Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger often is a sign of obesity, of lost control, of overcomplexity, of cancerous cells

Cold War II

Skepticism > Political Skeptic > Fifth Column of Neoliberal Globalization > Color revolutions

News Pathological Russophobia of the US elite Recommended Links British roots of US Rusoophobia Demonization of Putin Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism
Possibility of China-Russia military alliance Neoconservatism as an attack dog of neoliberalism Hillary "Warmonger" Clinton Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak Conversion of Democratic Party into War Party and Hillary Clinton policy toward Russia Trump foreign policy platform
Nulandgate Who Shot down Malaysian flight MH17? Putin stands up to US and G8 warmongers on Syria Hillary the warmonger Hillary role in Libya disaster Hillary role in Syria bloodbath
Neoliberal Propaganda MSM Sochi Bashing Rampage as prolog to war with Russia Russian Ukrainian Gas wars Russian foreign policy Ambush of Russian Su-24 over Syria Ukraine: From EuroMaidan to EuroAnschluss
Obama: a yet another Neocon To whom EuroMaidan Sharp-shooters belong? EU-brokered agreement on ending crisis The Far Right Forces in Ukraine Odessa Massacre of May 2, 2014 Suppression of Russian language and culture in Ukraine
Compradors Fifth column NGOs as braintrust of color revolutions Resurgence of ideology of neo-fascism Totalitarian Decisionism & Human Rights: The Re-emergence of Nazi Law Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair
Delegitimization of Ruling Party Two Party System as polyarchy Opposition as a way to get rid of feeling of inferiority Human right activists or globalism fifth column Exploiting "Revolutionary Romantics" as polit-technology The art of manufacturing of prisoners of consciousness
Secular Stagnation Economics of Peak Energy The Guardian Slips Beyond the Reach of Embarrassment Foreign Agents Registration Act Russian Fifth column Humor Etc

The Russian and US perceptions of war are totally different: for a Russian the war is a fight for survival as an individual and as a nation, for a US person war and killing are just another day in the office. And that includes perception of the risks of "Cold War" turning into hot.  Jingoism of the current US elite is really crazy: ‘Kill Russians and Iranians, threaten Assad,’ says ex-CIA chief backing Clinton. And this is not some drunk schmuck in the pub.  This is a  top CIA official, who twice served as the acting director of the agency

In an interview with Charlie Rose in August 2016, Morell blamed Syrian President Assad, Russia, and Iran for the death toll in Syria.[28] He called on the moderate opposition in Syria to make Russia and Iran "pay a price" for their involvement in Syria, in part by targeting their military personnel in the country.[29] He also called on the US to begin bombing Syrian government targets in order to bring Assad to the negotiating table.[30] Regarding President Bashar al-Assad, Morell argued "I want to go after those things that Assad sees as his personal power base. I want to scare Assad."[29]

You would think that this guys is a crazy psychopath (thanks God he retired form CIA in 2013). But his views reflect the views of a large swat of Washington political establishment. And President Trump actually fulfilled Hillary bidding and attacked Assad's military installations, the action  which Morell argued for.   Which opened a new chapter in Cold War II history.

Key events of Cold War II

Generally we can think about Cold War II as consisting of several phases, signified by particular events:

  1. Phase I
    1. Prehistory (1991-1999). The USA, especially Bill Clinton administration,  wanted to weaken, isolate and subdue Russia since the dissolution of the USSR (using corrupt regime of drunk Yeltsin as a puppet and Harvard mafia as economic advisors; Russian neoliberals who came to power in Russia after the dissolution of the USSR  allowed fox to guard the chickens and faced consequences )  and encouraged efforts to dismember it (via support of Chechen radicals and islamists, in general).
    2. 1999: War against Yugoslavia as the demonstration of Russia neo-colonial status.  Primakov flight U-turn over Athlantic
    3. 2000: Putin ascendance to power as a reaction to Yeltsin regime failings and neo-colonization of Russia.  Kursk submarile disaster CBS news then broke the story that the United States had three ships in the vicinity observing the naval exercise that Kursk was taking part in. Two of the three ships were submarines, later determined to be USS Memphis and USS Toledo, type 688 Los Angeles class fast attack submarines which are often used for covert intelligence gathering.  USS Memphis, reported by Norway to be undergoing repairs at a Norwegian naval yard.
    4. 2001: Neocons get full power in Bush II administration and started to implement PNAC agenda. September 11, 2001 events. Invasion of Afghanistan with Russian support (via North Alliance) with large supplies of Russian arms.
    5. 2003: Colin Powell lies to UN in his speech about Iraq weapons of mass destruction(full text) falsely accusing Iraq regime of producing chemical weapons. Subsequent invasion of Iraq under false evidence and occupation of Iraq. The USA uses events in Afghanistan to establish military bases in former Soviet republics starting the operation of "encirclement" of Russia. For some period of time Russia allowed transport of military cargo via its territory. this stopped only after "NATO sanctions" were introduced in 2014.
    6. 2008: In august 2008 Georgia staged invasion of north Ossetia which resulted in Russian military operation against Georgia (called the war with Georgia). This was the first time Russia opposed US sanctioned actions of US allies. And did it militarily.
    7. 2011: "We say, we came, he died". The USA fooled Russian President Medvedev into supporting "no-fly zones" which were interpreted by West as the cart blanche for full scale bombing of Gaddafi regime. American and British naval forces fired over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles,[20] the French Air Force, British Royal Air Force, and Royal Canadian Air Force[21] undertaking sorties across Libya and a naval blockade by Coalition forces. French jets launched air strikes against Libyan Army tanks and vehicles. The Libyan government response to the campaign was totally ineffectual. Regime soon fell and Gaddafi was brutally murdered.
    8. 2011-2012 attempt to stage a color revolution in Russia by Obama administration (with Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State), using the power of NGOs and neoliberal fifth column to prevent return of Putin to power ("white revolution" of 2012)
  2. Phase II
    1. 2014: Anti-Russian hysteria during Sochi Olympics, Ukrainian coup d'état and introduction of sanctions. Malaysian flight MH17  tragegy that points to a false flag operation
    2. 2015: Russian involvement in Syria and Ambush of Russian Su-24 bomber by Turkey.
    3. 2016: US deploy offensive and dangerous to Russian strategic forces "missile shield" in Poland and Romania, continuing the policy of encirclement of Russia. On May 12, 2016 US missile shield in Romania goes live to Russian fury
    4. 2016: Anti-Russian hysteria during and after Presidential elections. Democtatic Pary turns into the second War party in Washington and the level of jingoism and anti-Russian hysteria reached unprecedented level.
    5. 2017: As a reaction to Hillary loss in 2016 election fierce  Neo-Mccratyism campaign against Russia was launched, with the level of demonization of Russia justifiable only if the USA is reading population for a war.  The Congress starts the investigation of Russian meddling into the US Presidential Elections.
    6. April 2017: Hopes about Trump more reasonable approach to foreign policy and detente with Russia vanished. Under relentless attacks of neocons, which actually resemble a color revolution" (called Purple revolution) Trump folded. Attack on Syrian airbase followed, which actually signify direct attack on Russian involvement (and policy) in Syria. It was masked as a reaction on Khan Sheikhoun gas attack (which, most probably, was a false flag operation)

Sanction as official start of Cold War II

What is called "sanctions" is essentially the "official" start of Cold War II. Not everybody  understand this. Russians tend to obscure this fact with bravado. "Sanctions is not only a challenge, but also can serve as a useful resource for our country economic development" -- said the first deputy head of the Presidential Administration Vyacheslav Volodin, in his address to the seminar meeting with officials of the government of subjects of the Russian Federation and representatives of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation which took place Dec 1-3.

"Today, the state conducts an internal policy that really reflects the interests and enjoys the support of the absolute majority of the Russian people. For example, the reunification of the Crimea and Sevastopol to Russia has supported more than 93% of Russian citizens" noted Vyacheslav Volodin. "But the highest level of support for government policy - not a reason to calm down and relax. This is the issue of preversing this huge level of credibility, great expectations of people. It is important to use this social energy for development of the country, addressing major social and economic problems. "

"The current economic situation is today is an inflected on us stress test for the government, for the economy, for the country as a whole," - said Vyacheslav Volodin.

"This is an opportunity to see who is who. World leaders of the 20th century took place at different times this path - the path of development in the face of opposition of the environment, trade wars, sanctions and restrictions. Some of the countries, such as China, have been able, in spite of the sanctions regime, to build one of the strongest economies in the world and dramatically improve the quality of life of its citizens. Such an opportunity does exist for us too. "

According to Vyacheslav Volodin, economic recovery should be a continuing priority for the country. Sanctions - this is an additional opportunity to resolve overdue to restructure the domestic market, provided support for domestic manufactures.

"Import substitution and new industrialization, which we discussed back in the pre-election articles and messages of the President of the Russian Federation in 2012 and 2013 - a key aspect of state sovereignty,"

I would recommend Volodin to listen famous Russian song, almost a hymn of Russian navy Varyag.  Russia now faces the whole NATO alliance, which is by oprder or magnitute is more powerful economically.  

Putin assessed situation in more sober way (From 28 min Putin discuss sanctions), but still I think underestimated the capabilities of the "collective West" led by the USA to wreck Russian economy. And while Biden is a regular neocon chickenhawk (essentially Hillary in pants), behind him  like an aircraft carriers stand 500 largest US companies and the whole US military industrial complex which wants war: 

The U.S. and the European Union imposed sanctions on people and companies close to President Vladimir Putin after Russia annexed the Black Sea Crimea peninsula in March. Ukraine has accused Russia of supplying weapons, military vehicles and mercenaries to separatists, which Russia denies. The two nations are also in conflict over gas, with Russia cutting off supplies this week because of unpaid bills.

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said Putin's government faces the threat of further economic sanctions if it doesn’t do more “to exercise its influence among the separatists to lay down their weapons and renounce violence, both of which Russia has thus far failed to do,” according to a statement released by the White House yesterday.

And it is not accidental that  the World Bank, one of the cornerstones of world neoliberal economic order,  has designed two scenarios for the growth of the Russian economy in 2014 taking into account increased risks over the Crimean crisis (MOSCOW, March 26 (RIA Novosti)

The first variant is based on short-term influences of the events in Ukraine on Russia's economy, and the second, threats of a serious shock and downturn of the gross domestic product (GDP).

"The scenario with a low level of risk presupposes that actions over the Crimean crisis will be limited and short-term and with a prognosis of a slowing economic growth to 1.1 percent in 2014 and a slight increase to 1.3 percent in 2015,"

according to a World Bank report on the Russian economy published on Wednesday.

French politician Philippe de Villiers Without Russia Europe has no future by Viacheslav

Q: What do you think about the "war of sanctions" that Russia waged against the West?

Philippe de Villiers: I will answer you as a person, seriously studied history. It was not even a single case where sanctions would lead to the desired result. Moreover, they give the opposite result.

Country against which an embargo is introduced, usually finds the hidden reserves and becomes stronger. Sanctions by themselves - it is an act of war, they hurt the pride of the people, and those mobilized, concentrated, what is happening now in Russia. In French, one of the meanings of the word "sanctions" refers to a school dictionary. Teacher allowed to punish the student to apply to it "sanctions." But as far as I know, Mr. Putin is not a disciple of Mr Barroso. Sanctions lead to retaliatory sanctions to a dangerous chain of mutual blows.

Cooperation between countries - it is an act of peace. Our joint project of theme parks in Russia and indeed this is. Support him, President Putin has committed an act of peace. I appeal to all the French entrepreneurs to follow suit in order to strengthen ties and friendship between France and Russia.

The Colder War Has Begun… and Russia Is Winning!

Eye-opening new book reveals that Vladimir Putin has launched an ingenious yet devastating plan to strip America of its superpower status. And he’s not using bombs or tanks to do it!

Free Book - The Colder War
Instead, he’s grabbing control of the global energy trade—the largest source of demand for the dollar and the bedrock of American might and prosperity.

Should Putin win, he could nuke the US economy and cost the average American dearly.

That’s why I want to send you a FREE copy of this book to help you prepare for this epic struggle that will define this decade and the century to come.


“ The Colder War provides a reversing contrast from the hysterical "Putin is Stalin, Jr., let's restart the Cold War" message emanating from the neocon think tanks and the mainstream media. Marin Katusa shows the real threat to the American people... "

Ron Paul



Dr. Ron Paul
former US Congressman, founder of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
Dear Reader,

Putin has transformed Russia from a sickly former Soviet state into an energy powerhouse to become:
The second-largest oil exporter in the world, on pace to pass Saudi Arabia very soon;
The largest uranium exporter in the world, powering 1 in 10 American homes;
The largest natural gas exporter in the world, doling out with an iron fist and willing to cut off supply and watch harsh winters kill thousands to get its way.

While America and the West weren’t watching all this develop, Marin Katusa had a front-row seat. He’s seen Putin’s mounting influence on the global energy trade firsthand.

And as you’ll discover in his new book, The Colder War, the US can no longer afford to ignore Putin.


“ Marin Katusa is raising some good questions about how the world's energy markets really work. He provides some good answers too. Many readers are not going to like them. Those are the people who most need to read this book."

William Bonner


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

Home 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section

Cold War II 2017 2016 2015 2014

[May 24, 2019] We need to bring clarity to Russiagate false flag operation

May 24, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Scipio Africanuz , 42 minutes ago link

Fair enough. Because AG Barr, and Special Counsel Mueller are both servants of Law, whose side we really align with, we'll attempt to bring much needed clarity to the Russiagate brouhaha..

Some folks sought dirt (both sides), some folks colluded (both sides), some folks tampered (one side), some folks obstructed (one side), but one side alone, is stonewalling..

Let's decompress..

The Democrats sought dirt on Trump, their IC (Intelligence - really? - Community) allies, arranged to procure dirt, liasing with other IC (Not necessarily state employed) allies in other countries (Brits might be state though). They got the sexed up dossier, compiled for pay, possibly by some Ukrainian folks, who know some Georgian folks, who have as contacts, some Russian folks, who might have had some as friends, some shady Russian folks, who knew some folks, who used to work in the Russian IC..

The Russian government, state, or president were NOT involved and how to be sure, because if you know anything about Russians, or Putin in particular, it is this..They find it extremely difficult, and highly uncomfortable to be hypocritical, it's a cultural ethos and how so?

Because to vehemently complain about actions against the Russian state (American interference), while yet engaging in same, would undermine their credibility, moreover, Russia knows that if it did, the American IC would know, have the evidence, and throw it at them thus, discrediting any Russian grievances about American interference in internal Russian affairs..

Basically, the DNC was trolled via the IC, but NOT by the Russian government, and Mueller found evidence of that..it's hard to swindle a honest person.

Now, the Trump side also sought to obtain dirt on Clinton and made the egregious mistake of publicly calling upon Russia to provide emails that was in fact, available to any competent IA (Intelligence Agency), thus undermining his stated desire to rebuild relationship with Russia.

Fortunately for Trump, and unfortunately for Russia, a DNC staff had downloaded much revelatory data about DNC shenanigans, provided it to Wikileaks, who released it, and made Clinton's run doomed to failure. Russia was NOT involved, it was Trump's uncouth carelessness that created the impression of Russian involvement..

So far so good, along the way, investigations were undertaken by Comey's FBI, who discovered breaches and shenanigans, but was "stood aside" by Loretta "call it a matter" 'Lynch', in the hopes that a Clinton victory would truly bury the violations as a matter..

Comey, believing Clinton would win, and thus immunize him, decided however, to procure insurance just in case, by dropping the bombshell of "careless handling of communication", though still believing Clinton would win despite..

Well, it didn't work out that way and thus, stage 2 was embarked upon..

But we're getting ahead of ourselves..

The Trump campaign colluded with some middle eastern folks to interfere in legitimate US policies while yet a president had to finish his term, thus undermining American policy. Kushner was the middle man, pecuniary benefits were the motivation..

Now, let's unpack stage 2..

Having lost the election, and looking for a scapegoat, and intending to cover up DNC rigging shenanigans, amongst other violations, Clinton seized upon Trump's careless demand to Russia, that were it not for Russia, she would have won - the gambit is called denial of reality. Thus was innocent Russia embroiled in a situation it had nothing to do with..

The Russophobes, MIC, shell shocked Democrats, all sorts of political jobbers, media whores, and sundry folks on the make, egged on privately, saw an opportunity to cash in, and jumped on the Russiagate bubble, which then hired Mueller, who was thoroughly professional in ensuring decorum of golden silence while doing his task..

The media whores and jobbers however, pumped up the Russiagate bubble, wrote books, got shows, made out like bandits, along with the MIC who got a big boost to the "offense budget", and even European counterparts got in on the swindle and made big bucks..

And Russia? Poor Russia got hammered with sanctions, and when Crimea went home, even more severe sanctions. What the Europeans didn't expect however, was the Russian countersanctions which hit European economy like the "hammer of Thor", and you've heard of that hammer, right? Right!

So the Europeans started thinking that maybe sanctions were not a good idea after all but then, entered perfidious Albion, marketing the Skripal hoax, similar to the Steele dossier and foolish Europeans, they ramped up the sanctions, their economies suffered, Russia's acquired resilience and grew, ha!..

Then entered karma..

Brexit stalled, ripped Britain in two, destroyed the party of the "highly lijely" allegers, defenestrated the British economy, sent Gavin "toy soldier" Williamson packing, sent Theresa "let's try again" May packing, and handed the keys to the kingdom to Nigel Farage, sworn enemy of the Tories, ha!..

Meanwhile in Europe, the sanctioners are facing the revolt of the commons, with folks demanding, and seizing their sovereignty back and why? The economy goddamn it! The laws of unintended consequences strike again..

Back across the Atlantic, while the crescendo of Mueller time ramped up, the investigatee, began making series of mistakes to make the investigator go away, including obstructing the course of investigation, bombing folks, attempting to overthrow folks, bribing folks with the properties of others, which actions then unleashed a fresh round of karma, ha!..

Then just like that, the AG unleashed a round of terror, the Democrats parried, unleashed theirs, the AG ducked, unleashed some more missiles, the Democrats barraged the AG. And out of right field, a Republican rep answered his conscience, and tossed a Molotov cocktail in the mix, destabilising the equilibrium of strikes and counterstrikes..

As if that were not enough, a former Republican congressman fired an artillery shell of impeachment into the melee. Previous to that, the rattled investigatee had begun stonewalling, thus giving ammunition to his opponents to impeach him, who now accuse him of "covering up" and thus ramping up the pressure, and suggesting perhaps a "leave of absence" might help, and even praying for the mental wellbeing of the investigatee, ha!..

Then, out of central field enters Mueller, who offered to testify in private, further rattling the investigatee, which chance was utilized by the investigators to rattle him further, with the gambit of "infrastructure talks", which unbalanced the investigatee to declare "investigation or infrastructure, choose one!", thus revealing his rattledbess, which his antagonists utilized to declare chewing gum and walking, is easy peasy, thus negating the ultimatum..

Meanwhile, the investigatee just lobbed a tomahawk at his nemesis in the IC, thus escalating the feud as is absolutely necessary..

So, there you have the Russiagate mess, that doesn't involve Russia, but a lot of unscrupulous Americans, some Britons, and middle easterners, but no Russia, interesting, right? Right!

Now what happens next? Stay tuned, as ramps are upped. The problem for the investigatee, is that the legislative investigators will probably sacrifice some IC legates to win the feud, investigatee on the other hand, can't afford to sacrifice anyone because of proximity to person.

The investigators hold some aces, the other side? Well..

Concisely, there was no Russian (government) collusion, but there were lots of other crimes and misdemeanors on both sides, against the Law, cheers...

