarous tyranny in history: the Bolshevik regime of the greatest terrorist of them all, Joseph Stalin.

What cause could justify such sacrifices?

The German-Polish war had come out of a quarrel over a town the size of Ocean City, Md., in summer. Danzig, 95 percent German, had been severed from Germany at Versailles in violation of Woodrow Wilson’s principle of self-determination. Even British leaders thought Danzig should be returned.

Why did Warsaw not negotiate with Berlin, which was hinting at an offer of compensatory territory in Slovakia? Because the Poles had a war guarantee from Britain that, should Germany attack, Britain and her empire would come to Poland’s rescue.

But why would Britain hand an unsolicited war guarantee to a junta of Polish colonels, giving them the power to drag Britain into a second war with the most powerful nation in Europe?

Was Danzig worth a war? Unlike the 7 million Hong Kongese whom the British surrendered to Beijing, who didn’t want to go, the Danzigers were clamoring to return to Germany.

Comes the response: The war guarantee was not about Danzig, or even about Poland. It was about the moral and strategic imperative “to stop Hitler” after he showed, by tearing up the Munich pact and Czechoslovakia with it, that he was out to conquer the world. And this Nazi beast could not be allowed to do that.

If true, a fair point. Americans, after all, were prepared to use atom bombs to keep the Red Army from the Channel. But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet’s, or Fidel Castro’s, was out to conquer the world?

After Munich in 1938, Czechoslovakia did indeed crumble and come apart. Yet consider what became of its parts.

The Sudeten Germans were returned to German rule, as they wished. Poland had annexed the tiny disputed region of Teschen, where thousands of Poles lived. Hungary’s ancestral lands in the south of Slovakia had been returned to her. The Slovaks had their full independence guaranteed by Germany. As for the Czechs, they came to Berlin for the same deal as the Slovaks, but Hitler insisted they accept a protectorate.

Now one may despise what was done, but how did this partition of Czechoslovakia manifest a Hitlerian drive for world conquest?

Comes the reply: If Britain had not given the war guarantee and gone to war, after Czechoslovakia would have come Poland’s turn, then Russia’s, then France’s, then Britain’s, then the United States.

We would all be speaking German now.

But if Hitler was out to conquer the world — Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia — why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can’t get out of the Baltic Sea?

If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?

Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?

Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?

Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser’s fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?

Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.

Hitler had never wanted war with Poland, but an alliance with Poland such as he had with Francisco Franco’s Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, Miklos Horthy’s Hungary and Father Jozef Tiso’s Slovakia.

Indeed, why would he want war when, by 1939, he was surrounded by allied, friendly or neutral neighbors, save France. And he had written off Alsace, because reconquering Alsace meant war with France, and that meant war with Britain, whose empire he admired and whom he had always sought as an ally.

As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?

Winston Churchill was right when he called it “The Unnecessary War” — the war that may yet prove the mortal blow to our civilization.

490 Hoe America te werk gaat, achter de schermen.

Hieronder een artikel uit 2005 waarin wordt uitgelegd dat Amerika steeds organisaties in het leven roept om "hulp,  bussiness en culturele uitwisseling" te bevorderen tussen de twee landen.

Omdat Amerika heel zware jongens in die Councils ( of Associations of Committee's ) laat plaats nemen, zullen die landen dat ook doen.
Het gaat voor 66% om waar het officieel om gaat: hulp, zaken en cultuur.  Maar voor 33|% worden deze contact-organisaties-op-hoog-niveau  gebruikt om Amerikaanse belangen van geopolitieke aard te bevorderen. ( Lees: vaak Israelische belangen. )

Volgens Sibel Edmonds heeft Amerika sinds 1985 enorm veel geld gedoneerd voo rde stichting van madrassa's : koran scholen.  De meest fanatieke elementen zijn later jihadist geworden: precies zoals Richard Perle dat gepland had.  De Jihadisten zorgen er voor dat het Yinon Plan wordt uitgevoerd:  het vernietigen van de arabische landen rondom Israel, zodat Israel dat zelf niet meer hoeft te doen.

Hier een opsomming van de organisaties:
ATC = American Turkish Council  ( de allerbelangrijkste organisatie.)
AACC = America Azerbeidjani Chamber of Commerce
UKBA = US Kaszachstan Bussiness Association.

