From: https://theduran.com/further-proof-that-u-s-uk-are-one-empire-not-two/
Also From: https://www.verityweekly.com/further-proof-that-u-s-uk-are-one-empire-not-two/
By: Eric Zuesse
Date: February 9, 2021
Further Proof that the U.S. and UK are One Empire
Although the “Special Relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom was first announced by Winston Churchill at Fulton Missouri on 5 March 1946, in the company of an approving U.S. President Harry S. Truman, it was actually started by Cecil Rhodes in 1877 when he drew up his plan for England secretly to retake America and use it so as to preserve and expand Britain’s empire throughout the world, via the Rhodes Trust. Rhodes was the first person to think up a “U.S. empire,” but it was actually only as a tool for the preservation and extension of England’s existing empire. And Winston Churchill, as a young man at the start of the 20th Century, was an acolyte and friend of Rhodes, and was viewed by Rhodes as being one of his most promising young followers.
But now, the Rhodesist scheme is finally starting to fall apart, because agencies of the United Nations are — at long last — beginning to rule against it.
The latest conclusive example of this relates to the U.S. military base in the Indian Ocean, on the island of Diego Garcia, where the U.S. Government takes people in order to torture them in secret.
Here is how this U.S./UK operation is coming to light, and its background (which goes all the way back to Rhodes’s scheme in the 1800s):
On 1 February 2021, the whistleblower and former UK Ambassador Craig Murray headlined “UK Government Humiliated over Chagos Islands Again”, and he reported that,
The International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea, a UN body based in Hamburg, last week delivered a stern and unequivocal rebuke to the UK in ruling the UK has no legal interest in the maritime area of the Chagos Islands. You will recall that the UK in the 1970’s ethnically cleansed the entire population from Chagos at gunpoint to make way for the US nuclear base on the Chagos Island of Diego Garcia.
In its judgement, The Special Chamber of the Tribunal last week ruled (para 247) by 8 votes to 1 that the Maldives must agree a boundary with Mauritius, as
“it is inconceivable that the United Kingdom, whose administration over the Chagos Archipelago constitutes a wrongful act of a continuing character and thus must be brought to an end as rapidly as possible, and yet who has failed to do so, can have any legal interests in permanently disposing of maritime zones around the Chagos Archipelago by delimitation.”
The Tribunal was of course here following the UN General Assembly and the International Court of Justice; the illegality of British occupation of the Chagos Islands is now indisputable in international law. What this tribunal adds is the dismissal of the notion that the UK has any legal rights to impose administrative or regulatory measures on the grounds that sovereignty is disputed. The Tribunal has said the Chagos Islands are part of Mauritius and there can be no dispute.
I am pleased partly because of my long term advocacy for the Chagos Islanders, but also because enabling the coming into force of the Tribunal was one of the proudest moments of my life. It is a very long story, and some day I will tell it, but the short version is that the entry into force of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea had been delayed for decades because of a dispute over the deep seabed mining regime. This specified a licensing system for mining in the deep seabed beyond all national limits, with the proceeds from licenses being distributed to developing nations. The United States had refused to ratify and the entire Convention, including the Tribunal, had been stymied as Western European powers followed the US lead over deep seabed mining.
When I became Head of Maritime Section at the FCO and Alternate Head of the UK Delegation to the UN Preparatory Commission (Prepcom) for the Convention – which was tasked with sorting out the mess – I can genuinely say that by persuading the UK government to soften its stance, (a Herculean task within Whitehall) and by establishing a strong personal rapport with the leaders of the developing world delegations, and especially with Dolliver Nelson and UN Under Secretary General Satya Nandan, I broke the impasse. …
So I am delighted now to see the Tribunal be so robust over the Chagos Islands. It really does matter that the UK is in defiance of these international courts. The UK has wide interests, and may from time to time need to seek the authority of the International Court of Justice or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to assert them. That the UK has ignored major and overwhelming majority rulings from these courts, will undoubtedly be likely to rule the courts’ perception of the UK in other cases. Which will, for example, one day include the maritime boundary dispute with an independent Scotland.
