Jump to content
The Education Forum

Israel’s Plan for Syria : The Somalia Model

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

WHATS THE WORST instigator of violence ?? ANSWER : RELIGIOUS STRIFE.


Presidents Come and Go but Strategy Remains



The third chapter of the study examines in more detail the formation of a regional,United States-led anti-Iranian ‘alliance’ and the motivations and objectives behind it. The possible implications of this alliance, if it were to develop further, for thesectarianization of the Middle East and for regional stability are also charted. It is inthe interests of the United States (and Israel) to present the Middle East asundergoing a Shia Revival and as being threatened by a rising Iran in order to gainpolitical support from the Sunni states in the region for the containment of Iran andits ambitions. At the same time, for various external and internal reasons, SaudiArabia and other Sunni-led states have begun a subtle rapprochement towardsIsrael and have been engaged in incorporating sectarian rhetoric in their foreignpolicy discourse.The main reasons for the Sunni states to reinforce their sectarian (state) identity are,first of all, the state elites’ fears about Iran’s regional power ambitions and, secondly,anxiety about possible increased calls for influence for their Shia populations. In thelong term, this power game can possibly lead to a regional system divided into twospheres: the Shia and the Sunni – led by Iran and Saudi Arabia respectively. If thisis the case, the United States and its Sunni allies will benefit from this regionaldichotomy in many ways in the short term. In the long term, a sectarian divide is notbeneficial for regional stability and should thus not be a desirable development forany Western actor.The sectarian divide in Islam has the potential to become an era-defining feature ofthe post-Saddam Middle East, in the same way that pan-Arabism and pan-Islam9 did in the 20thcentury. Due to the weakness (of legitimacy) of political leaderships in

many Arab states and their lack of ability to create and maintain (nation-)state orcollective identities, sectarian identity, along with other identities such as tribal andreligious ones, will have increasing importance in politics inside the most fragile ofthese states.




The study therefore suggests that the emergence of Shia-Sunni rhetoric at theregional level is partly a by-product of the regional strategies of certain key players:the United States, Saudi Arabia, Israel and also Egypt and Jordan. It is in thesestates’ interests to maintain at the regional level, to some extent, an arbitrarydichotomical divide of ‘Sunni states’ and ‘Shia states’ or ‘moderates’ and ‘radicals’.This strategy aims primarily at containing Iran’s power and strategic ambitions. Its

48second function is connected with domestic distribution of power and other externaland internal security concerns of the Sunni-led states in the region.Sectarian identity is not so one-dimensional, however. As the Social Constructivistschool enables us to see, there is a two-way relationship in employing sectarianidentities in regional politics. On the one hand they are used as a tool of powerpolitics,but on the other hand they create realities, which then replicate themselves.IR Constructivists, in turn, stress the importance of identity over other considerationsand emphasize the power of identity politics. Moreover, without an understanding ofthe history – both religious and social – of the Middle East, it will be impossible forWestern actors to establish a coherent policy for the region. Sectarian divisionshave surfaced in all Arab states in the aftermath of the war in Iraq, and they can nolonger be ignored in policymaking. The contribution of Neoconservatism to anunderstanding of the sectarianization of Middle East politics, for its part, stems fromthe resemblance the current US policy in the region bears to it. Or conversely, at themoment this policy is still very much steered by a view of the Shia identity that isinfluenced by Neoconservatism.