APCC = American Committee for Peace in Chechnya Committee (ACPC)

AGBC =  American Georgia Business Council (AGBC)

The same connections, whether through individuals or organizations, can be found for Ukraine and Belarus, as well as Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

The American Turkish Council:
US Association Helps Create New World Order 
by John Stanton
www.dissidentvoice.org
February 14, 2005 

 hier het originele artikel

NB: �educational� = 'educational'

Operating tax-free and out of the media or watchdog spotlight is the most powerful 'non-profit' association in the United States, the American Turkish Council. Like the thousands of Associations operating inside the Washington, DC Beltway, the ATC is chartered to provide 'legal and ethical' venues for American-Turkish government and business interests to meet face-to-face to improve business, security and cultural relations between the two countries. The ATC, and other Associations, has a dues structure and committee structure that includes a government relations or �educational� committee that lobbies the public and US government representatives on behalf of its members. But that�s where the similarity ends.

While the ATC is an Association in name and in charter, the reality is that it and other affiliated Associations are the US government. Theirs is the voice that matters and is the one that is heard on television and radio networks through the mouths of newsreaders, senators, congressmen, presidents and military leaders. It is in and through such Associations that US political, economic and military policy is made and the American public subsequently �educated� to support policies that are not, and could not, be debated in public because of their illegality, audacity, complexity and, arguably, necessity. Instead, the creation of policy and action -- or even reaction to events -- is hammered out in corporate boardrooms, foreign governments, research institutes, and think tanks. It all comes together in Associations like the ATC. If you want to know what�s really going on or about to come down, take a visit via the Net to the world of Associations.

Six Degrees of ATC Leaders/Members

The game Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon is based on the premise that the famed actor Kevin Bacon is the center of the entertainment universe and that any actor or actress can be linked back to him within six degrees. Replace Kevin Bacon with ATC leaders and/or members, and you are sure to find that any corporation, military leader, government official, former politician, and even actor can be linked back to the ATC within six degrees. The ATC is an extraordinary group of elite and interconnected group of Republicans, Democrats and corporate/military heavyweights who are spearheading one of the most ambitious strategic gambits in US history.

In 2004 the ATC was led by Bush family insider LTG Brent Scowcroft, USAF (Ret.) who served as Chairman of the Board. George Perlman of Lockheed Martin was the Executive Vice President and Marise Stewart of Textron the Vice President. Executives from every major US and Turkish corporation are members. Among them are Mars (candy), Coca Cola, Atlantic Records, Shell Oil, ExxonMobil, Pfizer, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Hyatt and Phillip Morris. Dozens of retired US Flag officers, ex-ambassadors and representatives sit on the ATC Board of Directors.

Counted amongst ATC�s hundreds of members are think tanks like the Eisenhower Institute, CSIS, Brookings, and AEI. Georgetown University, the University of Washington and the University of Chicago are also members of note. If the grand brains with their studies, executive reports, and statistics were not enough to overwhelm the uninitiated, there are members like the Livingston Group (Bob Livingston, ex-Congressman), the Cohen Group (William Cohen ex-SECDEF) and ex-Congressman Stephen Solarz. All three are paid big bucks by the Turkish interests to work on their behalf in the halls of the US Congress and the Pentagon.

America Gives Birth to New EuroAsia

Now, before you yell Conspiracy! you might want to think Necessity and Stability, particularly in light of the opening to Central Asia, the Caucasus and the new Europe provided by 9-11. Pull up Net maps of Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Europe. Once you�ve done that, consider what political, economic and military activities (defined as US national interests) the United States has underway in those regions. It is no less than the development of a US-dominated New EuroAsia that includes the �Stans�, Ukraine, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Belarus, Romania, Bulgaria, Czech, Croatia, and Poland. Crazy? Hardly, it is a brilliant gamble. There are many compelling reasons to create a New EuroAsia with the US with a controlling interest.

First, there�s the little matter of energy resources. The fact is that the both regions possess an abundance of resources and those countries there that don�t are key transit points for the movement of energy. With the US becoming more reliant on a stable world market for energy it�s imperative to stabilize and exploit available resources.

Second, Americans have all the candy and weapons systems they need. New markets for American products are critical for American economic survival.

Third, with WWII having ended a mere 60 years ago, US foreign policy is still very much in the hands of America�s anti-Soviet/Chinese Cold Warriors. Hence, Russia-China encirclement remains part and parcel of US policy. US military outposts close to the Russia and China�s borders dot the landscape in the New EuroAsia. As Space Daily reported, US mobile missile defense batteries are likely to appear at these bases since CONUS based systems are doomed to failure. US military outposts will also allow quick jump off points for covert operations into Russia and China, interdiction of black market WMD and their components, and drug interdiction.

Fourth, to compete against the combined economic forces of the European Union (EU), it is necessary to have a leveraging position in the New EuroAsia. For example, the EU�s Inogate Program is a source of concern for the US as Europe has been busy for years laying the groundwork for new energy sources and transit points. The US was late to that game and is still playing catch-up.