[May 24, 2019] Trump Orders FBI, CIA To Fully Cooperate With Barr; Grants Full And Complete Authority To Declassify

Some comments slightly edited for clarity...
Notable quotes:
"... where is the investigation into the Clinton Foundation and other "initiatives"? Where is the Wasserman Schultz/Awans mafia investigation? Where is the investigation into the DNC server? the Seth Rich murder? ..."
"... It will be a lot less costly than the Mueller circus and a lot more devastating to the true "bad guys" here, the ones who used public resources to spy on political enemies and tried (are still trying) to pull off a coup. ..."
"... I don't like Trump, but I can see this ******** for what it is, and we need to nip these banana republic-like tactics in the bud and excise these bad actors from our intelligence services. ..."
"... Everything will be released and the public will finally see how the Obingo regime, being confident of the Pantsuit Pig's coronation, attempted to destroy Trump and anyone connected to him. ..."
"... I'm sure many registered Ds are fine people. Their party is, however, currently controlled by neoliberal parasites... ..."
"... Not sold that Barr is the real deal yet. Sessions was supposed to be that (and he was the opposite). Wray at FBI was supposed to be and appears he's not. ..."
"... The Republicans are part of the coup. At best, they stand by and watch the deep state crimes take place in broad daylight like cows watching a passing train while one or two Republicans strut and fret, signifying nothing ..."
"... And they [the Congress] don't seem to grasp that voters have been very aware of that and are watching them more closely. 2020's election may be a Waterloo for establishment pols who have revealed themselves as partisan and stupid, as well as utterly corrupt. ..."
"... What better example of twisted neoliberal logic is it that the left cries that Trump releasing documents is the next phase of the "cover up" Yet, that is exactly what Schiff is crying about today" ..."
"... "While Trump stonewalls the public from learning the truth about his obstruction of justice, Trump and Barr conspire to weaponize law enforcement and classified information against their political enemies," Schiff wrote. "The coverup has entered a new and dangerous phase. This is un-American." ..."
"... Trump fully cooperated with Mueller. Now it's time to uncover the real corruption. ..."
"... Faced with an obama admin that illegally spied on private citizens, campaigns, etc...unmasked, etc.....and after 2 years of a special prosecutor who knew - on Day1 - there was no collusion (afterall, they'd had spies in the campaign for a year already)....the democrats claim TRUMP is a threat to democracy BC he pushes back on their OBVIOUS illegal activity. ..."
"... It's probably too much to ask that Schiff be revealed as one of the scum that pushed this along. Water and Cummings too, while we're at it. As far as Nadler is concerned, I think Trump loves to squeeze him and make him squeal. I kind of like that too, but he'll need to get clobbered by all this to even things out a little. ..."
May 24, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

whatafmess , 2 minutes ago link

where is the investigation into the Clinton Foundation and other "initiatives"? Where is the Wasserman Schultz/Awans mafia investigation? Where is the investigation into the DNC server? the Seth Rich murder?

good if any of those FBI, CIA, NSA traitors go under but really we want the top dogs, not the underlings only...

learnofjesuits , 11 minutes ago link

dirty tricks of intelligence agencies:

always remember - all intelligence agencies are controlled by luciferian Vatican, NWO is agenda of luciferian Vatican to continue domination, Trump is protestant and conflict is on this plane (if there is real one)

wake up muricans, or you on drugs ?

ludwigvmises , 16 minutes ago link

So how many millions of my tax payer money are they going waste on this useless sh**? And where's my wall to keep my daughters safe?

onewayticket2 , 13 minutes ago link

useless?? if they're not investigated, i 100% guarantee you spying will be the norm 5 seconds after it's clear there's no real investigation into the crimes they committed.

so these criminals should just walk free? how can you take that position while simultaneously arguing that a wall should be put up to stop criminals from walking free - and into the USA.?

fackbankz , 10 minutes ago link

It will be a lot less costly than the Mueller circus and a lot more devastating to the true "bad guys" here, the ones who used public resources to spy on political enemies and tried (are still trying) to pull off a coup.

I don't like Trump, but I can see this ******** for what it is, and we need to nip these banana republic-like tactics in the bud and excise these bad actors from our intelligence services.

CAPT DRAKE , 27 minutes ago link

Since when have these assholes cooperated with anyone?

vofreason , 28 minutes ago link

Yeah so we will learn what we already know that all of the investigating was justified based on evidence and then Trump will hypocritically block anything else looking into what actually happened. He's a con man and a stupid one.

onewayticket2 , 22 minutes ago link

If that were the case, explain why Mueller and Weismann didn't throw the book at trump....you KNOW they wanted to......they had a court justified fishing expedition with no budget and no scope....40 FBI agents, 17 top democrat supporting DOJ lawyers....and nothing.

If, as you say, the "investigation" was justified, why didn't Mueller and Weismann put that on Page One... vs not mentioning it at all....? (and no....Trump stating "Hey Russia! if you have those emails, why don't you hand them over to the press....they'll reward you!" is not justification for spying on him)

valerie24 , 13 minutes ago link

Yes, it is imperative because you can bet the MSM AKA Globalist propaganda arm will never tell the people the truth, which means that roughly 10% of the population might actually know what happened.

Vince Clortho , 36 minutes ago link

The political landscape just got interesting-er. Go long on finger-pointing, screeching, and general cacaphony.

spaniel , 39 minutes ago link

Yeah , everybody is guilty of something. Case closed ?

Scipio Africanuz , 32 minutes ago link

How do you know who's guilty without investigation or trial? American jurisprudence says "Innocent until found guilty", no? To trial, you must investigatee, and gather facts, right? Right!

Rule of Law - it's not just a phrase, it's the foundation of a stable society, cheers...

chubbar , 23 minutes ago link

Obama was running a covert operation called "The Hammer" against americans and politicians for the purposes of blackmail. This isn't some sort of tit for tat political game, it's ******* Treason and it could have been the last time we saw any part of our constitution enforced forever.

I want those fuckers hung, not humiliated. This isn't a "feud" or any of the other labels used to diminish what happened here. It's TREASON, words matter, let's start using the correct terms.

valerie24 , 32 minutes ago link

Yeah whatever happened to Weinstein? Did they make it all go away and buy him his own Pedo island somewhere? Never did hear the outcome.

yerfej , 1 hour ago link

Everything will be released and the public will finally see how the Obingo regime, being confident of the Pantsuit Pig's coronation, attempted to destroy Trump and anyone connected to him. BUT what is going to be interesting is watching the left lie to themselves about the former (and current) Democratic leadership. Nothing in society will change until the left can be honest with themselves AND the public.

The US needs a strong Democratic party but all it is getting is delusional sixties type hippy liars.

Moving and Grooving , 55 minutes ago link

I'm sure many registered Ds are fine people. Their party is, however, currently controlled by neoliberal parasites... I wish I thought they were 60's hippies, but they look more like a fifth column bent on destroying America to me. Farage is dealing with a similar mess in Britain.

valerie24 , 28 minutes ago link

"Pantsuit Pig" - classic +1000 Haven't heard that before.

onewayticket2 , 1 hour ago link

Not sold that Barr is the real deal yet. Sessions was supposed to be that (and he was the opposite). Wray at FBI was supposed to be and appears he's not.

I hope the admin is not just trying to get along as DC has done for decades (aka....two sets of laws). The democrats are at war with the republicans and the republicans are still operating under the Rodney King philosophy of "why cant we just get along??"

larrythelogger , 54 minutes ago link

Almost a Yahtzee. The Republicans are part of the coup. At best, they stand by and watch the deep state crimes take place in broad daylight like cows watching a passing train while one or two Republicans strut and fret, signifying nothing.

At worse, they fall down, roll over and **** themselves whenever a neocon whispers boo in their ears. This action should bring prison time for the coup criminals but alas, my guess is that it will continue to sell sheets and pillows and strawberries and home security systems via talk radio for the next two years and that is all that will happen.

onewayticket2 , 25 minutes ago link

I forgot.

....Huber was supposed to be and he's still not interviewed key witnesses after a year on the job. So, he was just for show.

chubbar , 19 minutes ago link

Yeah, but what has Durham been doing? It's been rumored he has been on the job for a year or so, not just a few weeks. Lots of moving parts. The next month or so will reveal the truth of the matter, one way or the other.

valerie24 , 7 minutes ago link

Huber is a Utah guy which to me means he's likely Mormon, which also means he probably was appointed to get Romney off Trumps back as some sort of favor. Color me skeptical.

ducksinarow , 1 hour ago link

I have a visual impression of the media standing around with their mouths open to receive the manna from reporter heaven. The neoliberal side spitting it out as soon as it drops and the conservatives chewing on the information. Much like birds in the wild trying to feed its nest of birdling babies. Some will get the point and it will go over other's heads.

Then there will be another investigation deciding if Trump declassified only the information that makes him look good. At this rate, Congress is entirely useless as a legislative body attending to the needs of the country such as better health care rates, protection from murderous invaders, and cleaning up all of the unmitigated rules and legislation that keeps business with its hands tied behind their backs if they are legitimately trying to sell product.

Moving and Grooving , 49 minutes ago link

'Congress is entirely useless as a legislative body'

And they [the Congress] don't seem to grasp that voters have been very aware of that and are watching them more closely. 2020's election may be a Waterloo for establishment pols who have revealed themselves as partisan and stupid, as well as utterly corrupt.

My take? Primary as many incumbents as possible, then beat as many of the rest as we can in the General. There's nothing like watching those around you getting fired (and perhaps arrested) to refocus you on your job and your bosses opinion of how well you're doing it, right?

ducksinarow , 1 hour ago link

I would take that bet if it was not about to be Summer and all the nasty little buggers will be on vacation out of the reach of the physical hands of the law enforcement.

I would expect a lot of vacation time will be spent in Countries that have tough expedition laws, probably paid for in advance by those who figured they might get caught at some time in the future but were having too much fun playing risky games with the lives of the voters.

HuskerGirl , 1 hour ago link

What better example of twisted neoliberal logic is it that the left cries that Trump releasing documents is the next phase of the "cover up" Yet, that is exactly what Schiff is crying about today"

"While Trump stonewalls the public from learning the truth about his obstruction of justice, Trump and Barr conspire to weaponize law enforcement and classified information against their political enemies," Schiff wrote. "The coverup has entered a new and dangerous phase. This is un-American."

Trump fully cooperated with Mueller. Now it's time to uncover the real corruption.

Bounder , 1 hour ago link

Only to twisted mind of a democrat could releasing information be considered a cover up!

onewayticket2 , 1 hour ago link

There is so much insanity coming out of the left.....it's all they have.

Faced with an obama admin that illegally spied on private citizens, campaigns, etc...unmasked, etc.....and after 2 years of a special prosecutor who knew - on Day1 - there was no collusion (afterall, they'd had spies in the campaign for a year already)....the democrats claim TRUMP is a threat to democracy BC he pushes back on their OBVIOUS illegal activity.

The T admin better go SCORCHED EARTH on the left or they're toast in 2020.

Moving and Grooving , 1 hour ago link

It's probably too much to ask that Schiff be revealed as one of the scum that pushed this along. Water and Cummings too, while we're at it. As far as Nadler is concerned, I think Trump loves to squeeze him and make him squeal. I kind of like that too, but he'll need to get clobbered by all this to even things out a little.

HuskerGirl , 1 hour ago link

It should go all the way back to Obama and Hillary. And if it shows they've accepted anything from Soros he needs to go down too.

SickDollar , 1 hour ago link

I hope this really goes somewhere. The corruption is so deep

TheAnswerIs42 , 1 hour ago link

Anyone think they will go the Grand Jury route or instead proceed directly to court? The whole process shouldn't take that long as all the groundwork has been done over the last 2 years and $35M worth of investigation. Will they start at the bottom and work their way up or go right for the jugular?

valerie24 , 46 minutes ago link

Jugular I hope. Coney, Brennan, Clapper first - not last. Absolutely have to get them before the 2020 elections or you won't get them at all.

LEEPERMAX , 1 hour ago link

Mueller time is over. The Barr tab is due.

freedommusic , 1 hour ago link

> Speaking of Barack, where has big mouth Obuttface been lately?

I was thinking the SAME EXACT THING this morning. Where the hell is band-aid Barry ?

LEEPERMAX , 1 hour ago link

Look no further than Barack Obama's 8,200-square-foot, $5.3-million Kaloroma mansion just two miles away from the White House and into the nerve center of the mounting insurgency against his successor, President Donald J. Trump.

[May 24, 2019] Paul R. Grenier On Natasha Bertrand's McCarthyite Hit Piece

Despicable neocons like Natasha Bertrand are cowards and attack people only because then feel the power on MIC and intelligence agencies behind their backs
In normal circumstances and normal society she would be the history the next day. But politico is a slimy rag, so what to expect of them
Notable quotes:
"... Politico's "Mueller report reveals Kushner's contacts with a 'pro-Kremlin' campaign adviser" (Politico, April 29, 2019), is dishonest, destructive, and should never have appeared in print. ..."
"... The author of the piece, Natasha Bertrand, initially refers to Dimitri Simes, CEO of the Center for the National Interest, not as an American citizen, although of course he is and has been for many years, nor as a leading representative of realist foreign policy thinking in the United States, which would have also been true. ..."
"... Instead, she initially frames him (in every sense of the word 'frame') as "a Russian willing to assist" the Trump campaign. This word choice rings, and is intended to ring, the Pavlovian bells of the Russia-gate narrative. Aside from being dishonest, her word choice smacks of racism -- a habit, to be sure, which is now widespread, as long as the object of that racism is Russia. ..."
"... 'Maybe Simes is a traitor -- although there are those who think he may not be.' If you accuse some Mr. X of being a rapist, and then add another opinion saying, 'Gosh, I don't think he is a rapist,' what is the impact on the reader? ..."
May 22, 2019 | eastwestaccord.com

Politico's "Mueller report reveals Kushner's contacts with a 'pro-Kremlin' campaign adviser" (Politico, April 29, 2019), is dishonest, destructive, and should never have appeared in print.

The author of the piece, Natasha Bertrand, initially refers to Dimitri Simes, CEO of the Center for the National Interest, not as an American citizen, although of course he is and has been for many years, nor as a leading representative of realist foreign policy thinking in the United States, which would have also been true.

Instead, she initially frames him (in every sense of the word 'frame') as "a Russian willing to assist" the Trump campaign. This word choice rings, and is intended to ring, the Pavlovian bells of the Russia-gate narrative. Aside from being dishonest, her word choice smacks of racism -- a habit, to be sure, which is now widespread, as long as the object of that racism is Russia.

If Ms. Bertrand has regularly watched the program The Great Game (Bol'shaia igra), and understands it, and if she is familiar with Simes' writings and conferences and the publications that appear in The National Interest, then she has no excuse for writing this piece in the first place. The genre to which this piece belongs is clear.

It is called a hit piece.

Bertrand deploys, of course, a few fig leaves of pretend objectivity, which may have helped assuage her conscience, but that is all that these fig leaves can do. What we have here is a list of scurrilous attacks ("he [Simes] is completely pro-Kremlin and always has been"). These attacks are then countered by opinions to the contrary, but without any suggestion as to where the preponderance of evidence lies. There is insufficient detail.

And that is the whole point, isn't it? 'Maybe Simes is a traitor -- although there are those who think he may not be.' If you accuse some Mr. X of being a rapist, and then add another opinion saying, 'Gosh, I don't think he is a rapist,' what is the impact on the reader? In the present context, the impact is this: if you take into consideration a Russian perspective in any way, shape, or form, even for the purposes of avoiding war -- and this is precisely what Simes is constantly doing, and with considerable intelligence and courage -- then you are going to get a nasty hit piece written about you by the likes of Politico and Ms. Bertrand.

I regularly watch The Great Game, which Mr. Simes co-hosts on Channel 1 with Vyacheslav Nikonov, and I have seen how he not just once, but in virtually every single program defends US interests, and disagrees when Russian colleagues try to make a one-sided case against the U.S. Simes regularly invites Atlantic Council spokespersons, or their policy equivalent, to the program, and there they have the freedom to make their case in great detail and without interruption, and inevitably they make statements that are sharply critical of the Russian government and its policies. It is Mr. Simes who sees to it that these voices from the Atlantic Council are heard by the Russian side.

As a result, Simes is carrying out vitally important work of diplomacy that allows for a two-way communication between policy elites on both sides, and he very adeptly is doing so in a way that allows both sides to actually listen and hear what is being said. If he simply screamed politically correct slogans, it would either shut this channel of communications down or turn it into another pointless circus where no one really listens.

I find it baffling that Politico wants to undermine this virtually unique remaining channel of diplomacy. For the sake of what? Would Politico prefer that there be no conversation whatsoever between the US and Russia? Why? Isn't it obviously preferable that we make an effort to understand a potential adversary's perspective, particularly when that potential adversary is the other nuclear superpower? It is astonishing -- and foolish -- that no program anything like The Great Game can be found anywhere in US media. In the US, we hear only variations on our own perspective on our big news programs. Where do we allow voices from the other side to make their case?

Simes should be thanked for his work. Instead what he gets is this hit piece. It is not only disgusting and disheartening, it is frightening.

Paul R. Grenier is a co-founder of the Simone Weil Center for Political Philosophy. He worked for many years as a simultaneous interpreter for the U.S. Defense and State Departments, interpreting for Gen. Tommy Franks and serving as lead interpreter for US Central Command's peacekeeping exercises with post-Soviet states.

[May 24, 2019] Theresa May Cries As She Announces June 7 Resignation

Scripals's poisoning connected Prime Minister soon will be gone for good.
Novichok has lasting effects on British PM ;-) Now it will be much easier to investigate her role in spying on Trump, British government role in creation of Steele dossier, and in launching neo-McCarthyism campaign against Russia (aka Russiagate).
Notable quotes:
"... During her tumultuous tenure as PM, May survived two no-confidence votes. ..."
"... Crying May. What a Loser. Plus, she may have well co-conspired against Trump. ..."
May 24, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

May, the second - but certainly not the last - female prime minister in the UK, will abandon her supremely unpopular withdrawal agreement instead of trying to force it through the Commons for the fourth time. May's decision to call for a fourth vote on the withdrawal agreement, this time packaging it in a bill that could have opened to door to a second confirmatory referendum, was more than her fellow conservatives could tolerate. One of her top cabinet ministers resigned and Graham Brady, the leader of the Tory backbenchers, effectively forced May out by rounding up the votes for a rule change that would have allowed MPs to oust her.

During her tumultuous tenure as PM, May survived two no-confidence votes.

Though May will stay on as caretaker until a new leader can be chosen, the race to succeed May begins now...odds are that a 'Brexiteer' will fill the role. Whatever happens, the contest should take a few weeks, and afterwards May will be on her way back to Maidenhead.

"It is and will always remain a deep regret for me that I was not able to deliver Brexit...I was not able to reach a consensus...that job will now fall to my successor," May said.

Between now and May's resignation, May still has work to do: President Trump will travel to the UK for a state visit, while Europe will also celebrate the 75th anniversary of D-Day.

It's fitting that May touted the virtues of her moderate approach to governance during her resignation speech, considering that her attempts to chart a middle path through Brexit ended up alienating hard-core Brexiteers and remainers alike. Her fate was effectively sealed nearly two years ago, after she called for a general election that cost the Tories their majority in Parliament and emboldened Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

The pound's reaction was relatively muted, as May's decision to step down had been telegraphed well in advance.


CheapBastard , 18 minutes ago link

Crying May. What a Loser. Plus, she may have well co-conspired against Trump.

They should lock her up in the Tower.

keep the bastards honest , 39 minutes ago link

She didn't cry for syrians when she declared bombing Syria and using the firm her husband is involved in,. They made billion, and she didn't cry over her makeover afterwards new hair clothes and big jewels and cuddles with her husband in the media.

bluecollartrader , 45 minutes ago link

She and John Boehner should start a therapy group.