To summarize, despite the explanatory power of the Neorealist argument, the threedifferent lines of explanation examined in this paper are, in fact, complementary andtogether allow for a broader understanding of the events currently unfolding in theregion. In short, history and identities are mixed with, and in, geopolitics and are, asa result, producing a new set of dynamics for regional politics in the Middle East.The final question is whether it is possible that the Shia-Sunni divide will become animportant factor in shaping state behaviour in the Middle East. The answer containsa caveat: It is possible and even probable that sectarian identity – both social andreligious – will become a new pan-norm in the region,but other identities will stillcontinue to play a role; some (tribal, religious, family) more, some (pan-Arab, nation-state) possibly less. The weaker the state, the more likely it is that sectarian andother competing identities will gain ground.The Advantages and Disadvantages of a ‘Sectarian Strategy’ The second part of the study (Chapter 3) examined the formation of an anti-Iranianalliance according to a theoretical framework inspired by Neorealism called ‘thecommon interest theory’. Below, some further observations will be made on potentialfuture consequences of the anti-Iranian alliance, should it materialize as such. Anormative approach (good/bad), partly influenced by Western values, will guide theanalysis here. The question is: what are, on the one hand, the potential advantagesof this ‘sectarian strategy’ for the anti-Iranian alliance and, on the other, thedisadvantages of a further ‘sectarianization’ of regional politics in the Middle East?Most of the advantages and disadvantages are linked to regional stability/instability;others have to do with Western democratic values.While examining the motivations inherent in the anti-Iranian alliance along the linesof the ‘common interest theory’, one must ask,how the United States and its allies (hope to) benefit from the divide? Why would these countries want to pursue asectarianization of Middle Eastern politics? There are numerous (potential)advantages:


There have been fears that Persian Gulf states might turn to other suppliers ofweapons and related technology if the United States does not increase its salesto Saudi Arabia. Here again, a common enemy, Iran, is used to justify the deal. Astronger military also makes the al-Saud Royal Family more powerfuldomestically.214 •Forging an anti-Shia alliance will not turn the GCC leaders’ heads regarding anattack on Iran, in which they would not directly participate by any means.However, as long as they perceive that the United States is on their side andagainst Iran, they are not in a position to object to any kind of military operations,although they might be the first to feel the direct effects of an Iranian retaliation(for example in the form of Shia sleeper cells).•As long as the Arab states are on the same side as the United States, the latterwill allow the former to pursue their nuclear programmes without similar attentionto that commanded by the Iranian programme. It still remains to be seen thoughwhether the US will allow Saudi Arabia (/GCC) to acquire a nuclear weapon. Alot will depend on developments in the US-Iranian and Israeli-Iranian relationsand, most importantly, on whether the US and Israel will go all the way to stopIran from building a nuclear weapon.


The crisis caused by the Iranian nuclear programme will not be solved by wagingsectarian divisions.215 •The nuclearization of the ‘Muslim Middle East’ is likely if the Shia-Sunni divide atthe regional level continues to evolve. This is because the current settingmotivates Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, which will prompt Sunni Arab statesto do the same. However, this scenario will only unravel if the US, Europe andIsrael fail to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. In addition,nuclearization does not necessarily mean the region will become more unstable.•According to some analysts, additional military armament will have negativeoutcomes in the long run because it is likely to increase the arms race in one ofthe world’s most volatile regions.•Drawing attention away from the Israeli-Palestinian problematique will increasefrustration and cause further radicalization among the Arab publics although, onthe other hand, diverting attention might eventually allow for an Israeli-Arab dealover Palestine. This might be a disadvantageous deal for the Palestinians, withIsrael becoming the winner in this scenario.•The current alliance is based on a strong US presence in the Middle East and inIran’s neighbouring countries. The US military presence in Middle Easterncountries correlates with the rise of radical and Jihadist Islamism, mostlySunni.216 •The US needs Iran in solving the crisis in Iraq, Lebanon and even in Palestinebecause of Iran’s close links with Shia groups in the two countries and withSunni Hamas in Gaza.•The Shia-Sunni divide, as currently observed at the regional level, does not takeinto account the influence of other great powers in the region. In the future, thelatter will increasingly counterbalance US power, especially in the Persian Gulf –the clearest example of this being the Russian and Chinese relationships withIran.217 •Visible American support (political, diplomatic, military and financial) for its Araballies tends to delegitimize them in the eyes of the publics. Examples of this arethe Abbas government, the Siniora government and the post-Saddamgovernments in Iraq. Visible US support can also constitute a rallying point forthe country’s enemies and those of the local governments. Examples areconstituted by Iran, Hizbollah and Hamas.•The Arab street still hails Hassan Nasrallah and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asheroes and shuns a stronger, if any, alliance with the United States. (OPPS LETS GET THAT ARAB STREET ENRAGED,GAAL)This iscertainly the case as far as Israel is concerned. Sunni governments will have towork hard in order to justify their alliance with the US and Israel, if such analliance is going to materialize more visibly.•Finally, perhaps the most worrying consequence of anti-Iranian and anti-Shiapolicies is the deterioration of human and political rights and liberties for Shias inall Muslim countries. In Sunni-dominated states,governments will be able to takestricter measures against their local Shia populations.(GEE GOD BLESS THAT ARAB SPRING ,NO ?? ,Gaal) The democratization driveof the Bush Administration has failed and security first-thinking is on the rise bothin the West and in the (Middle) East. Combined with these facts, the Arab Sunnigovernments will use the fight against Iran’s regional influence as a means of justifying domestic anti-Shia and anti-Islamist policies, and this cover will sufficefor the United States, even at the expense of moral considerations. Anti-Iranianpolicies, in turn, harden public opinion in Iran and enable the Iraniangovernment/regime to justify hard-line policies against opposition groups as wellas ordinary people.Despite the possible short-term stabilizing advantages, promoting sectarian regionalpolitics is not a desirable development in the long term for any international actorthat is seeking liberal democracy in the region. Around 60 per cent of the populationof the states of the Persian Gulf are Shia218, and Iran, with a population of almost 70million, is around 90 per cent Shia, but the Middle East is still predominantly Sunni