Fifth, isolating and destabilization Iran remains paramount. Such has been the policy since the 1980�s. As recently reported, US Unmanned Aerial Vehicles have been launched from bases in Iraq to spy on Iran�s military infrastructure and nuclear reactor sites. In all likelihood such activity has been underway at least since the beginning of the 21^st Century�s US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.  

The Guiding Light

ATC�s is joined in the creation of the New EuroAsia by the American Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce (AACC). AACC�s Honorary Council of Advisors just happens to have Scowcroft and the following persons of significance: Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brezinski, Lloyd Benston, John Sununu and James Baker III. Former Council members include Dick Cheney and Richard Armitage, former Undersecretary of State. Board of Trustee members include media-overkill subject Richard Perle of AEI, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, and Frank Verrastro of CSIS.

The US Kazakhstan Business Association (UKBA) features, among others, benefactors and members ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, Lockheed Martin, and Halliburton. Richard Armitage was honored last year by the UKBA and indicated in his remarks that stable economies and representative government were essential for the future of Central Asia. No argument there. He opined that �many of the nations in the region still have a long way to go toward that destination [democracy], and Kazakhstan can and should, in my view, serve as a guiding light in that journey.� Yet according to Human Rights Watch, the US State Department, Armitage�s former employer, indicated in February 2004 that �The [Kazak] Government�s human rights record remained poor, and it continued to commit numerous abuses.�  In its annual report on the Kazakh government�s rights record, the State Department noted that the government of Kazakhstan �severely limited citizens� right to change their government and democratic institutions remained weak�[and that it] �restricted freedom of assembly and association and limited democratic expression by imposing restrictions on the registration of political parties.�  It further stated that, �Corruption was evident at every stage and level of the judicial process.� 

Friends in Odd and High Places

�It is a place of total lawlessness, where men with guns rule and human life carries little value. There are no human rights, one resident told me. "We don't know if we'll be alive tomorrow or even five minutes from now." It is inconceivable that a fair election can take place in this climate of fear, where shooting and forced disappearances happen on a daily basis. Civilians continue to be the main victims of this conflict. It is possible that as many as 200,000 people have been killed in the two wars combined. Many I speak with say they see the election as little more than window dressing for the West. All the while, military operations continue. "Not a single night goes by without someone disappearing. Masked men come into homes and take people away."  A handful of buildings associated with oil companies are undergoing renovation. The only building in good shape is the presidential palace.

There is no running water for residents. People must buy water daily. They depend on generator power for electricity. I walked around the market, which was full of shoppers buying fruits and vegetables. This same market was attacked by missiles at the beginning of the current war, killing more than 100 people. For the first time in my life I felt what it is like to be utterly without rights, at the mercy of men with guns.�

Baghdad Burning writing from Iraq, you say? Nope, it�s a former American Committee for Peace in Chechnya Committee (ACPC) staffer writing about her trip to Chechnya. Chechnya? But not to worry, our men and women of the ACPC, separated by only six degrees from their cohorts at ATC and AACC have things under control. ACPC wasfounded in 1999 and is chaired by former National Security Advisor Zibigniew Brezinski, former Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig, Jr., and former Congressman Stephen J. Solarz. ACPC, according to its website, is composed of more than one hundred distinguished Americans representing both major political parties and nearly every walk of life. And who are those 100 Americans? Well, to name a few, there�s Geraldine Ferraro, former Democratic candidate for vice president; Frank Gaffney, CEO of the Center for Security Policy whose Board members include Doug Feith, Gordon Sullivan, CEO of the Army Association of the USA and Bob Livingston of the Livingston Group; Elliot Abrams and Mike Ledeen; and, who would have guessed that Richard Gere and PJ O�Rourke would be members of the ACPC.

And the story gets routine and boring as it moves on.  The Honorary Chair of the American Georgia Business Council (AGBC) is James Baker III. Its members include ExxonMobil, Northrop Grumman and Ernst and Young. President of the AGBC is S. Enders Wimbush, a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute and former SAIC and Booz Allen Hamilton employee. A trustee of note on the Hudson Institute is Al Haig. The same connections, whether through individuals or organizations, can be found for Ukraine and Belarus, as well as Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

Six Degrees of Zbigniew Brezinski

No one argued and schemed more forcibly or convincingly for a New EuroAsia than Zbigniew Brezinski, Jimmy Carter�s National Security Advisor, and a candidate for the role of Waldo in Where�s Waldo, The Movie (tough competition coming from James Baker III).

