Category: struggle against fascism
US Role in 1960s Indonesia Anti-Communist Massacre Revealed
Indonesia elite troops parade in Bandung, June 1966. The red caps are paratroopers in red berets.

US Role in 1960s Indonesia Anti-Communist Massacre Revealed

© AP Photo/ Horst Faas
Asia & Pacific

Get short URL
172083521
https://sputniknews.com/asia/201710191058357817-indonesia-communist-massacre-us-involvement/

Thirty thousand pages of files have been released on US activities in Indonesia during the archipelago’s gory transition from a socialist dictatorship to a pro-West military dictatorship in the mid-60s. The documents confirm that Washington was aware of, and supported, the military takeover of the government and purge of communist opponents.

The anti-communist purges in 1965 and 1966 were horrific, described by the CIA as “one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century.” Between 400,000 and 1 million accused leftists were killed, with some estimates going as far as to place the figure at 3 million.

It has long been known that the US and allied governments supported the 1965 military takeover. The US embassy, as well as the CIA, have been accused of providing weapons, economic assistance, and training to Suharto’s forces as well as lists of names of 5,000 communists. The embassy asserted in 1990 that the list in question was compiled by a single official acting on his own direction, and scholars debated whether or not the US helped facilitate the mass killings.

One of the newly released cables came from the embassy’s first secretary, Mary Vance Trent, who told Washington about a “fantastic switch which has occurred over 10 short weeks” that saw an estimated 100,000 people slaughtered.

A particularly shocking 1966 cable from CIA officer Edward Masters discussed the “problem” of captured communist prisoners. “Many provinces appear to be successfully meeting this problem by executing their [communist] prisoners, or killing them before they are captured, a task in which Muslim youth groups are providing assistance,” Masters reportedly said.

The documents were compiled in 2001 by the US State Department and subsequently classified, only to be released today. “We frankly do not know whether the real figure is closer to 100,000 or 1,000,000,” read an April 1966 cable attached to the 2001 report.

US Senator Tom Udall (D-NM), who introduced a bill in 2015 calling for the declassification of all US documents related to the matter as well as Indonesia to create a truth and reconciliation committee on the massacre, praised the release of documents. “These documents will provide greater transparency about the United States’ support for the Indonesian government during the same period that these horrible crimes were committed,” Udall said in a statement.

“Today represents real progress. But in Indonesia, many of the individuals behind these murders continue to live with impunity, and the victims and their descendants continue to be marginalized and unrecognized. These injustices are holding back Indonesia from achieving reconciliation and realizing its democratic potential. Here in the United States, we must encourage the continued democratic progress of a vital ally, and we must confront our own role in these terrible acts. Only by acknowledging the truth about our own history will the United States be able to speak out forcibly and credibly to defend human rights in the future.”

Indonesia, which had been a loose colony of the Netherlands for centuries, declared their independence in August 1945 and created the modern state of Indonesia, with the socialist and anti-imperialist Sukarno as the new nation’s first president. Sukarno attempted to balance the military, political Islam and communism in a policy called “Nasakom” and was a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement with other formerly colonized countries like Egypt and India.

But over time, Sukarno favored his communist allies more, especially those abroad in China and the Soviet Union. Poverty and hunger besieged the world’s third largest communist country, and Indonesia accrued huge debts to Beijing and Moscow. Sukarno also cracked down on Islamists and attempted to weaken the society’s military elements through measures like the creation of a communist-aligned peasant militia.

After a failed coup against Sukarno in September 1965 that the military blamed on the Indonesian communist party and Chinese actors, the nation quickly dissolved into a brief but extremely bloody purge. The military and Islamists allied to annihilate Sukarno’s regime, slaughtering the communist party’s leadership. The documents also suggested that the US embassy had credible evidence that the coup was not orchestrated by the communists — later analysis would question the Indonesian military’s claim, and the culprits and motivation behind the coup attempt remain under dispute.

The rebellion’s leader, Major General Suharto, seized control of the presidency and placed Sukarno under house arrest, where he died in 1970 of kidney failure. Suharto would remain the nation’s US-friendly military dictator until he was forced to resign in 1998.

The legacy of the massacre remains complicated in Indonesia. School textbooks briefly discuss a “patriotic campaign,” a national uprising where 80,000 communist oppressors were killed. A 2016 symposium meant to discuss the tragedy was met with severe backlash, and in September 2017 an anti-communist mob disrupted a meeting of activists to discuss the massacre.