The major question on Scottish Independence in international law is whether Wales, England and Northern Ireland (WENI) and Scotland will both be successor states, inheriting all the legal benefits and obligations of the UK, or whether only WENI is the successor state to the UK and Scotland is a new state. This is a crucial matter. There are examples both ways. For example, only Russia is the successor state of the Soviet Union, whereas Czechia and Slovakia are both successor sates of Czechoslovakia.
If WENI wants to keep its position on the UN Security Council it will need to be the sole successor state. But if it is, it will need to inherit all of the UK’s national debt and Scotland none (as Russia did for the Soviet Union). There will be strong international interest in WENI not being the sole successor state, as a lever to get this second rate power off its anomalous position on the UN Security Council. There are also consequences for nuclear weapon power status. Then there is the question of the colonies – to whom will they belong after separation? A disproportionate number of Scots shed their blood in obtaining those colonies or died of malaria administering them. (It is not lost on me they shed a lot more of the blood of those the colonies were stolen from). Scotland should demand the Chagos Islands as its share of colonial possessions – and then immediately decolonise. A plan which properly explained will certainly help attain UN recognition. The US base would then become a matter of negotiation between Mauritius and the USA, but from the starting point of the US having no right to be there.
This is from Wikipedia’s article on Diego Garcia:
To accomplish the UK–US mutual defence strategy, in November 1965, the UK purchased the Chagos Archipelago, which includes Diego Garcia, from the then self-governing colony of Mauritius for £3 million to create the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), with the intent of ultimately closing the plantations to provide the uninhabited British territory from which the United States would conduct its military activities in the region.[31]
In April 1966, the British government bought the entire assets of the Chagos Agalega Company in the BIOT for £600,000 and administered them as a government enterprise while awaiting United States funding of the proposed facilities, with an interim objective of paying for the administrative expenses of the new territory.[30] However, the plantations, both under their previous private ownership and under government administration, proved consistently unprofitable due to the introduction of new oils and lubricants in the international marketplace, and the establishment of vast coconut plantations in the East Indies and the Philippines.[32]
On 30 December 1966, the United States and the UK executed an agreement through an Exchange of Notes which permitted the United States to use the BIOT for defence purposes for 50 years until December 2016, followed by a 20-year extension (to 2036) as long as neither party gave notice of termination in a two-year window (December 2014 – December 2016) and the UK may decide on what additional terms to extend the agreement.[33] No monetary payment was made from the United States to the UK as part of this agreement or any subsequent amendment. Rather, the United Kingdom received a US$14-million discount from the United States on the acquisition of submarine-launched Polaris missiles per a now-declassified addendum to the 1966 agreement.[34]
To the United States, Diego Garcia was a prime territory for setting up a foreign military base. According to Stuart Barber—a civilian working for the US Navy at the Pentagon—Diego Garcia was located far away from any potential threats, it was low in a native population and it was an island that was not sought after by other countries as it lacked economic interest. To Barber, Diego Garcia and other acquired islands would play a key role in maintaining US dominance. Here Barber designed the strategic island concept, where the US would obtain as many less populated islands as possible for military purposes. According to Barber, this was the only way to ensure security for a foreign base. Diego Garcia is often referred to as “Fantasy Island” for its seclusion.