There's no crying in politics.

HRClinton , 27 minutes ago link

The plan was Merkel, May and Hillary.

That's a hell of a bullet we just dodged.

Riiiight. Instead, 10,000 Pentagram "Monitors" will be dodging bullets and bombs in the ME.

"(Bibi,) you'll be so tired of winning" - Candidate Trump

Why, you didn't think that he was talking about America's Main Street, did you? Sucker !

HRClinton , 16 minutes ago link

Many women in esteemed positions are just affirmative action or window dressing to placate the masses with supposed maternal love but they end up being wicked as heck.

Perhaps, but it's worse than that:

They are part of the Divide & Conquer strategy, while (((Global-lusts))) are plundering the Wealth Of Nations and taking over the real reigns of power.

Americants are easily distracted or fooled.

ps. "...wicked as heck." Wicked? Heck? What's up with the careful avoidance of "cuss words"? It's ok, you're safe... No "ladies or preachers" (bitches or scammers) nearby. And the Tylers or NSA won't rat you out.

[May 23, 2019] Why Trump s Huawei Ban Is Unlikely To Persist

Notable quotes:
"... However, nothing in the actual piece talks about security concerns. (I point this out because I perceive a trend towards such misleading summaries and headlines which contradict what the actual reporting says.) ..."
"... These companies do not have security concerns over Huawei. But the casual reader, who does not dive down into the actual piece, is left with a false impression that such concerns are valid and shared. ..."
"... South China Morning Post ..."
"... This move by Google-USG is mostly a propaganda warfare move. Huawei doesn't depend on smartphone sales to survive. It's American market was already small, while China's domestic market is huge. China is not Japan. ..."
"... Trump's heavy handed move against Huawei will backfire. The optic is unsettling; the US looks to be destroying a foreign competitor because it is winning. ..."
"... Until the reserve currency issue favoring the "exceptional" nation changes, the economic terrorism will continue.. ..."
"... What is funny in all these stories, is that there is little to no Huawei equipment (not the end-user smart phone, home router and stuff, but backbone routers, access equipment,..) anywhere in the US -- they are forbidden to compete. Most telcos are quite happy to sell in the US, as the absence of these Chinese competitors allows for healthy margins, which is no longer true in other markets. ..."
"... The US is trying desperately to quash tech success / innovation introduced by others who are not controlled by (or in partnership with) the US, via economic war, for now just politely called a trade war - China no 1 adversary. ..."
"... Attacking / dissing / scotching trade between one Co. (e.g. Huawei) and the world is disruptive of the usual, conventional, accepted, exchange functioning, and throws a pesky spanner in the works of the system. Revanchard motives, petty targetting, random pot-shots, lead to what? ..."
"... The war against Huawei is only one small aspect within the overall Trade War, which is based on the false premise of US economic strength. Most of the world wants to purchase material things, not financial services which is the Outlaw US Empire's forte and most of the world can easily forego. Trump's Trade War isn't going as planned which will cause him to double-down in a move that will destroy his 2020 hopes. ..."
May 23, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

However, nothing in the actual piece talks about security concerns. (I point this out because I perceive a trend towards such misleading summaries and headlines which contradict what the actual reporting says.)

The British processor company ARM, which licenses its design to Huawei, cites U.S. export controls as the reason to stop cooperation with Huawei:

The conflict is putting companies and governments around the world in a tough spot, forcing them to choose between alienating the United States or China .

Arm Holdings issued its statement after the BBC reported the firm had told staff to suspend dealings with Huawei.

An Arm spokesman said some of the company's intellectual property is designed in the United States and is therefore " subject to U.S. export controls ."

Additionally two British telecom providers quote U.S. restrictions as reason for no longer buying Huawei smartphones:

BT Group's EE division, which is preparing to launch 5G service in six British cities later this month, said Wednesday it would no longer offer a new Huawei smartphone as part of that service. Vodafone also said it would drop a Huawei smartphone from its lineup. Both companies appeared to tie that decision to Google's move to withhold licenses for its Android operating software from future Huawei phones.

These companies do not have security concerns over Huawei. But the casual reader, who does not dive down into the actual piece, is left with a false impression that such concerns are valid and shared.

That the Trump administration says it has security reasons for its Huawei ban does not mean that the claim is true. Huawei equipment is as good or bad as any other telecommunication equipment, be it from Cisco or Apple. The National Security Agency and other secret services will try to infiltrate all types of such equipment.

After the sudden ban on U.S. entities to export to Huawei, chipmakers like Qualcomm temporarily stopped their relations with Huawei. Google said that it would no longer allow access to the Google Play store for new Huawei smartphones. That will diminish their utility for many users.

The public reaction in China to this move was quite negative. There were many calls for counter boycotts of Apple's i-phones on social media and a general anti-American sentiment.

The founder and CEO of Huawei, Ren Zhengfei, tried to counter that. He gave a two hour interview (vid, 3 min excerpt with subtitles) directed at the Chinese public. Ren sounds very conciliatory and relaxed. The Global Times and the South China Morning Post only have short excerpts of what he said. They empathize that Huawei is well prepared and can master the challenge:


Andreas , May 23, 2019 10:00:52 AM | 1

It's really huge, that Huawei may no longer use ARM processors.

Huawei is thus forced to develop it's own processor design and push it into the market.

p , May 23, 2019 10:04:34 AM | 2

@1

I do not believe this is precisely what will happen. Huawei already has its licenses purchased. In addition they could decide to disrespect the IP if this was the case.

Arioch , May 23, 2019 10:05:39 AM | 3
Huaweis's suppliers in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan (ROC), and Britain are examining if they can continue to make business with Huawei, while some have already declared a suspension in cooperation.

The issue is that these non-American companies nonetheless use some American components of technology, and if they proceed they will be sanctioned by the US themselves.

It is the same reason why Russia's Sukhoi did not in the end sell its SSJ-100 airliners to Iran -- East Asian tech companies can hardly be expected to be more gung-ho on defying the US than Russia's leading defense plant......

http://www.checkpointasia.net/big-blow-for-huawei-as-japanese-korean-british-firms-reconsider-or-suspend-cooperation-as-well/

Arioch , May 23, 2019 10:10:32 AM | 4
> the Trump administration has created discord where unity is urgently needed

IOW Trump keeps sabotaging USA global integration and keeps steering it into isolation as he long said it should be

Arioch , May 23, 2019 10:14:28 AM | 5
@p #2 - Huawei surely has their processors *as of now*.

That - if USA would not ban Huawei (HiSilicon) processors, because of using that ARM technology. Thing is, Huawei would be isolated from next-generation ARM processors. They are locked now in their current generation.

Even Qualcomm today, for what I know, bases their processors on ARM's "default" schemes, instead of doing their development "from scratch", in a totally independent way. It would push for slow but steady decline as "top" smartphone vendor into "el cheapo" niche.

Arioch , May 23, 2019 10:16:54 AM | 6
At the same time Qualcomm would probably be forced to slash prices down for their non-Huawei customers. https://www.zdnet.com/article/qualcomms-licensing-practices-violated-us-antitrust-laws-judge-rules/
Red Ryder , May 23, 2019 10:17:21 AM | 7
Boeing is the counter-part in the contest to destroy Huawei. China has great leverage over Boeing's future. It is the nation with the biggest market now and downstream for 10-20 years. China need planes, thousands of them.

As for Huawei's chief doubting the prowess of the Chinese students, he only needs to look at the rapidity of the conversion of his nations' economy to a 98% digital economy. All that conversion was done by local, entrepreneurial innovators in the software and hardware tech sector. It happened only in China and completely by Chinese young people who had phones and saw the future and made it happen.

It has been Chinese minds building Chinese AI on Chinese Big Data.

Yes, they need Russian technologists and scientists. Those Russian minds in Russia, in Israel, in South Korea are proven difference makers.

The need China now has will meet the solution rapidly. For five years, the Double Helix of Russia-China has been coming closer in education and R&D institutes in both nations. China investors and Chinese sci-tech personnel are in the sci-tech parks of Russia, and Russians are in similar facilities in China. More will happen now that the Economic War against China threatens.

Huawei will have solutions to replace all US components by the end of the year. It will lose some markets. but it will gain hugely in the BRI markets yet to be developed.

In the long run, the US makers will rue the day Trump and his gang of Sinophobes and hegemonists took aim at Huawei and China's tech sector.

oglalla , May 23, 2019 10:40:03 AM | 8
Let's all boycott Most Violent, Biggest Brother tech. Don't buy shit.
vk , May 23, 2019 10:46:37 AM | 9
This move by Google-USG is mostly a propaganda warfare move. Huawei doesn't depend on smartphone sales to survive. It's American market was already small, while China's domestic market is huge. China is not Japan.

Besides, it's not like Europe is prospering either. Those post-war days are long gone.

And there's no contradiction between what the CEO said and the Government line: both are approaching the same problem from different points of view, attacking it from different fronts at the same time. "Patriotism" is needed insofar as the Chinese people must be prepared to suffer some hardships without giving up long term prosperity. "Nationalism" ("politics") is toxic insofar as, as a teleological tool, it is a dead end (see Bannon's insane antics): the Chinese, after all, are communists, and communists, by nature, are internationalists and think beyond the artificial division of humanity in Nation-States.

Ptb , May 23, 2019 11:09:35 AM | 0

Ren Zhengfei's attitude is remarkable, considering his daughter ia currently held hostage.
ken , May 23, 2019 11:15:25 AM | 1
Talking Digital and security in the same sentence is laughable.... NOTHING Digital is 'secure',,, never has,,, never will.

Digital destroys everything it touches. At present, excepting for now the low wage States, it is destroying economies ever so slowly one sector at a time. This has nothing to do with security and everything to do with the dying West, especially the USA which is trying desperately to save what's left of its production whether it be 5G, Steel plants or Nord Stream. The West created China when it happily allowed and assisted Western corporations to move the production there in order to hide the inflation that was being created for wars and welfare and now has to deal with the fallout which eventually will be their undoing.

Jackrabbit , May 23, 2019 11:22:20 AM | 2
A full-blown trade war was probably inevitable, driven by geopolitical concerns as much or more than economics.

One wonders what each of China and US has been doing to prepare. It seems like the answer is "very little" but since it's USA that is driving this bus, I would think that USA would've done more to prepare (than China has).

PS It's not just Boeing. China also supplies the vast majority of rare earth minerals.

Red Ryder , May 23, 2019 11:24:39 AM | 3
@10,

Her captivity and probable imprisonment in the US explain his attitude. She is a high profile pawn. The US must convict her in order to justify what they have done to her so far. She may not serve time, in the US prisons, but she will be branded a guilty person, guilty of violating the Empire's rules (laws).

Imagine Ivanka in the same situation. Her daughter singing in Mandarin would be little help. The Trump Family will be a number one target for equal treatment long after "45" leaves office.

The US Empire is wild with Power. All of that Power is destructive. And all the globe is the battlefield, except USA. But History teaches that this in-equilibrium will not last long.

Jackrabbit , May 23, 2019 11:26:33 AM | 4
We've seen how Europe caved to US pressure to stop trading with Iran. Now Japan and others are caving to pressure to stop trading with China. There is already pressure and negotiation to stop Nordstream. And all of the above leads to questions about Erdogan's resolve.
alaric , May 23, 2019 11:38:11 AM | 5
Trump's heavy handed move against Huawei will backfire. The optic is unsettling; the US looks to be destroying a foreign competitor because it is winning.

The ramifications of trade war with China (where the supply and manufacturing chain of most consumer electronics is these days) is disruptive. Trump has created uncertainty for many manufacturers since there is Chinese part content is just about everything these days. Some manufacturers might relocate production to the US but most will try to simply decouple from the US entirely.

Exposure to the US is really the problem not exposure to China.

Jackrabbit , May 23, 2019 11:53:44 AM | 8
b: Why Trump's Huawei Ban Is Unlikely To Persist

The trade war with Iran was also unlikely to persist. But it has persisted, and deepened as European poodles pretended to resist and then pretended not to notice that they didn't.

A new Bloomberg opinion piece agrees with that view

No, it doesn't b. You say USA trade war will fail because it lacks international support. Bloomberg says USA should get international support to make it more effective. The difference is that it is highly likely that USA will get international support. It already has support from Japan.

USA has proven that it can effectively manipulate it's poodle allies. Another example is Venezuela where more than two dozen countries recognized Guido only because USA wanted them to.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <>

It's not Trump but the US Deep State that causes US allies to fall in line. Any analysis that relies on Trump as President is bound to fail as his public persona is manipulated to keep Deep State adversaries (including the US public) off-balance.

Like President's before him, Trump will take the blame (and the credit) until another team member is chosen to replace him in what we call "free and fair elections".

ben , May 23, 2019 11:54:24 AM | 9
Until the reserve currency issue favoring the "exceptional" nation changes, the economic terrorism will continue..
Jeff , May 23, 2019 12:00:34 PM | 0
What is funny in all these stories, is that there is little to no Huawei equipment (not the end-user smart phone, home router and stuff, but backbone routers, access equipment,..) anywhere in the US -- they are forbidden to compete. Most telcos are quite happy to sell in the US, as the absence of these Chinese competitors allows for healthy margins, which is no longer true in other markets.

So the Huawei ban hits first and foremost the US' partners.

bjd , May 23, 2019 12:00:38 PM | 1
@ben (19)

China can only undo the US-exceptionalsim if and when it can visibly project military power. The only way to achieve that is tt has to make great haste in building a few fleets of aircraft carriers, fregats and destroyers, etc. It must build a grand, visibly magnificent Chinese Navy.

ben , May 23, 2019 12:02:59 PM | 2
big time OT alert;

Modi wins in India, another victory for the world oligarchs. Exactly mimicking conditions in the U$A. Media and governmental capture by the uber wealthy...

Noirette , May 23, 2019 12:04:16 PM | 3
(Ignorant of tech aspects.)

The US is trying desperately to quash tech success / innovation introduced by others who are not controlled by (or in partnership with) the US, via economic war, for now just politely called a trade war - China no 1 adversary.

Afaik, the entire smart-phone industry is 'integrated' and 'regulated' by FTAs, the WTO, the patent circuit, the Corps. and Gvmts. who collaborate amongst themselves.

Corps. can't afford to compete viciously because infrastructure, aka more encompassing systems or networks (sic) are a pre-requisite for biz, thus, Gvmts. cooperate with the Corps, and sign various 'partnerships,' etc.

sidebar. Not to mention the essential metals / components provenance, other topic. see

https://bit.ly/2K1pj3d - PDF about minerals in smarphones

Attacking / dissing / scotching trade between one Co. (e.g. Huawei) and the world is disruptive of the usual, conventional, accepted, exchange functioning, and throws a pesky spanner in the works of the system. Revanchard motives, petty targetting, random pot-shots, lead to what?

karlof1 , May 23, 2019 12:05:01 PM | 4
As I wrote in the Venezuela thread, major US corps are already belt tightening by permanently laying off managers, not already cut-to-the-bone production staff, and another major clothing retailer is closing its 650+ stores. And the full impact of Trump's Trade War has yet to be felt by consumers. As Wolff, Hudson and other like-minded economists note, there never was a genuine recovery from 2008, while statistical manipulation hides the real state of the US economy. One thing that cannot be hidden is the waning of revenues collected via taxes which drives the budget deficit--and the shortfall isn't just due to the GOP Congress's tax cuts.

The war against Huawei is only one small aspect within the overall Trade War, which is based on the false premise of US economic strength. Most of the world wants to purchase material things, not financial services which is the Outlaw US Empire's forte and most of the world can easily forego. Trump's Trade War isn't going as planned which will cause him to double-down in a move that will destroy his 2020 hopes.

Arioch , May 23, 2019 12:05:34 PM | 5
@vk #9

> Huawei's phones American market was already small, while China's domestic market is huge

Here is that data, for 2017, outside the paywall: https://imgur.com/a/8bvvX9B

Data for 2019 is probably slightly different, but the trends should keep on. That data also does not separate Android-based phones from non-Android phones. So, segmenting Android into Google and China infrastructures would mean

1) Huawei retains a $152B market - China
2) Huawei retains an unknown share in $87B market - APAC
3) Huawei loses a $163,9B market - all non-China world.

At best Huawei looses 40,7% of world market. That if all APAC population would voluntarily and uniformly drop out of Google services into Huawei/China services (which they would not). At worst Huawei retains 37,7% of the marker (if APAC population would uniformly follow Google, which they would not either).

[May 22, 2019] War with Iran could send oil prices to $250 per barrel

This is unfounded speculation. No facts.
Notable quotes:
"... The Iranian goal is to break the resolve of the US, given American military retreats from the Middle East in the past – Lebanon (1984), Iraq (2011), and Syria (presently) – and to increase the cost of Iranian oil sanctions on the global economy through additional disruptions to supply. ..."
"... This is obviously a dangerous game that could lead to real war, not just proxy war. As a result, it is important to explore the potential impact of both on the world oil market, despite the latter being significantly more likely than the former. ..."
"... On the deterrence front, the US has moved numerous military assets to the Persian Gulf region since the Trump administration's "no waiver" oil sanctions came into effect. These include: hastening the arrival of a carrier strike group; deployment of a bomber task-force; additional Patriot missiles; and as reported by The New York Times, drawing up plans to send up to 120,000 US troops to the Middle East, if Iran attacks US forces or rushes to develop nuclear weapons. ..."
May 21, 2019 | www.rt.com

As tensions between Iran and the US continue to escalate, analysts have begun to consider the likelihood and consequences of an Iran war. There has been much talk of an Iran War in recent weeks, but the likelihood of a war, whether intentional or accidental, is relatively small for the simple reason that the leaders of Iran and the US don't want one. President Donald Trump, who has been remarkably faithful to his campaign promises, to the chagrin of many, doesn't want another Iraq-like war – with a quick victory followed by a long defeat. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran, doesn't want his revolution and country crushed by the massive military might of America.

This is not to say there aren't powerful individuals in the Trump administration – such as National Security Advisor John Bolton and possibly Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – and regional allies – Israel, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE) – who want a war to bring about regime change in Iran, and who are willing to stir the pot in an attempt to make it happen.

Trump's personal preference for Iran may also be regime change, with a negotiated neutering of the Islamic Republic his next best outcome. But he probably would settle for long-term containment of Iran through his "maximum pressure" campaign, accepting that the Iranian regime would likely be able to sustain itself though skirting sanctions.

Iran has made huge geopolitical gains in the Middle East since the US inadvertently pushed Shiite-majority Iraq into the Iranian sphere of influence by imposing democracy on the country following the 2003 war. Tehran now directly or indirectly controls an arc of territory north of Saudi Arabia – Iraq, Syria and Lebanon – while supporting Houthi rebels to the south of the kingdom in Yemen.

Although US sanctions on Iran's oil and metal exports are unlikely to bring about regime change, they will make it significantly more difficult for the Islamic Republic to consolidate its territorial gains and sustain its regional proxy network, as the government will have to prioritize domestic spending to maintain social stability. Simply put, the sanctions make it more difficult for Iran to directly challenge its regional enemies, Israel, Saudi Arabia and UAE and score additional foreign policy victories.

Despite an aversion to war with the US, it appears Khamenei has given Qassem Suleimani, leader of Iran's powerful Quds Force and national hero, permission to encourage foreign militias aligned with Tehran to cause mischief for US and allied forces in the Middle East, and if possible, disrupt the flow of oil from the region through non-attributed actions.

The Iranian goal is to break the resolve of the US, given American military retreats from the Middle East in the past – Lebanon (1984), Iraq (2011), and Syria (presently) – and to increase the cost of Iranian oil sanctions on the global economy through additional disruptions to supply.