A New Joke – “Jim-Crow Helps The Negro Race”

https://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1941/05/joke.htm

J.R. Johnson

A New Joke – “Jim-Crow Helps The Negro Race”

(5 May 1941)


The Negro’s Fight, Labor Action, Vol. 5 No. 18, 5 May 1941, p. 4.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.


“Oh, Judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.”

This, is what Shakespeare makes Mark Anthony (that great faker) say in the famous speech over Caesar’s dead body. Often when one looks at capitalist politics today one is tempted to say the same thing.

Friends, Americans and countrymen, lend me your ears. This war is a war for “democracy.” It is a war to preserve “a way of life,” it is a war against tyranny, persecution, aggression. It is a war for freedom. So our modern Mark Anthony, Franklin Roosevelt, says. And all the liberals and the labor leaders follow him shouting “Hosannah!”

State Attorneys Give Their View

Now one of our most precious “free” institutions is Congress, and in this Congress is one solitary Negro, Representative Arthur W. Mitchell. Brother Mitchell tried to travel in a Pullman coach in the South and was kicked out and made to go into another carriage. He filed an action. The case is before the Supreme Court. So far, nothing unusual. This happens regularly. (Since this column, was written, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of Negroes to travel in Pullmans. We will comment on this decision next week. – Ed.)

But note now what has been the result. The attorney generals of ten states, Alabama, Kentucky, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia, these men who are the expounders of the laws of democracy, they drew up an appeal and sent it to the Supreme Court, asking it not to take any decision on this question. These lawyers of democracy say that the Jim Crow jungle laws (most elegantly called, “segregation statutes”) “were enacted for the purpose of promoting the welfare, comfort, peace and safety of the people of both races.” And these attorney generals of “democracy” say that “it” is a matter of common knowledge, which this court probably knows, “that in those states which are parties to this brief, where large numbers of both races reside, such statutes do, in truth and in fact, promote the welfare, comfort, peace and safety of the people of both races.”

In other words, these men of “democratic” law say this:

“If Representative Arthur Mitchell or any black man travels with whites, he is personally offensive to the whites. We don’t want him. He offends our welfare and our comfort.

“If he insists on traveling, we southerners are going to beat him up. That will offend his peace and safety. In the course of beating him up of lynching him, he and his friends may hurt some of us. That offends OUR peace and safety. So the laws are for the benefit of both of us. Therefore, Supreme Court, do not interfere.”

These Is a Reason for What They Say

Is it any wonder that Hitler laughs at Franklin Roosevelt’s pretentious to being a defender of “democracy”? There are ten million Negroes in the South whom these and similar laws directly affect. There were only about half a million Jews in Germany. If Hitler had said that the laws against the Jews were passed for their comfort, peace, welfare and safety, how. Mark Anthony Roosevelt would have thundered. Hitler, however, says simply and plainly: “We don’t want you Jews. Get out.” But these southern democrats say that their fascist types of racial laws are FOR the BENEFIT of the Negroes; and the men of law, the attorney generals, write to the Supreme Court and say the same thing.

We began by quoting the passage from Shakespeare, saying that men had lost their reason. Have these southerners lost their reason? Oh, no! They want to keep the Negro where he is in order to exploit him, to work him hard and pay him cheap. That is why they tell these abominable lies and talk this abominable legal nonsense. They SEEM to have lost their reason. In reality they have very good reasons for saying what they do. But the Negroes have very good reason for saying:

“You and your holy war against fascism may suit you, but they don’t suit me! I have my war. And it is against you, Messrs. Attorney Generals, to break that system which is so rotten that it compels its defenders to talk like men who have just come out of a lunatic asylum.”

How UK, France, Poland Unleashed Hitler and Paved the Way for WWII

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201709291057809731-munich-agreement-uk-france-italy-nazi/

How UK, France, Poland Unleashed Hitler and Paved the Way for WWII

Neville Chamberlain holding the paper containing the resolution to commit to peaceful methods signed by both Hitler and himself on his return from Munich. He is showing the piece of paper to a crowd at Heston Aerodrome on 30 September 1938

How UK, France, Poland Unleashed Hitler and Paved the Way for WWII

CC0 / Ministry of Information / Munich Agreement
Opinion

Get short URL
Ekaterina Blinova
375328769

The Munich pact of September 29, 1938, paved the way for Nazi Germany’s dominance in Europe and its march eastward, Canadian professor Michael Jabara Carley told Sputnik. Present day efforts to re-write the history of WWII in the West is an attempt to justify grave mistakes committed by European states and pin all the blame on Russia.