51and Sunni-ruled. Regional sectarianization – promoting it either actively or passively – would translate into hard times for Shias in all Muslim countries. At the same time,it would mean increasing instability all around the Middle East, mainly because ofIran’s responses to what it perceived as American/Israeli/Sunni aggression againstits interests in the region.

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An award-winning author and geopolitical analyst, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is the author of The Globalization of NATO (Clarity Press) and a forthcoming book The War on Libya and the Re-Colonization of Africa. He has also contributed to several other books ranging from cultural critique to international relations. He is a Sociologist and Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), a contributor at the Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF), Moscow, and a member of the Scientific Committee of Geopolitica, Italy. He has also addressed the Middle East and international relations issues on several TV news networks including Al Jazeera, teleSUR, and Russia Today. His writings have been translated into more than twenty languages. In 2011 he was awarded the First National Prize of the Mexican Press Club for his work in international investigative journalism.

Editorial Reviews


"Nazemroaya's book is a must-read for any European or other NATO state citizen who wants to understand the danger the American-driven Alliance presents to world harmony and peace." Denis J. Halliday, former UN Assistant Secretary-General, 1994-1998

""The Globalization of NATO by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is simply magnificent..." MIGUEL D'ESCOTO BROCKMANN, Former President, United Nations General Assembly

Nazemroaya's book, in addition to reminding us that the role of the United Nations has been confiscated by NATO, elaborates in the danger the North Atlantic Treaty represents to world peace. -José L. Gómez del Prado, Chairman,United Nations Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries (2005-2011)


by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya http://globalresearc...xt=va&aid=32351


Israeli-US Script: Divide Syria, Divide the Rest

What is happening in Syria is a sign of things to come for the region. Regime change is not the sole goal of the US and its allies in Syria. Dividing the Syrian Arab Republic is the end goal of Washington in Syria.

Britain’s Maplecroft, which specializes in consulting on strategic risk, has said that we are witnessing the balkanization of the Syrian state: “Kurds in the north, Druze in the southern hills, Alawites in the coastal northwestern mountainous region and the Sunni majority elsewhere.”

We are already hearing people like White House advisor Vali Nasr talking about all this. The religious and ethnic cleavages in Syria are not demarcated in purely geographic terms and the balkanization process could play out as a lebonization process, which means that Syria will be divided along violent sectarian fault lines and face political deadlock like Lebanon during its civil war without formally breaking up. Lebonization, a soft form of balkanization, has already taken place in Iraq under federalism.

The events in the Middle East and North Africa are seeing the animation of mass movements against local tyrants, like in Bahrain, Jordan, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia, but there is also a vicious script from Israel’s Yinon Plan and its offshoots. The Yinon Plan and similar schemes want a contrived xxxxte-Sunni war amongst the Muslims as the central piece of the sectarian divisions - or fitna in Arabic - that are to include Christian-Muslim, Arab-Berber, Arab-Iranian, Arab-Turkish, and Iranian-Turkish animosity.

