14-18 : « On croit mourir pour la Patrie, on meurt pour des industriels »
Michel Collon mène l’enquête avec trois historiens : Jacques Pauwels, Anne Morelli et Lucas Catherine.
GFP 26.06.2014 - Die EU treibt auf ihrem heute beginnenden Gipfeltreffen die Einbindung von Nicht-Mitgliedstaaten in ihre globale Außen- und Militärpolitik voran. Die Assoziierungsabkommen mit Georgien, Moldawien und der Ukraine, die auf dem EU-Gipfel unterzeichnet werden sollen, sehen die allmähliche Anpassung der Vertragspartner an die Brüsseler Außen- und Militärpolitik vor…
Domenico Losurdo - 4 septembre 2013
German foreign minister Steinmeier agitates for war
By Ulrich Rippert
20 June 2014
The 100th anniversary of August 4, 1914—the disastrous day on which the SPD (Social Democratic Party) faction voted in the Reichstag for the Kaiser’s war credits to finance World War I—is only weeks away. The SPD is preparing for the anniversary by pressing for renewed German militarism.
At the end of May, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD) opened a new web site for the foreign office with the title “Review 2014—Rethinking foreign policy.” The goal of the site is to combat long-standing public opposition to war and militarism.
With the support of the German federal government and the president, Steinmeier declared at the beginning of this year that the country’s previous policy of military restraint was at an end. In the future, Germany would intervene independently, “including militarily,” in crisis regions around the world. The foreign minister justified this by saying that Germany was “too big and too important” to limit itself “to merely commenting from the sidelines of world politics.”
Although this return of an aggressive German foreign policy underwent long and intensive preparation and was supported by all parties in the Bundestag as well as practically the entire media, it has met with the opposition and hostility by the majority of the population.
That is now supposed to change.
With the words “Allow us all to think further about foreign policy,” Steinmeier presses on the new web site for a foreign policy change. However, the mistrust and rejection of militarism and war are deep-seated. The despicable crimes of the Nazis and the Wehrmacht have embedded themselves deeply into the consciousness of broad layers of the population. The demands “No more war! No more fascism!” have shaped generations.
Steinmeier’s reaction to these sentiments leaves no room for doubt that from the point of view of the foreign ministry and the chancellor’s office the return of great power politics is a settled matter. At the same time, he is attempting to create the impression that it is not the German government and business interests that are pushing for great power politics and militarism, but rather that voices outside Germany are demanding “more leadership.” To this end, he has commissioned several dozen foreign “experts” to produce articles and assessments.
The advertisement for “Review 2014” claims: “For this web site we asked 50 renowned experts: ‘What, if anything, is wrong with German foreign policy? What must be changed?’ ”
In this regard, it should not be overlooked that these “renowned experts” in one or another way are dependent on and are paid by the foreign ministry. The form and content of their assessments clearly correspond with this dependence. Politicians, scientists, journalists and many countries all demand that Germany give up its cautious stance and take on a greater “leadership role” in security and military matters.
The demand for a German leadership role in Europe and the world has never been so shamelessly and forcefully raised in an official publication of the foreign ministry since the end of Hitler’s “Führerstaat” approximately 70 years ago.
Timothy Garton Ash, professor for European Studies at the University of Oxford, demands Germany take on a “greater leadership role” in the European Union (EU). Thomas Risse, head of the Working Group on Transnational Relations, Foreign and Security Policy at the Free University of Berlin, writes in an article entitled “German as a leading power” that the Berlin government must live up to its European leadership responsibility.
Volker Perthes, director of the Foundation for Science and Politics (SWP), which played a central role in the preparation of the change in foreign policy, emphasises, “Leadership depends on trust!” Perthes adds, “Foreign observers praise the professionalism of the German Foreign Service, but repeatedly complain that Germany plays too small of a role in international affairs—or otherwise promotes its own economic interests—and shies away from responsibility as well as leadership or shared leadership.” In another article, Perthes states, “Leadership means setting priorities.”