The Munich Agreement signed 79 years ago by Nazi Germany, Great Britain, France and Italy wrecked efforts to create an anti-Nazi coalition and opened the door to Adolf Hitler’s invasion of Europe and the nightmare of the Second World War, Michael Jabara Carley, a professor of history at the Université de Montréal and the author of “Silent Conflict: A Hidden History of Early Soviet-Western Relations,” told Sputnik.

“Munich was indeed a betrayal,” Carley underscored. “The loss of the Czechoslovak position in central Europe was thus an important step in Hitler’s plan for German domination of Europe.”

The Munich Pact as the Beginning of the Nazi Crusade

The Munich Agreement permitted Nazi Germany’s annexation of the so-called “Sudetenland” — the regions of northern and western Czechoslovakia inhabited by ethnic Germans, which subsequently led to the occupation of the whole country in March 1939. Naturally, the Czechoslovak government was not invited to the conference.

“Czechoslovakia was a functioning ‘liberal’ democratic state on Germany’s southern frontier. It possessed a well-motivated, well-trained army of approximately 40 divisions. It had a formal alliance with France dating to the 1920s and a mutual assistance pact with the USSR, conditional however on French military intervention on behalf of Czechoslovakia before Soviet commitments were engaged,” the Canadian professor pointed out.

“Hitler had to eliminate the 40 Czechoslovak divisions before his armed forces could take further action to the east and west,” Carley highlighted.However, the British government led by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain took efforts to remove this obstacle in Nazi Germany’s way, believing “that ‘Herr Hitler’ was a rational interlocutor with whom one could deal and come to agreement,” the academic noted, adding that “Chamberlain’s calculations were quickly disproved by events.”

The Canadian academic emphasized, “Western elites were not of one mind about the dangers of Nazi Germany to European security.” While Chamberlain and his followers deluded themselves into believing that “Herr Hitler” was “a reasonable man,” the political opposition in Britain and France viewed the “fuhrer” as menace to European peace and security.

“It was only in March 1939 after the disappearance of rump Czechoslovakia that Chamberlain’s position was weakened,” the academic said.

However, “for the Anglo-French elites, uncertain of their own force and masculinity, fascism was both intimidating and inspiring. For them, the danger of communist revolution was greater than any danger of Hitlerite Germany,” he added.

It was one of the reasons why the Soviet Union’s repeated attempts to create a defensive alliance against Nazi Germany had failed, according to the academic.

The USSR Made Every Effort to Form Anti-Nazi Coalition

Carley noted that the Soviet Union had pushed ahead with the plan to create an anti-Nazi coalition since December 1933.

“For nearly six years the Soviet government worked tirelessly to promote collective security in Europe,” the Canadian professor highlighted. “Soviet policy was in effect a proposal to recreate the anti-German Entente of World War I, including fascist Italy.”

However, Soviet offers of cooperation were spurned in France, Britain, Romania and Poland. The promising rapprochement between the USSR and the US after meetings between President Franklin Roosevelt and the commissar for foreign affairs, Maxim M. Litvinov, in the autumn of 1933 “was sabotaged by the Sovietophobe Department of State.”

Carley refuted the assumption that it was “the Stalinist purges” that “undermined Anglo-French confidence in Soviet proposals for collective security”: Moscow’s key attempts to create an anti-Nazi alliance preceded “the first Stalinist show trial in the late summer of 1936.”

Soviet diplomat Maxim Litvinov
© Sputnik/ Khalip
Soviet diplomat Maxim Litvinov

Poland as ‘Spoiler and Saboteur’ of Efforts to Create Anti-Hitler Alliance

The Canadian professor outlined the role of Poland in ruining efforts to form a defensive alliance against Hitlerite Germany.

“Poland never showed any genuine interest in Soviet proposals for collective security against Nazi Germany”… furthermore it was “the spoiler of ‘collective security’ in Europe during the 1930s,” Carley underscored.

“Time after time the Polish government, and most notably the Polish foreign minister, Józef Beck, intervened to block Soviet efforts to build an anti-Nazi alliance,” he highlighted.

On January 26, 1934, Warsaw signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany, while “in 1938 Poland was Hitler’s accomplice in dismembering Czechoslovakia before becoming Hitler’s victim in 1939,” the professor pointed out referring to Poland’s occupation of Zaolzie in October 1938.

“The Polish elite always considered Russia to be the greater menace, no matter who governed it,” the Canadian academic remarked. “Beck was so complacent that he approved the Polish ambassador in Moscow’s annual leave as the European crisis was reaching its height in the summer of 1939.”