This is obviously a dangerous game that could lead to real war, not just proxy war. As a result, it is important to explore the potential impact of both on the world oil market, despite the latter being significantly more likely than the former.

US Perspective

Pompeo laid out the Trump administration's rationale and strategy for dealing with the Islamic Republic in "Confronting Iran," an article in the November-December 2018 issue of Foreign Affairs . He argued the deal the Obama administration and international community struck with Iran in 2015 – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – was fundamentally flawed as it failed to end the country's nuclear weapons ambition. Instead, the deal simply postponed Iran's nuclear ambitions while the regime continued its ballistic missile program to allow it to deliver a nuclear payload.

At the same time, the deal gave "Tehran piles of money, which the supreme leader has used to sponsor all types of terrorism throughout the Middle East (with few consequences in response) and which have boosted the economic fortunes of a regime that remains bent on exporting its revolution abroad and imposing it at home."

The core of the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign are economic sanctions designed to "choke off revenues" to Iran to force its government to negotiate a "new deal" covering its nuclear activities, ballistic missile program and "malign behaviour" across the Middle East, while providing sufficient military deterrence to keep Tehran from lashing out at US forces and allies in the region.

Trump withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018, and has since ratcheted up economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic in August and November of last year, while going the full monty on Iranian crude and condensate exports at the beginning of May.

On the deterrence front, the US has moved numerous military assets to the Persian Gulf region since the Trump administration's "no waiver" oil sanctions came into effect. These include: hastening the arrival of a carrier strike group; deployment of a bomber task-force; additional Patriot missiles; and as reported by The New York Times, drawing up plans to send up to 120,000 US troops to the Middle East, if Iran attacks US forces or rushes to develop nuclear weapons.

It should be noted that a military buildup of this size would take months, and the 120,000 number is widely viewed as insufficient for a full-scale invasion of Iran. The Islamic Republic has been planning and building up asymmetric military capabilities to thwart a US attack since the 1990s, while the country is larger in size and population than Iraq. The US military plan reported by the New York Times did not call for a land invasion of Iran.

On May 14, Trump denied the New York Times report, but in characteristic fashion appeared to up the ante. "Now, would I do that? Absolutely," Trump said. "But we have not planned for that. Hopefully we're not going to have to plan for that. If we did that, we would send a hell of a lot more troops than that."

But in the Foreign Affairs article Pompeo wrote that Trump does not want the US to go to war with Iran: "President Trump does not want another long-term US military engagement in the Middle East -- or in any other region, for that matter. He has spoken openly about the dreadful consequences of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the 2011 intervention in Libya."

Iranian Perspective

On May 14, Khamenei explicitly said that Iran does not want to go to war with the US, and suggested the same of America, as a war would be in neither country's interest.

"There won't be any war," he said. "Neither we nor they seek war. They know it will not be in their interest."

In terms of Iran's current situation, David Petraeus, ex-CIA director and America's former top general in the Middle East, possibly put it best.

"Certainly, if Iran were to precipitate that [a war], it would be a suicide gesture," Petraeus said on May 9. "It would be very, very foolhardy. And they know that."

The Islamic Republic has done an excellent job of marshaling relatively limited financial and military resources to expand its influence and control through the Middle East since 2003, but its defense budget of about US$16 billion – or a mere 3.7 percent of GDP – falls considerably short compared to regional rivals Israel, Saudi Arabia and UAE on an individual basis, let alone a collective one. The military capabilities of the US dwarf those of Iran on every conceivable measure, which should come as no surprise since America's most recent defense budget is a massive US$686 billion.

Also on rt.com

Khamenei also said his country has no desire to negotiate with the US, given the Trump administration's extreme demands and unilateral breaking of the nuclear pact, and suggested the current crisis will likely be a long one, a view supported by Hassan Rouhani, the democratically elected president of Iran.

"The Iranian nation has chosen the path of resistance," Khamenei said.

Rouhani was even more explicit. Speaking to activists from a wide range of political factions on May 12, he said Iran is facing "unprecedented" pressure from US sanctions and suggested economic conditions may become worse than during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War.

"The pressures by enemies is a war unprecedented in the history of our Islamic revolution," Rouhani said, according to the state news agency IRNA. "But I do not despair and have great hope for the future and believe that we can move past these difficult conditions provided that we are united ."

This article was originally published on Oilprice.com

See also

[May 22, 2019] The KGB plotters of 1991 had thought that post-Communist Russia would be treated by the West like the prodigal son, with a fattened calf being slaughtered for the welcome feast. To their disappointment, the stupid bastards discovered that their country was to play the part of the fattened calf at the feast, and they were turned from unseen rulers into billionaires' bodyguards

May 22, 2019 | www.unz.com

Jake says: Next New Comment May 22, 2019 at 3:27 pm GMT 100 Words This is good writing: "The KGB plotters of 1991 had thought that post-Communist Russia would be treated by the West like the prodigal son, with a fattened calf being slaughtered for the welcome feast. To their disappointment, the stupid bastards discovered that their country was to play the part of the fattened calf at the feast, and they were turned from unseen rulers into billionaires' bodyguards.

Jake says: Next New Comment May 22, 2019 at 3:22 pm GMT Andropov's mother was Jewish.

[May 22, 2019] Israel hacking the world

May 22, 2019 | www.unz.com

Republic , says: Next New Comment May 22, 2019 at 3:40 pm GMT

@Sean McBride

https://www.youtube.com/embed/5VGpWl56ZF0?feature=oembed

Israel hacking the world

[May 22, 2019] No Wonder Obama Intel Chiefs Panicking - Trump To Declassify Bucket 5 Russiagate Docs

I doubt it, because in this case Brennan, Clapper, Rosenstein and Comey might find themselves in hot water. The Deep State protects its functionaries in a sense that they are above the law, so Trump probably will be tamed.
But still the opposing faction of the elite might have some trump cards in the pocket too :-). We just do not know ...
The idea that Steele dossier was the cover-up operation for snooping of Trump via Carter Page FISA application look plausible to me, because it was never published before elections. And Steele started working on the dossier exactly in June 2016. So probably it was first created just for FISA court and only later was used as a weapon for the creating pre-conditions for the appointment of the Special Prosecutor *Rosenstein gambit with firing Comey and appointing Mueller) .
May 22, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Via the Conservative Treehouse :

No-one really knows the extent of the current documents and/or information that may be subject to a Trump declassification request. However, this is the original list as outlined in September 2018, and the agencies who would be involved in the declassification process:

  1. All versions of the Carter Page FISA applications (DOJ) (DoS) (FBI) (ODNI).
  2. All of the Bruce Ohr 302's filled out by the FBI. (FBI) (ODNI)
  3. All of Bruce Ohr's emails (FBI) (DOJ) (CIA) (ODNI), and supportive documents and material provided by Bruce Ohr to the FBI. (FBI)
  4. All relevant documents pertaining to the supportive material within the FISA application. (FBI) (DOJ-NSD ) (DoS) (CIA) (DNI) (NSA) (ODNI);
  5. All intelligence documents that were presented to the Gang of Eight in 2016 that pertain to the FISA application used against U.S. person Carter Page; including all exculpatory intelligence documents that may not have been presented to the FISA Court. (CIA) (FBI) (DOJ) (ODNI) (DoS) (NSA)
  6. All unredacted text messages and email content between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok on all devices. (FBI) (DOJ) (DOJ-NSD) (ODNI)
  7. The originating CIA "EC" or two-page electronic communication from former CIA Director John Brennan to FBI Director James Comey that started Operation Crossfire Hurricane in July 2016. (CIA) (FBI) (ODNI)

♦ President Trump can prove the July 31st, 2016, Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence operation originated from a scheme within the intelligence apparatus by exposing the preceding CIA operation that created the originating "Electronic Communication" memo. Declassify that two-page "EC" document that Brennan gave to Comey. [The trail is found within the Weissmann report and the use of Alexander Downer -- SEE HERE ]

♦ Release and declassify all of the Comey memos that document the investigative steps taken by the FBI as an outcome of the operation coordinated by CIA Director John Brennan in early 2016. [The trail was memorialized by James Comey -- SEE HERE ]

♦ Reveal the November 2015 through April 2016 FISA-702 search query abuse by declassifying the April 2017 court opinion written by FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer. Show the FBI contractors behind the 85% fraudulent search queries. [Crowdstrike? Fusion-GPS? Nellie Ohr? Daniel Richman?] This was a weaponized surveillance and domestic political spying operation. [The trail was laid down in specific detail by Judge Collyer -- SEE HERE ]

♦ Subpoena former DOJ-NSD (National Security Division) head John Carlin , or haul him in front of a grand jury, and get his testimony about why he hid the abuse from the FISA court in October 2016; why the DOJ-NSD rushed the Carter Page application to beat NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers to the FISA court ; and why Carlin quit immediately thereafter.

♦ Prove the Carter Page FISA application (October 2016) was fraudulent and based on deceptions to the FISA Court. Declassify the entire document, and release the transcripts of those who signed the application(s); and/or depose those who have not yet testified. The creation of the Steele Dossier was the cover-up operation. [ SEE HERE ]

♦ Release all of the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages without redactions . Let sunlight pour in on the actual conversation(s) that were taking place when Crossfire Hurricane (July '16) and the FISA Application (Oct '16) were taking place. The current redactions were made by the people who weaponized the intelligence system for political surveillance and spy operation. This is why Page and Strzok texts are redacted!

♦ Release all of Bruce Ohr 302's, FBI notes from interviews and debriefing sessions, and other relevant documents associated with the interviews of Bruce Ohr and his internal communications . Including exculpatory evidence that Bruce Ohr may have shared with FBI Agent Joseph Pientka. [And get a deposition from this Pientka fella] Bruce Ohr is the courier, carrying information from those outside to those on the inside.

♦ Release the August 2nd, 2017, two-page scope memo provided by DAG Rod Rosenstein to special counsel Robert Mueller to advance the fraudulent Trump investigation, and initiate the more purposeful obstruction of justice investigation . Also Release the October 20th, 2017, second scope memo recently discovered. The Scope Memos are keys to unlocking the underlying spy/surveillance cover-up. [ SEE HERE and SEE HERE ]


He–Mene Mox Mox , 22 minutes ago link

If Obama's Intel Chiefs are Panicking over the Declassification of the "Bucket 5" Russiagate Docs by Trump, I am really surprised that they haven't ordered a hit squad to take out Trump. Isn't that normally how the CIA operates?

Think back! Didn't the CIA do that with Kennedy, when he threatened to shut them down? The enormity of the CIA's Bay of Pigs disaster came home to Kennedy to do something, and said to one of the highest officials of his Administration that he “wanted to splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” So, likewise, what is keeping them from terminating Trump to protect their turf?

Of course, Bernie Sanders would be facing the same problem too, since Bernie, during his 1974 campaign for the Senate on Vermont’s Liberty Union Party ticket, called the Central Intelligence Agency “a dangerous institution that has got to go.” Sanders complained that the CIA was only accountable to “right-wing lunatics who use it to prop up fascist dictatorships.”

Jeremy Bash, a former CIA chief of staff who was an adviser to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, told reporter Michael Crowley that Sanders’ comment “reinforces the conclusion that he’s not qualified to be commander in chief.”

Haboob , 34 minutes ago link

Trump is a *** not worth defending anymore.

monty42 , 30 minutes ago link

He's certainly a compliant slave of them at least. Anyone with his ego and self-importance, with such value on his legacy and his name, makes the perfect puppet over a barrel. Just like his predecessor who didn't care as long as he got to smile in the spotlight. It's enough to make a person sick, recycled over and over and over, and people keep chasing that tail.

monty42 , 38 minutes ago link

But still refused to release JFK classified docs. I guess the cabal he works for is waiting until anyone who remembers him is dead, and all that's left are the new wave of retards they're pumping out of their indoctrination camps.

[May 22, 2019] NATO has pushed eastward right up to its borders and threatened to incorporate regions that have been part of Russia's sphere of influence -- and its defense perimeter -- for centuries

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The Economist and Stephens are correct. The trade dispute is merely a small part of a much larger and even more intense geopolitical rivalry that could ignite what Stephens describes as "an altogether hotter war." ..."
"... From the mid-1940s onward, the primacy of the United States was assumed as a given. History had rendered a verdict: we -- not the Brits and certainly not the Germans, French, or Russians -- were number one, and, more importantly, were meant to be. That history's verdict might be subject to revision was literally unimaginable, especially to anyone making a living in or near Washington, D.C. ..."
"... Choose your own favorite post-Cold War paean to American power and privilege. Mine remains Madeleine Albright's justification for some now-forgotten episode of armed intervention, uttered 20 years ago when American wars were merely occasional (and therefore required some nominal justification) rather then perpetual (and therefore requiring no justification whatsoever). ..."
"... Like some idiot savant, Donald Trump understood this. He grasped that the establishment's formula for militarized global leadership applied to actually existing post-Cold War circumstances was spurring American decline. Certainly other observers, including contributors to this publication, had for years been making the same argument, but in the halls of power their dissent counted for nothing. ..."
"... Yet in 2016, Trump's critique of U.S. policy resonated with many ordinary Americans and formed the basis of his successful run for the presidency. Unfortunately, once Trump assumed office, that critique did not translate into anything even remotely approximating a coherent strategy. President Trump's half-baked formula for Making America Great Again -- building "the wall," provoking trade wars, and elevating Iran to the status of existential threat -- is, to put it mildly, flawed, if not altogether irrelevant. His own manifest incompetence and limited attention span don't help ..."
"... There is no countervailing force within the USA that is able to tame MIC appetites, which are constantly growing. In a sense the nation is taken hostage with no root for escape via internal political mechanisms (for all practical purposes I would consider neocons that dominate the USA foreign policy to be highly paid lobbyists of MIC.) ..."
"... In this sense the alliance of China, Iran, Russia and Turkey might serve as an external countervailing force which allows some level of return to sanity, like was the case when the USSR existed. ..."
"... I agree with Bacevich that the dissolution of the USSR corrupted the US elite to the extent that it became reckless and somewhat suicidal in seeking "Full Spectrum Dominance" (which is an illusive goal in any case taking into account existing arsenals in China and Russia and the growing distance between EU and the USA) ..."
May 21, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The Great Power Game is On and China is Winning If America wants to maintain any influence in Asia, it needs to wake up. By Robert W. Merry May 22, 2019

President Donald J. Trump participates in a bilateral meeting with President Xi Jinping at the Great Hall of the People, Thursday, November 9, 2017, in Beijing, People's Republic of China. ( Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead) From across the pond come two geopolitical analyses in two top-quality British publications that lay out in stark terms the looming struggle between the United States and China. It isn't just a trade war, says The Economist in a major cover package. "Trade is not the half of it," declares the magazine. "The United States and China are contesting every domain, from semiconductors to submarines and from blockbuster films to lunar exploration." The days when the two superpowers sought a win-win world are gone.

For its own cover, The Financial Times ' Philip Stephens produced a piece entitled, "Trade is just an opening shot in a wider US-China conflict." The subhead: "The current standoff is part of a struggle for global pre-eminence." Writes Stephens: "The trade narrative is now being subsumed into a much more alarming one. Economics has merged with geopolitics. China, you can hear on almost every corner in sight of the White House and Congress, is not just a dangerous economic competitor but a looming existential threat."

Stephens quotes from the so-called National Defense Strategy, entitled "Sharpening the American Military's Competitive Edge," released last year by President Donald Trump's Pentagon. In the South China Sea, for example, says the strategic paper, "China has mounted a rapid military modernization campaign designed to limit U.S. access to the region and provide China a freer hand there." The broader Chinese goal, warns the Pentagon, is "Indo-Pacific regional hegemony in the near-term and displacement of the United States to achieve global pre-eminence in the future."

The Economist and Stephens are correct. The trade dispute is merely a small part of a much larger and even more intense geopolitical rivalry that could ignite what Stephens describes as "an altogether hotter war."

... ... ..

Russia: Of all the developments percolating in the world today, none is more ominous than the growing prospect of an anti-American alliance involving Russia, China, Turkey, and Iran. Yet such an alliance is in the works, largely as a result of America's inability to forge a foreign policy that recognizes the legitimate geopolitical interests of other nations. If the United States is to maintain its position in Asia, this trend must be reversed.

The key is Russia, largely by dint of its geopolitical position in the Eurasian heartland. If China's global rise is to be thwarted, it must be prevented from gaining dominance over Eurasia. Only Russia can do that. But Russia has no incentive to act because it feels threatened by the West. NATO has pushed eastward right up to its borders and threatened to incorporate regions that have been part of Russia's sphere of influence -- and its defense perimeter -- for centuries.

Given the trends that are plainly discernible in the Far East, the West must normalize relations with Russia. That means providing assurances that NATO expansion is over for good. It means the West recognizing that Georgia, Belarus, and, yes, Ukraine are within Russia's natural zone of influence. They will never be invited into NATO, and any solution to the Ukraine conundrum will have to accommodate Russian interests. Further, the West must get over Russia's annexation of the Crimean peninsula. It is a fait accompli -- and one that any other nation, including America, would have executed in similar circumstances.

Would Russian President Vladimir Putin spurn these overtures and maintain a posture of bellicosity toward the West? We can't be sure, but that certainly wouldn't be in his interest. And how will we ever know when it's never been tried? We now understand that allegations of Trump's campaign colluding with Russia were meritless, so it's time to determine the true nature and extent of Putin's strategic aims. That's impossible so long as America maintains its sanctions and general bellicosity.

NATO: Trump was right during the 2016 presidential campaign when he said that NATO was obsolete. He later dialed back on that, but any neutral observer can see that the circumstances that spawned NATO as an imperative of Western survival no longer exist. The Soviet Union is gone, and the 1.3 million Russian and client state troops it placed on Western Europe's doorstep are gone as well.

So what kind of threat could Russia pose to Europe and the West? The European Union's GDP is more than 12 times that of Russia's, while Russia's per capita GDP is only a fourth of Europe's. The Russian population is 144.5 million to Europe's 512 million. Does anyone seriously think that Russia poses a serious threat to Europe or that Europe needs the American big brother for survival, as in the immediate postwar years? Of course not. This is just a ruse for the maintenance of the status quo -- Europe as subservient to America, the Russian bear as menacing grizzly, America as protective slayer in the event of an attack.

This is all ridiculous. NATO shouldn't be abolished. It should be reconfigured for the realities of today. It should be European-led, not American-led. It should pay for its own defense entirely, whatever that might be (and Europe's calculation of that will inform us as to its true assessment of the Russian threat). America should be its primary ally, but not committed to intervene whenever a tiny European nation feels threatened. NATO's Article 5, committing all alliance nations to the defense of any other when attacked, should be scrapped in favor of language that calls for U.S. intervention only in the event of a true threat to Western Civilization itself.

And while a European-led NATO would find it difficult to pull back from its forward eastern positions after adding so many nations in the post-Cold War era, it should extend assurances to Russia that it has no intention of acting provocatively -- absent, of course, any Russian provocations.

... ... ...

Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century .

likbez, May 22, 2019

Great article. Thank you very much!

Pragmatic isolationalism is a better deal then the current neocon foreign policy. Which Trump is pursuing with the zeal similar to Obama (who continued all Bush II wars and started two new in Libya and Syria.) Probably this partially can be explained by his dependence of Adelson and pro-Israeli lobby.

But the problem is deeper then Trump: it is the power of MIC and American exeptionalism ( which can be viewed as a form of far right nationalism ) about which Andrew Bacevich have written a lot:

From the mid-1940s onward, the primacy of the United States was assumed as a given. History had rendered a verdict: we -- not the Brits and certainly not the Germans, French, or Russians -- were number one, and, more importantly, were meant to be. That history's verdict might be subject to revision was literally unimaginable, especially to anyone making a living in or near Washington, D.C.