As Wikipedia puts it of Brezinski, �In the 1990�s he formulated the strategic case for buttressing the independent statehood of Ukraine, partially as a means to ending a resurgence of the Russian Empire, and to drive Russia toward integration with the West, promoting instead �geopolitical pluralism� in the space of the former Soviet Union. He developed �a plan for Europe� urging the expansion of NATO, making the case for the expansion of NATO to theBaltic Republics. He also served as U.S. Presidential emissary to Azerbaijan in order to promote the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline.  Further, he led the effort to increase the endowment for the U.S.-sponsored Polish-American Freedom Foundation from the proposed $112 million to an eventual total of well over $200 million.�

All that accomplished through the power of Associations. Association ideas rubber stamped by the US Congress and backed by US military force. It�s no surprise that it was in the decade of the 1990�s, long out of the US government and working through private sector Associations, that Brezinski�s and corporate America�s EuroAsia creation would be formalized and ultimately be realized. It all happened far sooner than expected thanks to an opportune breakdown in US security on September 11, 2001. Nonetheless, the center of gravity for it all has been the ATC and its affiliates in the Association world.

The individuals and organizations in the ATC, AGBC, ACPC, UKBA, and similarly populated groups, are in control of the design and action plans to secure America�s national interests in the New EuroAsia. It�s the same story for other regions of the world -- Africa, Indonesia, etc. -- and even here on America�s domestic front. Does a Congressman or woman have a bright idea? Does the President have a special agenda? If they do, you can be sure it came from an Association.

Perhaps this is part of the American Republic�s maturation process: more intelligent and visionary governance by Association rather than through the messy process of millions voting by the ballot box or e-voting. In such a scheme, the US Congress and the Presidency would be relegated to a symbolic role, sort of like that played by the King and Queen of England. The US security establishment would be called into action based on the voting results of a Congress of Associations. Then again, when you cast your vote, you are in essence voting the Association platform. Sound bizarre? Such is today�s world. When Richard Armitage can say with a straight face that Kazakhstan should be the guiding light of democracy in Central Asia, it�s time to swallow the bitter pill of reality and recognize that how America governs itself, and designs and implements policy, is changing. Whether the US and the world will be better off remains to be seen.

Teddy Roosevelt once said that, �Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.�

That was a smart thing to say in 1906 when business and politics were still trying to figure each other out. In 2005, he�d be dismissed as an opponent of America�s national interests as there is no difference between the two.

John Stanton is a Virginia based writer specializing in political and security matters. His most recent book is America 2004: A Power But Not Super. He is working on an article discussing Sibel Edmonds and the ATC, along with a book on America�s Defense Related Non-Profits. Reach him at: cioran123@yahoo.com.

Other Articles by John Stanton

* Interview With God
* Iraq Survey Group: Donald Rumsfeld's Al Qaeda
* Turkey, Drugs, Faustian Alliances & Sibel Edmonds
* United Kingdom, United States and Israel: Kings of Pain
* Don�t Live the Lie, Boycott It
* Which Way John Kerry?
* The End of Freedom
* Landmine Mania: America�s Love Affair with Anti-Personnel Mines
* The Ghost of Adolph Hitler: Nazi Influence in America

489 Nog enige spektakulaire 911 docu's.

Massimo Mazzucco maakte enkele zeer goede documentaires, zoals:

- The New American Century. 
"Historically accurate, narratively captivating, The New American Century is one of the best films about the facts behind the 9/11 attacks." --Webster G. Tarpley

- Cancer, the forbidden cure.
- The true history of marihuana.


en:
-  September 11, the New Pearl Harbor. 
Deze docu wordt door David Ray Griffin ten zeerste aanbevolen.

 -------------

Dan is er nog een mevrouw met een zeer joodse naam. Rebekah Roth, en ze heeft jarenlang diep onderzoek gedaan.
Daarover heeft ze twee boeken geschreven.
Ze signaleert dat de vele gesprekken met mensen in de gekaapte vliegtuigen, niet mo0gelijk waren. Maar de tapes zijn er wel.  Volgens haar zijn de vliegtuigne geland en in hangaars gezet: er is een vliegveld ontruimd kort voor de 911 aanslagen, en vermoedelijk zijn daar de vliegtuigen geland.
Er zaten flink wat 'insiders' aan boord, en die zullen wel hier of daar hun leven verder leven. Maar de andere mensen zijn vermoedelijk vergast of vermoord.

Als stewardess hoorde ze welke onjuistheden deze stewardessen in hun verhaal vertellen. En welke regels ze overtreden. Maar de lui die 911 organiseerden konden dit bijna niet weten, en lieten het passeren.

Ook volgde ze het spoor van de uit Israel afkomstige 'Art students' en volgens haar zijn het deels Mossad agenten.  Die  verdenkt ze er van dat ze de gebouwen hebben gewired: van springstoffen hebben voorzien.