“Poland acted as the spoiler and saboteur right up until August 1939…. One can only conclude that the Polish government brought defeat and ruin upon itself… and far more importantly on the Polish people,” the professor suggested.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact: Last on the List

Despite Poland having been the first to conclude a non-aggression agreement with Nazi Germany, it used the most insulting language while addressing the conclusion of the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the professor noted.

The German-Soviet non-aggression treaty struck on August 23, 1939, has repeatedly come under heavy criticism from Western historians who denounced it as an example of “Soviet-Nazi” collusion. However, the Soviet Union was the last to ink such an agreement among other European states.The first on the list is Poland (1934), next came Great Britain, who concluded the Anglo-German Naval Pact in 1935 and inked the Munich Agreement with Berlin in 1938 together with Paris and Rome.

The German-Romanian deal for economic cooperation was signed on March 23, 1939. About two months later, in May, Denmark struck its non-aggression pact with Hitler. The same month Rome and Berlin inked their “Pact of Steel” while in June Nazi Germany signed non-aggression agreements with Estonia and Latvia.

However, the “chronology of the various non-aggression pacts is not the key issue,” according to the Canadian professor: The key issue is that “the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact was [in fact] the result of the failure of Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations for an alliance against Nazi Germany.”

When Stalin later observed the Anglo-French hesitance to go to Warsaw’s aid when Nazi Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, “he could only have concluded that his putative ‘allies’ would have left the Soviet Union in similar straits,” Carley stressed.

History Rewritten

When Word War II was over the question arose as to whom to blame for the catastrophe. Incredible as it may seem, the Western powers pointed the finger of blame at the USSR, the very country that contributed the most to the victory over Nazi Germany and which lost 27 million people during the war.”When the United States and Britain resumed the Cold War after May 1945 (the Cold War having in fact begun in November 1917), the shameful conduct of the French and British governments and the despicable behavior of the Polish government during the 1930s had to be covered up or ‘justified,'” Carley said. “Likewise, the predominate role of the Red Army in destroying the Wehrmacht had to be erased from people’s memories.”

According to the historian present day western hostility toward the Russian Federation and its president are fed by this bogus American and European “history.” However, one should keep in mind that the outcome of WWII was defined not by the Normandy invasion in June 1944, but by the Soviet victory in the battle for Stalingrad in February 1943, the Canadian academic stressed.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

‘I’ll chain myself to door of Number 10’ to stop ‘Nazi’ Trump state visit, says Labour MP
| September 27, 2017 | 8:19 pm | struggle against fascism, UK | No comments

https://www.rt.com/uk/404736-lammy-trump-state-visit/

‘I’ll chain myself to door of Number 10’ to stop ‘Nazi’ Trump state visit, says Labour MP

‘I’ll chain myself to door of Number 10’ to stop ‘Nazi’ Trump state visit, says Labour MP
Donald Trump is a “racist Ku Klux Klan and Nazi sympathizer,” Labour MP David Lammy said as he protested plans to welcome the US President to Britain on a state visit.

Lammy, a former higher education minister, said he is willing to “chain myself to the door of Number 10” if plans for Trump to come to the UK next year materialize.

“If Trump comes to the UK I will be out protesting on the streets.

“He is a racist KKK and Nazi sympathizer,” he tweeted.

Lammy, who ran in the London mayoral contest in 2015, made similar remarks at a fringe debate during the annual Labour Party Conference in Brighton on Monday, where he called on the public to protest against the Republican leader’s visit.

“We need to martial our efforts to fight. I will be on the streets when eventually they cave in and let Donald Trump into this country,” Lammy told the audience.

“The man is a racist. The man has Ku Klux members in his inner team. The man thinks it is OK to have protesting Nazis on the streets.

“Of course I will campaign against it. If I have to chain myself to the door of Number 10, this black man will do it.”

Prime Minister Theresa May invited Trump when she visited him at the White House in January soon after he was sworn in as the 45th US president.

It stirred public outcry amid claims it would be “an embarrassment to Her Majesty the Queen,” with a petition opposing the visit garnering more than 1.8 million signatures.

Lammy’s comments mirror those of Nick Dearden, the director of Global Justice Now, which is part of the UK Stop Trump coalition.

He said Trump should be denied the privilege of a state visit especially after failing to outright condemn far-right groups following the Charlottesville violence in August.

“Theresa May’s decision to invite Donald Trump for a state visit to the UK has always been highly controversial, but now that the President is nakedly sympathizing with neo-Nazis, there has never been a more obvious time that that invitation must be rescinded immediately,” he said, the Independent reports.