What this process intends to do is create sectarian hatred, ethnic divisions, racism, and religious wars. All the countries that the US and its allies are destabilizing have natural dividing lines, and when tribal, ethnic, confessional, and religious animosity is ignited in one country, it will spill over into other countries. The problems in Libya have spilled into Niger and Chad and the problems in Syria are spilling over into Turkey and Lebanon.

Egypt is the venue of revolutionary and counter-revolutionary currents that have kept the largest Arab power busy with its attention on domestic politics. While Egypt is facing domestic upheaval, the US is attempting to play the country’s military and the Muslim Brotherhood against one another. Before the upheavals Sudan was formally balkanized by Tel Aviv and Washington through the manipulation of identity politics, which led to the secession of South Sudan.

Libya has been neutralized and divided by various groups. Lebonization, as mentioned earlier, has also taken root in Iraq as the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) with foreign support - specifically foreign support from the US, Western Europe, Israel, and Turkey - begins to act more and more as if Northern Iraq or Iraqi Kurdistan is a separate country from the rest of Iraq.

Dore Gold, the President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and an advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is worth quoting for his views: “What you have in Syria is that the Middle East is coming apart; a new form of chaos is replacing what has existed.” This of course is part of the wishful thinking of Israeli policy makers who have an interest in seeing this. Originally, the position of Tel Aviv was ignored when the crisis in Syria began, but it is clear now that Israel has an interest in seeing Syria fragmented into pieces and in a state of continuous civil war. This is what the Yinon Plan and its successors have outlined as being Israel’s strategic objectives in both Syria and Lebanon.

Kurdish Nationalism

Syria, like Iraq, can be viewed as a key pressure point in the Middle East. Disarray in both will create a regional meltdown. As things heat up in Syria, fragile Iraq is also beginning to pulse as a regional geo-political volcano simmers.

For those who have doubts that the US is fanning the flames of a fire to create a meltdown in the Middle East or that the events in Syria are beginning to have regional ramifications, they merely need to look at the region of Kurdistan. Kurdish nationalist fighters have begun to mobilize in Syria and in Turkey and Turkish troops have been attacked by them. The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has begun to take major steps that signify its independence from Iraq.

In Iraq, the KRG is essentially a de facto state with its own parliament, flag, army, visa regime, armed forces, police, and laws. In violation of Iraq’s national laws, the KRG has even made illegal arms and oil deals on its own with foreign governments and entities without even so much as notifying the government in Baghdad. Moreover, the KRG has even prevented Iraqi troops from going to Iraq’s northwest border with Syria to ensure that weapons smuggling and lawlessness end.

Turkey, which maintains close ties to the KRG, has also been encouraging this behavior and has even treated the KRG like a national government by having diplomatic contacts without consulting the Iraqi government in Baghdad. The leaders of the Kurdistan Regional Government are also allowing their country to be used as a Mossad operation base against Syria and Iran.

Ironically, Turkey has warned that it will take military action against Kurdish separatists in Syria while Ankara is supporting separatist tendencies amongst the KRG and the division of Syria. Aside from creating tensions between the Turkish and Iraqi governments, this has had consequences in Turkey. The Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) has begun to remobilize. The PKK has claimed that it is in control of the Semdinli (Semzinan) District in Turkey’s Hakkari Province and fighting has broken out in southeast Turkey.

Casualties have begun to mount as Turkish troops and security forces have begun to face attacks. Martial law has also been declared in Hakkari Province according to the Turkish press. Turkey itself now faces its own fight against anti-government forces as it appears unable to rule its own territory. A Turkish opposition MP from the People’s Republican Party has also been kidnapped by the PKK. Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has tried to blame Syria for fighting that has erupted in Turkey’s Kurdish areas, but he omits the fact that the violence in Turkey is a direct result of Turkish interference in Syria. If they already have not, the weapons that Erdogan is sending into Syria will eventually find their way back into Turkey where they will be used by anti-government forces.

Tel Aviv Targets Lebanon: A Second Levantine Front is Opened?

The case of the Israeli tourist bus attack in Bulgaria is ominous to say the least. What is striking about the incident is that Israel blamed Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Iran immediately, before an hour even passed after the attack or an investigation was conducted.