Een ander verhaal is dat over rabbie Dov Zakheim en zijn bedrijf SPC dat een apparaat verkocht aan vlieg-maar=tschappijen dat de maatschappij in staat stelt  om een gekaapt vliegtuig geheel over te nemen qua besturing, en zo te landen. Daarna worden de kapers overmeesterd.
Ze zegt: waarom is dit niet gebruikt tijdens 911 ?
En ze zegt: Dov Zakheim had dus de mogelijkheid om de vliegtuigen te laten vliegen zoals hij wilde.  Zakheim werd later een heel hoge ambtenaar in het Witte Huis.

Dit is een interview met Roth:

9/11 BOMBSHELL: METHODICAL DECEPTION -- Rebekah Roth

Hier een kort uittreksel uit bovenstaande video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg7Qt4bV0B8 

488 Een kernoorlog was dichterbij dan we wisten

Post WW2 World Order: US Planned to Wipe USSR Out by Massive Nuclear Strike

© East News/ USA/Science Photo Library

POLITICS

20:12 15.08.2015(updated 13:29 22.08.2015) Get short URL

Ekaterina Blinova

2710903709

Was the US deterrence military doctrine aimed against the Soviet Union during the Cold War era really "defensive" and who actually started the nuclear arms race paranoia?

Just weeks after the Second World War was over and Nazi Germany defeated Soviet Russia's allies, the United States and Great Britain hastened to develop military plans aimed at dismantling the USSR and wiping out its cities with a massive nuclear strike.

Interestingly enough, then British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had ordered the British Armed Forces' Joint Planning Staff to develop a strategy targeting the USSR months before the end of the Second World War. The first edition of the plan was prepared on May 22, 1945. In accordance with the plan the invasion of Russia-held Europe by the Allied forces was scheduled on July 1, 1945.

Winston Churchill's Operation Unthinkable

© FLICKR/ DVIDSHUB

Old Russophobia Lies at the Root of Modern Cold War Against Russia

The plan, dubbed Operation Unthinkable, stated that its primary goal was "to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire. Even though 'the will' of these two countries may be defined as no more than a square deal for Poland, that does not necessarily limit the military commitment."

The British Armed Forces' Joint Planning Staff underscored that the Allied Forces would win in the event of 1) the occupation of such metropolitan areas of Russia so that the war making capacity of the country would be reduced to a point to which further resistance would become impossible"; 2) "such a decisive defeat of the Russian forces in the field as to render it impossible for the USSR to continue the war."

British generals warned Churchill that the "total war" would be hazardous to the Allied armed forces.

However, after the United States "tested" its nuclear arsenal in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, Churchill and right-wing American policy makers started to persuade the White House to bomb the USSR. A nuclear strike against Soviet Russia, exhausted by the war with Germany, would have led to the defeat of the Kremlin at the same time allowing the Allied Forces to avoid US and British military casualties, Churchill insisted. Needless to say, the former British Prime Minister did not care about the death of tens of thousands of Russian peaceful civilians which were already hit severely by the four-year war nightmare.

"He [Churchill] pointed out that if an atomic bomb could be dropped on the Kremlin, wiping it out, it would be a very easy problem to handle the balance of Russia, which would be without direction," an unclassified note from the FBI archive read.

© REUTERS/ US ARMY

An atomic cloud billows above Hiroshima city following the explosion of the first atomic bomb to be used in warfare in Hiroshima, in this handout photo taken by the U.S. Army on August 6, 1945, and distributed by the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. The words written on the photo are from the source

Following in Churchill's Footsteps: Operation Dropshot

Unthinkable as it may seem, Churchill's plan literally won the hearts and minds of US policy makers and military officials. Between 1945 and the USSR's first detonation of a nuclear device in 1949, the Pentagon developed at least nine nuclear war plans targeting Soviet Russia, according to US researchers Dr. Michio Kaku and Daniel Axelrod. In their book "To Win a Nuclear War: the Pentagon's Secret War Plans," based on declassified top secret documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, the researchers exposed the US military's strategies to initiate a nuclear war with Russia.

"The names given to these plans graphically portray their offensive purpose: Bushwhacker, Broiler, Sizzle, Shakedown, Offtackle, Dropshot, Trojan, Pincher, and Frolic. The US military knew the offensive nature of the job President Truman had ordered them to prepare for and had named their war plans accordingly," remarked American scholar J.W. Smith ("The World's Wasted Wealth 2").

These "first-strike" plans developed by the Pentagon were aimed at destroying the USSR without any damage to the United States.

The 1949 Dropshot plan envisaged that the US would attack Soviet Russia and drop at least 300 nuclear bombs and 20,000 tons of conventional bombs on 200 targets in 100 urban areas, including Moscow and Leningrad (St. Petersburg). In addition, the planners offered to kick off a major land campaign against the USSR to win a "complete victory" over the Soviet Union together with the European allies. According to the plan Washington would start the war on January 1, 1957.