If doubts remained on that score, the end of the Cold War removed them. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism, politicians, journalists, and policy intellectuals threw themselves headlong into a competition over who could explain best just how unprecedented, how complete, and how wondrous was the global preeminence of the United States.

Choose your own favorite post-Cold War paean to American power and privilege. Mine remains Madeleine Albright's justification for some now-forgotten episode of armed intervention, uttered 20 years ago when American wars were merely occasional (and therefore required some nominal justification) rather then perpetual (and therefore requiring no justification whatsoever).

"If we have to use force," Secretary of State Albright announced on morning television in February 1998, "it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future."

Back then, it was Albright's claim to American indispensability that stuck in my craw. Yet as a testimony to ruling class hubris, the assertion of indispensability pales in comparison to Albright's insistence that "we see further into the future."

In fact, from February 1998 down to the present, events have time and again caught Albright's "we" napping. The 9/11 terrorist attacks and the several unsuccessful wars of choice that followed offer prime examples. But so too did Washington's belated and inadequate recognition of the developments that actually endanger the wellbeing of 21st-century Americans, namely climate change, cyber threats, and the ongoing reallocation of global power prompted by the rise of China. Rather than seeing far into the future, American elites have struggled to discern what might happen next week. More often than not, they get even that wrong.

Like some idiot savant, Donald Trump understood this. He grasped that the establishment's formula for militarized global leadership applied to actually existing post-Cold War circumstances was spurring American decline. Certainly other observers, including contributors to this publication, had for years been making the same argument, but in the halls of power their dissent counted for nothing.

Yet in 2016, Trump's critique of U.S. policy resonated with many ordinary Americans and formed the basis of his successful run for the presidency. Unfortunately, once Trump assumed office, that critique did not translate into anything even remotely approximating a coherent strategy. President Trump's half-baked formula for Making America Great Again -- building "the wall," provoking trade wars, and elevating Iran to the status of existential threat -- is, to put it mildly, flawed, if not altogether irrelevant. His own manifest incompetence and limited attention span don't help.

There is no countervailing force within the USA that is able to tame MIC appetites, which are constantly growing. In a sense the nation is taken hostage with no root for escape via internal political mechanisms (for all practical purposes I would consider neocons that dominate the USA foreign policy to be highly paid lobbyists of MIC.)

In this sense the alliance of China, Iran, Russia and Turkey might serve as an external countervailing force which allows some level of return to sanity, like was the case when the USSR existed.

I agree with Bacevich that the dissolution of the USSR corrupted the US elite to the extent that it became reckless and somewhat suicidal in seeking "Full Spectrum Dominance" (which is an illusive goal in any case taking into account existing arsenals in China and Russia and the growing distance between EU and the USA)

[May 22, 2019] War with Iran could send oil prices to $250 per barrel

May 22, 2019 | www.rt.com

We should actually be a bit grateful to Prince Mohammed since without him America would clearly have the most insane government anywhere in the world. As it stands, we're merely tied for first.

[May 22, 2019] Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... Before and during the nuclear negotiations that led to the JCPOA, American opponents of the talks kept insisting that Iran couldn't be trusted to keep their word and they would cheat on any agreement they made. ..."
"... It is fitting that they have been the ones to urge the U.S. to break its word and betray our negotiating partners, and in so doing guarantee that the U.S. is seen as the unreliable deal-breakers that Iran's government was supposed to be. In the future, other governments may want to have some "snap-back" mechanisms of their own to ensure that the U.S. will be penalized if it breaches its obligations. ..."
"... Iran isn't interested in photo-op summits ..."
"... A real negotiation would involve making a compromise and offering concessions to Iran. Iran would have to believe that it has something to gain from the exchange, and right now it has no reason to believe anything of the kind. Trump has no desire to make concessions, only to receive them, and he won't compromise because he can't conceive of a mutually beneficial agreement. Because he sees everything as a zero-sum contest, Trump perceives anything less than the other side's capitulation as a "loss" for the U.S. In the absence of a real "win," Trump is willing to settle for the made-up kind that he claims after every unsuccessful summit. ..."
"... The next administration will have their work cut out for them. A future president won't only have to repair the damage to America's reputation, but will have to rebuild tattered relationships with allies and other major economic powers that have been frayed by years of senseless economic warfare. Over the longer term, the U.S. will face the growing problem that our commitments will be called into question every time there is a change in party control. The seesaw between increasingly hard-line unilateralists that want to tear up one agreement after another regardless of the merits and the rest of us will make it so that no one will be able to trust the U.S. to commit to anything for more than four or eight years. That will give presidents strong incentives not to burn political capital on securing agreements that they know their successors will just throw away, and it will eventually mean that U.S. diplomacy continues to atrophy from lack of use. ..."
May 22, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

May 22, 2019, 1:16 PM

J.Bicking/Shutterstock One of the obvious consequences of violating the JCPOA is that the U.S. can't be trusted to negotiate anything else with Iran:

Zarif told CNN this week Iran had "acted in good faith" in negotiating the deal that Washington abandoned. "We are not willing to talk to people who have broken their promises.".

Before and during the nuclear negotiations that led to the JCPOA, American opponents of the talks kept insisting that Iran couldn't be trusted to keep their word and they would cheat on any agreement they made.

It is fitting that they have been the ones to urge the U.S. to break its word and betray our negotiating partners, and in so doing guarantee that the U.S. is seen as the unreliable deal-breakers that Iran's government was supposed to be. In the future, other governments may want to have some "snap-back" mechanisms of their own to ensure that the U.S. will be penalized if it breaches its obligations.

Iran hawks are always complaining about the "fatally flawed" nuclear deal, but they are the ones that exploited what was perhaps its only true flaw, namely the built-in assumption that our government would observe the terms of the agreement in good faith as long as Iran did what it promised to do. Other major powers and Iran now know they shouldn't expect the U.S. to be a reliable partner in future talks, and they will reasonably conclude that offers to "talk" from the administration that seeks to destroy the JCPOA are just so much hot air.

As I was saying yesterday, Iran isn't interested in photo-op summits:

Trump has said Washington is not trying to set up talks but expects Tehran to call when it is ready. A U.S. official said last week Americans "were sitting by the phone", but had received no call from Iran yet

Foad Izadi, a political science professor at Tehran University, told Reuters that phone call is not coming.

"Iranian officials have come to this conclusion that Trump does not seek negotiations. He would like a phone call with Rouhani, even a meeting and a photo session, but that's not a real negotiation," Izadi said.

A real negotiation would involve making a compromise and offering concessions to Iran. Iran would have to believe that it has something to gain from the exchange, and right now it has no reason to believe anything of the kind. Trump has no desire to make concessions, only to receive them, and he won't compromise because he can't conceive of a mutually beneficial agreement. Because he sees everything as a zero-sum contest, Trump perceives anything less than the other side's capitulation as a "loss" for the U.S. In the absence of a real "win," Trump is willing to settle for the made-up kind that he claims after every unsuccessful summit.

The next administration will have their work cut out for them. A future president won't only have to repair the damage to America's reputation, but will have to rebuild tattered relationships with allies and other major economic powers that have been frayed by years of senseless economic warfare. Over the longer term, the U.S. will face the growing problem that our commitments will be called into question every time there is a change in party control. The seesaw between increasingly hard-line unilateralists that want to tear up one agreement after another regardless of the merits and the rest of us will make it so that no one will be able to trust the U.S. to commit to anything for more than four or eight years. That will give presidents strong incentives not to burn political capital on securing agreements that they know their successors will just throw away, and it will eventually mean that U.S. diplomacy continues to atrophy from lack of use.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

SteveM May 22, 2019 at 2:47 pm

Related to "America the Untrustworthy" is the economic total war that the U.S. has declared on the rest of the planet. Very complex business relationships and supply chains are being destroyed. The Trump administration's objectives are to economically strangle China and Russia and do economic beat-downs on any country that gets in the way. No company or country wants to do business with that kind of political volatility. And what can't go on forever – won't.

What the idiots in Washington don't realize is that the Chinese and the Russians have suffered 100x mores deprivation than Americans. They will suck it up now and then do whatever it takes to decouple themselves economically from the United States. (See what happens in the U.S. when the Chinese tell Apple to pound sand.)

And to think that the Chinese don't have the organic capability to technically compete with the U.S. now is nuts. China has the resources and intellectual horsepower to compete with the U.S. regardless of what the arrogant "City on a Hill" exceptionalists in Washington think. And given that China has 5X the number of STEM grads, it's easy to do the math.

America the Untrustworthy on the economic front is telling the rest of the planet to find other partners because doing business with an erratic Gorilla is more trouble than its worth.

Scott , says: May 22, 2019 at 3:44 pm
At some point, Americans are going to be outraged when they realize that most of the world doesn't view us as someone to admire but rather a rogue nation.

We have lost so much standing under Trump

BD , says: May 22, 2019 at 3:53 pm
I wonder if it ever occurred to Trump–or any of his advisers–that pulling out of a deal for no other reason than "we didn't like the terms that everyone agreed to" (rather than noncompliance by Iran) only makes it impossible for anyone to trust a new deal he wants to make later. But I guess this is why it's unwise to govern based on what Fox and Friends tells you each morning.
Barry , says: May 22, 2019 at 5:20 pm
"A future president won't only have to repair the damage to America's reputation, but will have to rebuild tattered relationships with allies and other major economic powers that have been frayed by years of senseless economic warfare. "

I don't think that any future president will be able to do this. Dubya was a shock to the rest of the world, in that they realized that there was indeed 'no there there'. Congress isn't helping.

Obama was a relief, but then along came Trump. At this point, all other countries know that (a) any competent Democratic President will be followed by a destructive and reckless GOP president, and (b) that the GOP Congress will aid and abet this.

A reputation for reliability has to be maintained.

Christian J Chuba , says: May 22, 2019 at 6:37 pm
And there is a 90 / 10 chance that we will break the agreement. This is not a Trump'ism, we never keep our word regardless of the Administration.
  1. Libya/Gaddafi GWB made the promise, Obama killed him.
  2. Saddam Hussein – Bush Sr. made the promise, get rid of WMD and live, GWB killed him.
  3. JCPOA – Obama made the agreement, Trump broke it.
  4. Russia – Bush Sr. promised not to expand NATO, Clinton expanded NATO like mad.

When have we ever kept an agreement?

[May 21, 2019] 2020 Elections: It's Militarism and the Military Budget Stupid! by Ajamu Baraka

May 17, 2019 | www.counterpunch.org

U.S. ships are involved in provocative "freedom of navigation" exercises in the South China Sea and other ships gather ominously in the Mediterranean Sea while National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Michael Pompeo along with convicted war criminal Elliot Abrams conspire to save the people of Venezuela with another illegal "regime change" intervention. But people are drawn to the latest adventures of Love and Hip-Hop, the Mueller report, and Game of Thrones. In fact, while millions can recall with impressive detail the proposals and strategies of the various players in HBO's latest saga, they can't recall two details about the pending military budget that will likely pass in Congress with little debate, even though Trump's budget proposal represents another obscene increase of public money to the tune of $750 billion.

This bipartisan rip-off could not occur without the willing collusion of the corporate media, which slants coverage to support the interests of the ruling elite or decides to just ignore an issue like the ever-expanding military budget.

The effectiveness of this collusion is reflected in the fact that not only has this massive theft of public money not gotten much coverage in the mainstream corporate media, but also it only received sporadic coverage in the alternative media. The liberal-left media is distracted enough by the theatrics of the Trump show to do the ideological dirty work of the elites.

Spending on war will consume almost 70% of the budget and be accompanied by cuts in public spending for education, housing, the environment, public transportation, jobs trainings, food support programs like food stamps and Meals on Wheels, as well as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Most of the neoliberal candidates running in the Democratic Party's electoral process, however, haven't spoken a word in opposition to Trump's budget.

The public knows that the Democratic Party's candidates are opposed to Trump's wall on the southern border, and they expect to hear them raise questions about the $8.6 billion of funding the wall. But while some of the Democrats may oppose the wall, very few have challenged the details of the budget that the U.S. Peace Council indicates . For example:

"$576 billion baseline budget for the Department of Defense; an additional $174 billion for the Pentagon's Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), i.e., the war budget; $93.1 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs; $51.7 billion for Homeland Security; $42.8 billion for State Department; an additional $26.1 billion for State Department's Overseas Contingency Operations (regime change slush fund); $16.5 billion for the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (nuclear weapons budget); $21 billion for NASA (militarizing outer space?); plus $267.4 billion for all other government agencies, including funding for FBI and Cybersecurity in the Department of Justice."

The Peace Council also highlights the following two issues: First, the total US military and war budget has jumped from $736.4 billion to $989.0 billion since 2015. That is a $252.6 billion (about 35%) increase in five years. Second, thesimultaneous cuts in the government's non-military spending are reflected in the proposed budget.

Here are some of biggest proposed budget cuts:

+ $1.5 trillion in cuts to Medicaid over 10 years, implementing work requirements as well as eliminating the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. The budget instead adds $1.2 trillion for a "Market Based Health Care Grant" -- that is, a block grant to states, instead of paying by need. It's not clear whether that would be part of Medicaid.

+ An $845 billion cut to Medicare over 10 years. That is about a 10 percent cut .

+ $25 billion in cuts to Social Security over 10 years, including cuts to disability insurance.

+ A $220 billion cut to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program(SNAP) over 10 years , which is commonly referred to as food stamps, and includes mandatory work requirements. The program currently serves around 45 million people.

+ A $21 billion cut to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families , an already severely underfunded cash-assistance program for the nation's poorest.

+ $207 billion in cuts to the student loan program, eliminating the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program and cutting subsidized student loans.

+ Overall, there is a 9 percent cut to non-defense programs , which would hit Section 8 housing vouchers, public housing programs, Head Start, the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) nutrition program, and Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program , among others.

The working classes and oppressed peoples of the U.S. and around the world can no longer afford the unchallenged ideological positions of the Pentagon budget and the associated expenditures for so-called defense that are considered sacrosanct in the U.S. They cannot afford that much of the U.S. public is not concerned with issues of so-called foreign policy that the military budget is seen as part.

The racist appeals of U.S. national chauvinism in the form of "Make America Great" and the Democrats' version of "U.S. Exceptionalism" must be confronted and exposed as the cross-class, white identity politics that they are. The fact that supposedly progressive or even "radical" politics does not address the issue of U.S. expenditures on war and imperialism is reflective of a politics that is morally and political bankrupt. But it also does something else. It places those practitioners firmly in the camp of the enemies of humanity.

The objective fact that large numbers of the public accept that the U.S. can determine the leadership of another sovereign nation while simultaneously being outraged by the idea of a foreign power interfering in U.S. elections demonstrates the mindboggling subjective contradictions that exist in the U.S. For example – that an Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez can assert that she will defer to the leadership of her caucus on the issue of Venezuela or that Barbara Lee can vote to bring Trump's budget proposal out of committee or that Biden can proudly support Trump's immoral backing of a neo-fascist opposition in Venezuela and they will all get away with those positions – reveals the incredible challenge that we face in building an alternative radical movement for peace, social justice and people(s)-centered human rights.

So, we must join with U.S. Peace Council and the other members of the Anti-war, pro-peace, and anti-imperialist communities in the U.S. to "resist and oppose this military attack on our communities, our livelihoods and our lives." This is an urgent and militant first step in reversing the cultural support for violence and the normalization of war that currently exists in the U.S. Now is the moment to demand that Congress reject and reverse the Trump Administration's military budget and the U.S. Government's militaristic foreign policy. But now is also the moment to commit to building a powerful countermovement to take back the power over life and death from the denizens of violence represented by the rapacious 1%. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Ajamu Baraka

Ajamu Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and was the 2016 candidate for vice president on the Green Party ticket. He is an editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report and contributing columnist for Counterpunch magazine.

[May 20, 2019] f you believe the US media if they just removed Putin, Russia would go back to being a good little puppet state just like under Yeltins.

May 20, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Kadath , May 19, 2019 4:21:27 PM | 0

That was an interesting article on psychological vs sociological storytelling and it makes a good companion piece when thinking about how the US media personalizes US geo-political conflicts with the heads of rival state (Putin, Xi, Castro, Kim Jong-un, Khomeini, Gaddafi). If you believe the US media if they just removed Putin, Russia would go back to being a good little puppet state just like under Yeltins.

Which is a shockingly naïve way to look at international relations. States have permanent interests and any competent head of State will always represent those interests to the best of their ability. True, you could overthrow the government and replace every senior government figure with a compliant puppet (which the US always tries to do), but the permanent interests that arise from the inhabitants of the State will always rise up and (re)assert themselves. When the State leadership is bribed or threatened into ignoring or acting against these needs it ultimately creates a failed State.

Even the US media seems to subconsciously understand this, when they talk of "overly ambitious US goals of remaking societies", however, they never make the logical next step of investigating why these States do not wish to be remade as per the US imagined ideal, what the interests of these actually are and how diplomacy can resolve conflicts. According to the US media everything boils down to the US = good, anyone who disagrees with our policies = bad and diplomacy is just a measure of how vulgar our threats are during talks. I'm specifically thinking of the US Ambassador to Russia, John Huntsman's boast of a US aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean as being 100,000 tons of diplomacy to Russia - of all the ridiculous and stupid things to says to Russia when supposedly trying to "ease" tensions (I still can't believe Huntsmen, former Ambassador to China under Obama, is regarded a "serious" professional ambassador within the State departments when compared to all the celebrity ambassadorships the US President for fundraiser).

[May 20, 2019] What Putin and Pompeo Did Not Talk About -- Strategic Culture

May 20, 2019 | www.strategic-culture.org

Strategic Culture

Search Editor's Сhoice What Putin and Pompeo Did Not Talk About Editor's Choice May 16, 2019 © Photo: kremlin.ru Russia is uneasy over the destabilization of Tehran, and on other hotspots the powers' positions are clear

Pepe ESCOBAR Even veiled by thick layers of diplomatic fog, the overlapping meetings in Sochi between US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and President Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov still offer tantalizing geopolitical nuggets.

Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov did his best to smooth the utterly intractable, admitting there was "no breakthrough yet" during the talks but at least the US "demonstrated a constructive approach."

Putin told Pompeo that after his 90-minute phone call with Trump, initiated by the White House, and described by Ushakov as "very good," the Russian president "got the impression that the [US] president was inclined to re-establish Russian-American relations and contacts to resolve together the issues that are of mutual interest to us."

That would imply a Russiagate closure. Putin told Pompeo, in no uncertain terms, that Moscow never interfered in the US elections, and that the Mueller report proved that there was no connection between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.

This adds to the fact Russiagate has been consistently debunked by the best independent American investigators such as the VIPS group.

'Interesting' talk on Iran

Let's briefly review what became public of the discussions on multiple (hot and cold) conflict fronts – Venezuela, North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran.

Venezuela – Ushakov reiterated the Kremlin's position: "Any steps that may provoke a civil war in the country are inadmissible." The future of President Maduro was apparently not part of the discussion.

That brings to mind the recent Arctic Council summit. Both Lavrov and Pompeo were there. Here's a significant exchange:

Lavrov: I believe you don't represent the South American region, do you?

Pompeo: We represent the entire hemisphere.

Lavrov: Oh, the hemisphere. Then what's the US doing in the Eastern Hemisphere, in Ukraine, for instance?

There was no response from Pompeo.

North Korea – Even acknowledging that the Trump administration is "generally ready to continue working [with Pyongyang] despite the stalemate at the last meeting, Ushakov again reiterated the Kremlin's position: Pyongyang will not give in to "any type of pressure," and North Korea wants "a respectful approach" and international security guarantees.