What is worth noting is that just a few weeks earlier officials in Tel Aviv were threatening to attack Lebanon again, saying that they would totally destroy Lebanon in a third Israeli-Lebanese war. The Israeli comments were made by Brigadier-General Hertzi Halevy, the commander of Tel Aviv’s 91st Division, just a week ahead of the sixth anniversary of Hezbollah’s victory against Israel in the 2006 war between Israel and Lebanon. Halevy and other Israeli leaders have repeatedly threatened to reduce Lebanon to ashes by launching an all-out attack

Syria’s allies are all being pressured in a multi-dimensional war. Iran, Russia, Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinians are being put under increasing pressure to abandon their Syrian allies. The Israeli threats are aimed at putting psychological pressure on Lebanon and Hezbollah as a means to expand the psychological, media, economic, diplomatic, intelligence, and political siege against Syria into Lebanon. US sanctions against Syria are already incorporating Iran and Hezbollah and Lebanese banks have faced cyber attacks and pressure from Washington and its allies.

Looking at the Coming Horizon: Welcome to America’s Arc of Instability?

The US-sponsored siege of Syria is part of its attempts to divide Eurasia and maintain its global primacy as a superpower. Washington has no mercy for its friends or its foes either and countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia will eventually be used as cannon fodder. US strategists want the area running from North Africa and the Middle East to the Caucasus, Central Asia, and India to be turned into a black hole of fighting, à la Brzezinski’s “Eurasian Balkans.”

The Arabs, Iran, and Turkey are being lined up for a major conflict, because the US is losing its superpower status. All that remains of Washington’s superpower status is its military power. Towards the end of its relatively short life, the Soviet Union only had it military power too. The Soviet Union experienced social unrest and was in economic decline before it collapsed. The situation for the US is not much different, if not worst. Washington is broke, socially divided, becoming racially polarized, and declining rapidly in its international influence. US elites, however, are determined to resist what more and more looks like the unpreventable loss of their country’s superpower status and their empire.

Igniting Eurasia with fire and sedition appears to be Washington’s answer to preventing its own decline. The US plans on starting a great fire from Morocco and the Mediterranean to the borders of China. This process has essentially been begun by the US through the destabilization of three different regions: Central Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. The first steps that the US and its NATO and Arab allies took to do this did not start in Syria.

In the Middle East, this process started through the siege of Iraq that eventually gave way to the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of that country in 2003. In Central Asia, the process started with the destabilization of Afghanistan during the Cold War and US support for fighting between different fractions, including what would become the Taliban; 9/11 merely gave the US and its NATO allies an opportunity to invade. In North Africa, finally the US and Israel balkanized Sudan through years of pressure and covert operations.

In the three regions mentioned above we are seeing the second wave of destabilization now. In Central Asia, the war in Afghanistan has been extended into Pakistan by NATO. This has given way to the term “AfPak” to describe Afghanistan and Pakistan as one theatre. In North Africa, Libya was attacked in 2011 by NATO and the Jamahiriya has essentially been divided by various groups. In the Middle East, this second wave of destabilization operations is targeting the Syrian Arab Republic as a continuation of what happened in Iraq.

Washington seems to be dreaming of this scenario: Kurdish revolts taking place in Syria, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran; sectarian civil wars consuming Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, and Yemen in fire; instability and fighting bleeding Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and Sudan; Berbers and Arabs fighting one another across North Africa; insecurity and political uncertainty spreading in Central Asia; a war in the South Caucasus consuming Georgia, Armenia, and the Republic of Azerbaijan; revolts igniting amongst the Balkars, Chechens, Circassians, Dagestanis, Ingush, and other local Caucasian peoples against Russia in the North Caucasus; the Persian Gulf being a zone of instability; and Russia at loggerheads with the European Union and Turkey. Such a conflagration is steadily being buoyed by Washington.

Ultimately all this is meant to disrupt some of the world’s major energy routes and supplies to hurt the energy-importing economies of China, the major European powers, India, Japan, and South Korea. This could force the European Union to become more militaristic out of desperation to save its economy.