British colonial governor of Seychelles Sir Bruce Greatbatch oversaw the depopulation of Chagossians from the Chagos Archipelago. …
Regardless of the size of the population, the Chagossians had to be removed from the island before the base could be constructed. In 1968, the first tactics were implemented to decrease the population of Diego Garcia. Those who left the island—either for vacation or medical purposes—were not allowed to return, and those who stayed could obtain only restricted food and medical supplies. This tactic was in hope that those that stayed would leave “willingly”.[36] One of the tactics used was that of killing Chagossian pets.[37]
In March 1971, United States Naval construction battalions arrived on Diego Garcia to begin the construction of the communications station and an airfield.[38] To satisfy the terms of an agreement between the UK and the United States for an uninhabited island, the plantation on Diego Garcia was closed in October of that year.[39] The plantation workers and their families were relocated to the plantations on Peros Bahnos and Salomon atolls to the northwest. The by-then-independent Mauritian government refused to accept the islanders without payment, and in 1974, the UK gave the Mauritian government an additional £650,000 to resettle the islanders.[40] Those who still remained on the island of Diego Garcia between 1971 and 1973 were forced onto cargo ships that were heading to Mauritius and the Seychelles. …
Diego Garcia is the only inhabited island in the British Indian Ocean Territory, an overseas territory of the United Kingdom, usually abbreviated as “BIOT”. The Government of the BIOT consists of a commissioner appointed by the Queen. The commissioner is assisted by an administrator and small staff, and is based in London and is resident in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Originally colonised by the French, Diego Garcia was ceded, along with the rest of the Chagos Archipelago, to the United Kingdom in the Treaty of Paris (1814) at the conclusion of a portion of the Napoleonic Wars.[25] Diego Garcia and the Chagos Archipelago were administered by the colonial government on the island of Mauritius until 1965, when the UK purchased them from the self-governing colony of Mauritius for £3 million, and declared them to be a separate British Overseas Territory.[58] The BIOT administration was moved to Seychelles following the independence of Mauritius in 1968 until the independence of Seychelles in 1976,[24] and to a desk in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London since.[59] …
In 2015, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell‘s former chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, said Diego Garcia was used by the CIA for “nefarious activities”. He said that he had heard from three US intelligence sources that Diego Garcia was used as “a transit site where people were temporarily housed, let us say, and interrogated from time to time” and, “What I heard was more along the lines of using it as a transit location when perhaps other places were full or other places were deemed too dangerous or insecure, or unavailable at the moment”.[69][70]
In June 2004, the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw stated that United States authorities had repeatedly assured him that no detainees had passed in transit through Diego Garcia or were disembarked there.[71]
Diego Garcia was rumoured to have been one of the locations of the CIA‘s black sites in 2005.[72] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is one of the “high-value detainees” suspected to have been held in Diego Garcia.[73] In October 2007, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the British Parliament announced that it would launch an investigation of continued allegations of a prison camp on Diego Garcia, which it claimed were twice confirmed by comments made by retired United States Army General Barry McCaffrey.[74] On 31 July 2008, an unnamed former White House official alleged that the United States had imprisoned and interrogated at least one suspect on Diego Garcia during 2002 and possibly 2003.[75]
Manfred Nowak, one of five of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture, said that credible evidence exists supporting allegations that ships serving as black sites have used Diego Garcia as a base.[76] The human rights group Reprieve alleged that United States-operated ships moored outside the territorial waters of Diego Garcia were used to incarcerate and torture detainees.[77]
Several groups claim that the military base on Diego Garcia has been used by the United States government for transport of prisoners involved in the controversial extraordinary rendition program, an allegation formally reported to the Council of Europe in June 2007.[78] On 21 February 2008, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband admitted that two United States extraordinary rendition flights refuelled on Diego Garcia in 2002, and was “very sorry” that earlier denials were having to be corrected.[79]
According to Wikileaks CableGate documents [in 2010] (reference ID “09LONDON1156“), in a calculated move planned in 2009, the UK proposed that the BIOT become a “marine reserve” with the aim of preventing the former inhabitants from returning to the islands. …
On 23 June 2017, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voted in favour of referring the territorial dispute between Mauritius and the UK to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in order to clarify the legal status of the Chagos Islands archipelago in the Indian Ocean. The motion was approved by a majority vote with 94 voting for and 15 against.[9][10]
In February 2019, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that the United Kingdom must transfer the islands to Mauritius as they were not legally separated from the latter in 1965. The ruling is not legally binding.[11] In May 2019, the United Nations General Assembly affirmed the decision of the International Court of Justice and demanded that the United Kingdom withdraw its colonial administration from the Islands and cooperate with Mauritius to facilitate the resettlement of Mauritian nationals in the archipelago.[12][13] In a written statement, the U.S. government said that neither the Americans nor the British have any plans to discontinue use of the military base on Diego Garcia. The statement said in a footnote: “In 2016, there were discussions between the United Kingdom and the United States concerning the continuing importance of the joint base. Neither party gave notice to terminate and the agreement remains in force until 2036”.[14]
In June 2020, a Mauritian official offered to allow the United States to retain its military base on the island if Mauritius succeeded in regaining sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago.[15]
And here is the background:
Churchill was an intense imperialist: he believed, exactly as did the founder of modern British imperialism, Cecil Rhodes, starting in 1877, that the larger the percentage of this planet’s surface that is controlled by the English “race,” the better. The only difference between Rhodesist imperialism and prior British imperialism is that Rhodes’s plan was based upon the geostrategic belief that the only way in which Britain could continue its empire and expand it would be by retaking the United States via subversion (as he planned), in which the leaders of America would be deceived to believe that, in the U.S.-and-UK “Special Relationship” which Rhodes had in mind, Britain would be following America’s lead, when actually those American leaders would be following Britain’s lead and not be aware of that subterranean UK supremacy. (Rhodes championed subversive aristocratic rule. Subversion is basic to his plan.)