Kishore Mahbubani, a professor of political science at the National University of Singapore, was the clearest. He entitled his article “Germany’s destiny: leading Europe in order to lead the world.”
Nazi propaganda defined the character of Germany in a similar manner: “Today German belongs to us—tomorrow the entire world!” is part of the text of an infamous Nazi song.
Professor Mahbubani does not contest this. He declares that Merkel’s “European crisis management” has made Germany’s leading role in Europe unmistakably clear. “France and Great Britain can no longer fulfill this role,” he writes.
Professor Mahbubani does not worry about the fact that Germany committed unspeakable crimes in the previous century. Instead, he deplores the fact that it lost two world wars and he now wants to correct this.
He writes: “The twentieth century was a bad one for Germany. It lost two world wars and was divided and occupied.” The second half of the century was indeed better and brought Germany peace and prosperity. However, German society is “psychologically ill” with feelings of guilt about its past. This guilt complex must be overcome so that the twenty-first century “can become a great century for Germany.”
Steinmeier uses these remarks as justification for declaring that “foreign lands” have placed “great expectations” on German foreign policy. German politics should no longer ignore the cherished hopes and expectations “of our friends”.
With respect to the opening of the conference “Review 2014—Rethinking foreign policy” on May 20 in the foreign office’s “world hall steeped in history,” Steinmeier made it clear he wants to overcome the contradiction between “the great expectations placed on German foreign policy by foreign lands” and the ongoing opposition to a stronger stance on the part of the German population.
He says, “At the time I assumed office for the second time a half a year ago, I formulated a thesis in this world hall: Germany is somewhat too big and economically too strong for us to merely comment on world politics from the sidelines.” Now, he intends to explain and impose Germany’s new role in the world.
To this end, Steinmeier has planned numerous events over the course of the whole summer. He will no longer tolerate the public resistance to the return of militarism and war. For Steinmeier, democracy does not mean accepting the view of the majority and then acting. For him, a government that is “democratically legitimated by elections” has the task of defining German interests and imposing them against all opposition. It is the voice of the ruling finance oligarchy that tolerates no contradiction.
In the federal election of last autumn, this foreign policy turn was not introduced into the discussion, although it had been prepared for a long time in think tanks and ruling circles. Instead, all possible political issues of secondary importance were endlessly discussed, from gay marriage to a highway toll.
A few days after the election, President Gauck demanded that Germany once again play a role “in Europe and in the world” that corresponded with its actual influence. This was made a central theme of the coalition negotiations, and now the coalition is driving forward to resurrect German militarism.
Steinmeier is a typical Social Democratic representative of the state, who works on behalf of economic interests and the financial oligarchy, and views the population as an enemy. Symptomatic of this attitude was his angry outburst at an election meeting in Berlin, at which he shouted down his critics who had called him a “warmonger.”
Steinmeier cried, “You have no right!” and meant it literally. In an interview published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung shortly after the European election, he called for the maintenance of an electoral threshold for small parties designed to maintain the dictatorship of the already established political parties.
A hundred years after the great betrayal by the SPD in August 1914, the Social Democrats have become the leading party of German imperialism and spout war propaganda on behalf of German militarism. Only one thing has changed: the SPD long ago lost its influence over the working class. The hostility between the Social Democrats and the workers is mutual.
Џонсон: Неоспорна истина, Први свјетски рат је резултат њемачке агресије!
10 јануар 2014
Градоначелник Лондона: Немци, нису Срби криви за рат већ ви!
13 јануар 2014
Germany started the Great War, but the Left can’t bear to say so
In this centennial year, it’s more important than ever that we treat the truth with respect
German CP, Declaration First World War [En, De, Fr]
100 years after the onset of World War I, we live through a renewed debate about who lit the fuse. When again German imperialism’s major responsibility for the four years of butchery among peoples is being questioned, this for sure is not in search for historical truth. It is about seeking theoretical and political legitimization for today’s imperialist politics.