Such a scenario could be dangerous for energy-supplier Russia as well as OPEC states, which would have to choose between the EU and China if there are energy shortages. A resource war - like World War I - could be ignited that would bring ruin to a great deal of Africa and all the industrialized regions of Eurasia. This would happen while the US would stand by in the Western Hemisphere, watching from a safe distance, just like it did during the First World War and the Second World War, before it steps in to pick up the pieces as the economic benefactor of a devastating war.

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obscure author, no citations // END COLBY

? ? ? ??? ???

An award-winning author and geopolitical analyst, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is the author of The Globalization of NATO (Clarity Press) and a forthcoming book The War on Libya and the Re-Colonization of Africa. He has also contributed to several other books ranging from cultural critique to international relations. He is a Sociologist and Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), a contributor at the Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF), Moscow, and a member of the Scientific Committee of Geopolitica, Italy. He has also addressed the Middle East and international relations issues on several TV news networks including Al Jazeera, teleSUR, and Russia Today. His writings have been translated into more than twenty languages. In 2011 he was awarded the First National Prize of the Mexican Press Club for his work in international investigative journalism.

Editorial Reviews


"Nazemroaya's book is a must-read for any European or other NATO state citizen who wants to understand the danger the American-driven Alliance presents to world harmony and peace." Denis J. Halliday, former UN Assistant Secretary-General, 1994-1998

""The Globalization of NATO by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is simply magnificent..." MIGUEL D'ESCOTO BROCKMANN, Former President, United Nations General Assembly

Nazemroaya's book, in addition to reminding us that the role of the United Nations has been confiscated by NATO, elaborates in the danger the North Atlantic Treaty represents to world peace. -José L. Gómez del Prado, Chairman,United Nations Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries (2005-2011)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes obscure, what media outlets has he ever worked for? And no citations. END COLBY

COLBY Google not work, Intellectually lazy or worse ...


see http://en.wordpress.com/tag/nazemroaya-mahdi-darius/



(if you click on articles you see citations,numerous,Gaal)


Heavy Citation MAN, Example one article.

The “Great Game”: Eurasia and the History of War by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya



[1] Halford John Mackinder, Chap. 3 (The Seaman’s Point of View), in Democratic Ideals and Reality (London, U.K.: Constables and Company Ltd., 1919), p.91.

[2] Ibid., Chap. 4 (The Landman’s Point of View), p.121.

Note: This chapter in Democratic Ideals and Reality is based on an essay, Man-power as a Measure of National and Imperial Strength, that Mackinder wrote for the National Review (U.K.) in 1905. It should also be noted that Mackinder and various circles in London viewed the large populations of Germany, Austro-Hungary, and the Czardom of Russia as threats that should be addressed. If one reads the full works of Mackinder they will come to realize that he advocated for some form of Social Darwinism amongst nations, and saw democratic idealism as a subject that should be put aside to preserve the British imperial order. Mackinder even states that the commerce that the British enjoyed was due to the use of British guns and force (Chap. 5, pp.187-188).

[3] Ibid., p.142.

[4] Lonnie R. Johnson, Central Europe: Enemies, Neighbors, Friends, 2nd ed. (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 37-42.

[5] Mackinder, Democratic Ideals, Op. cit., Chap. 5 (The Rivalry of Empires), pp.160-161.

[6] Ibid., Chap. 3, p.78.

[7] Ibid., pp.77-78.

[8] Ibid., p.78.

[9] Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden (San Pedro, California: GSG & Associates Publishers, 1981), pp. 233-235, 237-248, 253, 264-281, 285-302.

“…from 1920 to 1938 [the aims were] the same: to maintain the balance of power in Europe by building up Germany against France and [the Soviet Union]; to increase Britain’s weight in that balance by aligning with her the Dominions [e.g., Australia and Canada] and the United States; to refuse any commitments (especially any commitments through the League of Nations, and above all any commitments to aid France) beyond those existing in 1919; to keep British freedom of action; to drive Germany eastward against [the Soviet Union] if either or both of these two powers became a threat to the peace [probably meaning economic strength] of Western Europe (p.240).”