Churchill himself was a Rhodesist and he was also very close with Rhodes’s business partner and political successor, Abe Bailey. The 1911 book Cecil Rhodes: His Private Life, says of Rhodes (p.256), “He was very much entertained by Mr. Churchill’s ready wit and clever conversation, and he listened intently to his views on the political questions of the day. He admired his intellectual powers, which, in conjunction with his dash and ‘go,’ he said must inevitably bring him to the front.”
Here is how the Rhodesist view was stated, originally, in the 1877, first, version of Rhodes’s will (as it became published in 1920): “To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, … the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, … and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity.” Instead of FDR’s goal of developing a democratic federation of all nations, there was to be an all-encompassing British Empire, a global British dictatorship, in which a ‘superior race’ is to be ruling everywhere — ruling all ‘inferior’ races. Churchill believed exactly the same, and he treated dark-skinned people like dirt. On 9 October 2011, Britain’s Independent headlined “Johann Hari: The truth? Our empire killed millions”, and he opened “We are still a nation locked in denial.” That denial was being led by Britain’s most-honored ‘historians’. Perhaps the chief difference between Churchill and Hitler was simply that Churchill was British, while Hitler was German and did even more damage. (But, just like FDR and Stalin, Churchill was essential in order to defeat Hitler, which was the greatest single achievement in all of the Twentieth Century.)
FDR was absolutely opposed to any sort of imperialism, and he had passionate private arguments against Winston Churchill about it, because Churchill said, “There can be no tampering with the Empire’s economic agreements,” in reply to FDR’s “I can’t believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy.” And, afterwards, FDR said privately to his son Elliott, contemptuously against Churchill, “A real old Tory, isn’t he? A real old Tory, of the old school.” Actually, Churchill was a Tory of the post-1877 school. I [Eric Zuesse] argued on 28 April 2020 that until 1877, only a minority of the British aristocracy were insisting upon retaking America. Rhodes was the first British aristocrat to recognize that in order for the British Empire to continue at all, it must re-absorb the U.S. Government.
FDR died on 12 April 1945, and his naive V.P., Harry Truman, became President. Promptly, Truman was surrounded by Rhodesists and he didn’t understand what was going on. Churchill advised him against accepting the Soviet Union. However, the key person who also did was U.S. General Dwight Eisenhower, who seems to have clinched the case on 26 July 1945 by confirming Churchill’s view and telling the President that either the U.S. would conquer the Soviet Union or else the Soviet Union would conquer the U.S. (In other words: Ike was telling Truman that Stalin was a Trotskyist, and Truman believed it even if he had no idea of what Stalinism versus Trotskyism were — Truman was tragically naive.)