World War I arose from the major imperialist European powers’ desire for expansion. It aimed to conquer new markets and resources, and to re-allocate the given ones. As the co-founder of the Communist Party of Germany, Karl Liebknecht, soon stated, it was “a capitalist war of aggression and conquest”. At the same time, it was an opportunity for the rulers to contaminate the working class’s conscience in their countries with the poison of opportunism, nationalism and chauvinism.
In summer 1914, there were two tight military blocks opposed in Europe: the tripartite alliance of Germany, Austro-Hungary and Italy versus theEntente of England and France which then also Russia allied with. In 1915, Italy entered the war siding with the Entente.
The Sarajevo assault was a very welcomed opportunity for the great powers, already eager for war, to put their strategic concepts into practice. A war followed, which for the first time in history held grip of all continents. 38 countries were involved, not counting the then colonies. Also for the first time ever, a war was waged in industrial manner. Seven million people fell victim to the manslaughter. Civilians became victims of famine and diseases in dimensions unknown before. 20 millions were wounded and crippled, and an incredible amount of values destroyed.
The slaughters ended by the aggressors’ military defeat. The November Revolution in Germany and the revolutions in Austria, Hungary and other countries were stalled because of the right-wing social democratic leaderships’ active role in crushing the Revolution. In Germany the monarchy was overthrown and the republic was founded, but the generals, however, and the powers of the monopolist capital remained. Their political survival gave way for World War II later on.
The social democracy split in the course of World War I. The revolutionary forces separated from the 2nd International and founded Communist Parties all over the world. The Great Socialist October Revolution in Russia paved the way for the first workers’ and peasants’ state in the history of mankind. Thus from the World War emerged a new hope for the world—the hope for Socialism. This is what the signing parties are still standing for.
“And, finally, the only war left for Prussia-Germany to wage will be a world war, a world war, moreover of an extent the violence hitherto unimagined. Eight to ten million soldiers will be at each other’s throats and in the process they will strip Europe barer than a swarm of locusts. The depredations of the 30 Years’ War compressed into three to four years and extended over the entire continent; famine, disease, the universal lapse into barbarism, both of the armies and the people, in the wake of acute misery irretrievable dislocation of our artificial system of’ trade, industry and credit, ending in universal bankruptcy, collapse of the old states and their conventional political wisdom to the point where crowns will roll into the gutters by the dozen, and no one will be around to pick them up; the absolute impossibility of foreseeing how it will all end and who will emerge as victor from the battle. Only one consequence is absolutely certain: universal exhaustion and the creation of the conditions for the ultimate victory of the working class.”
Friedrich Engels, 1887
Erklärung DKP, KP Luxemburgs, Partei der Arbeit Belgiens
100 Jahre nach dem Beginn des Ersten Weltkrieges erleben wir eine erneute Debatte darum, wer das Feuer an die Lunte gelegt hat. Bei dieser Infragestellung der Hauptverantwortung des deutschen Imperialismus an dem über vier Jahre dauernden Völkergemetzel geht es selbstverständlich nicht um historische Wahrheit. Es geht um die theoretische und politische Legitimierung heutiger imperialistischer Politik.
Der Erste Weltkrieg erwuchs aus den Expansionsinteressen der imperialistischen Großmächte Europas, er war auf Eroberung neuer Märkte und Ressourcen und die Neuaufteilung der vorhandenen gerichtet: Ein „kapitalistischer Angriffs- und Eroberungskrieg“, wie Karl Liebknecht, Mitgründer der Kommunistischen Partei Deutschlands, früh feststellte. Gleichzeitig war der Krieg eine Gelegenheit für die Herrschenden, in ihren Ländern das Bewusstsein der Arbeiterklasse mit dem Gift des Opportunismus, des Nationalismus und Chauvinismus zu verseuchen.
Im Sommer 1914 standen sich in Europa zwei feste Militärblöcke gegenüber: Der „Dre
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)