Nuclear Bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki Was Unjustified – US Experts

For a long period of time the only obstacle in the way of the US' massive nuclear offensive was that the Pentagon did not possess enough atomic bombs (by 1948 Washington boasted an arsenal of 50 atomic bombs) as well as planes to carry them in. For instance, in 1948 the US Air Force had only thirty-two B-29 bombers modified to deliver nuclear bombs.

In September 1948 US president Truman approved a National Security Council paper (NSC 30) on "Policy on Atomic Warfare," which stated that the United States must be ready to "utilize promptly and effectively all appropriate means available, including atomic weapons, in the interest of national security and must therefore plan accordingly."

At this time, the US generals desperately needed information about the location of Soviet military and industrial sites. So far, the US launched thousands of photographing overflights to the Soviet territory triggering concerns about a potential Western invasion of the USSR among the Kremlin officials. While the Soviets hastened to beef up their defensive capabilities, the military and political decision makers of the West used their rival's military buildup as justification for building more weapons.

Meanwhile, in order to back its offensive plans Washington dispatched its B-29 bombers to Europe during the first Berlin crisis in 1948. In 1949 the US-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed, six years before the USSR and its Eastern European alliesresponded defensively by establishing the Warsaw Pact — the Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation, and Mutual Assistance.

© AP PHOTO/ FILE

The mushroom cloud of the first atomic explosion at Trinity Test Site, New Mexico. July 16, 1945

Soviet Nuclear Bomb Test Undermined US Plan

Just before the USSR tested its first atomic bomb, the US' nuclear arsenal had reached 250 bombs and the Pentagon came to the conclusion that a victory over the Soviet Union was now "possible." Alas, the detonation of the first nuclear bomb by the Soviet Union dealt a heavy blow to US militarists' plans.

"The Soviet atomic bomb test on August 29, 1949 shook Americans who had believed that their atomic monopoly would last much longer, but did not immediately alter the pattern of war planning. The key issue remained just what level of damage would force a Soviet surrender," Professor Donald Angus MacKenzie of the University of Edinburgh remarked in his essay "Nuclear War Planning and Strategies of Nuclear Coercion."

Although Washington's war planners knew that it would take years before the Soviet Union would obtain a significant atomic arsenal, the point was that the Soviet bomb could not be ignored.

© AP PHOTO/ DIMITRI MESSINIS

The Yugoslav Wars: Story of Serbian Genocide Still Remains Untold

The Scottish researcher highlighted that the US was mainly focused not on "deterrence" but on "offensive" preemptive strike. "There was unanimity in 'insider circles' that the United States ought to plan to win a nuclear war. The logic that to do so implied to strike first was inescapable," he emphasized, adding that "first strike plans" were even represented in the official nuclear policy of the US.

Remarkably, the official doctrine, first announced by then US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles in 1954, assumed America's possible nuclear retaliation to "any" aggression from the USSR.

US' Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP)

Eventually, in 1960 the US' nuclear war plans were formalized in the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP).

At first, the SIOP envisaged a massive simultaneous nuclear strike against the USSR's nuclear forces, military targets, cities, as well as against China and Eastern Europe. It was planned that the US' strategic forces would use almost 3,500 atomic warheads to bomb their targets. According to US generals' estimates, the attack could have resulted in the death of about 285 to 425 million people. Some of the USSR's European allies were meant to be completely "wiped out."

"We're just going to have to wipe it [Albania] out," US General Thomas Power remarked at the 1960 SIOP planning conference, as quoted by MacKenzie.

However, the Kennedy administration introduced significant changes to the plan, insisting that the US military should avoid targeting Soviet cities and had to focus on the rival's nuclear forces alone. In 1962 the SIOP was modified but still it was acknowledged that the nuclear strike could lead to the death of millions of peaceful civilians.

© EAST NEWS/ UNIVERSAL HISTORY ARCHIVE/UNIVERSAL IMAGES GROUP

John Fitzgerald Kennedy (May 29, 1917 - November 22, 1963), 35th President of the United States, serving from 1961 until his assassination in 1963

The dangerous competition instigated by the US prompted Soviet Russia to beef up its nuclear capabilities and dragged both countries into the vicious circle of the nuclear arms race. Unfortunately, it seems that the lessons of the past have not been learnt by the West and the question of the "nuclearization" of Europe is being raised again.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150815/1025789574/us-planned-to-wipe-out-ussr.html#ixzz3l0VFHDaD

487 Een kernoorlog is dichterbij dan we denken.

William Polk was professor op Harvard.
Hij maakte ook deel uit van de deskundigen op het Witte Huis tijdens de Cuba Crisis.
De wereld is toen op het nippertje ontsnapt aan een kernoorlog, dankzij de grote moed van Chroestjov en Kennedy, zo schrijft hij hieronder.
Ook op andere momenten waren we dicht bij een kernoorlog, gewoon als gevolg van technisch  of menselijk falen.  Polk houdt zijn hart vast voor de huidige ontwikkelingen.