“…the Locarno agreements guaranteed the frontier of Germany with France and Belgium with the powers of these three states plus Britain and Italy. In reality the agreements gave France nothing, while they gave Britain a veto over French fulfillment of her alliances with Poland and the Little Entente. The French accepted these deceptive documents for reason of internal politics (…) This trap [the Locarno agreements] consisted of several interlocking factors. In the first place, the agreements did not guarantee the German frontier and the demilitarized condition of the Rhineland against German actions, but against the actions of either Germany or France. This, at one stroke, gave Britain the right to oppose any French action against Germany in support of her allies to the east of Germany. This meant that if Germany moved east against Czechoslovakia, Poland, and eventually [the Soviet Union], and if France attacked Germany’s western frontier in support of Czechoslovakia or Poland, as her alliances bound her to do, Great Britain, Belgium, and Italy might be bound by the Locarno Pacts to come to the aid of Germany (p.264).”

“This event of March 1936, by which Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, was the most crucial event in the whole history of appeasement. So long as the territory west of the Rhine and a strip fifty kilometers wide on the east bank of the river were demilitarized, as provided in the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Pacts, Hitler would never have dared to move against Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. He would not have dared because, with western Germany unfortified and denuded of German soldiers, France could have easily driven into the Ruhr industrial area and crippled Germany so that it would be impossible to go eastward. And by this date [1936], certain members of the Milner Group and of the British Conservative government had reached the fantastic idea that they could kill two birds with one stone by setting Germany and [the Soviet Union] against one another in Eastern Europe. In this way they felt that two enemies would stalemate one another, or that Germany would become satisfied with the oil of Rumania and the wheat of the Ukraine. It never occurred to anyone in a responsible position that Germany and [the Soviet Union] might make common cause, even temporarily, against the West. Even less did it occur to them that [the Soviet Union] might beat Germany and thus open all Central Europe to Bolshevism (p.265).”

“In order to carry out this plan of allowing Germany to drive eastward against [the Soviet Union], it was necessary to do three things: (1) to liquidate all the countries standing between Germany and Russia; (2) to prevent France from honoring her alliances with these countries [i.e., Czechoslovakia and Poland]; and (3) to hoodwink the [british] people into accepeting this as a necessary, indeed, the only solution to the international problem. The Chamberlain group were so successful in all three of these things that they came within an ace of succeeding, and failed only because of the obstinacy of the Poles, the unseemly haste of Hitler, and the fact that at the eleventh hour the Milner Group realized the [geo-strategic] implications of their policy and tried to reverse it (p.266).”

“Four days later, Hitler announced Germany’s rearmament, and ten days after that, Britain condoned the act by sending Sir John Simon on a state visit to Berlin. When France tried to counterbalance Germany’s rearmament by bringing the Soviet Union into her eastern alliance system in May 1935, the British counteracted this by making the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 18 June 1935. This agreement, concluded by Simon, allowed Germany to build up to 35 percent of the size of the British Navy (and up to 100 percent in submarines). This was a deadly stab in the back of France, for it gave Germany a navy considerably larger than the French in the important categories of ships (capital ships and aircraft carriers), because France was bound by treaty to only 33 percent of Britain’s; and France in addition, had a worldwide empire to protect and the unfriendly Italian Navy off her Mediterranean coast. This agreement put the French Atlantic coast so completely at the mercy of the German Navy that France became completely dependent on the British fleet for protection in this area (pp.269-270).”

“The liquidation of the countries between Germany and [the Soviet Union] could proceed as soon as the Rhineland was fortified, without fear on Germany’s part that France would be able to attack her in the west while she was occupied in the east (p.272).”

“The countries marked for liquidation included Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, but did not include Greece and Turkey, since the [Milner] Group had no intention of allowing Germany to get down onto the Mediterranean ‘lifeline.’ Indeed, the purpose of the Hoare-Laval Plan of 1935, which wrecked the collective-security system by seeking to give most Ethiopia to Italy, was intended to bring an appeased Italy in position alongside [britain], in order to block any movement of Germany southward rather than eastward [towards the Soviet Union] (p.273).”

[10] Mackinder, Democratic Ideals, Op. cit., Chap. 5, pp.160-168.

[11] Ibid., Chap. 6 (The Freedom of Nations), pp. 214-215.

[12] US and EU agree ‘single market,’ British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), April 30, 2007.

[13] Critical thinking should be applied to this last statement and the level of cooperation between both sides should be carefully examined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...