Afghanistan – Ushakov noted Moscow is very much aware that the Taliban are getting stronger. So the only way out is to find a "balance of power." There was a crucial trilateral in Moscow on April 25 featuring Russia, China and the US, where they all called on the Taliban to start talking with Kabul as soon as possible.

Iran – Ushakov said the JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal, was "briefly discussed.".He would only say the discussion was "interesting."

Talk about a larger than life euphemism. Moscow is extremely uneasy over the possibility of a destabilization of Iran that allows a free transit of jihadis from the Caspian to the Caucasus.

Which brings us to the heart of the matter. Diplomatic sources – from Russia and Iran – confirm, off the record, there have been secret talks among the three pillars of Eurasian integration – Russia, China and Iran – about Chinese and Russian guarantees in the event the Trump administration's drive to strangle Tehran to death takes an ominous turn.

This is being discussed at the highest levels in Moscow and Beijing. The bottom line: Russia-China won't allow Iran to be destroyed.

But it's quite understandable that Ushakov wouldn't let that information slip through a mere press briefing.

Wang Yi and other deals

On multiple fronts, what was not disclosed by Ushakov is way more fascinating than what's now on the record. There's absolutely no way Russian hypersonic weapons were not also discussed, as well as China's intermediate-range missiles capable of reaching any US military base encircling or containing China.

The real deal was, in fact, not Putin-Pompeo or Pompeo-Lavrov in Sochi. It was actually Lavrov-Wang Yi (the Chinese Foreign Minister), the day before in Moscow.

A US investment banker doing business in Russia told me: " Note how Pompeo ran like mad to Sochi. We are frightened and overstretched."

Diplomats later remarked: "Pompeo looked solemn afterwards. Lavrov sounded very diplomatic and calm." It's no secret in Moscow's top diplomatic circles that the Chinese Politburo overruled President Xi Jinping's effort to find an accommodation to Trump's tariff offensive. The tension was visible in Pompeo's demeanor.

In terms of substance, it's remarkable how Lavrov and Wang Yi talked about, literally, everything: Syria, Iran, Venezuela, the Caspian, the Caucasus, New Silk Roads (BRI), Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU), Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), missiles, nuclear proliferation.

Or as Lavrov diplomatically put it: "In general, Russia-China cooperation is one of the key factors in maintaining the international security and stability, establishing a multipolar world order. . . . Our states cooperate closely in various multilateral organizations, including the UN, G20, SCO, BRICS and RIC [Russia, India, China trilateral forum], we are working on aligning the integration potential of the EAEU and the Belt and Road Initiative, with potentially establishing [a] larger Eurasian partnership."

The strategic partnership is in sync on Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan – they want a solution brokered by the SCO. And on North Korea, the message could not have been more forceful.

After talking to Wang Yi, Lavrov stressed that contacts between Washington and North Korea "proceeded in conformity with the road map that we had drafted together with China, from confidence restoration measures to further direct contacts."

This is a frank admission that Pyongyang gets top advice from the Russia-China strategic partnership. And there's more: "We hope that at a certain point a comprehensive agreement will be achieved on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and on the creation of a system of peace and security in general in Northeast Asia, including concrete firm guarantees of North Korea's security."

Translation: Russia and China won't back down on guaranteeing North Korea's security. Lavrov said: "Such guarantees will be not easy to provide, but this is an absolutely mandatory part of a future agreement. Russia and China are prepared to work on such guarantees."

Reset, maybe?

The indomitable Maria Zakharova, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman, may have summed it all up . A US-Russia reset may even, eventually, happen. Certainly, it won't be of the Hillary Clinton kind, especially when current CIA director Gina Haspel is shifting most of the agency's resources towards Iran and Russia.

Top Russian military analyst Andrei Martyanov was way more scathing . Russia won't break with China, because the US " doesn't have any more a geopolitical currency to 'buy' Russia – she is out of [the] price range for the US."

That left Ushakov with his brave face, confirming there may be a Trump-Putin meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Osaka next month.

"We can organize a meeting 'on the go' with President Trump. Alternatively, we can sit down for a more comprehensive discussion."

Under the current geopolitical incandescence, that's the best rational minds can hope for.

asiatimes.com The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. Tags: Lavrov Pompeo Putin Russia US Print this article Editor's Choice May 16, 2019 | Editor's Сhoice What Putin and Pompeo Did Not Talk About Russia is uneasy over the destabilization of Tehran, and on other hotspots the powers' positions are clear

Pepe ESCOBAR Even veiled by thick layers of diplomatic fog, the overlapping meetings in Sochi between US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and President Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov still offer tantalizing geopolitical nuggets.

Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov did his best to smooth the utterly intractable, admitting there was "no breakthrough yet" during the talks but at least the US "demonstrated a constructive approach."

Putin told Pompeo that after his 90-minute phone call with Trump, initiated by the White House, and described by Ushakov as "very good," the Russian president "got the impression that the [US] president was inclined to re-establish Russian-American relations and contacts to resolve together the issues that are of mutual interest to us."

That would imply a Russiagate closure. Putin told Pompeo, in no uncertain terms, that Moscow never interfered in the US elections, and that the Mueller report proved that there was no connection between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.

This adds to the fact Russiagate has been consistently debunked by the best independent American investigators such as the VIPS group.

'Interesting' talk on Iran

Let's briefly review what became public of the discussions on multiple (hot and cold) conflict fronts – Venezuela, North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran.

Venezuela – Ushakov reiterated the Kremlin's position: "Any steps that may provoke a civil war in the country are inadmissible." The future of President Maduro was apparently not part of the discussion.

That brings to mind the recent Arctic Council summit. Both Lavrov and Pompeo were there. Here's a significant exchange:

Lavrov: I believe you don't represent the South American region, do you?

Pompeo: We represent the entire hemisphere.

Lavrov: Oh, the hemisphere. Then what's the US doing in the Eastern Hemisphere, in Ukraine, for instance?

There was no response from Pompeo.

North Korea – Even acknowledging that the Trump administration is "generally ready to continue working [with Pyongyang] despite the stalemate at the last meeting, Ushakov again reiterated the Kremlin's position: Pyongyang will not give in to "any type of pressure," and North Korea wants "a respectful approach" and international security guarantees.

Afghanistan – Ushakov noted Moscow is very much aware that the Taliban are getting stronger. So the only way out is to find a "balance of power." There was a crucial trilateral in Moscow on April 25 featuring Russia, China and the US, where they all called on the Taliban to start talking with Kabul as soon as possible.

Iran – Ushakov said the JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal, was "briefly discussed.".He would only say the discussion was "interesting."

Talk about a larger than life euphemism. Moscow is extremely uneasy over the possibility of a destabilization of Iran that allows a free transit of jihadis from the Caspian to the Caucasus.

Which brings us to the heart of the matter. Diplomatic sources – from Russia and Iran – confirm, off the record, there have been secret talks among the three pillars of Eurasian integration – Russia, China and Iran – about Chinese and Russian guarantees in the event the Trump administration's drive to strangle Tehran to death takes an ominous turn.

This is being discussed at the highest levels in Moscow and Beijing. The bottom line: Russia-China won't allow Iran to be destroyed.

But it's quite understandable that Ushakov wouldn't let that information slip through a mere press briefing.

Wang Yi and other deals

On multiple fronts, what was not disclosed by Ushakov is way more fascinating than what's now on the record. There's absolutely no way Russian hypersonic weapons were not also discussed, as well as China's intermediate-range missiles capable of reaching any US military base encircling or containing China.

The real deal was, in fact, not Putin-Pompeo or Pompeo-Lavrov in Sochi. It was actually Lavrov-Wang Yi (the Chinese Foreign Minister), the day before in Moscow.

A US investment banker doing business in Russia told me: " Note how Pompeo ran like mad to Sochi. We are frightened and overstretched."

Diplomats later remarked: "Pompeo looked solemn afterwards. Lavrov sounded very diplomatic and calm." It's no secret in Moscow's top diplomatic circles that the Chinese Politburo overruled President Xi Jinping's effort to find an accommodation to Trump's tariff offensive. The tension was visible in Pompeo's demeanor.

In terms of substance, it's remarkable how Lavrov and Wang Yi talked about, literally, everything: Syria, Iran, Venezuela, the Caspian, the Caucasus, New Silk Roads (BRI), Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU), Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), missiles, nuclear proliferation.

Or as Lavrov diplomatically put it: "In general, Russia-China cooperation is one of the key factors in maintaining the international security and stability, establishing a multipolar world order. . . . Our states cooperate closely in various multilateral organizations, including the UN, G20, SCO, BRICS and RIC [Russia, India, China trilateral forum], we are working on aligning the integration potential of the EAEU and the Belt and Road Initiative, with potentially establishing [a] larger Eurasian partnership."

The strategic partnership is in sync on Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan – they want a solution brokered by the SCO. And on North Korea, the message could not have been more forceful.

After talking to Wang Yi, Lavrov stressed that contacts between Washington and North Korea "proceeded in conformity with the road map that we had drafted together with China, from confidence restoration measures to further direct contacts."

This is a frank admission that Pyongyang gets top advice from the Russia-China strategic partnership. And there's more: "We hope that at a certain point a comprehensive agreement will be achieved on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and on the creation of a system of peace and security in general in Northeast Asia, including concrete firm guarantees of North Korea's security."

Translation: Russia and China won't back down on guaranteeing North Korea's security. Lavrov said: "Such guarantees will be not easy to provide, but this is an absolutely mandatory part of a future agreement. Russia and China are prepared to work on such guarantees."

Reset, maybe?

The indomitable Maria Zakharova, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman, may have summed it all up . A US-Russia reset may even, eventually, happen. Certainly, it won't be of the Hillary Clinton kind, especially when current CIA director Gina Haspel is shifting most of the agency's resources towards Iran and Russia.

Top Russian military analyst Andrei Martyanov was way more scathing . Russia won't break with China, because the US " doesn't have any more a geopolitical currency to 'buy' Russia – she is out of [the] price range for the US."

That left Ushakov with his brave face, confirming there may be a Trump-Putin meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Osaka next month.

"We can organize a meeting 'on the go' with President Trump. Alternatively, we can sit down for a more comprehensive discussion."

Under the current geopolitical incandescence, that's the best rational minds can hope for.

asiatimes.com © 2010 - 2019 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org . The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. Also by this author Editor's Choice Propaganda Intensifies Trade War With China Fire the Nutcases Leading Us to War The Struggle Is the Meaning CONFIRMED: Chemical Weapons Assessment Contradicting Official Syria Narrative Is Authentic Who's Behind the Pro-Guaidó Crowd Besieging Venezuela's D.C. Embassy? Sign up for the Strategic Culture Foundation Newsletter Subscribe


To the top
© 2010 - 2019 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org . The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. <div><img src="https://mc.yandex.ru/watch/10970266" alt=""/></div>

[May 20, 2019] How Many Germans Died under RAF Bombs at Dresden in 1945 by John Wear

May 20, 2019 | www.unz.com

Introduction

The bombing of Dresden remains one of the deadliest and morally most-problematic raids of World War II. Three factors make the bombing of Dresden unique: 1) a huge firestorm developed that engulfed much of the city; 2) the firestorm engulfed a population swollen by refugees; and 3) defenses and shelters even for the original Dresden population were minimal. [1] McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc., 1984, p. 275. The result was a high death toll and the destruction of one of Europe's most beautiful and cultural cities.

Many conflicting estimates have been made concerning the number of deaths during the raids of Dresden on February 13-14, 1945. Historian Richard J. Evans estimates that approximately 25,000 people died during these bombings. [2] Evans, Richard J., Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial , New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 177. Frederick Taylor estimates that from 25,000 to 40,000 people died as a result of the Dresden bombings. [3] Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York: HarperCollins, 2004, p. 354. A distinguished commission of German historians titled "Dresden Commission of Historians for the Ascertainment of the Number of Victims of the Air Raids on the City of Dresden on 13/14 February 1945" estimates the likely death toll in Dresden at around 18,000 and definitely not more than 25,000. [4] http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/death-t....html. This later estimate is considered authoritative by many sources.

While exact figures of deaths in the Dresden bombings can never be obtained, some Revisionist historians estimate a death toll at Dresden as high as 250,000 people. Most establishment historians state that a death toll at Dresden of 250,000 is an absolute impossibility. For example, Richard Evans states:

Even allowing for the unique circumstances of Dresden, a figure of 250,000 dead would have meant that 20% to 30% of the population was killed, a figure so grossly out of proportion to other comparable attacks as to have raised the eyebrows of anyone familiar with the statistics of bombing raids even if the population had been inflated by an influx of refugees fleeing the advance of the Red Army. [5] Evans, Richard J., Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial , New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 158.

Population of Dresden

Historians generally agree that a large number of German refugees were in Dresden during the night of February 13-14, 1945. However, the estimate of refugees in Dresden that night varies widely. This is a major reason for the discrepancies in the death toll estimates in the Dresden bombings.

Marshall De Bruhl states in his book Firestorm : Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden :

Nearly every apartment and house [in Dresden] was crammed with relatives or friends from the east; many other residents had been ordered to take in strangers. There were makeshift campsites everywhere. Some 200,000 Silesians and East Prussians were living in tents or shacks in the Grosser Garten. The city's population was more than double its prewar size. Some estimates have put the number as high as 1.4 million.

Unlike other major German cities, Dresden had an exceptionally low population density, due to the large proportion of single houses surrounded by gardens. Even the built-up areas did not have the congestion of Berlin and Munich. However, in February 1945, the open spaces, gardens, and parks were filled with people.

The Reich provided rail transport from the east for hundreds of thousands of the fleeing easterners, but the last train out of the city had run on February 12. Transport further west was scheduled to resume in a few days; until then, the refugees were stranded in the Saxon capital. [6] DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden , New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, p. 200.

David Irving states in The Destruction of Dresden :

Silesians represented probably 80% of the displaced people crowding into Dresden on the night of the triple blow; the city which in peacetime had a population of 630,000 citizens was by the eve of the air attack so crowded with Silesians, East Prussians and Pomeranians from the Eastern Front, with Berliners and Rhinelanders from the west, with Allied and Russian prisoners of war, with evacuated children's settlement, with forced laborers of many nationalities, that the increased population was now between 1,200,000 and 1,400,000 citizens, of whom, not surprisingly, several hundred thousand had no proper home and of whom none could seek the protection of an air-raid shelter. [7] Irving, David, The Destruction of Dresden , New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964, p. 98.

A woman living on the outskirts of Dresden at the time of the bombings stated: "At the time my mother and I had train-station duty here in the city. The refugees! They all came from everywhere! The city was stuffed full!" [8] Ten Dyke, Elizabeth A., Dresden: Paradoxes of Memory in History , London and New York: Routledge, 2001, p. 82.

Frederick Taylor states in his book Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 that Dresden had been accepting refugees from the devastated cities of the Ruhr, and from Hamburg and Berlin, ever since the British bombing campaign began in earnest. By late 1943 Dresden was already overstretched and finding it hard to accept more outsiders. By the winter of 1944-1945, hundreds of thousands of German refugees were traveling from the east in an attempt to escape the Russian army. [9] Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York: HarperCollins, 2004, pp. 134, 227-228.

The German government regarded the acceptance of Germans from the east as an essential duty. Der Freiheitskampf , the official German organ for Saxony, urged citizens to offer temporary accommodation:

There is still room everywhere. No family should remain without guests! Whether or not your habits of life are compatible, whether the coziness of your domestic situation is disturbed, none of these things should matter! At our doors stand people who for the moment have no home -- not even to mention the loss of their possessions. [10] Ibid ., p. 227.
(Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York: HarperCollins, 2004, pp. 134, 227-228.)

However, Taylor states that it was general policy in Dresden to have refugees on their way to the west to continue onwards within 24 hours. Fleeing the Russians was not a valid justification for seeking and maintaining residence in Dresden. Taylor states that the best estimate by Götz Bergander, who spent time on fire-watching duties and on refugee-relief work in Dresden, was that approximately 200,000 nonresidents were in Dresden on the night of February 13-14, 1945. Many of these refugees would have been living in quarters away from the targeted center of Dresden. [11] Ibid. , pp. 229, 232.
(Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York: HarperCollins, 2004, pp. 134, 227-228.)

ORDER IT NOW

The Dresden historian Friedrich Reichert estimates that only 567,000 residents and 100,000 refugees were in Dresden on the night of the bombings. Reichert quotes witnesses who state that no refugees were billeted in Dresden houses and that no billeting took place in Dresden's parks or squares. Thus, Reichert estimates that the number of people in Dresden on the night of the bombings was not much greater than the official figure of Dresden's population before the war. [12] Evans, Richard J., Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial , New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 174.

Reichert's estimate of Dresden's population during the bombings is almost certainly too low. As a RAF memo analyzed it before the attack:

Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester is also [by] far the largest unbombed built-up area the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westwards and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium, not only to give shelter to workers, refugees and troops alike, but also to house the administrative services displaced from other areas [13] Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York: HarperCollins, 2004, pp. 3, 406. See also River, Charles Editors, The Firebombing of Dresden: The History and Legacy of the Allies' Most Controversial Attack on Germany , Introduction, p. 2.

Alexander McKee states in regard to Dresden:

Every household had its large quota of refugees, and many more had arrived in Dresden that day, so that the pavements were blocked by them, as they struggled onwards or simply sat exhausted on their suitcases and rucksacks. For these reasons, no one has been able to put a positive figure to the numbers of the dead, and no doubt no one ever will. [14] McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc., 1984, p. 177.

The report prepared by the USAF Historical Division Research Studies Institute Air University states that "there may probably have been about 1,000,000 people in Dresden on the night of the 13/14 February RAF attack." [15] http://glossaryhesperado.blogspot.com/2008/04/facts....html. I think the 1 million population figure cited in this report constitutes a realistic and conservative minimum estimate of Dresden's population during the Allied bombings of February 13-14, 1945.

Did Only 25,000 People Die?

If the 25,000 death-toll estimate in Dresden is accurate, we are left with the odd result that Allied air power, employed for textbook purposes to its full measure and with no restrictions, over an especially vulnerable large city near the end of the war, when Allied air superiority was absolute and German defenses nearly nonexistent, was less effective than Allied air power had been in previous more-difficult operations such as Hamburg or Berlin. I think the extensive ruins left in Dresden suggest a degree of complete destruction not seen before in Germany.

The Dresden bombings created a massive firestorm of epic proportions, and were in no way a failed mission with only a fraction of the intended results. The fires from the first raid alone had been visible more than 100 miles from Dresden. [16] Cox, Sebastian, "The Dresden Raids: Why and How," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy A., (eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, pp. 44, 46. The Dresden raid was the perfect execution of the Bomber Command theory of the double blow: two waves of bombers, three hours apart, followed the next day by a massive daylight raid by more bombers and escort fighters. Only a handful of raids ever actually conformed to this double-strike theory, and those that did were cataclysmic. [17] DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden , New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, pp. 204-205.

Dresden also lacked an effective network of air-raid shelters to protect its inhabitants. Hitler had ordered that over 3,000 air-raid bunkers be built in 80 German towns and cities. However, not one was built in Dresden because the city was not regarded as being in danger of air attack. Instead, the civil air defense in Dresden devoted most of its efforts to creating tunnels between the cellars of the housing blocks so that people could escape from one building to another. These tunnels exacerbated the effects of the Dresden firestorm by channeling smoke and fumes from one basement to the next and sucking out the oxygen from a network of interconnected cellars. [18] Neitzel, Sönke, "The City under Attack," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy A., (eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, pp. 68-69.