Pushing the Edge on Nuclear War

Official Washington’s neocons and liberal hawks are ratcheting up tensions again over Ukraine with the goal of humiliating and even destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia – and there’s no modern-day JFK to tamp down the enthusiasm, an existential risk that ex-U.S. diplomat William R. Polk examines.

By William R. PolkAugust 30, 2015 "Information Clearing House" -   Decisions on nuclear weapons are and will remain the most important part of our quest for world security since even small mistakes or wrong actions would probably be catastrophic. We now seem to be moving closer to the danger point of provoking their use. So I want particularly to emphasize four points on the issues we all face and then raise a few other general considerations:
–Technical mistakes are always possible. More have happened than is generally known. In the Eisenhower administration, NORAD at least once spotted on radar a flight of geese over Iceland and went to Red Alert. It took a critical period of minutes to recognize the cause and stand down the alert. During that time, the danger of a missile launch or an aircraft attack was clear and present.
Some years later, a nuclear bomb was actually dropped on America (by a U.S. Air Force bomber flying where it should not have been while carrying a weapon it should not have been carrying).  Fortunately, the firing mechanism was faulty and the bomb did not go off. Had it detonated, in the confusion SAC and other formations would have been hard to stop from reacting to the supposed attacker. These are just two of many incidences of dangerous times.
I fear that we are again heading into dangerous times.
–Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is often said to be “stable” under certain conditions. It follows that it becomes unstable under others. Thus, we can predict that since our world is in rapid transformation, we cannot rely upon temporary stability.
For years, as former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara observed, we have had at least 500 missiles armed with nuclear weapons on “hair trigger” alert in Europe. If you multiply the number of missiles by the number of months, the scattering of sites over a large area and continuous changes of personnel, it is obvious that even the best designed systems of command and control are always fragile.
Much more fragile is the situation in countries that do not spend the enormous amount of money (and talent) required to maintain missiles and nuclear weapons. Without “upkeep,” both missiles and bombs are inherently dangerous. And dangerous both to the country in which they are located and to their assumed targets. I find this particularly worrisome in the confrontation between India and Pakistan.
–Decisions on war and peace are often discussed in the abstract. That is, the assumption is that decision on their use is determined by “national” interests. As has been said, “The risk and consequences of nuclear war are so great as to outweigh any possible advantage in trying to use them.” That gives some analysts and practitioners a sense of security. They should not have it.
That is because decisions are not made by “nations” but by people. And, in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the deadly serious war game (designed by Thomas Schelling) played in the Pentagon (by teams of the most senior U.S. officials) demonstrated that there were circumstances in which even sober, well-informed and intelligent officials would find that their less ruinous choice would be opting for general war. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Ukraine War: A Reverse Cuban Missile Crisis.”]
Ironically, I think we owed much of the “success” we had in the Cuban Missile Crisis not to the agreement to withdraw the Jupiter missiles from Turkey, although this was clearly necessary and I had long been advocating it, but to the bravery or even foolhardiness of  Nikita Khrushchev.  He risked a coup d’état and certain death by accepting the humiliation we necessarily imposed on him.
And Kennedy, of course, deserves great credit for partially masking the Russian defeat. That was the real significance of the withdrawal of the Jupiters. Had other men been in the White House or the Kremlin, the outcome might have been very different. I might not be writing or you reading. We both would probably have long since been dead (or for those of you born after 1962, you might never have lived).
–Since human beings make the decisions, we must be aware of decision makers’ vulnerabilities. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, I was one of about 25 civilians fully engaged in the events. I was not at the center but in the second or third “echelon.” So I did not feel the full strain, but by the Thursday of the Crisis, I was thoroughly exhausted. My judgment must have been impaired even though I was not aware of it.
I do remember, however, a terrible episode – fortunately lasting only a few minutes – at which I thought to myself, “let’s just get it over with.” When later I met with my Soviet counterparts, I got the impression, although they denied it, that my feelings were not unique. How the strain impacted on the inner group I can only guess. But reading McNamara’s later remarks, I suspect they were far stronger than on me.
Now, please consider a few other random issues:
First, contrast North Korea and Iraq: the logical deduction from the contrast of our approach to North Korea (which does have weapons) and Iraq (which did not) is that having a nuclear arsenal is the ultimate, sometimes the only, defense.
If defense is decided upon as a national objective, as presumable all governments will decide, nuclear weapons must be acquired covertly to avoid attack in the acquisition phase. This is presumably and logically still a danger in the Iran case if the Congress turns down the current agreement.