Warning that similar clashes could happen in the UK, Dearden said, “What message is it sending to the people of UK if there is an open invitation to the most high-profile fascist-sympathizer of modern times?”

The peculiar patriotism of Confederate monument huggers | Opinion

Updated on September 25, 2017 at 2:05 PM

http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2017/09/national_anthem_protests.html

In “Bart-Mangled Banner,” a 2004 episode of The Simpsons, 10-year-old Bart Simpson offends the town of Springfield when it appears to them that he’s mooning the United States flag.  It’s all a big misunderstanding, one that can only be understood by watching the whole episode which includes Bart going temporarily deaf, Bart taunting a donkey at a donkey basketball game and that donkey ripping Bart’s shorts off with its teeth right before the flag is displayed for the national anthem.  The people of Springfield are outraged at Bart’s apparent disrespect.

“How dare he?!” a character of obvious Southern extraction yells.  “That’s the flag my grandpappy rebelled against!”

I think we need to stop pretending that episodes of The Simpsons don’t predict the future.  “Bart-Mangled Banner” aired more than 13 years ago, and, yet, it seems to precisely predict the contradictions being noisily aired in 2017:  so-called patriots shedding tears over the erasure of Confederate iconography from the public landscape while simultaneously professing allegiance for the flag the Confederates opposed.

Consider Beth Mizell, the Republican state senator from Franklinton who failed in her attempts to protect four Confederate monuments in New Orleans from being removed.  In June, she released a 4-minute video explaining her opposition to the monument-removal trend.  It includes this doozy: “No real citizen was screaming for those monuments to be torn down, but now they’re gone.”

You’re a citizen of the United States at birth if you were born in the United States or one of its territories; or if you were born abroad to parents who were citizens. You can also be foreign-born and apply for naturalization.  Everybody I know personally who was opposed to the monuments to Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, P.G.T. Beauregard and the White League is a citizen, a real citizen.

Mizell is doing that thing that so many conservative politicians do: dismissing people who disagree with their opinions as phony or fraudulent Americans, as inauthentic. She doesn’t even concede that the anger at the monuments might be real, vowing to keep fighting to protect disputed monuments “regardless of who wants to pretend to be offended.”

In her mixed-up worldview, being an American means honoring those people who took up arms against America to perpetuate the enslavement of black people.

If Mizell were by herself, we could respond to her comments real citizens with a laugh and a “whatever.” But she’s not by herself. She’s one of many who have expressed the peculiar belief that reverence for the Confederacy and its symbols is part and parcel of reverence for the United States.

Even the president of the United States falls within that group. Donald Trump has criticized those who protest “our beautiful (Confederate) statues and monuments,” and he’s criticized those who, he says, are disrespecting the American flag by declining to stand respectfully as the national anthem is played.  On which side would Trump have fought in the Civil War?  Or would he have taken his morally evasive “bad people on all sides” approach?

It certainly is confusing to hear people declare allegiance to the United States flag at the same time that they’re weeping at the removal of Confederate flags and monuments. Some people might believe that some black people are sending mixed messages when they criticize they, say,  properly criticize the Confederate battle flag as treasonous and racist and at the same time support professional athletes who kneel during the national anthem.  But it should be fairly easy to understand:  Most sensible black people hate the Confederacy and its images and find it foolish that anybody would expect them to harbor anything other than hatred for the army that fought for their ancestors’ enslavement. Protests that intersect with displays of the United States flag aren’t coming from a place of hatred but disappointment:  How come America isn’t as good as she claims to be? Why won’t Americans collectively demand that everybody be treated fairly and justly?  In a country that has a Constitution and says it follows the rule of law, how is that police officers, government agents, get to kill black people with near impunity?

Martin Luther King Jr. expressed that disappointment the night before he was assassinated when he said, “All we say to America is, ‘Be true to what you said on paper.'” After pointing out the promises explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment, King declared that “the greatness of America is the right to protest for right.”

A Gallup poll conducted two years before his assassination revealed that a large majority of Americans had a negative opinion of King. That should let us know that anybody who points out that America isn’t what she says she is, anybody who demands that America stop doing black people wrong, is going to be criticized – reviled even.

But somebody’s got to point out the hypocrisies: the hypocrisy of lingering racism in a country with a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution and the hypocrisy of so-called patriots championing the Confederacy and its imagery.

Jarvis DeBerry is deputy opinions editor for NOLA.COM | The Times-Picayune. He can be reached at jdeberry@nola.com or at twitter.com/jarvisdeberry.