Here, providing a favorable (pro-Rhodesist-regime, anti-Soviet-regime) slant upon the same ugly reality that has just been documented about Rhodesism, is from the Rhodesist CIA’s own retired Miles Copeland’s 1969 book, The Game of Nations: The Amorality of Power Politics, the opening of Chapter 2:
On a cold and rainy February afternoon in 1947 [21 February 1947], one year before the Games Center was established, First Secretary H. M. Sichel of the British Embassy in Washington telephoned Loy Henderson, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and African Affairs. He had two messages from the Foreign Office which were “rather important.” They were of a sort that normally should be delivered by the British Ambassador direct to the Secretary of State, George Marshall, but since General Marshall had already left the office for the weekend perhaps, Sichel suggested he could drop off the notes, have a “brief” chat about them, and allow Mr. Henderson a weekend of reflection on them before briefing the Secretary prior to meeting the British Ambassador on Monday morning.
Sichel arrived as State Department employees, after a comparatively dull week, were donning their raincoats and galoshes to take off for an indoor weekend. Loy Henderson, who habitually worked until eight or nine o’clock even on Fridays, had sent off all his secretaries and was alone in the office. The scene was the one of utter calm that skillful dramatists often establish to provide the psychological setting for a shattering announcement.
The announcement, which Mr. Sichel delivered in the course of his “brief chat,” was certainly shattering. The two messages were official notification that the Pax Britannica, which had kept order in much of the world for over a century, was at an end. Specifically, His Majesty’s Government could no longer afford the $50,000,000 or so that was required to support the resistance of the Greek and Turkish Governments to Communist aggression either, as in the first case, by guerrilla warfare or, in the second, by direct military action of the Soviet Union. Either the United States Government would fill the gap, or it would go unfilled — or it would be left to the Russians. Mr. Henderson, whose considerable diplomatic experience included assignments in Moscow and other capitals in the Soviet orbit, didn’t need a weekend of reflection to realize that more than Greece and Turkey was at stake. The vacuum of which these two countries were a part extended throughout all of southern Europe that was not already behind the Iron Curtain, and through North Africa and the Middle East. With the British announcement, delivered so calmly by Mr. Sichel, the United States was given the choice of becoming an active world power — an “on-the-ground” world power, as a lecturer at the State Department’s Foreign Service Institute was later to put it — or seeing the Soviets become a more menacing feature of world politics than Nazi Germany could ever have been.
THEN P. 38:
there was the necessary discrepancy between the publicly stated attitude of our Government toward world questions and the attitudes held in the inner sanctums of the State Department and the Pentagon. Early in 1946, George Kennan, during the last few weeks in his assignment as deputy chief of mission in Moscow, wrote a letter to the State Department which correctly outlined the shape of the oncoming Cold War and which was immediately accepted as the definitive analysis of Soviet intentions, outlook and behavior. At the same time, Mr. Kennan argued convincingly that if Europe was to be divided the blame should be placed on the Russians and not on ourselves. Winston Churchill, in a speech delivered at Fulton, Missouri, referred to the “Iron Curtain,” and the presence of President Truman at his side implied official U.S. Government endorsement of such an attitude. Apart from this one lapse, however, official policy was still to pretend that the “spirit of Yalta” guided our actions.
P. 42:
Our aboveboard response to the British diplomatic notes of February 21, 1947, was the Truman Doctrine, which was announced, after three weeks of hectic State Department and White House staff work, on March 12. Announcement of the Marshall Plan followed shortly; in July and from then on a flood of editorial, semiofficial and official comment (the latter mainly in the form of college commencement addresses delivered by top government officials) began to deal openly with the Cold War and our policy of “containing” Soviet expansion.
Whereas on 5 March 1946 Churchill had publicly announced the “Special Relationship” as “the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples” (a phrase that could as well have come from Rhodes himself), 21 February 1947 was when only privately government-to-government the British regime made clear to the U.S. regime that the U.S. regime was now going to be relieving the British regime of portions of its costs of maintaining its empire — subsidizing UK taxpayers’ subsidization of continuing the overseas empire of Britain’s aristocracy.