Second, Iran (along with Japan and other countries) illustrates that the division between nuclear bomb possession and nuclear bomb potential is fungible. If the Bush administration had pushed even harder toward a war with Iran or had Israeli threats been even more dire, Iran might have added to its extant and growing nuclear establishment, which then did not produce weapons, weapons from North Korea or Pakistan – and/or gone all out to build its own.
That would not have been an irrational act by “mad mullahs” but, under the circumstances, a wise move. Under parallel circumstances, the United States certainly would have done it. Russia, China, India and Pakistan did it. Israel is a different but comparable case.
Third, the India-Pakistan confrontation raises another related question. Even though Pakistan took much punishment in three wars without using its nuclear weapons, we should not be deluded into thinking that it never will. There must be a “red line” beyond which a nuclear war is inevitable.
Fourth, some commentators have argued that the risks of escalating to nuclear exchanges are so obvious and so well known that they will have a conservative effect on everyone. Generally that is true, but we have seen situations where decision-making  is variable, unpredictable, even irrational.
And, events which appear “singular” are actually steps in a process. Thus, when an act is taken and fails to produce the desired result or calls for a reaction, it may and usually does become step “A.” Step “B” becomes the logical extension. And somewhere down the alphabet successive steps became inevitable.
In the Cuban Crisis, JFK was acutely aware of this. He was determined not to be trapped by sequence, but it was difficult to avoid. Our military, as I had reason personally to see, was not so aware or so guided by concern with “process.”
Would the Pakistani general staff be smarter than ours? Does Pakistan have a civilian commander to take the place of JKF? And, finally, does Pakistan have a group that could perform like the Crisis Management Committee and other advisers in and around the presidency? If so, I have not seen them.
Fifth, Americans, and presumably all other peoples, have very short memories. This may be less true of officials than of the general public, but my reading of history and my experience in government make me doubt it.
I would wager that if one tested even supposedly well-informed college students on the report Carl Sagan orchestrated with some our leading scientists on the effects of nuclear weapons he would find little knowledge, understanding – or fear. And beyond students, I shudder to think what the result would be. (It would be a very useful contribution to world peace to republish Sagan’s report. I summarized it in a previous article.) To call it horrifying is to mince words.
Since we cannot predict how our own successors will act – and certainly cannot predict how other governments in the future will act – I argue that in anyone’s hands, nuclear weapons are deadly threats to us all. It follows that we must try, as we intermittently and feebly have tried in the past, to get rid of them before they get rid of us.
The argument is often made that reduction to a “sufficient” deterrent number could work, but what that number would be, who could determine it for the several nation-states and how it could be enforced is, I think at best, problematical. Beyond zero, everything is slippery.
Sixth, Henry Kissinger to the contrary, there is no such thing as limited nuclear war. Kissinger, Schelling, Kahn, Wolhstetter et al were perhaps deluding themselves, but they certainly were deluding us.
This was the major result of the Pentagon war game I cited above. The war game showed conclusively that the basis of our Cold War strategy was perhaps just lucky but certainly was not decisive.  However, no one wanted to consider the result. We had invested in a whole industry of Cold War rhetoric and were determined not to give it up.
Last, while the minute hand on the clock on the cover of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is probably now a bit further from midnight than at various times in the past, there are fresh warning signs that:
–We are moving back toward a confrontation with Russia over Ukraine. And, while Russia is not so formidable as it appeared a generation ago, it still has a nuclear arsenal as large and as deployable as ours. Led by us, NATO is moving into areas of great sensitivity;
–While North and South Korea seem to have reached a sort of deal over at least propaganda and artillery exchanges, all the elements are in place for further trouble;
–While the fate of Kashmir and the division of water between India and Pakistan catch our attention less often, the risks of a serious confrontation remain;
–While Israeli threats to bomb Iran appear to have worn somewhat thin, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to threaten war;
–While the United States has backed off from its blockade and sanctions program against Iran, the prospects for hostilities remain if Congress refuses to recognize the Iran nuclear agreement
If we want our children and grandchildren to live, we had better use the “minutes” before midnight to get our act in better shape, rather than just sitting back and relaxing. We have much to do and now is the time to get started.

William R. Polk is a veteran foreign policy consultant, author and professor who taught Middle Eastern studies at Harvard. President John F. Kennedy appointed Polk to the State Department’s Policy Planning Council where he served during the Cuban Missile Crisis. His books include:Violent Politics: Insurgency and Terrorism; Understanding Iraq; Understanding Iran; Personal History: Living in Interesting Times; Distant Thunder: Reflections on the Dangers of Our Times;and Humpty Dumpty: The Fate of Regime Change.