The vast majority of the population of Dresden did not have access to proper air-raid shelters. When the British RAF attacked Dresden that night, all the residents and refugees in Dresden could do was take refuge in their cellars. These cellars proved to be death traps in many cases. People who managed to escape from their cellars were often sucked into the firestorm as they struggled to flee the city. [19] Ibid ., pp. 69, 72, 76.
(Neitzel, Sönke, "The City under Attack," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy A., (eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, pp. 68-69.)

Dresden was all but defenseless against air attack, and the people on the ground in Dresden suffered the consequences. The bombers in the Dresden raids were able to conduct their attacks relatively free from fear of harassment by German defenses. The master bombers ordered the bombers to descend to lower altitudes, and the crews felt confident in doing so and in maintaining a steady altitude and heading during the bombing runs. This ensured that the Dresden raids were particularly concentrated and thus particularly effective. [20] Cox, Sebastian, "The Dresden Raids: Why and How," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy A., (eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, pp. 52-53. The RAF conducted a technically perfect fire-raising attack on Dresden. [21] Davis, Richard G., Carl A. Spaatz and the Air War in Europe , Washington, D.C.: Center for Air Force History, 1993, p. 557.

The British were fully aware that mass death and destruction could result from the bombing of Germany's cities. The Directorate of Bombing Operations predicted the following consequences from Operation Thunderclap:

If we assume that the daytime population of the area attacked is 300,000, we may expect 220,000 casualties. Fifty per cent of these or 110,000 may expect to be killed. It is suggested that such an attack resulting in so many deaths, the great proportion of which will be key personnel, cannot help but have a shattering effect on political and civilian morale all over Germany." [22] Hastings, Max, Bomber Command , New York: The Dial Press, 1979, pp. 347-348.

The destruction of Dresden was so complete that major companies were reporting fewer than 50% of their workforce present two weeks after the raids. [23] Cox, Sebastian, "The Dresden Raids: Why and How," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy A., (eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, p. 57. By the end of February 1945, only 369,000 inhabitants remained in the city. Dresden was subject to further American attacks by 406 B-17s on March 2 and 580 B-17s on April 17, leaving an additional 453 dead. [24] Overy, Richard, The Bombers and the Bombed: Allied Air War over Europe, 1940-1945 , New York: Viking Penguin, 2014, p. 314.

Comparison to Pforzheim Bombing

A raid that closely resembles that on Dresden was carried out 10 days later on February 23, 1945 at Pforzheim. Since neither Dresden nor Pforzheim had suffered much damage earlier in the war, the flammability of both cities had been preserved. [25] Friedrich, Jörg, The Fire: The Bombing of Germany , New York, Columbia University Press, 2006, p. 94. A perfect firestorm was created in both of these defenseless cities. These cities also lacked sufficient air-raid shelters for their citizens.

The area of destruction at Pforzheim comprised approximately 83% of the city, and 20,277 out of 65,000 people died according to official estimates. [26] Ibid. , p. 91. See also DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden , New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, p. 255.
(Friedrich, Jörg, The Fire: The Bombing of Germany , New York, Columbia University Press, 2006, p. 94.)
Sönke Neitzel also estimates that approximately 20,000 out of a total population of 65,000 died in the raid at Pforzheim. [27] Neitzel, Sönke, "The City under Attack," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy A., (eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, p. 77. This means that over 30% of the residents of Pforzheim died in one bombing attack.

The question is: If more than 30% of the residents of Pforzheim died in one bombing attack, why would only approximately 2.5% of Dresdeners die in similar raids 10 days earlier? The second wave of bombers in the Dresden raid appeared over Dresden at the very time that the maximum number of fire brigades and rescue teams were in the streets of the burning city. This second wave of bombers compounded the earlier destruction many times, and by design killed the firemen and rescue workers so that the destruction in Dresden could rage on unchecked. [28] DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden , New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, p. 210. See also McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc., 1984, p. 112. The raid on Pforzheim, by contrast, consisted of only one bombing attack. Also, Pforzheim was a much smaller target, so that it would have been easier for the people on the ground to escape from the blaze.

The only reason why the death-rate percentage would be higher at Pforzheim versus Dresden is that a higher percentage of Pforzheim was destroyed in the bombings. Alan Russell estimates that 83% of Pforzheim's city center was destroyed versus only 59% of Dresden's. [29] Russell, Alan, "Why Dresden Matters," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy A., (eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, p. 162. This would, however, account for only a portion of the percentage difference in the death tolls. Based on the death toll in the Pforzheim raid, it is reasonable to assume that a minimum of 20% of Dresdeners died in the British and American attacks on the city. The 2.5% death rate figure of Dresdeners estimated by establishment historians is an unrealistically low figure.

If a 20% death rate figure times an estimated population in Dresden of 1 million is used, the death-toll figure in Dresden would be 200,000. If a 25% death-rate figure times an estimated population of 1.2 million is used, the death toll figure in Dresden would be 300,000. Thus, death-toll estimates in Dresden of 250,000 people are quite plausible when compared to the Pforzheim bombing.

How Were the Dead Disposed Of?

Historian Richard Evans asks:

And how was it imaginable that 200,000 bodies could have been recovered from out of the ruins in less than a month? It would have required a veritable army of people to undertake such work, and hundreds of sorely needed vehicles to transport the bodies. The effort actually undertaken to recover bodies was considerable, but there was no evidence that it reached the levels required to remove this number. [30] Evans, Richard J., Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial , New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 158.

Richard Evans does not recognize that the incineration of corpses on the Dresden market square, the Altmarkt, was not the only means of disposing of bodies at Dresden. A British sergeant reported on the disposal of bodies at Dresden:

They had to pitchfork shriveled bodies onto trucks and wagons and cart them to shallow graves on the outskirts of the city. But after two weeks of work the job became too much to cope with and they found other means to gather up the dead. They burned bodies in a great heap in the center of the city, but the most effective way, for sanitary reasons, was to take flamethrowers and burn the dead as they lay in the ruins. They would just turn the flamethrowers into the houses, burn the dead and then close off the entire area. The whole city is flattened. They were unable to clean up the dead lying beside roads for several weeks. [31] Regan, Dan, Stars and Stripes London edition, Saturday, May 5, 1945, Vol. 5, No. 156.

Historians also differ on whether or not large numbers of bodies in Dresden were so incinerated in the bombing that they could no longer be recognized as bodies. Frederick Taylor mentions Walter Weidauer, the high burgomaster of Dresden in the postwar period, as stating

[T]here is no substance to the reports that tens of thousands of victims were so thoroughly incinerated that no individual traces could be found. Not all were identified, but -- especially as most victims died of asphyxiation or physical injuries -- the overwhelming majority of individuals' bodies could at least be distinguished as such." [32] Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York: HarperCollins, 2004, p. 448.

Other historians cite evidence that bodies were incinerated beyond recognition. Alexander McKee quotes Hildegarde Prasse on what she saw at the Altmarkt after the Dresden bombings:

What I saw at the Altmarkt was cruel. I could not believe my eyes. A few of the men who had been left over [from the Front] were busy shoveling corpse after corpse on top of the other. Some were completely carbonized and buried in this pyre, but nevertheless they were all burnt here because of the danger of an epidemic. In any case, what was left of them was hardly recognizable. They were buried later in a mass grave on the Dresdner Heide. [33] McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc., 1984, p. 248.

Marshall De Bruhl cites a report found in an urn by a gravedigger in 1975 written on March 12, 1945, by a young soldier identified only as Gottfried. This report states:

I saw the most painful scene ever .Several persons were near the entrance, others at the flight of steps and many others further back in the cellar. The shapes suggested human corpses. The body structure was recognizable and the shape of the skulls, but they had no clothes. Eyes and hair carbonized but not shrunk. When touched, they disintegrated into ashes, totally, no skeleton or separate bones.

I recognized a male corpse as that of my father. His arm had been jammed between two stones, where shreds of his grey suit remained. What sat not far from him was no doubt mother. The slim build and shape of the head left no doubt. I found a tin and put their ashes in it. Never had I been so sad, so alone and full of despair. Carrying my treasure and crying I left the gruesome scene. I was trembling all over and my heart threatened to burst. My helpers stood there, mute under the impact. [34] DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden , New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, pp. 253-254.

ORDER IT NOW

The incineration of large numbers of people in Dresden is also indicated by estimates of the extreme temperature reached in Dresden during the firestorm. While no survivor has ever reported the actual temperature reached during the Dresden firestorm, many historians estimate that temperatures reached 1,500° Centigrade (2,732° Fahrenheit). [35] Alexander McKee cites estimates of 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit (McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc., 1984, p. 176). Since temperatures in a cremation chamber normally reach only 1,400 degrees to 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit [36] http://nfda.org/planning-a-funeral/cremation/160.ht...l#hot. , large numbers of people in Dresden would have been incinerated from the extreme heat generated in the firestorm.

Historians also differ on whether or not bodies are still being recovered in Dresden. For example, Frederick Taylor states: "Since 1989 -- even with the extensive excavation and rebuilding that followed the fall of communism in Dresden -- no bodies have been recovered at all, even though careful archaeological investigations have accompanied the redevelopment." [37] Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York: HarperCollins, 2004, p. 448.

Marshall De Bruhl does not agree with Taylor's statement. De Bruhl notes that numerous other skeletons of victims were discovered in the ruins of Dresden as rubble was removed or foundations for new buildings were dug. De Bruhl states:

One particularly poignant discovery was made when the ruins adjacent to the Altmarkt were being excavated in the 1990s. The workmen found the skeletons of a dozen young women who had been recruited from the countryside to come into Dresden and help run the trams during the war. They had taken shelter from the rain of bombs in an ancient vaulted subbasement, where their remains lay undisturbed for almost 50 years. [38] DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden , New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, p. 254.

Conclusion

The destruction from the Dresden bombings was so massive that exact figures of deaths will never be obtainable. However, the statement from the Dresden Commission of Historians that "definitely no more than 25,000" died in the Dresden bombings is probably inaccurate. An objective analysis of the evidence indicates that almost certainly far more than 25,000 people died from the bombings of Dresden. Based on a comparison to the Pforzheim bombing and the other similar bombing attacks, a death toll in Dresden of 250,000 people is easily possible.

Endnotes

[1] McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc., 1984, p. 275.

[2] Evans, Richard J., Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial , New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 177.

[3] Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York: HarperCollins, 2004, p. 354.

[4] http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/death-toll-debate-how-many-died-in-the-bombing-of-dresden-a-581992.html.

[5] Evans, Richard J., Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial , New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 158.

[6] DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden , New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, p. 200.

[7] Irving, David, The Destruction of Dresden , New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964, p. 98.

[8] Ten Dyke, Elizabeth A., Dresden: Paradoxes of Memory in History , London and New York: Routledge, 2001, p. 82.

[9] Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York: HarperCollins, 2004, pp. 134, 227-228.

[10] Ibid ., p. 227.

[11] Ibid. , pp. 229, 232.

[12] Evans, Richard J., Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial , New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 174.

[13] Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York: HarperCollins, 2004, pp. 3, 406. See also River, Charles Editors, The Firebombing of Dresden: The History and Legacy of the Allies' Most Controversial Attack on Germany , Introduction, p. 2.

[14] McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc., 1984, p. 177.

[15] http://glossaryhesperado.blogspot.com/2008/04/facts-about-dresden-bombings.html.

[16] Cox, Sebastian, "The Dresden Raids: Why and How," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy A., (eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, pp. 44, 46.

[17] DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden , New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, pp. 204-205.

[18] Neitzel, Sönke, "The City under Attack," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy A., (eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, pp. 68-69.

[19] Ibid ., pp. 69, 72, 76.

[20] Cox, Sebastian, "The Dresden Raids: Why and How," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy A., (eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, pp. 52-53.

[21] Davis, Richard G., Carl A. Spaatz and the Air War in Europe , Washington, D.C.: Center for Air Force History, 1993, p. 557.

[22] Hastings, Max, Bomber Command , New York: The Dial Press, 1979, pp. 347-348.

[23] Cox, Sebastian, "The Dresden Raids: Why and How," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy A., (eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, p. 57.

[24] Overy, Richard, The Bombers and the Bombed: Allied Air War over Europe, 1940-1945 , New York: Viking Penguin, 2014, p. 314.

[25] Friedrich, Jörg, The Fire: The Bombing of Germany , New York, Columbia University Press, 2006, p. 94.

[26] Ibid. , p. 91. See also DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden , New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, p. 255.

[27] Neitzel, Sönke, "The City under Attack," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy A., (eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, p. 77.

[28] DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden , New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, p. 210. See also McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc., 1984, p. 112.

[29] Russell, Alan, "Why Dresden Matters," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy A., (eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, p. 162.

[30] Evans, Richard J., Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial , New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 158.

[31] Regan, Dan, Stars and Stripes London edition, Saturday, May 5, 1945, Vol. 5, No. 156.

[32] Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York: HarperCollins, 2004, p. 448.

[33] McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc., 1984, p. 248.

[34] DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden , New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, pp. 253-254.

[35] Alexander McKee cites estimates of 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit (McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc., 1984, p. 176).

[36] http://nfda.org/planning-a-funeral/cremation/160.html#hot.

[37] Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York: HarperCollins, 2004, p. 448.

[38] DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden , New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, p. 254.


anon-blonde , says: April 9, 2019 at 3:16 am GMT

Thanks for clearing up another one of grandpa's lies. There are alot of them.
anon19 , says: May 20, 2019 at 4:34 am GMT
An unpunished war crime.

We should have stayed out of it.

utu , says: May 20, 2019 at 4:43 am GMT
I am glad you are publishing this article here. Few days ago I have cited your article

https://inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6600

on another thread and added the following comment:

http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/#comment-3216306
During the war authorities were often lowering the losses so not to give reasons for defeatism. People did not know the true scale of losses. It was not in newspaper. Goebbels decided that playing a victim to the world public opinion would not work anymore but it only would have negative effect on the spirit of German public. Yet police reports from Dresden show very high figures. Much, much higher than 25k And these reports are not post WWII prepared by DDR authorities that liked to talk about American terror bombings in Vietnam. And then several years ago after the reunification some British and Germans historians got together, Dresden became a sister city of Coventry, the Brits helped to rebuild the church in Dresden, the slogans 'never again' were repeated ad nausea and the number of dead became 25k. It is still way too high to be a sister city of Coventry.

Carlton Meyer , says: Website May 20, 2019 at 4:49 am GMT
A key element is to look at the war situation when this bombing occurred. Wiki has a great series of wartime maps, and here is February 1, 1945. The Soviet were closing in on Berlin.

Dresden was not in the Soviet path to Berlin nor in the path of the Allies to the Elbe. So it wasn't bombed for military reasons. Note that the USA not only firebombed the Germans and Japanese, the USA firebombed Chinese cities too:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/rvJgLrgju3k?feature=oembed

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: May 20, 2019 at 5:07 am GMT
In every case regardless of number of casualties, although I do believe in higher number the deed was a definition of war crime. Germans were loosing the war anyway -and the bombing had no strategic significance.
The purpose was to kill as many Germans as possible, by burning and suffocating people.
Not very pleasant death.
Proof of bestiality of English.
White Monkey , says: May 20, 2019 at 5:08 am GMT
Kurt Vonnegut,who was there as a POW,estimated the death-toll to be 135 000.
Biff , says: May 20, 2019 at 5:17 am GMT
The consent factory has permanently put black hats on the Germans, and put white hats on themselves.
Facts be damned, so does the number really matter?
Ilyana_Rozumova , says: May 20, 2019 at 5:23 am GMT
Even many Jews and other prisoners in cams have died because supply of food to camps become practically impossible by railways. So they have died of starvation.
Xityl , says: May 20, 2019 at 5:32 am GMT
This is why Britain is experiencing things like Rotherham. It's all related and karmic.
Dresden is emblematic of the Anglo's betrayal of Europe, and for that reason Britain will soon be extinguished forever.
I can't say I'm sad about that.
Popeye , says: May 20, 2019 at 5:40 am GMT
By current standards of international law the fire bombing of cities is a war crime and crime against humanity unless attack focuses solely on strategic targets and all efforts taken to minimize civilian casualties. Interesting as well, a major line of thought is that using nuclear weapons against cities is a war crime since no effort could be taken to minimize civilian casualties as fully as possible
Wally , says: May 20, 2019 at 5:48 am GMT
From: http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/RadDi/2009/240409.html
David Irving states:

"AS the day draws on I come across a document which I only half-suspected I might ever find. In 1961, when I was writing my first book "The Destruction of Dresden", I was confidentially approached by a German schoolteacher, Hanns Voigt; he said that after the horrific British air raid, he was put in charge of Dresden's Missing Persons Bureau, Abteilung Tote – the Deceased Section. He built an immense card index, and he kept a diary; and he estimated for me that the final death toll in Dresden would have reached 135,000. This was the figure that I, and after me Kurt Vonnegut and others, always used.

Other city officials gave the same kind of estimates. (Later this year I shall post on my website a full dossier on the Dresden death toll.)

Voigt's estimate was a thorn in the side of both German Governments -- both east and west. They had always played down, even trivialised, the air raid casualty figures caused by the British saturation bombing (even as they hyped the numbers killed in the Jewish tragedy).

Only last year a German Government commission consisting of, not just conformist but kow-towing, line-toeing, bowing-and-scraping historians and Nickeseln, agreed that the death roll in the two hour man-made 1945 holocaust in Dresden was far lower, "only 25,000" (or, if possible, even less).

Without doing any in-depth research -- such scholars are far too important for that -- they relied on the police chief's early March 1945 report (which in fact I was the first to find), because it indicated lower figures than Hanns Voigt's for dead and missing.

In the Deborah Lipstadt Trial, her highly-paid chief expert Professor Richard "Skunky" Evans (left) vilified Voigt; he implied that Voigt was a liar, he questioned whether the Missing Persons bureau had ever existed, and he called him a Nazi with an agenda. (Voigt had, we now know, been given a good post-war position in the Soviet Zone before emigrating legally to the West, so the "Nazi" allegation seems unlikely.) Aping Evans, Mr Justice Gray accused me in his 333-page Judgment of falsifying history.

I was not invited to make any submissions to the Dresden Commission. No surprises there. This afternoon, my quiet patience is rewarded. I have come across this new secret document, signed by the police chief of Dresden, and decoded by the British some weeks after the war."

translation:

At 5:55 p.m. on March 24, 1945 -- the day in fact when I turned eight, I remember it vividly -- the Dresden Polizeipräsident reported in code to SS Oberführer Dr. Dietrichs:

Re: Missing Persons Situation in Dresden Air Raid Defence region.

The Lord Mayor of Dresden City has established (a) a Central Bureau for Missing Persons and nine Missing Persons registries; (b) eighty- to one-hundred thousand missing-person notifications are estimated to have been registered so far; (c) 9,720 missing-person notifications have been confirmed as fatalities; (d) to date, information on twenty thousand missing person cases has been given out; (e) accurate statistical data possibly only later.

"So Voigt was telling the truth.

Even the "hundred thousand" figure for those reported missing must be an under-estimate. There were over half a million homeless refugees in the streets of Dresden, fleeing the Red Army siege of Breslau to the East. Whole refugee families must have been engulfed by the Dresden holocaust, with nobody surviving to report them as "missing".

Another thing seems brutally clear: those listed as "missing" -- in addition to those bodies formally identified and buried or incinerated by this date -- were never going to return. To use the words of the telegram I found yesterday (see above) they were dead, "carbonised," and unidentifiable.

What do these decoded messages tell us about our own lazy and conformist historians, and about "Skunky" Evans in particular? He, and they, would never have found them. It has taken me these many years. Go the extra mile. Eventually, as this morning's Welshman said, "You will be proved right in the end"."