And here is about the Marshall Plan, which was an extremely effective Cold War tactic — one which cannot be understood in a truthful manner outside of the crucial imperialistic plan of which it was a key part:
The U.S. did donate many billions of dollars to rebuild Europe. The Marshall Plan, however, excluded the Soviet Union. It excluded Belarus, which had suffered the largest losses of any land in WWII, 25% of its population. It excluded Russia, which lost 13%. It excluded Ukraine, which lost 16%. But those weren’t nations, they were states within the U.S.S.R., which lost nearly 14% — and by far the largest number of its residents: nearly 27 million. The only nation which lost a higher percentage of its population than the Soviet Union did was Poland: 17%. And Poland, too, was excluded from The Marshall Plan, because the Soviet Union had conquered Hitler’s forces in that nation too.
Russia had lost, to Germany’s Nazis, 13,950,000, or exactly 12.7% of its population. Another part of the Soviet Union, Belarus, lost 2.29 million, or exactly 25.3% of its population to Hitler. Another part of the U.S.S.R., Ukraine, lost 6.85 million, or 16.3%. The entire Soviet Union lost 26.6 million, exactly 13.7% of its population to Hitler. The U.S. lost only 419,400, or 0.32% of its population.
Germany’s “Operation Barbarossa” to capture the Soviet Union started on 22 June 1941, which was even before the U.S. entered WW II; and from that time till War’s-end on 8 May 1945, more than 58% of German divisions (peaking at 86% in late 1942) were engaged in that effort — against that one nation. By War’s-end, around 90% of the remaining German divisions were in the Soviet Union. It would be reasonable to say that the Soviet Union won the Allies’ war against Hitler. (Certainly the U.S.S.R. received the brunt of the Nazis’ damages, though Truman excluded it from the Marshall Plan — because that Plan was intended as a powerful weapon against the U.S.S.R.) The Marshall Plan wasn’t only aimed at rebuilding America’s European allies, but it was — and this was even more important in the eyes of America’s aristocracy — aimed against Russia by excluding all assistance to the nations that had suffered the worst losses from Hitler’s onslaughts: Russia and its allies. The aim was to make Russia’s allies envy and want to become part of the ‘capitalist’ nations to their west — the allies of America.
Furthermore, as Strategic Culture pointed out on 6 June 2020 (entirely accurately), “The Battle of Moscow [2 October 1941 to 7 January 1942] was the first strategic defeat of the German army on the ground during World War II. Moscow became the first capital city in continental Europe not to be captured as a result of German offensive. … The main reason for the Soviet victory [the first decisive victory in WW II, the second one being the 5 July 1943 to 23 August 1943 Battle of Kursk, which actually doomed Hitler] was the valiance and sacrifice of the Red Army, which lost 937,000 [soldiers] defending Moscow.” Near the beginning of FDR’s lengthy fireside chat to the nation on 28 April 1942, he said: “On the European front the most important development of the past year has been without question the crushing counteroffensive on the part of the great armies of Russia against the powerful German Army. These Russian forces have destroyed and are destroying more armed power of our enemies — troops, planes, tanks, and guns — than all the other United Nations put together.” (NOTE: He was already using the phrase “United Nations” with the objective in mind for all of the world’s nations to view themselves as having been saved by the U.N. that FDR was intending ultimately to replace all empires and to be the sole source of international laws.) Near the War’s end, Churchill telegrammed to Stalin “that it is the Russian army that tore the guts out of the German military machine and is at the present moment holding by far the larger portion of the enemy on its front.” However, on 8 May 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted “On May 8, 1945, America and Great Britain had victory over the Nazis! America’s spirit will always win. In the end, that’s what happens.” So goes the myth, but certainly not the history.
Moreover, immediately after FDR died and Harry S. Truman became President, the U.S. CIA (then as its predecessor organization the OSS) provided protection and employment in Germany for top members of Hitler’s equivalent to the CIA, the Gehlen Organization. (America’s CIA continues flagrantly to violate the law and hide from Congress and the American people crucial details of its relationship with the Gehlen Organization.) By contrast, the Soviet Union was unremitting in killing Nazis whom it captured. So: while the U.S.S.R. was killing any ‘ex’-Nazis it could find, the U.S.A. was hiring them either in West Germany or else into the U.S. itself. It brought them to America whenever the U.S. regime needed the person’s assistance in designing weapons to use against the Soviet Union. Right away, the U.S. was looking for ‘ex’-Nazis who could help the U.S. conquer the Soviets. The Cold War secretly started in the U.S. as soon as WW II was over (the OSS-CIA’s “Operation Paperclip”). (There was no equivalent to “Operation Paperclip” in the U.S.S.R.)
Journalist Eric S. Margolis headlined on 9 June 2018, “Thank The Red Army For D-Day Victory” and well-encapsulated the reality:
Most Americans, British and Canadians believe that D-Day was the decisive stroke that ended WWII in Europe. But this is not true.
Germany’s mighty Wehrmacht, which included the Luftwaffe, was destroyed by Stalin’s Soviet Union. The Red Army claims to have destroyed 507 German divisions, 48,000 German tanks, 77,000 German aircraft, and 100 divisions of Axis troops allied to Germany from Italy, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Finland.
Few Americans have ever heard of the Soviet Far East offensive of 1945, a huge operation that extended from Central Asia to Manchuria and the Pacific. At least 450,000 Japanese soldiers were killed, wounded or captured by the Red Army, 32% of Japan’s total wartime military losses. The Soviets were poised to invade Japan when the US struck it with two nuclear weapons.
Of Germany’s 10 million casualties in WWII, 75% were inflicted by the Red Army.
On 9 May 2018, Michael Jabara Carley bannered “The Russian V-Day Story (Or the History of World War II Not Often Heard in the West)” and he wrote:
The everyman in Europe and the United States knew very well who had carried the load against the Wehrmacht.
No sooner was the war over than Britain and the United States started to think about another war, this time against the Soviet Union. In May 1945 the British high command produced Operation “Unthinkable”, a top secret plan for an offensive, reinforced by German POWs, against the Red Army. What bastards, what ingrates. In September 1945, the Americans contemplated use of 204 atomic bombs to destroy the Soviet Union. The godfather, President Roosevelt, had died in April, and within weeks American Sovietophobes were reversing his policy.
On 8 June 2014, the French blogger Olivier Berruyer posted the files of a prominent French polling firm (IFOP — French Institute of public opinion) that had scientifically sampled French public opinion in May 1945, May 1994, and June 2004, on “Which nation contributed the most to the defeat of Germany” in WW II? In 1945, by nearly 3-to-1, the Soviet Union was named more often than U.S.; UK even less than that. By 1994, U.S. was named twice as much as the Soviet Union. By 2004, U.S. was named nearly three times as often as Soviet Union. Clearly, the U.S. regime’s propaganda has enormously warped the ‘reality’ that its, and its vassals’, publics see. History has become ‘history’, within the U.S.-run world.
The Soviets defeated Germany and Japan, but FDR had just died, and so Truman and Churchill (in the ensuing myths) handed the ‘victory’ to U.S. and UK.
The Soviet Union suffered vastly the brunt of the Allies’ losses from WW II, but the post-FDR U.S., which had suffered the least from the war, refused to help them out, and instead the U.S. regime protected most of the ‘ex’-Nazis that were within its own area of control. Without nasty Joseph Stalin’s help, America would today be ruled by the Nazi regime, instead of by America’s domestic aristocracy, as it now is. And this is the way that our aristocracy thanked the Soviet people, for the immense sacrifices that they had made, really, on behalf of the entire future world. This happened right after WW II was over, and the U.S. regime was already determined, right away, not to help those people, but instead to conquer them — to treat them as being the new enemy, so as to stoke the weapons-trade after the war (and after the need for more weapons) ended[)]. How ‘good’ was this behavior by the U.S. rulers — the “Military Industrial Complex” or MIC — actually?
The MIC took over as soon as FDR died and Truman replaced him.
The period from the end of WW II to the present has been the flowering of the seed that became implanted in the mind of Cecil Rhodes in 1877. Apparently, U.N. agencies are starting to terminate Rhodes’s monster — perhaps to bring it down. MI6, CIA, etc., will have a hard time dealing with that.
What percentage of the populations of either the U.S. or the UK have been informed about any of this? How can democracy exist under such circumstances? Does democracy actually exist in either of these countries?