Much, much more:
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=921

tac , says: May 20, 2019 at 5:49 am GMT
View this documentary and make up your own mind:

https://www.hellstormdocumentary.com/

then here:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/NUkdzISOepg?feature=oembed

Wally , says: May 20, 2019 at 5:55 am GMT
@anon19 The Allies needed to deflect from their barbarity such as Dresden, which is simply one example, hence their desperate embrace of the fake & impossible 'gas chambers' and the easily debunked '6,000,000 Jews' & '5,000,000 others' propaganda.

http://www.codoh.com

eah , says: May 20, 2019 at 5:59 am GMT
While no survivor has ever reported the actual temperature reached during the Dresden firestorm,

How could they?

many historians estimate that temperatures reached 1,500° Centigrade (2,732° Fahrenheit) .

A 'historian' estimating temperature?

Since temperatures in a cremation chamber normally reach only 1,400 degrees to 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit,

How hot an (essentially) open air fire can get and whether or not eg such a fire can melt steel was and is part of the 9-11 discussion -- on 9-11 it was jet fuel -- at Dresden it was incendiary bombs -- still it is a little hard to believe even incendiary bombs could result in open air fires with sustained temperatures vastly higher than what are normally seen during cremation -- ??

A raid that closely resembles that on Dresden was carried out 10 days later on February 23, 1945 at Pforzheim.

There's more than one way to destroy a German city:

Ende 2017 hatten 67.543 Einwohner einen Migrationshintergrund, was einem Anteil von 53,7 % an der Gesamtbevölkerung entspricht. Bei den Einwohnern unter 18 Jahren betrug der Anteil der Personen mit Migrationshintergrund 74,1 %.

Data from the end of 2017 indicate 54% of the people in Pforzheim are not 'Biodeutsch' -- 74% of those under 18.

renfro , says: May 20, 2019 at 6:07 am GMT
The bombing of Dresden was a war crime because it was UNNECESSARY !!
Absolutely no military reason for it ..records in US Historian office of meetings of the Soviets, UK and US between Feb 5th to 8th show that they knew the war was over and were deciding on what 'official date" they would use to declare it.
turtle , says: May 20, 2019 at 6:22 am GMT

They burned bodies in a great heap in the center of the city, but the most effective way, for sanitary reasons, was to take flamethrowers and burn the dead as they lay in the ruins. They would just turn the flamethrowers into the houses, burn the dead

You mean, an actual Holocaust?
Wasn't the only one, either.
Burning German civilians alive (Japanese also) was official policy of "moral" U.S. and their allies, the lovely British.
Hamburg, Berlin, Köln, in fact just about any German city of any size. Nearly all were destroyed by fire by the end of the war. Most people here probably already know this, but just for the record

Hail , says: Website May 20, 2019 at 6:38 am GMT
Dresden downplaying is one of the only forms of WWII "revisionism" promoted by the establishment. My impression is the drive towards deflating Dresden began in the mid 2000s, which is when David Irving began a years-long running section on his website about Dresden and its death toll controversy.

Irving wrote the book that brought the incident to worldwide awareness in the 1960s and partly inspired Kurt Vonnegut to write his breakout novel ( Slaughterhouse Five , as a commenter mentions above) which had sections that were quasi-autobiographical. Vonnegut was a U.S. POW in the city on that night, held in the basement of a building whose address was Schlachtof Fuenf , "No.5 Slaughterhouse St." (The irony was not lost.)

As far as I know, Irving's current estimate is that 100,000 is either the likely figure itself (most conservative reasonable estimate), or (more likely) the lower bound for the true death toll. This is according to primary documents he has discovered. The 135,000 figure was from local official Hanns Voigt, in charge of the missing persons bureau. He was meticulous. Irving tracked him down in 1961 during research for the original Dresden book.

More recently, a police document from six weeks after the bombing that Irving acquired and published in 2009 corroborates that figure:

This afternoon [April 24, 2009], my quiet patience is rewarded. I have come across this new secret document, signed by the police chief of Dresden, and decoded by the British some weeks after the war.

At 5:55 p.m. on March 24, 1945 -- the day in fact when I turned eight, I remember it vividly -- the Dresden Polizeipräsident reported in code to SS Oberführer Dr. Dietrichs:

Re: Missing Persons Situation in Dresden Air Raid Defence region.
The Lord Mayor of Dresden City has established (a) a Central Bureau for Missing Persons and nine Missing Persons registries; (b) eighty- to one-hundred thousand missing-person notifications are estimated to have been registered so far; (c) 9,720 missing-person notifications have been confirmed as fatalities; (d) to date, information on twenty thousand missing person cases has been given out; (e) accurate statistical data possibly only later.

So Voigt was telling the truth.

Even the "hundred thousand" figure for those reported missing must be an under-estimate. There were over half a million homeless refugees in the streets of Dresden, fleeing the Red Army siege of Breslau to the East. Whole refugee families must have been engulfed by the Dresden holocaust, with nobody surviving to report them as "missing".

Hail , says: Website May 20, 2019 at 6:43 am GMT
Some of the pictures from Irving's Dresden book :

Second-t0-last pic:

DESCRIPTION: Pathetic chalked messages on the ruins of survivors seeking information on missing wives, mothers, family buried in the ruins.

Last pic:

DESCRIPTION: On the following day, March 23, 1962, Mr Irving (aged 27 still) interviewed Marshal of the RAF Sir Arthur Harris at his home in Oxfordshire, about the Dresden raids.

RightField , says: May 20, 2019 at 6:44 am GMT
Dresden has a special meaning for me.
Ten years after this sadistic event, I became a friend of a fellow Air Force trainee at Keesler AFB. He had been brought to the US as an orphan from Germany. All of his relatives had died in the Dresden inferno. He had been sent on an errand outside of the city and was the only survivor of his whole family. ALL dead except him. No mother. No father. No bother or sister or grandparent. All dead.
He was a gentle soul, but a basket case mentally. He was a fellow Lutheran and I believe he wanted to be in heaven with his family. I tried my best to help him. He could not keep track of anything. He lost his pay records transferring. I bought him soap and other little necessities he needed to get by. But he did not last very long and was gone, unable to concentrate and cope. He certainly was a casualty, but uncounted, of this dishonorable, deplorable sadism.

With a city of 1.2 million with refugees, 25,000 dead would be a mere 2% casualty rate. Look at that picture again. Where in that picture could one have survived?

JimDandy , says: May 20, 2019 at 7:23 am GMT
I skimmed the article, but I don't think I saw any reference to the autobiographical-fiction first-hand account written by Kurt Vonnegut in Slaughterhouse-Five:

In Vonnegut's words: "There were too many corpses to bury. So instead the Germans sent in troops with flamethrowers. All these civilians' remains were burned to ashes."

mark green , says: May 20, 2019 at 7:23 am GMT
Days after the incineration of Dresden, Hitler, Goebbels, and their wives decided to end their lives. Here is Hitler's final testament to the world:

http://www.ihr.org/other/hitlertestament.html

(Translation by Mark Weber)

refl , says: May 20, 2019 at 9:13 am GMT
Thanks for another article to expose another tabu of WWII history.

I want to introduce an important angle here that might not be common to nongerman readers:
Watching any popular history program in this country, you any time across raping and plundering Red army soldiers. It is common place.
Try to mention Dresden and anything down that line and you will be taken for a deranged Neonazi. A lot of the present vilification of Saxony in todays PC german media has to do with the fact that Saxony has its own culture of war crime remembrance.

jbwilson24 , says: May 20, 2019 at 9:55 am GMT
@Ilyana_Rozumova "Proof of bestiality of English."

Sorry, dum dum. The 'English' were not in charge of the UK government at the time. Churchill had a Jewish mother, half the House of Lords were officially Jews, the banking establishment was Jewish, the war profiteers were Jewish, etc.

Did you know that Churchill's Jewish handler, Frederick Lindemann, was the one who directed Churchill to attack working class neighbourhoods in raids in order to maximize civilian deaths.

crimson2 , says: May 20, 2019 at 10:04 am GMT
A lot. Glad Germany finally learned not to start stupid wars.
Parfois1 , says: May 20, 2019 at 10:05 am GMT
@Wally Good work Wally. You may be impervious to some ideas but are a reliable source to debunk official lies.

It amazes me how the German people have been so indoctrinated to accept the occupation of their country by the mass murderers 74 years after the greatest single-incident crime in human history. Only human beings are capable of that monstrous viciousness. Or may be only some ?

Buzz Mohawk , says: May 20, 2019 at 11:17 am GMT
It is heartening to see and read this article here. Recently I was in a brief back-and-forth with another commenter about this subject. I quoted from Private Kurt Vonnegut's letter to his parents thus:

On or about February 14th, the Americans came over, followed by the R.A.F. Their combined labors killed 250,000 people in 24 hours and destroyed all of Dresden -- possibly the world's most beautiful city. But not me.

After that we were put to work carrying corpses from Air-Raid shelters; women, children, old men; dead from concussion, fire or suffocation. Civilians cursed us and threw rocks as we carried bodies to huge funeral pyres in the city.

-- Kurt Vonnegut, letter to parents, May 29, 1945

The other commenter replied with the standard 25,000 number of dead. My response was that his number, the "mainstream" accepted one, seems too small, while Vonnegut's seems too large.

It is interesting to note the reasons why some people would want us to believe such a ridiculously small number as 25,000 for Dresden.

This article makes my point clear, and it even makes 250,000 sound plausible. I wish to thank the writer, John Wear, and our publisher here, Ron Unz, for providing it.

Another Anon , says: May 20, 2019 at 11:35 am GMT
"Historians also differ on whether or not large numbers of bodies in Dresden were so incinerated in the bombing that they could no longer be recognized as bodies. Frederick Taylor mentions Walter Weidauer, the high burgomaster of Dresden in the postwar period, as stating

[T]here is no substance to the reports that tens of thousands of victims were so thoroughly incinerated that no individual traces could be found. Not all were identified, but -- especially as most victims died of asphyxiation or physical injuries -- the overwhelming majority of individuals' bodies could at least be distinguished as such."[32]"

Hmmm, isn't the point that you DON'T recognize remains as being human? In other words you can't distinguish them as such?
If you can't determine they are human remains you won't even realize you are looking at human remains when you seen them and consequently have no reason to question whether they might be! And off course you won't report them as such.

Reminds me of an incident with a friend of mine years ago. We were walking down the main shopping street. Background music was playing along the street. He was a bit of a sound perfectionist and complained that the drums in the music playing were electronic and not played by a human. He claimed he could always tell. I called bullshit. I asked him whether he had ever bothered to check if his opinion was right. Off course he never had. He genuinely believed he could tell the difference, being a sound freak, so he never bothered to check. What did happen was that he kept reinforcing his own ingrained belief, "wow, I'm good, I even can tell the difference in this song"!
Now, he probably was right most of the time. But he certainly wasn't right all of the time yet he truly believed he was. The fun of confirmation bias.

So it makes complete sense that the high burgomaster would believe, incorrectly, that there were no indistinguishable corpses. If you know they are a corpse, or what's left of it, it's distinguishable. Indistinguishable means they are by definition not countable, only estimable (based on total numbers before and after).

Parfois1 , says: May 20, 2019 at 11:59 am GMT
Surprisingly the article does not mention the strafing of the survivors from the firestorm. I first knew about Dresden when I read the revelations of an eyewitness US POW then in that city. Many thousands of survivors sought refuge from the heat in the Elbe River but that became an easy target for the US Mustang fighter-bombers. An unimaginable evil and all the more shocking by the fact that their countries' (UK/US) civilian populations had been spared the horrors inflicted on Soviet people.

And that duo were planning to do the same thing to dozens of Soviet cities – but with atomic bombs for good measure. We have always been ruled by the most despicable monsters, the true reflection of Western "democracy". Am I unique in saying that, were I a "Bomber" Harris's pilot, I would refuse to fly the damned plane or, at least, unload the cargo in a harmless place? I can't understand it Makes one ashamed of belonging to this species.

Moi , says: May 20, 2019 at 12:03 pm GMT
@Xityl "Great" Britain, possibly the biggest racist empire in history.
Mike P , says: May 20, 2019 at 12:29 pm GMT
On an earlier thread on which the subject came up, commenter Germanicus posted this document:

It is a memo by the Dresden city administration, to the effect that Dresden police records as of 20.3.1945 state a number 200,000 dead recovered, mostly women and children, projecting a final death toll of 250,000 to 300,000.

This was before the new and improved number of 25,000 was rolled out. You can rely on official western historiography to never, ever tell the truth about anything.

Jake , says: May 20, 2019 at 12:41 pm GMT
If you say the WASPs did a bad thing, you are insane. No more gentle, kind, compassionate, empathic, anti-imperialistic people ever lived. Why, WASP war is the very antithesis of any possibility of war crime or genocidal desire.
utu , says: May 20, 2019 at 12:46 pm GMT
@Hail

Dresden downplaying is one of the only forms of WWII "revisionism" promoted by the establishment. My impression is the drive towards deflating Dresden began in the mid 2000s

I wish we knew more about it beyond speculations how this process was initiated, what characters were involved on both sides to give the push for it. Then finding the willing 'historians' to do the actual work was not a problem. There are many willing 'historians' out there.

Jake , says: May 20, 2019 at 12:54 pm GMT
@jbwilson24 The 'English' lost major control of their government no later than the Cromwell years. WASP culture is finalized, is made complete, by the Puritan Revolution. WASP culture was born of the Judaizing heresy Anglo-Saxon Puritanism.

The Anglo-Zionist Empire was born directly from Anglophone Reformation and the resulting politics, which from the outset acted to inflict at least cultural genocide on all local British cultures that did not assimilate to the presiding civic form of the Judaizing heresy of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism.

Anglo-Zionist Empire is WASP Empire, and it did not begin between the 2 World Wars, nor with Disraeli, nor with the founding of Freemasonry (which featured Jewish funding and socially and morally directed the British Empire from then on), nor even with the Jewish financially backed coup by William of Orange. It goes back 100% to Cromwell, whose antecedents were long and deep in the ethnically 'pure' Anglo-Saxon parts of England.

Jake , says: May 20, 2019 at 12:56 pm GMT
@Mike P If by 'western' you mean "WASP' or 'English' or "Anglo-Saxon' or Yank Elite,' then you barely overstate.
turtle , says: May 20, 2019 at 1:09 pm GMT

same thing to dozens of Soviet cities – but with atomic bombs

The atomic bombs were intended to be used on German cities.
Unfortunately for those who designed and built them, the war in Europe ended before the bombs were ready, and they had to be tested on the Japanese.

Endgame Napoleon , says: May 20, 2019 at 1:16 pm GMT
I have no idea about the political tilt of this publication and do not care since they are all nakedly pushing an agenda, including this article near the end. Reminder: Although they weren't exquisite Baroque buildings, the full-to-the-brim-with-humans Twin Towers in New York, NY were fire bombed by any other name, resulting in predictable acts of retaliatory warfare, meeting horrific with horrific.

What did the perpetrators expect?

https://www.unilad.co.uk/featured/ww2-veteran-says-dresden-bombings-were-genocide/

However, this account of a 91-year-old British survivor of the Dresden bombing is searing. It sounds like he thinks the war was started by his country. Ugh, the parts about the boiling reservoir and the explosive tar "escape" routes are horrific-cubed. The photos of this battle-hardened career military man are telling, too. In addition to the first-person interview, it cites academic sources.

It's good that fire bombing has been outlawed. But it's too late for these people, mostly old people and kids holed up in the center of an intricately carved Baroque city while the men were at war, and many of the women were probably working the munitions factories in the outer suburbs. So, why bomb the city's architectural jewels, where no war-making tools were under construction?

Johnny Walker Read , says: May 20, 2019 at 1:31 pm GMT
Thanks to revisionist historians like John, the horrible truths of WWII are now becoming main stream. Did the Allies out Hitler Hitler? My answer would be a resounding yes.
eah , says: May 20, 2019 at 1:35 pm GMT
@renfro The bombing of Dresden was a war crime because it was UNNECESSARY !!

That last thing I want to do here is defend what was done to Dresden (it was indefensible) -- but I think you would have a hard time defining what is 'necessary' during wartime vs what isn't -- especially when the war isn't over yet, and one of your goals has to be to minimize your own casualties, even if it means (perhaps unnecessarily) maximizing the enemy's -- as Patton said: 'The goal of war is not to die for your your country, but to make the other bastard die for his' -- oder etwas ähnlich.

Years ago I read the following piece and afterward had a brief email exchange with the author:

When Collateral Damage Was The Point

The issue she addresses -- the indiscriminate bombing of largely civilian targets (cities) during WWII vs today's use of 'precision' weapons (which back then did not exist) designed to minimize "collateral damage" -- is probably familiar to most.

Anon000 , says: May 20, 2019 at 1:37 pm GMT
@jbwilson24 Fair enough. But did the Englishmen who dropped the bombs and directed the war have free will?
Sallysdad , says: May 20, 2019 at 1:40 pm GMT
@White Monkey I recently, over the past month, read the book by David Irving on Dresden.
He recounts that after the war German authorities estimated, from records, missing persons accounts, and more, that the death toll was 125,000 on that night. I believe this was compiled into the early 50s to that result. It might have been more, but I doubt it was less.
sailor1031 , says: May 20, 2019 at 1:46 pm GMT
@Buzz Mohawk The figure of 250,000 is quite believable My dad was a RAF Intelligence S/Ldr at the time and he always maintained the casualty figure, based on RAF estimates at the time of the raid, was 250,000.
Hans , says: May 20, 2019 at 1:48 pm GMT
@jbwilson24 Thank you! I think we're making headway but it can't be stated often enough.
nickels , says: May 20, 2019 at 1:56 pm GMT
And now we understand why the holowcaust narrative had to be invented-pure projection.
eah , says: May 20, 2019 at 1:58 pm GMT
Should one choose to make it (not that I would ever do that), there is something of a 'Holocaust' connection to the aftermath in Dresden, where corpses were burned on makeshift pyres -- the immediate purpose was to carbonize the flesh to inhibit the spread of disease (ie not necessarily to turn a human body into ash and bones, as during cremation) -- but the truth is, hardly more is possible with such an open air pyre -- there is simply not enough heat -- the corpses are still recognizably human (there are other examples of this from around the time the war ended) -- compare to the claims made about eg Treblinka, where allegedly all traces of hundreds of thousands of murdered Jews were eliminated by doing something similar -- and this after they were dug up after months (if not longer) underground.
Hans , says: May 20, 2019 at 1:58 pm GMT
@crimson2 Yea, but not nearly as many as the number of Jews killed by the Romans:

Earlier "Holocaust" franchises, because the bs undoubtedly goes back further
Talmud: Gittin 57b claims that four billion Jews were killed by the Romans in the city of Bethar.

Gittin 58a claims that 16 million Jewish children were wrapped in scrolls and burned alive by he Romans.

Plus the endless Six Million Kvetching from the mid-1800s up to WWII.

Those Jews must have been starting stupid wars.

http://thebirdman.org/Index/Jews/Jews-FilesForHistory&ScripturalOrigin/TheIncredibleNumbersOfJewishVictimology-ArthurButz.htm

Johnny Rottenborough , says: Website May 20, 2019 at 2:06 pm GMT
@Xityl Xityl -- This is why Britain is experiencing things like Rotherham. It's all related and karmic Britain will soon be extinguished forever

Forget karma: Sweden, neutral in World War II, is also experiencing things like Rotherham and will be extinguished even sooner than Britain.

Neil , says: May 20, 2019 at 2:13 pm GMT
A few days after the bombing the Gaulitier of Dresden sent a message to Berlin stating that they had recovered 240,000 bodies and asked for instructions as to what to do next. Apparently the reply was to stop counting.
Anon [424] Disclaimer , says: