Informazione
(srpskohrvatski / english)
SKOJ condemns Ahtisaari's antiserb racism
Belgrade, 2 septembre 2006
The League of Communist Youth of Yugoslavia (SKOJ) most severely
condemns the scandalous declaration of Martti Ahtisaari, UN Special
Envoy for the Question of Kosovo and Metohia according to which "the
Serbian people is guilty and must pay the price for its historical
mistakes".
Such an assertion by the UN Special Envoy represents an obvious and
intentional provocation by which openly seeks fear and provokes anxiety
in regulating the future status of Kosovo and Metohia.
The League of Communist Youth of Yugoslavia (SKOJ) has been from the
very beginning against every and any negotiation of Kosovo being under
NATO Pact occupation. Ahtisaari’s remark shows that western imperialism
in Kosovo and Metohia is behaving like an occupier and that the
"negotiation process" is a bald-faced lie to give full legitimacy to the
occupation.
Ahtisaari’s remark made in the course of discussions with the Serbian
negotiating team is utterly unacceptable and uncivilized. In all history
there has been only one person who made such an assertion.. And that was
Adolf Hitler. Who condemned the Jewish people as "to blame for
everything". Die Juden sind unser Unglueck.
We remember well the "noble peace mission"of Martti Ahtisaari in 1999,
when, with the threat of total destruction of Belgrade and Serbia on a
"take it or leave it" basis, he compelled the then government of Serbia
to sign the Kumanovo accord by which Kosovo I Metohia was occupied and
turned into NATO’s biggest military base. There is no nation that can be
guilty of collective guilt.
In the siege of Leningrad the whole Finnish Army of Karelia participated
with 300,000 troops. In this blockade more than a million citizens of
Leningrad died. Does that mean that the Finnish people as a whole is
genocidal? . Yes, by Ahtisaari’s logic.
In Kosovo and Metohia there wasn’t any aggression by the "Greater
Serbia" or the Army of Yugoslavia, because it was obliged by its
constitution to defend its own territory. The Army of Yugoslavia did not
invade Iraq or Afghanistan, but only defended its own territory.
Unfortunately, there were violations of the Geneva Convention for which
individuals in the army and police of federal Yugoslavia were tried. The
crimes of individuals or small groups cannot be the justification for
condemning a whole people
The escalation of conflict in Kosovo and Metohia in 1998.-99 was without
a doubt directed by the western imperialists with the goal of occupying
that part of the Balkans and turning it into a training ground. NATO’s
occupation of Kosovo and Metohia has in no way contributed to peace or
development of prosperity, but has totally nullified the results that
were achieved in the five and a half decades when Kosovo by its own
efforts and the support of all Yugoslavia realized significant progress
in all fields. Over 73% inhabitants of Kosovo is unemployed, and all
major economic branches are in the hands of the NATO occupiers, who
freely dispose of and reap the benefit of whatever was created in the
interest of the people of Kosovo and Metohia in the course of the past 5
years. Kosmet has been turned into a nest of world terrorism, black
marketing and mafia. It is clear that the existing state of occupation
is not conducive to the real and lasting interests of the peoples that
live in Kosovo. It is all acceptable only to the imperial expansionist
goals of NATO.
The goal of the policy conducted by certain international "peace "
commissions is a further deepening of the crisis by the principle of
"divide and conquer", with the goal of further occupation of this part
of the Balkans.
It is hypocritical of the representatives of the pro-imperialist
bourgeois regime in Belgrade to excuse Ahtisaari for his gaffe. By this
the government of Serbia expresses its fake bourgeois patriotism, which
wont fool the people of Serbia. The government of Serbia also shows
political shortsightedness, because it is obvious that in case Ahtisaari
apologizes, which is hardly to be expected, the policy of separating
Kosovo from Serbia and the total legalization of the occupation by
western imperialism, of which Ahtisaari is the ambassador, will not be
changed.
If the government of Serbia were really to behave patriotically, it
would clearly show that Kosovo I Metohia is occupied territory and
demand the that all foreign occupation troops should leave its
territory. To us in SKOJ it is clear that nothing of the sort can be
expected from this or any other bourgeois pro-imperialist government.
=== izvorna verzija/srpskohrvatska ===
Savez komunisticke omladine Jugoslavije najostrije osudjuje skandaloznu
izjavu specijalnog izaslanika Ujedinjenih nacija Martija Ahtisarija za
pitanje Kosova i Metohije o tome da je „srpski narod kriv i da se
istorijske greske moraju platiti“.
Ovakva tvrdnja specijalnog izaslanika UN predstavlja ociglednu i
smisljenu provokaciju kojom se otvoreno iskazuje pristrasnost u
odreðivanju buduæeg statusa Kosova i Metohije. SKOJ je od samog pocetka
bio protiv bilo kakvih pregovora u situaciji u kojoj je Kosovo pod
okupacijom NATO pakta. Ahtisarijeva izjava pokazuje da se zapadni
imperijalizam na Kosovu i Metohiji ponaša kao okupator a da je
"pregovaracki proces" u stvari samo sarena laza, odnosno proces koji
treba da da pun legitimitet okupaciji.
Izjava koju je Ahtisari izrekao tokom razgovora sa srpskim pregovarackim
timom je apsolutno neprihvatljiva i necivilizacijska. U istoriji se samo
jedna osoba do sada usudila da kaze tako nesto, to je Adolf Hitler koji
je osudio jevrejski narod da su "krivi kao narod za sve zlo".
Dobro pamtimo „plemenitu mirovnu misiju“ Martija Ahtisarija 1999. godine
kada je sa pod pretnjom potpunog razaranja Beograda i Srbije po principu
„uzmi ili ostavi“ primorao tadašnju srpsku Vladu da potpiše Kumanovski
sporazum èime je Kosovo i Metohija okupirana od starne NATO-a i
pretvorena u najveæu vojnu bazu NATO pakta.
Ni jedan narod ne moze snositi nikakvu kolektivnu krivicu. U opsadi
Lenjingrada ucestvovala je cela finska Karelijska armija sa 300 000
boraca. U ovoj blokadi umrlo je vise od milion stanovnika Lenjingrada.
Da li to znaci da je finski narod genocidan? Po logici Ahtisarija jeste.
Na Kosovu i Metohiji nije bilo agresije Vojske Jugoslavije, jer je ona
bila dužna da cuva svoju teritoriju po ustavu; nije Vojska Jugoslavije
krocila u Irak ili Avganistan vec je branila svoju teritoriju. Nazalost,
bilo je krsenja Zenevske konvencije za sta su sudjenja pojedinim
pripadnicima vojske i policije , otpocela jos u vreme postojanja Savezne
Republike Jugoslavije. Zlocini pojedinaca ili manjih bandi ne mogu biti
opravdanje za tvrdnje da krivicu snosi ceo narod.
Eskalaciju sukoba na Kosovu i Metohiji 1998.-99. godine nedvosmisleno su
rezirali zapadni imperijalisti sa ciljem okupacije tog dela Balkana i
njegovog pretvaranja u svoj vojni poligon. NATO okupacija Kosmeta ni u
jednom segmentu nije doprinela miru, razvoju i prosperitetu. Ona je
potpuno anulirala rezultate koji su postignuti u proteklih pet i po
decenija kada je Kosovo vlastitim naporima i uz podrsku cele SFRJ
ostvarilo znacajan napredak na svim poljima. Preko 73% zitelja Kosova je
nezaposleno, a sve glavne privredne grane su u rukama NATO okupatora
koji slobodno raspolaže i ubira prihoda od onoga što je stvarano u
interesu naroda Kosova i Metohije tokom proteklih pet decenija. Kosmet
je pretvoren u leglo svetskog terorizma, sverca i mafije.
Jasno je da postojeæe okupaciono stanje ne odgovara trajnim i stvarnim
interesima naroda koji zive na Kosovu, ono odgovara jedino
imperijalno-ekspanzionistickim ciljevima NATO-a.
Cilj politike koju vode razne „mirovne“ medjunarodne komisije jeste
dalje produbljivanje postojeceg stanja po principu „zavadi, pa vladaj“ u
cilju sto duze okupacije ovog dela Balkana.
Licemerni su zahtevi predstavnika proimperijalistickog burzoaskog rezima
u Beogradu da se Ahtisari izvini za izrecene reci.Time Vlada Srbije
izrazava svoj lazni burzoaski patriotizam koji ne moze zavarati narod
Srbije.Vlada Srbije pokazuje i politicku kratkovidost jer je ocito da i
u sluaju da se Ahtisari izvini, a do cega gotovo sigurno nece doci,
politika odvajanja Kosova od Srbije i potpunog legalizovanja okupacionog
stanja od strane zapadnog imperijalizma, ciji je Ahtisari izaslanik,
nece biti promenjena. Da Vlada Srbije postupa zaista patriotski ona bi
jasno iskazala da je Kosovo i Metohija okupirana teritorija i zatrazila
od stranih okupacionih trupa da napusti njegovu teritoriju.Nama u SKOJ
je jasno da se tako nesto ne moze ocekivati od ove ali ni od jedne druge
burzoaske proimperijalisticke vlade.
http://www.skoj.co.sr/
SKOJ condemns Ahtisaari's antiserb racism
Belgrade, 2 septembre 2006
The League of Communist Youth of Yugoslavia (SKOJ) most severely
condemns the scandalous declaration of Martti Ahtisaari, UN Special
Envoy for the Question of Kosovo and Metohia according to which "the
Serbian people is guilty and must pay the price for its historical
mistakes".
Such an assertion by the UN Special Envoy represents an obvious and
intentional provocation by which openly seeks fear and provokes anxiety
in regulating the future status of Kosovo and Metohia.
The League of Communist Youth of Yugoslavia (SKOJ) has been from the
very beginning against every and any negotiation of Kosovo being under
NATO Pact occupation. Ahtisaari’s remark shows that western imperialism
in Kosovo and Metohia is behaving like an occupier and that the
"negotiation process" is a bald-faced lie to give full legitimacy to the
occupation.
Ahtisaari’s remark made in the course of discussions with the Serbian
negotiating team is utterly unacceptable and uncivilized. In all history
there has been only one person who made such an assertion.. And that was
Adolf Hitler. Who condemned the Jewish people as "to blame for
everything". Die Juden sind unser Unglueck.
We remember well the "noble peace mission"of Martti Ahtisaari in 1999,
when, with the threat of total destruction of Belgrade and Serbia on a
"take it or leave it" basis, he compelled the then government of Serbia
to sign the Kumanovo accord by which Kosovo I Metohia was occupied and
turned into NATO’s biggest military base. There is no nation that can be
guilty of collective guilt.
In the siege of Leningrad the whole Finnish Army of Karelia participated
with 300,000 troops. In this blockade more than a million citizens of
Leningrad died. Does that mean that the Finnish people as a whole is
genocidal? . Yes, by Ahtisaari’s logic.
In Kosovo and Metohia there wasn’t any aggression by the "Greater
Serbia" or the Army of Yugoslavia, because it was obliged by its
constitution to defend its own territory. The Army of Yugoslavia did not
invade Iraq or Afghanistan, but only defended its own territory.
Unfortunately, there were violations of the Geneva Convention for which
individuals in the army and police of federal Yugoslavia were tried. The
crimes of individuals or small groups cannot be the justification for
condemning a whole people
The escalation of conflict in Kosovo and Metohia in 1998.-99 was without
a doubt directed by the western imperialists with the goal of occupying
that part of the Balkans and turning it into a training ground. NATO’s
occupation of Kosovo and Metohia has in no way contributed to peace or
development of prosperity, but has totally nullified the results that
were achieved in the five and a half decades when Kosovo by its own
efforts and the support of all Yugoslavia realized significant progress
in all fields. Over 73% inhabitants of Kosovo is unemployed, and all
major economic branches are in the hands of the NATO occupiers, who
freely dispose of and reap the benefit of whatever was created in the
interest of the people of Kosovo and Metohia in the course of the past 5
years. Kosmet has been turned into a nest of world terrorism, black
marketing and mafia. It is clear that the existing state of occupation
is not conducive to the real and lasting interests of the peoples that
live in Kosovo. It is all acceptable only to the imperial expansionist
goals of NATO.
The goal of the policy conducted by certain international "peace "
commissions is a further deepening of the crisis by the principle of
"divide and conquer", with the goal of further occupation of this part
of the Balkans.
It is hypocritical of the representatives of the pro-imperialist
bourgeois regime in Belgrade to excuse Ahtisaari for his gaffe. By this
the government of Serbia expresses its fake bourgeois patriotism, which
wont fool the people of Serbia. The government of Serbia also shows
political shortsightedness, because it is obvious that in case Ahtisaari
apologizes, which is hardly to be expected, the policy of separating
Kosovo from Serbia and the total legalization of the occupation by
western imperialism, of which Ahtisaari is the ambassador, will not be
changed.
If the government of Serbia were really to behave patriotically, it
would clearly show that Kosovo I Metohia is occupied territory and
demand the that all foreign occupation troops should leave its
territory. To us in SKOJ it is clear that nothing of the sort can be
expected from this or any other bourgeois pro-imperialist government.
=== izvorna verzija/srpskohrvatska ===
Savez komunisticke omladine Jugoslavije najostrije osudjuje skandaloznu
izjavu specijalnog izaslanika Ujedinjenih nacija Martija Ahtisarija za
pitanje Kosova i Metohije o tome da je „srpski narod kriv i da se
istorijske greske moraju platiti“.
Ovakva tvrdnja specijalnog izaslanika UN predstavlja ociglednu i
smisljenu provokaciju kojom se otvoreno iskazuje pristrasnost u
odreðivanju buduæeg statusa Kosova i Metohije. SKOJ je od samog pocetka
bio protiv bilo kakvih pregovora u situaciji u kojoj je Kosovo pod
okupacijom NATO pakta. Ahtisarijeva izjava pokazuje da se zapadni
imperijalizam na Kosovu i Metohiji ponaša kao okupator a da je
"pregovaracki proces" u stvari samo sarena laza, odnosno proces koji
treba da da pun legitimitet okupaciji.
Izjava koju je Ahtisari izrekao tokom razgovora sa srpskim pregovarackim
timom je apsolutno neprihvatljiva i necivilizacijska. U istoriji se samo
jedna osoba do sada usudila da kaze tako nesto, to je Adolf Hitler koji
je osudio jevrejski narod da su "krivi kao narod za sve zlo".
Dobro pamtimo „plemenitu mirovnu misiju“ Martija Ahtisarija 1999. godine
kada je sa pod pretnjom potpunog razaranja Beograda i Srbije po principu
„uzmi ili ostavi“ primorao tadašnju srpsku Vladu da potpiše Kumanovski
sporazum èime je Kosovo i Metohija okupirana od starne NATO-a i
pretvorena u najveæu vojnu bazu NATO pakta.
Ni jedan narod ne moze snositi nikakvu kolektivnu krivicu. U opsadi
Lenjingrada ucestvovala je cela finska Karelijska armija sa 300 000
boraca. U ovoj blokadi umrlo je vise od milion stanovnika Lenjingrada.
Da li to znaci da je finski narod genocidan? Po logici Ahtisarija jeste.
Na Kosovu i Metohiji nije bilo agresije Vojske Jugoslavije, jer je ona
bila dužna da cuva svoju teritoriju po ustavu; nije Vojska Jugoslavije
krocila u Irak ili Avganistan vec je branila svoju teritoriju. Nazalost,
bilo je krsenja Zenevske konvencije za sta su sudjenja pojedinim
pripadnicima vojske i policije , otpocela jos u vreme postojanja Savezne
Republike Jugoslavije. Zlocini pojedinaca ili manjih bandi ne mogu biti
opravdanje za tvrdnje da krivicu snosi ceo narod.
Eskalaciju sukoba na Kosovu i Metohiji 1998.-99. godine nedvosmisleno su
rezirali zapadni imperijalisti sa ciljem okupacije tog dela Balkana i
njegovog pretvaranja u svoj vojni poligon. NATO okupacija Kosmeta ni u
jednom segmentu nije doprinela miru, razvoju i prosperitetu. Ona je
potpuno anulirala rezultate koji su postignuti u proteklih pet i po
decenija kada je Kosovo vlastitim naporima i uz podrsku cele SFRJ
ostvarilo znacajan napredak na svim poljima. Preko 73% zitelja Kosova je
nezaposleno, a sve glavne privredne grane su u rukama NATO okupatora
koji slobodno raspolaže i ubira prihoda od onoga što je stvarano u
interesu naroda Kosova i Metohije tokom proteklih pet decenija. Kosmet
je pretvoren u leglo svetskog terorizma, sverca i mafije.
Jasno je da postojeæe okupaciono stanje ne odgovara trajnim i stvarnim
interesima naroda koji zive na Kosovu, ono odgovara jedino
imperijalno-ekspanzionistickim ciljevima NATO-a.
Cilj politike koju vode razne „mirovne“ medjunarodne komisije jeste
dalje produbljivanje postojeceg stanja po principu „zavadi, pa vladaj“ u
cilju sto duze okupacije ovog dela Balkana.
Licemerni su zahtevi predstavnika proimperijalistickog burzoaskog rezima
u Beogradu da se Ahtisari izvini za izrecene reci.Time Vlada Srbije
izrazava svoj lazni burzoaski patriotizam koji ne moze zavarati narod
Srbije.Vlada Srbije pokazuje i politicku kratkovidost jer je ocito da i
u sluaju da se Ahtisari izvini, a do cega gotovo sigurno nece doci,
politika odvajanja Kosova od Srbije i potpunog legalizovanja okupacionog
stanja od strane zapadnog imperijalizma, ciji je Ahtisari izaslanik,
nece biti promenjena. Da Vlada Srbije postupa zaista patriotski ona bi
jasno iskazala da je Kosovo i Metohija okupirana teritorija i zatrazila
od stranih okupacionih trupa da napusti njegovu teritoriju.Nama u SKOJ
je jasno da se tako nesto ne moze ocekivati od ove ali ni od jedne druge
burzoaske proimperijalisticke vlade.
http://www.skoj.co.sr/
(francais / italiano)
Revisionismo pangermanico per un'Europa neocarolingia
(2a parte; la prima parte alla pagina:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/5077 )
1. A proposito della mostra di Berlino e della alleanza strategica
tra revanscismo pantedesco e neoirredentismo italiano
2. Ordre supranational
29/08/2006 - http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/
=== 1 ===
A proposito della mostra di Berlino
Di seguito un estratto da un articolo di Giuseppe Genna che parla del
caso Grass e anche di questa mostra. Non necessariamente sono
condivisibili tutte le affermazioni di Genna, però è interessante che
l'articolo di Repubblica (da noi segnalato nel precedente invio) non
parli dello spazio dedicato nella mostra all'esodo e alle foibe
istriane.
(segnalato da Claudia Cernigoi - Trieste)
---
(...) Al Kronprinzenpalais, un'ulteriore mostra, non permanente, che
ha scatenato polemiche in tutto il mondo, e della quale, qui in
Italia, si è avuta qualche eco. Non reperendo una copia di giornali
italiani che fosse una, pur chiedendo a ogni edicola in corretto
inglese e venendo misinterpretato perché gran parte dei berlinesi che
ho incontrato non parla inglese, mi sono ridotto a leggere Le Monde,
il New York Times, lo Herald Tribune, le cui pagine culturali erano
dominate dal caso Grass e dallo scandalo di questa esibizione,
fragile in apparenza e muscolare a un secondo livello. Si tratta di
una rassegna degli esodi politici del Novecento: masse di presuli ed
esiliati nel XX secolo. La documentazione è scarsissima e per questo
stesso motivo risulta emblematica. Quattro lettere affiancate da una
tiara ortodossa e la questione turco-greca è sistemata (non ne sono
esperto, ma, avendo letto "Middlesex" di Jeffrey Eugenides, ho una
percezione attendibile dell'immane tragedia che fu vissuta e dai
turchi e dai greci). Enorme attenzione per lo sterminio, con
conseguente esodo di profughi in massa, degli armeni: sta diventando
l'argomento storico da opporre all'Olocausto. A proposito del quale,
compio un'unica constatazione: siamo presenti anche noi italiani
nell'esposizione, con la questione istriana e la storia delle foibe,
a cui viene dedicato un terzo dello spazio dedicato all'Olocausto.
Questa è la pietra dello scandalo internazionale (con
giustificatissima sottopolemica dalla Polonia), il motivo per cui la
stampa mondiale si è scagliata contro i pessimi (o benaccorti)
curatori della mostra: una riduzione, sic et simpliciter, della Shoah
a esodo, citando un pochino di massacri, in uno spazio
documentaristico ristrettissimo, con posizionamento in teca di una
valigia di deportato come testimonianza diretta. La questione
sottopelle di un revisionismo che, come dicevo, si respira o, almeno,
io ho respirato. (E non parliamo delle foibe: multimedializzate con
tre interventi: il servizio-fiume dell'Istituto Luce postfascista, il
cui unico sintomo di postfascismo sta nel rallentamento della voce
retorica ed enfatica che descrive l'esodo da Pola con terminologia da
Troiane euripidee; un'intervista a una signora che ammette di non
essersi nemmeno recata alle foibe e conta sette familiari morti;
dichiarazioni di ex bambini che ricordano la fuga da Pola. Nessun
dubbio, nessun approfondimento storiografico per una questione che
scatena invece, da anni, non soltanto uno scontro ideologico in
Italia, ma anche indagini di tutt'altro esito, come abbiamo
estesamente segnalato su Carmilla - http://www.carmillaonline.com/cgi-
bin/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=2&search=Santi+subito%21+%22Infoibati%
22+veri+e+presunti )...
(Fonte: http://www.carmillaonline.com/archives/
2006/08/001896.html#001896
WIR SIND EIN VOLK: Grass e il caso Germania - di Giuseppe Genna )
=== 2 ===
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/fr/fulltext/55908
Ordre supranational
29/08/2006
BERLIN/MAGDEBOURG (Compte-rendu de la rédaction) - L'Empire allemand
du Moyen Âge qui s'étendait sur une large partie de l'Europe peut
être considéré comme un modèle pour le regroupement des états de
l'Union Européenne (UE) d'aujourd'hui. C'est ce que vient de déclarer
le ministre d'état de Berlin pour la culture, Bernd Neumann. Ainsi le
souvenir du Saint Empire romain germanique révèle "la logique
inhérente, historique" de la création et de l'élargissement continu
de l'UE. Ces remarques préparent les festivités données à l'occasion
du 50ème anniversaire de la Communauté économique européenne (CEE),
pour lesquelles la chancelière Merkel a invité le pape allemand
Joseph Ratzinger. Ratzinger est un partisan engagé de "L'idée de
l'Empire" et doit parler dans la capitale allemande des "fondements
spirituels" de l'Europe. L'offensive du gouvernement pour revitaliser
l'idée de l'Empire confirme des craintes en France, en Grande-
Bretagne et dans presque tous les états d'Europe de l'est. Plusieurs
parties de l'élite allemande mettent en garde contre une politique
hégémoniale de leur pays trop ouvertement affichée.
Signification importante
Comme le déclare le ministre d'état chargé de la culture, Bernd
Neumann, l'Empire allemand du Moyen Âge peut être considéré "de nos
jours" comme "le modèle d'un ordre supranational fonctionnant".[1]
Neumann a choisi cette référence contemporaine lorsqu'il a ouvert
dimanche dernier (27 août) une exposition historique dédiée au
prétendu modèle historique ("Saint Empire romain germanique de 962 à
1806"). A cause du lieu d'exposition de premier plan (entre autre le
Musée d'histoire allemande de Berlin, contrôlé par l'état) les objets
présentés et la façon dont ils sont assemblés sont particulièrement
remarqués. L'intervention du ministre d'état chargé de la culture,
immédiatement subordonné à la chancelière, renforce la signification
politique de cette exposition. Elle jette "un pont (...) qui nous
fait comprendre la logique inhérente, historique de l'intégration
européenne", a déclaré Neumann dimanche dernier. Le but explicite des
organisateurs est d'"examiner le passé de l'ancienne Europe dans une
période de réorientations intérieures et extérieures".[2] On a décelé
des "structures et des procédures de développement", qui "sont d'une
grande importance pour les discussions actuelles et la construction
fédérale de l'Europe", ont déclaré les organisateurs.
L'Europe de demain
La référence explicite aux structures de l'Empire du Moyen-Âge, qui
est visible dans la déclaration de Neumann, s'est longtemps limitée,
après la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, à l'extrême droite allemande ainsi
qu'aux milieux conservateurs et cléricaux. Ainsi Otto de Habsbourg,
politicien membre de la CSU (Conservateurs bavarois) et petit-fils du
dernier empereur, a cru pouvoir découvrir à la fin des années 70 que
la "politique d'intégration européenne (...) [est] la continuation
des grandes lignes et des principes fondamentaux de l'Empire qui ont
survécu à 1806, car ils ont une validité permanente".[3] Dans l'Union
Paneuropéenne, une association de partisans de l'UE proche de la CSU,
on tenait un discours semblable: il faudrait renouveler "dans
l'Europe de demain la fonction éternelle de l'Empire - dans l'intérêt
de l'Occident".[4] Joseph Ratzinger, l'actuel pape Benoît XVI, a
également voulu découvrir aux origines de l'actuelle UE une "Idée
commune d'Empire".[5] Ces dernières années, des journaux
conservateurs allemands ont ouvert leurs pages de culture et de
débats à de nouveaux plaidoyers pour l'"Empire".[6]
Discours du Pape
Le Président du Bundestag (Parlement fédéral allemand), Norbert
Lammert (CDU, Chrétien-démocrate), vient de déclarer qu'il a invité
le partisan de l'Idée de l'Empire, Joseph Ratzinger, à Berlin pour
l'année prochaine. L'invitation a été expliquée par la chancelière
allemande lundi dernier lorsqu'elle a été reçue par le Pape à Castel
Gandolfo. Le pape allemand doit assister à Berlin aux festivités
données à l'occasion du 50ème anniversaire des traités de Rome et
honorer l'événement par un discours. Cette bénédiction religieuse est
consacrée à la Communauté économique européenne (CEE) et aux
"fondements spirituels de l'intégration politique de l'Europe", a-t-
on pu lire préalablement dans la presse allemande.[7] L'invitation
actualise la conception de l'"Empire" comme coexistence permanente de
l'Eglise et de l'Etat et représente un affront particulier contre la
France, membre fondateur de la CEE. Paris est voué à la laïcité. La
séparation de l'église et de l'état est considérée depuis la
Révolution française en 1789 comme un principe fondamental de la vie
politique.
L'Europe centrale
Le discours qu'a tenu dimanche dernier le ministre d'état de la
culture de Berlin représente également un affront pour les états
voisins à l'Est et au Sud-est de l'Allemagne. En faisant ouvertement
allusion à la Pologne et à la République Tchèque, ce membre du
gouvernement allemand déclarait que le Saint Empire romain germanique
fait "partie du passé de nombreux états européens". Selon Neumann,
"l'Allemagne et l'Europe centrale [sont] (...) entremêlées
historiquement et culturellement de manière indissoluble".[8] Le
ministre d'état a ainsi rappelé l'ancienne hégémonie allemande à
l'est de son actuelle frontière, et dont le rétablissement est le but
de Berlin depuis 1990.
Craintes
La revitalisation du mythe de l'Empire se heurte à des critiques
virulentes. Dans une interview, l'historien Heinrich August Winkler a
fait remarqué l'importance du mythe de l'Empire pour la propagande
nazie. Selon Winkler, il était décisif "que l'Empire fût toujours
différent et plus qu'un Etat-nation ordinaire": "Lorsque Hitler
établit en Tchéquie occupée le Protectorat Bohème et Moravie en 1939,
des historiens d'inspiration pangermanique lui ont attesté que ceci
était tout à fait dans l'esprit de l'ancienne idée de l'Empire, qui a
toujours été supranationale." Winkler met en garde contre de
nouvelles tensions entre les états européens: Une "invocation de
l'Empire" va susciter "inévitablement (...) des craintes de
prétentions allemandes de vouloir être de nouveau un modèle pour
l'ordre européen".[9] Comme la critique du célèbre historien Winkler
a été publiée dans un grand hebdomadaire il y a déjà trois semaines
[10], l'actuel discours du ministre ne peut être compris autrement
que comme une propagande clairement affichée pour l'Empire.
[1] Kulturstaatsminister Bernd Neumann eröffnet Ausstellung "Heiliges
Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation 962-1806"; Pressemitteilung des
Presse- und Informationsamts der Bundesregierung 27.08.2006
[2] www.dhm.de/ausstellungen/heiliges-roemisches-reich/index_2.html
[3] Otto von Habsburg: Karl IV. Ein europäischer Friedensfürst,
München/Wien 1978
[4] Monatsinformationen der Paneuropa-Union, Januar 1977
[5] voir aussi Habemus Europam ( http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/
fr/fulltext/52653?PHPSESSID=005tj1l0ih7mcj0il5shs9q660 ) et Fils
allemand ( http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/fr/fulltext/55879?
PHPSESSID=005tj1l0ih7mcj0il5shs9q660 )
[6] voir aussi Genèse d'un nouvel empire ( http://www.german-foreign-
policy.com/fr/fulltext/46973?PHPSESSID=005tj1l0ih7mcj0il5shs9q660 )
et Heiliges Reich ( http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/fulltext/
54117?PHPSESSID=005tj1l0ih7mcj0il5shs9q660 )
[7] Lammert lädt Papst in den Bundestag ein; Frankfurter Allgemeine
Zeitung 28.08.2006
[8] Kulturstaatsminister Bernd Neumann eröffnet Ausstellung "Heiliges
Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation 962-1806"; Pressemitteilung des
Presse- und Informationsamts der Bundesregierung 27.08.2006
[9], [10] "Erste Macht Europas"; Der Spiegel 32/2006
Revisionismo pangermanico per un'Europa neocarolingia
(2a parte; la prima parte alla pagina:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/5077 )
1. A proposito della mostra di Berlino e della alleanza strategica
tra revanscismo pantedesco e neoirredentismo italiano
2. Ordre supranational
29/08/2006 - http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/
=== 1 ===
A proposito della mostra di Berlino
Di seguito un estratto da un articolo di Giuseppe Genna che parla del
caso Grass e anche di questa mostra. Non necessariamente sono
condivisibili tutte le affermazioni di Genna, però è interessante che
l'articolo di Repubblica (da noi segnalato nel precedente invio) non
parli dello spazio dedicato nella mostra all'esodo e alle foibe
istriane.
(segnalato da Claudia Cernigoi - Trieste)
---
(...) Al Kronprinzenpalais, un'ulteriore mostra, non permanente, che
ha scatenato polemiche in tutto il mondo, e della quale, qui in
Italia, si è avuta qualche eco. Non reperendo una copia di giornali
italiani che fosse una, pur chiedendo a ogni edicola in corretto
inglese e venendo misinterpretato perché gran parte dei berlinesi che
ho incontrato non parla inglese, mi sono ridotto a leggere Le Monde,
il New York Times, lo Herald Tribune, le cui pagine culturali erano
dominate dal caso Grass e dallo scandalo di questa esibizione,
fragile in apparenza e muscolare a un secondo livello. Si tratta di
una rassegna degli esodi politici del Novecento: masse di presuli ed
esiliati nel XX secolo. La documentazione è scarsissima e per questo
stesso motivo risulta emblematica. Quattro lettere affiancate da una
tiara ortodossa e la questione turco-greca è sistemata (non ne sono
esperto, ma, avendo letto "Middlesex" di Jeffrey Eugenides, ho una
percezione attendibile dell'immane tragedia che fu vissuta e dai
turchi e dai greci). Enorme attenzione per lo sterminio, con
conseguente esodo di profughi in massa, degli armeni: sta diventando
l'argomento storico da opporre all'Olocausto. A proposito del quale,
compio un'unica constatazione: siamo presenti anche noi italiani
nell'esposizione, con la questione istriana e la storia delle foibe,
a cui viene dedicato un terzo dello spazio dedicato all'Olocausto.
Questa è la pietra dello scandalo internazionale (con
giustificatissima sottopolemica dalla Polonia), il motivo per cui la
stampa mondiale si è scagliata contro i pessimi (o benaccorti)
curatori della mostra: una riduzione, sic et simpliciter, della Shoah
a esodo, citando un pochino di massacri, in uno spazio
documentaristico ristrettissimo, con posizionamento in teca di una
valigia di deportato come testimonianza diretta. La questione
sottopelle di un revisionismo che, come dicevo, si respira o, almeno,
io ho respirato. (E non parliamo delle foibe: multimedializzate con
tre interventi: il servizio-fiume dell'Istituto Luce postfascista, il
cui unico sintomo di postfascismo sta nel rallentamento della voce
retorica ed enfatica che descrive l'esodo da Pola con terminologia da
Troiane euripidee; un'intervista a una signora che ammette di non
essersi nemmeno recata alle foibe e conta sette familiari morti;
dichiarazioni di ex bambini che ricordano la fuga da Pola. Nessun
dubbio, nessun approfondimento storiografico per una questione che
scatena invece, da anni, non soltanto uno scontro ideologico in
Italia, ma anche indagini di tutt'altro esito, come abbiamo
estesamente segnalato su Carmilla - http://www.carmillaonline.com/cgi-
bin/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=2&search=Santi+subito%21+%22Infoibati%
22+veri+e+presunti )...
(Fonte: http://www.carmillaonline.com/archives/
2006/08/001896.html#001896
WIR SIND EIN VOLK: Grass e il caso Germania - di Giuseppe Genna )
=== 2 ===
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/fr/fulltext/55908
Ordre supranational
29/08/2006
BERLIN/MAGDEBOURG (Compte-rendu de la rédaction) - L'Empire allemand
du Moyen Âge qui s'étendait sur une large partie de l'Europe peut
être considéré comme un modèle pour le regroupement des états de
l'Union Européenne (UE) d'aujourd'hui. C'est ce que vient de déclarer
le ministre d'état de Berlin pour la culture, Bernd Neumann. Ainsi le
souvenir du Saint Empire romain germanique révèle "la logique
inhérente, historique" de la création et de l'élargissement continu
de l'UE. Ces remarques préparent les festivités données à l'occasion
du 50ème anniversaire de la Communauté économique européenne (CEE),
pour lesquelles la chancelière Merkel a invité le pape allemand
Joseph Ratzinger. Ratzinger est un partisan engagé de "L'idée de
l'Empire" et doit parler dans la capitale allemande des "fondements
spirituels" de l'Europe. L'offensive du gouvernement pour revitaliser
l'idée de l'Empire confirme des craintes en France, en Grande-
Bretagne et dans presque tous les états d'Europe de l'est. Plusieurs
parties de l'élite allemande mettent en garde contre une politique
hégémoniale de leur pays trop ouvertement affichée.
Signification importante
Comme le déclare le ministre d'état chargé de la culture, Bernd
Neumann, l'Empire allemand du Moyen Âge peut être considéré "de nos
jours" comme "le modèle d'un ordre supranational fonctionnant".[1]
Neumann a choisi cette référence contemporaine lorsqu'il a ouvert
dimanche dernier (27 août) une exposition historique dédiée au
prétendu modèle historique ("Saint Empire romain germanique de 962 à
1806"). A cause du lieu d'exposition de premier plan (entre autre le
Musée d'histoire allemande de Berlin, contrôlé par l'état) les objets
présentés et la façon dont ils sont assemblés sont particulièrement
remarqués. L'intervention du ministre d'état chargé de la culture,
immédiatement subordonné à la chancelière, renforce la signification
politique de cette exposition. Elle jette "un pont (...) qui nous
fait comprendre la logique inhérente, historique de l'intégration
européenne", a déclaré Neumann dimanche dernier. Le but explicite des
organisateurs est d'"examiner le passé de l'ancienne Europe dans une
période de réorientations intérieures et extérieures".[2] On a décelé
des "structures et des procédures de développement", qui "sont d'une
grande importance pour les discussions actuelles et la construction
fédérale de l'Europe", ont déclaré les organisateurs.
L'Europe de demain
La référence explicite aux structures de l'Empire du Moyen-Âge, qui
est visible dans la déclaration de Neumann, s'est longtemps limitée,
après la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, à l'extrême droite allemande ainsi
qu'aux milieux conservateurs et cléricaux. Ainsi Otto de Habsbourg,
politicien membre de la CSU (Conservateurs bavarois) et petit-fils du
dernier empereur, a cru pouvoir découvrir à la fin des années 70 que
la "politique d'intégration européenne (...) [est] la continuation
des grandes lignes et des principes fondamentaux de l'Empire qui ont
survécu à 1806, car ils ont une validité permanente".[3] Dans l'Union
Paneuropéenne, une association de partisans de l'UE proche de la CSU,
on tenait un discours semblable: il faudrait renouveler "dans
l'Europe de demain la fonction éternelle de l'Empire - dans l'intérêt
de l'Occident".[4] Joseph Ratzinger, l'actuel pape Benoît XVI, a
également voulu découvrir aux origines de l'actuelle UE une "Idée
commune d'Empire".[5] Ces dernières années, des journaux
conservateurs allemands ont ouvert leurs pages de culture et de
débats à de nouveaux plaidoyers pour l'"Empire".[6]
Discours du Pape
Le Président du Bundestag (Parlement fédéral allemand), Norbert
Lammert (CDU, Chrétien-démocrate), vient de déclarer qu'il a invité
le partisan de l'Idée de l'Empire, Joseph Ratzinger, à Berlin pour
l'année prochaine. L'invitation a été expliquée par la chancelière
allemande lundi dernier lorsqu'elle a été reçue par le Pape à Castel
Gandolfo. Le pape allemand doit assister à Berlin aux festivités
données à l'occasion du 50ème anniversaire des traités de Rome et
honorer l'événement par un discours. Cette bénédiction religieuse est
consacrée à la Communauté économique européenne (CEE) et aux
"fondements spirituels de l'intégration politique de l'Europe", a-t-
on pu lire préalablement dans la presse allemande.[7] L'invitation
actualise la conception de l'"Empire" comme coexistence permanente de
l'Eglise et de l'Etat et représente un affront particulier contre la
France, membre fondateur de la CEE. Paris est voué à la laïcité. La
séparation de l'église et de l'état est considérée depuis la
Révolution française en 1789 comme un principe fondamental de la vie
politique.
L'Europe centrale
Le discours qu'a tenu dimanche dernier le ministre d'état de la
culture de Berlin représente également un affront pour les états
voisins à l'Est et au Sud-est de l'Allemagne. En faisant ouvertement
allusion à la Pologne et à la République Tchèque, ce membre du
gouvernement allemand déclarait que le Saint Empire romain germanique
fait "partie du passé de nombreux états européens". Selon Neumann,
"l'Allemagne et l'Europe centrale [sont] (...) entremêlées
historiquement et culturellement de manière indissoluble".[8] Le
ministre d'état a ainsi rappelé l'ancienne hégémonie allemande à
l'est de son actuelle frontière, et dont le rétablissement est le but
de Berlin depuis 1990.
Craintes
La revitalisation du mythe de l'Empire se heurte à des critiques
virulentes. Dans une interview, l'historien Heinrich August Winkler a
fait remarqué l'importance du mythe de l'Empire pour la propagande
nazie. Selon Winkler, il était décisif "que l'Empire fût toujours
différent et plus qu'un Etat-nation ordinaire": "Lorsque Hitler
établit en Tchéquie occupée le Protectorat Bohème et Moravie en 1939,
des historiens d'inspiration pangermanique lui ont attesté que ceci
était tout à fait dans l'esprit de l'ancienne idée de l'Empire, qui a
toujours été supranationale." Winkler met en garde contre de
nouvelles tensions entre les états européens: Une "invocation de
l'Empire" va susciter "inévitablement (...) des craintes de
prétentions allemandes de vouloir être de nouveau un modèle pour
l'ordre européen".[9] Comme la critique du célèbre historien Winkler
a été publiée dans un grand hebdomadaire il y a déjà trois semaines
[10], l'actuel discours du ministre ne peut être compris autrement
que comme une propagande clairement affichée pour l'Empire.
[1] Kulturstaatsminister Bernd Neumann eröffnet Ausstellung "Heiliges
Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation 962-1806"; Pressemitteilung des
Presse- und Informationsamts der Bundesregierung 27.08.2006
[2] www.dhm.de/ausstellungen/heiliges-roemisches-reich/index_2.html
[3] Otto von Habsburg: Karl IV. Ein europäischer Friedensfürst,
München/Wien 1978
[4] Monatsinformationen der Paneuropa-Union, Januar 1977
[5] voir aussi Habemus Europam ( http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/
fr/fulltext/52653?PHPSESSID=005tj1l0ih7mcj0il5shs9q660 ) et Fils
allemand ( http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/fr/fulltext/55879?
PHPSESSID=005tj1l0ih7mcj0il5shs9q660 )
[6] voir aussi Genèse d'un nouvel empire ( http://www.german-foreign-
policy.com/fr/fulltext/46973?PHPSESSID=005tj1l0ih7mcj0il5shs9q660 )
et Heiliges Reich ( http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/fulltext/
54117?PHPSESSID=005tj1l0ih7mcj0il5shs9q660 )
[7] Lammert lädt Papst in den Bundestag ein; Frankfurter Allgemeine
Zeitung 28.08.2006
[8] Kulturstaatsminister Bernd Neumann eröffnet Ausstellung "Heiliges
Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation 962-1806"; Pressemitteilung des
Presse- und Informationsamts der Bundesregierung 27.08.2006
[9], [10] "Erste Macht Europas"; Der Spiegel 32/2006
http://www.nuovaalabarda.org/leggi-articolo-
riciclaggi_e_mancate_epurazioni_nel_dopoguerra..php
Riciclaggi e Mancate Epurazioni nel Dopoguerra.
RICICLAGGI E MANCATE EPURAZIONI NEL DOPOGUERRA:
IL CASO DEGLI ISPETTORI GENERALI VERDIANI E MESSANA.
A chi parla di “pacificazione” e di riconoscimenti anche ai
“vinti” della Seconda guerra mondiale, che, stando alla vulgata
(falsificatrice e fuorviante, lo diciamo subito) che si va
diffondendo in questi ultimi anni, non avrebbero goduto di alcun
diritto nell’Italia del dopoguerra, vogliamo qui portare ad esempio
la storia di due alti funzionari della PS, che dopo avere raggiunto i
vertici della carriera in epoca fascista, la proseguirono, senza
alcun problema, nell’Italia repubblicana “nata dalla Resistenza”.
Iniziamo parlando dell’ispettore generale di PS Ciro Verdiani, che
iniziò la propria carriera nel 1916 “al Quirinale come responsabile
della sicurezza personale dei Savoia” e nel 1930 fu nominato capo di
Gabinetto del questore di Roma. Verdiani fu inviato a Lubiana nel
maggio ‘41 subito dopo l’occupazione militare italiana della
cosiddetta “provincia di Lubiana”, dal Capo della Polizia di Roma,
allo scopo di “esaminare a fondo le necessità degli uffici e dei
comandi di polizia e Carabinieri” . Le proposte di Verdiani a questo
scopo (successivamente approvate da Mussolini) furono
“l’istituzione di una questura a Lubiana, due uffici di PS a Novo
Mesto e Kočevje, alcuni uffici confinari di Polizia ed un battaglione
di agenti di PS a Lubiana”. Sugli uffici di Novo Mesto e Kočevje,
considerati in zona di confine, esercitava alcune “competenze
speciali” il dottor Luciano Palmisani, allora dirigente la Polizia
di Frontiera a Trieste; Palmisani fu anche il reggente
dell’Ispettorato Speciale di PS (un corpo di polizia creato
specificamente per la lotta antipartigiana nell’allora Venezia
Giulia) nel periodo in cui il dirigente Giuseppe Gueli era fuori sede
in quanto si trovava a dirigere il corpo di sorveglianza di Mussolini
al Gran Sasso. Vale la pena di ricordare che, stando alle memorie
dello stesso Gueli, sarebbe stato proprio grazie alla sua
“sorveglianza” che il commando di Otto Skorzeny riuscì a liberare
il “duce” e portarselo via .
Verdiani propose anche di estendere alla “provincia di Lubiana” le
competenze dell’OVRA, ma “mentre la Venezia Giulia apparteneva
alla 1^ zona OVRA (con sede a Milano), la provincia di Lubiana venne
aggregata all’11^ Zona OVRA, con sede a Zagabria”, diretta da
Verdiani tra il 1941 ed il ‘43. Verdiani divenne infine dirigente
dell’Ispettorato Generale di Polizia in Croazia con sede a Zagabria,
come si evince da alcuni documenti datati luglio ed agosto ‘43, sia
d’epoca fascista, sia badogliana.
Finita la parentesi fascista, Verdiani ebbe una curiosa evoluzione:
nel 1944 fu “arrestato dalla Muti come antifascista. Liberato
all’inizio del 1945, si trasferisce a Venezia per attivare contatti
segreti con la Resistenza” ; successivamente, nel dopoguerra,
vantando il possesso di una “cassa dell’archivio dell’OVRA
contenente documenti riguardanti alcune personalità allora al
governo” riuscì ad avere un “colloquio con Pietro Nenni cui
consegnò personalmente la cassa (che conteneva anche il fascicolo di
Nenni) avendone in cambio, con la sua iscrizione al Partito
socialista, promessa di protezione per evitargli l’epurazione e le
sanzioni”. Nel 1946 ricoprì la carica di questore di Roma, il
secondo dopo la liberazione. Nel 1947 fu sentito come teste nel
processo a carico di Giuseppe Gueli e di altri membri
dell’Ispettorato Speciale celebrato a Trieste: doveva riferire
dell’inchiesta che un altro Ispettore generale di PS, Cocchia,
avrebbe svolto in seguito alla denuncia del vescovo di Trieste
Antonio Santin per le sevizie cui agenti dell’Ispettorato
sottoponevano i prigionieri. Verdiani asserì in udienza che la
relazione di Cocchia non era reperibile ma che Cocchia avrebbe
constatato che s’era trattato di esagerazioni sulle violenze che in
ogni caso andavano attribuite al solo commissario Gaetano Collotti
(nel frattempo deceduto) e non anche ai suoi collaboratori. Dato che
Cocchia non fu sentito, e la relazione non saltò mai fuori, la Corte
si basò, per giudicare questi fatti, solo sulle parole di Verdiani.
Ricordiamo che la sentenza sancì che era “molto riprovevole anche
moralmente” ma non penalmente perseguibile il fatto che Gueli fosse
venuto a conoscenza delle sevizie cui si dedicavano i suoi
sottoposti, e quindi lo assolse da questo capo di imputazione .
Nel dopoguerra Verdiani operò in Sicilia come dirigente di un
“Ispettorato per la lotta alla mafia”, assieme ad un suo vecchio
collega, Ettore Messana, che aveva diretto la questura di Lubiana
(istituita, lo ricordiamo, su proposta di Verdiani) fino a giugno
1942, e successivamente quella di Trieste, fino a giugno 1943.
Il nome di Messana risulta nell’elenco dei criminali di guerra
denunciati dalla Jugoslavia alla Commissione delle Nazioni Unite per
i crimini di guerra (United Nations War Crimes Commission). Il
rapporto di denuncia, redatto in lingua inglese ed inviato dalla
Commissione statale jugoslava in data 14/7/45 , lo accusa, sulla base
di documentazione che era stata trovata in possesso della Divisione
“Isonzo” dell’Esercito italiano di occupazione, di crimini
vari: “assassinio e massacri; terrorismo sistematico; torture ai
civili; violenza carnale; deportazioni di civili; detenzione di
civili in condizioni disumane; tentativo di denazionalizzare gli
abitanti dei territori occupati; violazione degli articoli 4, 5, 45 e
46 della Convenzione dell’Aja del 1907 e dell’articolo 13 del
Codice militare jugoslavo del 1944”.
Nello specifico viene addebitata a Messana (in concorso con il
commissario di PS Pellegrino e col giudice del Tribunale militare di
Lubiana dott. Macis) la costruzione di false prove che servirono a
condannare diversi imputati (tra i quali Anton Tomsič alla pena
capitale, eseguita in data 21/5/42) per dei reati che non avevano
commesso. La responsabilità di Messana e Pellegrino in questo fatto
è confermata da documenti dell’archivio della questura di Lubiana ,
che fanno riferimento ad una “operazione di polizia politica”
condotte dal vicequestore Mario Ferrante e dal vicecommissario
Antonio Pellegrina sotto la direzione personale di Messana, contro
una “cellula sovversiva di Lubiana” della quale facevano parte,
oltre al Tomsič prima citato, anche Michele Marinko (condannato a 30
anni di reclusione), Vida Bernot (a 25 anni), Giuseppina Maček (a 18
anni) ed altri tre a pene minori.
Messana e gli altri furono anche accusati di avere creato false prove
nel corso di una indagine da loro condotta, in conseguenza della
quale 16 persone innocenti furono fucilate dopo la condanna comminata
dal giudice Macis. Si tratta dell’indagine per l’attentato al
ponte ferroviario di Prešerje del 15/12/41, per la quale indagine,
come risulta da altri documenti della questura di Lubiana
dell’epoca, Messana, il suo vice Ferrante, l’ufficiale dei
Carabinieri Raffaele Lombardi ed altri agenti e militi furono
proposti per onorificenze e premi in denaro per la buona riuscita
delle indagini relative all’attentato di Preserje. Nello specifico
Messana ricevette come riconoscimento per il suo operato la
“commenda dell’Ordine di S. Maurizio e Lazzaro”.
Ettore Messana fu anche segnalato con nota del 21/9/45 dall’Alto
Commissario Aggiunto per l’Epurazione di Roma al Prefetto di
Trieste, che richiese un’indagine alla Polizia Civile del GMA . Il
risultato di questa indagine è contenuto in una relazione datata
6/10/45 e firmata dall’ispettore Feliciano Ricciardelli della
Divisione Criminale Investigativa , dalla quale citiamo alcuni passaggi.
“… il Messana era preceduto da pessima fama per le sue malefatte
quale Questore di Lubiana. Si vociferava infatti che in quella città
aveva infierito contro i perseguitati politici permettendo di usare
dei mezzi brutali e inumani nei confronti di essi per indurli a fare
delle rivelazioni (…) vi era anche (la voce, n.d.r.) che ordinava
arresti di persone facoltose contro cui venivano mossi addebiti
infondati al solo scopo di conseguire profitti personali. Difatti si
diceva che tali detenuti venivano poi avvicinati in carcere da un
poliziotto sloveno, compare del Messana, che prometteva loro la
liberazione mediante il pagamento di ingenti importi di denaro.
Inoltre gli si faceva carico che a Lubiana si era dedicato al
commercio in pellami da cui aveva ricavato lauti profitti.
Durante la sua permanenza a Trieste, ove rimase fino al giugno 1943,
per la creazione in questa città del famigerato e tristemente noto
Ispettorato Speciale di polizia diretto dal comm. Giuseppe Gueli,
amico del Messana, costui non riuscì ad effettuare operazioni di
polizia politica degne di particolare rilievo.
Ma anche qui, così come a Lubiana, egli si volle distinguere per la
mancanza assoluta di ogni senso di umanità e di giustizia, che
dimostrò chiaramente nella trattazione di pratiche relative a
perseguitati politici (…)”.
Dopo avere letto i curricula di questi due funzionari di PS, ci si
aspetterebbe di trovarli, se non condannati per il loro operato sotto
il fascismo, quantomeno “epurati” dalla Pubblica Sicurezza. Invece
li ritroviamo, nell’immediato dopoguerra, nella natia Sicilia, a
dirigere un “Ispettorato generale di PS per la Sicilia”, un
“organo creato per la repressione della delinquenza associata, e
specificamente per la repressione del banditismo che faceva capo a
Giuliano (il “bandito” Salvatore Giuliano, n.d.r.)” . Per sapere
come i due alti funzionari di PS svolsero il compito loro
affidatogli, leggiamo alcuni stralci dalla sentenza che fu emanata in
merito alla strage di Portella della Ginestra (1/5/47), dove gli
uomini di Giuliano spararono sulla folla che si era radunata per
festeggiare il Primo maggio, uccidendo undici persone tra cui donne e
bambini e ferendone molte altre.
Così “l’Ispettore Verdiani non esitò ad avere rapporti con il
capo della mafia di Monreale, Ignazio Miceli, ed anche con lo stesso
Giuliano, con cui si incontrò nella casetta campestre di un sospetto
appartenente alla mafia, Giuseppe Marotta in territorio di
Castelvetrano ed alla presenza di Gaspare Pisciotta, nonché dei
mafiosi Miceli, zio e nipote, quest’ultimo cognato dell’imputato
Remo Corrao, e dal mafioso Albano. E quel convegno si concluse con la
raccomandazione fatta al capo della banda ed al luogotenente di
essere dei bravi e buoni figlioli, perché egli si sarebbe adoperato
presso il Procuratore Generale di Palermo, che era Pili Emanuele,
onde Maria Lombardo madre del capo bandito, fosse ammessa alla
libertà provvisoria. E l’attività dell’ispettore Verdiani non
cessò più; poiché qualche giorno prima che Giuliano fosse
soppresso, attraverso il mafioso Marotta pervenne o doveva a Giuliano
pervenire una lettera con cui lo si metteva in guardia, facendogli
intendere che Gaspare Pisciotta era entrato nell’orbita del
Colonnello Luca ed operava con costui contro Giuliano”.
Per quanto riguarda Messana, invece, leggiamo che “l’Ispettore
Generale di PS Messana negò ed insistette nel negare di avere avuto
confidente il Ferreri, ma la negativa da lui opposta deve cadere di
fronte all’affermazione del capitano dei Carabinieri Giallombardo,
il quale ripetette (sic) in dibattimento che Ferreri fu ferito dai
carabinieri presso Alcamo, ove avvenne il conflitto in cui restarono
uccise quattro persone; e, ferito, il Ferreri stesso chiese di essere
portato a Palermo, spiegando che era un agente segreto al servizio
dell’Ispettorato e che doveva subito parlare col Messana”;
Salvatore Ferreri era “conosciuto anche come Totò il palermitano,
ma definito come pericoloso pregiudicato, appartenente alla banda
Giuliano, già condannato in contumacia alla pena dell’ergastolo per
omicidio consumato allo scopo di rapinare una vettura automobile”.
Verdiani morì a Roma nel 1952, e il suo “decesso fece in modo che
il suo ruolo in quegli anni piano piano si dissolvesse sotto i
riflettori”.
Sui rapporti tra la “banda” Giuliano, l’Ispettorato generale di
Messana e Verdiani, i servizi segreti statunitensi ed italiani,
nonché sul riciclaggio da parte di questi di personale che aveva
operato con la Decima Mas di Borghese (soprattutto il battaglione
Vega, emanazione dei Nuotatori Paracadutisti comandati dal triestino
Nino Buttazzoni, il quale, dopo avere “comandato il battaglione
NP” anche nella “zona di Gorizia contro i partigiani comunisti
italo-slavi, difendendola dall’occupazione titina”, si trovava a
Venezia alla fine della guerra, pronto, con i suoi uomini, ad andare
a Trieste in previsione del fatto che “la città sarà invasa dagli
slavi di Tito” : a Venezia nello stesso periodo in cui Verdiani
maneggiava con alleati e resistenti) per organizzare un fronte
anticomunista in Sicilia (ma non solo), vi rimandiamo allo studio di
Giuseppe Casarrubea, “Storia segreta della Sicilia” (Bompiani
2005), in questo articolo da noi già ripetutamente citato .
È curioso, a questo proposito, che lo storico Giuseppe Parlato abbia,
nel corso della presentazione del libro “Trieste 1945-1954. Moti
giovanili per Trieste italiana”, dopo avere definito Trieste un
“un laboratorio della guerra fredda” ed “elemento centrale per
porre la questione della difesa dal comunismo nel disegno
anticomunista”, in quanto la “progettualità dell’OSS dal 1944
si dipana fino al 1954 triestino”, abbia usato la definizione
“teoremi costruiti che portano a deliri” in merito alle ricerche
di Casarrubea. Curioso perché questa affermazione è stata fatta in
un contesto dove nessuno dei presenti poteva fare riferimento ai
“teoremi” di Casarrubea, a meno che non si trattasse di persone
che avevano approfondito l’argomento e quindi potevano mettere in
collegamento la situazione della strategia della tensione creata
nella Zona A da parte di coloro che finanziavano e fomentavano i
“moti per la Trieste italiana”, con i “maneggi” denunciati
dalle ricerche di Casarrubea (e che emergono, ricordiamolo, in gran
parte da documentazione proveniente dagli archivi USA).
Ma in merito a quanto è emerso nel corso di questa serata di
presentazione, vi rimandiamo all’articolo intitolato “apologia di
scontri di piazza e di esercitazioni paramilitari” ( http://
www.nuovaalabarda.org/leggi-articolo-
apologia_di_scontri_di_piazza_ed_esercitazioni_paramilitari.php ).
Luglio 2006
riciclaggi_e_mancate_epurazioni_nel_dopoguerra..php
Riciclaggi e Mancate Epurazioni nel Dopoguerra.
RICICLAGGI E MANCATE EPURAZIONI NEL DOPOGUERRA:
IL CASO DEGLI ISPETTORI GENERALI VERDIANI E MESSANA.
A chi parla di “pacificazione” e di riconoscimenti anche ai
“vinti” della Seconda guerra mondiale, che, stando alla vulgata
(falsificatrice e fuorviante, lo diciamo subito) che si va
diffondendo in questi ultimi anni, non avrebbero goduto di alcun
diritto nell’Italia del dopoguerra, vogliamo qui portare ad esempio
la storia di due alti funzionari della PS, che dopo avere raggiunto i
vertici della carriera in epoca fascista, la proseguirono, senza
alcun problema, nell’Italia repubblicana “nata dalla Resistenza”.
Iniziamo parlando dell’ispettore generale di PS Ciro Verdiani, che
iniziò la propria carriera nel 1916 “al Quirinale come responsabile
della sicurezza personale dei Savoia” e nel 1930 fu nominato capo di
Gabinetto del questore di Roma. Verdiani fu inviato a Lubiana nel
maggio ‘41 subito dopo l’occupazione militare italiana della
cosiddetta “provincia di Lubiana”, dal Capo della Polizia di Roma,
allo scopo di “esaminare a fondo le necessità degli uffici e dei
comandi di polizia e Carabinieri” . Le proposte di Verdiani a questo
scopo (successivamente approvate da Mussolini) furono
“l’istituzione di una questura a Lubiana, due uffici di PS a Novo
Mesto e Kočevje, alcuni uffici confinari di Polizia ed un battaglione
di agenti di PS a Lubiana”. Sugli uffici di Novo Mesto e Kočevje,
considerati in zona di confine, esercitava alcune “competenze
speciali” il dottor Luciano Palmisani, allora dirigente la Polizia
di Frontiera a Trieste; Palmisani fu anche il reggente
dell’Ispettorato Speciale di PS (un corpo di polizia creato
specificamente per la lotta antipartigiana nell’allora Venezia
Giulia) nel periodo in cui il dirigente Giuseppe Gueli era fuori sede
in quanto si trovava a dirigere il corpo di sorveglianza di Mussolini
al Gran Sasso. Vale la pena di ricordare che, stando alle memorie
dello stesso Gueli, sarebbe stato proprio grazie alla sua
“sorveglianza” che il commando di Otto Skorzeny riuscì a liberare
il “duce” e portarselo via .
Verdiani propose anche di estendere alla “provincia di Lubiana” le
competenze dell’OVRA, ma “mentre la Venezia Giulia apparteneva
alla 1^ zona OVRA (con sede a Milano), la provincia di Lubiana venne
aggregata all’11^ Zona OVRA, con sede a Zagabria”, diretta da
Verdiani tra il 1941 ed il ‘43. Verdiani divenne infine dirigente
dell’Ispettorato Generale di Polizia in Croazia con sede a Zagabria,
come si evince da alcuni documenti datati luglio ed agosto ‘43, sia
d’epoca fascista, sia badogliana.
Finita la parentesi fascista, Verdiani ebbe una curiosa evoluzione:
nel 1944 fu “arrestato dalla Muti come antifascista. Liberato
all’inizio del 1945, si trasferisce a Venezia per attivare contatti
segreti con la Resistenza” ; successivamente, nel dopoguerra,
vantando il possesso di una “cassa dell’archivio dell’OVRA
contenente documenti riguardanti alcune personalità allora al
governo” riuscì ad avere un “colloquio con Pietro Nenni cui
consegnò personalmente la cassa (che conteneva anche il fascicolo di
Nenni) avendone in cambio, con la sua iscrizione al Partito
socialista, promessa di protezione per evitargli l’epurazione e le
sanzioni”. Nel 1946 ricoprì la carica di questore di Roma, il
secondo dopo la liberazione. Nel 1947 fu sentito come teste nel
processo a carico di Giuseppe Gueli e di altri membri
dell’Ispettorato Speciale celebrato a Trieste: doveva riferire
dell’inchiesta che un altro Ispettore generale di PS, Cocchia,
avrebbe svolto in seguito alla denuncia del vescovo di Trieste
Antonio Santin per le sevizie cui agenti dell’Ispettorato
sottoponevano i prigionieri. Verdiani asserì in udienza che la
relazione di Cocchia non era reperibile ma che Cocchia avrebbe
constatato che s’era trattato di esagerazioni sulle violenze che in
ogni caso andavano attribuite al solo commissario Gaetano Collotti
(nel frattempo deceduto) e non anche ai suoi collaboratori. Dato che
Cocchia non fu sentito, e la relazione non saltò mai fuori, la Corte
si basò, per giudicare questi fatti, solo sulle parole di Verdiani.
Ricordiamo che la sentenza sancì che era “molto riprovevole anche
moralmente” ma non penalmente perseguibile il fatto che Gueli fosse
venuto a conoscenza delle sevizie cui si dedicavano i suoi
sottoposti, e quindi lo assolse da questo capo di imputazione .
Nel dopoguerra Verdiani operò in Sicilia come dirigente di un
“Ispettorato per la lotta alla mafia”, assieme ad un suo vecchio
collega, Ettore Messana, che aveva diretto la questura di Lubiana
(istituita, lo ricordiamo, su proposta di Verdiani) fino a giugno
1942, e successivamente quella di Trieste, fino a giugno 1943.
Il nome di Messana risulta nell’elenco dei criminali di guerra
denunciati dalla Jugoslavia alla Commissione delle Nazioni Unite per
i crimini di guerra (United Nations War Crimes Commission). Il
rapporto di denuncia, redatto in lingua inglese ed inviato dalla
Commissione statale jugoslava in data 14/7/45 , lo accusa, sulla base
di documentazione che era stata trovata in possesso della Divisione
“Isonzo” dell’Esercito italiano di occupazione, di crimini
vari: “assassinio e massacri; terrorismo sistematico; torture ai
civili; violenza carnale; deportazioni di civili; detenzione di
civili in condizioni disumane; tentativo di denazionalizzare gli
abitanti dei territori occupati; violazione degli articoli 4, 5, 45 e
46 della Convenzione dell’Aja del 1907 e dell’articolo 13 del
Codice militare jugoslavo del 1944”.
Nello specifico viene addebitata a Messana (in concorso con il
commissario di PS Pellegrino e col giudice del Tribunale militare di
Lubiana dott. Macis) la costruzione di false prove che servirono a
condannare diversi imputati (tra i quali Anton Tomsič alla pena
capitale, eseguita in data 21/5/42) per dei reati che non avevano
commesso. La responsabilità di Messana e Pellegrino in questo fatto
è confermata da documenti dell’archivio della questura di Lubiana ,
che fanno riferimento ad una “operazione di polizia politica”
condotte dal vicequestore Mario Ferrante e dal vicecommissario
Antonio Pellegrina sotto la direzione personale di Messana, contro
una “cellula sovversiva di Lubiana” della quale facevano parte,
oltre al Tomsič prima citato, anche Michele Marinko (condannato a 30
anni di reclusione), Vida Bernot (a 25 anni), Giuseppina Maček (a 18
anni) ed altri tre a pene minori.
Messana e gli altri furono anche accusati di avere creato false prove
nel corso di una indagine da loro condotta, in conseguenza della
quale 16 persone innocenti furono fucilate dopo la condanna comminata
dal giudice Macis. Si tratta dell’indagine per l’attentato al
ponte ferroviario di Prešerje del 15/12/41, per la quale indagine,
come risulta da altri documenti della questura di Lubiana
dell’epoca, Messana, il suo vice Ferrante, l’ufficiale dei
Carabinieri Raffaele Lombardi ed altri agenti e militi furono
proposti per onorificenze e premi in denaro per la buona riuscita
delle indagini relative all’attentato di Preserje. Nello specifico
Messana ricevette come riconoscimento per il suo operato la
“commenda dell’Ordine di S. Maurizio e Lazzaro”.
Ettore Messana fu anche segnalato con nota del 21/9/45 dall’Alto
Commissario Aggiunto per l’Epurazione di Roma al Prefetto di
Trieste, che richiese un’indagine alla Polizia Civile del GMA . Il
risultato di questa indagine è contenuto in una relazione datata
6/10/45 e firmata dall’ispettore Feliciano Ricciardelli della
Divisione Criminale Investigativa , dalla quale citiamo alcuni passaggi.
“… il Messana era preceduto da pessima fama per le sue malefatte
quale Questore di Lubiana. Si vociferava infatti che in quella città
aveva infierito contro i perseguitati politici permettendo di usare
dei mezzi brutali e inumani nei confronti di essi per indurli a fare
delle rivelazioni (…) vi era anche (la voce, n.d.r.) che ordinava
arresti di persone facoltose contro cui venivano mossi addebiti
infondati al solo scopo di conseguire profitti personali. Difatti si
diceva che tali detenuti venivano poi avvicinati in carcere da un
poliziotto sloveno, compare del Messana, che prometteva loro la
liberazione mediante il pagamento di ingenti importi di denaro.
Inoltre gli si faceva carico che a Lubiana si era dedicato al
commercio in pellami da cui aveva ricavato lauti profitti.
Durante la sua permanenza a Trieste, ove rimase fino al giugno 1943,
per la creazione in questa città del famigerato e tristemente noto
Ispettorato Speciale di polizia diretto dal comm. Giuseppe Gueli,
amico del Messana, costui non riuscì ad effettuare operazioni di
polizia politica degne di particolare rilievo.
Ma anche qui, così come a Lubiana, egli si volle distinguere per la
mancanza assoluta di ogni senso di umanità e di giustizia, che
dimostrò chiaramente nella trattazione di pratiche relative a
perseguitati politici (…)”.
Dopo avere letto i curricula di questi due funzionari di PS, ci si
aspetterebbe di trovarli, se non condannati per il loro operato sotto
il fascismo, quantomeno “epurati” dalla Pubblica Sicurezza. Invece
li ritroviamo, nell’immediato dopoguerra, nella natia Sicilia, a
dirigere un “Ispettorato generale di PS per la Sicilia”, un
“organo creato per la repressione della delinquenza associata, e
specificamente per la repressione del banditismo che faceva capo a
Giuliano (il “bandito” Salvatore Giuliano, n.d.r.)” . Per sapere
come i due alti funzionari di PS svolsero il compito loro
affidatogli, leggiamo alcuni stralci dalla sentenza che fu emanata in
merito alla strage di Portella della Ginestra (1/5/47), dove gli
uomini di Giuliano spararono sulla folla che si era radunata per
festeggiare il Primo maggio, uccidendo undici persone tra cui donne e
bambini e ferendone molte altre.
Così “l’Ispettore Verdiani non esitò ad avere rapporti con il
capo della mafia di Monreale, Ignazio Miceli, ed anche con lo stesso
Giuliano, con cui si incontrò nella casetta campestre di un sospetto
appartenente alla mafia, Giuseppe Marotta in territorio di
Castelvetrano ed alla presenza di Gaspare Pisciotta, nonché dei
mafiosi Miceli, zio e nipote, quest’ultimo cognato dell’imputato
Remo Corrao, e dal mafioso Albano. E quel convegno si concluse con la
raccomandazione fatta al capo della banda ed al luogotenente di
essere dei bravi e buoni figlioli, perché egli si sarebbe adoperato
presso il Procuratore Generale di Palermo, che era Pili Emanuele,
onde Maria Lombardo madre del capo bandito, fosse ammessa alla
libertà provvisoria. E l’attività dell’ispettore Verdiani non
cessò più; poiché qualche giorno prima che Giuliano fosse
soppresso, attraverso il mafioso Marotta pervenne o doveva a Giuliano
pervenire una lettera con cui lo si metteva in guardia, facendogli
intendere che Gaspare Pisciotta era entrato nell’orbita del
Colonnello Luca ed operava con costui contro Giuliano”.
Per quanto riguarda Messana, invece, leggiamo che “l’Ispettore
Generale di PS Messana negò ed insistette nel negare di avere avuto
confidente il Ferreri, ma la negativa da lui opposta deve cadere di
fronte all’affermazione del capitano dei Carabinieri Giallombardo,
il quale ripetette (sic) in dibattimento che Ferreri fu ferito dai
carabinieri presso Alcamo, ove avvenne il conflitto in cui restarono
uccise quattro persone; e, ferito, il Ferreri stesso chiese di essere
portato a Palermo, spiegando che era un agente segreto al servizio
dell’Ispettorato e che doveva subito parlare col Messana”;
Salvatore Ferreri era “conosciuto anche come Totò il palermitano,
ma definito come pericoloso pregiudicato, appartenente alla banda
Giuliano, già condannato in contumacia alla pena dell’ergastolo per
omicidio consumato allo scopo di rapinare una vettura automobile”.
Verdiani morì a Roma nel 1952, e il suo “decesso fece in modo che
il suo ruolo in quegli anni piano piano si dissolvesse sotto i
riflettori”.
Sui rapporti tra la “banda” Giuliano, l’Ispettorato generale di
Messana e Verdiani, i servizi segreti statunitensi ed italiani,
nonché sul riciclaggio da parte di questi di personale che aveva
operato con la Decima Mas di Borghese (soprattutto il battaglione
Vega, emanazione dei Nuotatori Paracadutisti comandati dal triestino
Nino Buttazzoni, il quale, dopo avere “comandato il battaglione
NP” anche nella “zona di Gorizia contro i partigiani comunisti
italo-slavi, difendendola dall’occupazione titina”, si trovava a
Venezia alla fine della guerra, pronto, con i suoi uomini, ad andare
a Trieste in previsione del fatto che “la città sarà invasa dagli
slavi di Tito” : a Venezia nello stesso periodo in cui Verdiani
maneggiava con alleati e resistenti) per organizzare un fronte
anticomunista in Sicilia (ma non solo), vi rimandiamo allo studio di
Giuseppe Casarrubea, “Storia segreta della Sicilia” (Bompiani
2005), in questo articolo da noi già ripetutamente citato .
È curioso, a questo proposito, che lo storico Giuseppe Parlato abbia,
nel corso della presentazione del libro “Trieste 1945-1954. Moti
giovanili per Trieste italiana”, dopo avere definito Trieste un
“un laboratorio della guerra fredda” ed “elemento centrale per
porre la questione della difesa dal comunismo nel disegno
anticomunista”, in quanto la “progettualità dell’OSS dal 1944
si dipana fino al 1954 triestino”, abbia usato la definizione
“teoremi costruiti che portano a deliri” in merito alle ricerche
di Casarrubea. Curioso perché questa affermazione è stata fatta in
un contesto dove nessuno dei presenti poteva fare riferimento ai
“teoremi” di Casarrubea, a meno che non si trattasse di persone
che avevano approfondito l’argomento e quindi potevano mettere in
collegamento la situazione della strategia della tensione creata
nella Zona A da parte di coloro che finanziavano e fomentavano i
“moti per la Trieste italiana”, con i “maneggi” denunciati
dalle ricerche di Casarrubea (e che emergono, ricordiamolo, in gran
parte da documentazione proveniente dagli archivi USA).
Ma in merito a quanto è emerso nel corso di questa serata di
presentazione, vi rimandiamo all’articolo intitolato “apologia di
scontri di piazza e di esercitazioni paramilitari” ( http://
www.nuovaalabarda.org/leggi-articolo-
apologia_di_scontri_di_piazza_ed_esercitazioni_paramilitari.php ).
Luglio 2006
Ratko Mladic: Tragic Hero
Translated, Edited, and Supplemented by Milo Yelesiyevich
New York. Unwritten History, Inc., 2006. 730 pp.
http://www.unwrittenhistory.com/
<< The only certainty of his whereabouts has been at the top of the
world's most-wanted-men list with a huge price on his head. Little
else is widely known about Gen. Ratko Mladic beyond the accusation of
committing war crimes during the 1992-1995 civil war in Bosnia.
Here for the first time is almost everything one could want to know
about Mladic — except where he has been for most of the last decade.
Milo Yelesiyevich has done a masterful job of assembling a huge
variety of material beginning with the revealing biography “Hero or
War Criminal?” by Ljubodrag Stojadinovic and including 96 pages of
translated interviews with Mladic. It concludes with the text of the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia indictments
against Mladic and Radovan Karadzic.
Altogether it constitutes an unvarnished portrait of a man widely
acclaimed for his military skills and bravery, but also criticized
for intemperate statements and accused of crimes on the battlefield.
Read this and make up your mind whether Ratko Mladic is guilty until
proven innocent as the Hague court holds, or innocent until proven
guilty. >>
— David Binder began covering the Balkans
for The New York Times in 1963
Ratko Mladic: Tragic Hero is the first book-length study to appear in
English about the controversial Serbian general. It departs radically
from mainstream news coverage of General Mladic because it presumes
him to be innocent of charges of war crimes and genocide until he has
been proven guilty. Furthermore, Ratko Mladic: Tragic Hero presumes
that the West has been acting against its own best interests by
supporting Islamic fundamentalist terrorism in the former Yugoslavia,
while at the same time attempting to prosecute General Mladic for
alleged crimes for which there is still no proof, even after the
passage of more than a decade. Genegal Ratko Mladic was the first
General to fight Islamic fundamentalism in Europe. Why has he been
demonized while others, who have done little or nothing—or who have
even aided and abetted the rise of Islamic fundamentalism—have been
praised?
Ratko Mladic, Tragic Hero consists of an abridgment of Mr.
Stojadinovic’s book, Ratko Mladic, Hero or War Criminal? (Evro,
Belgrade: 2001) which discusses Mladic’s biography, his successes and
failures as a general, the dilemmas he faced as a soldier, and tries
to answer the question: how good a general was he? and is he a war
criminal? It is followed by Bringing Democracy to Bosnia, by Gregory
Elich, a respected journalist whose work has appeared on
counterpunch.org and Covert Action, which examines the results of the
Dayton Peace Accords in Bosnia, and demonstrates that the West has
imposed a dictatorship in Bosnia that benefits only globalists and
multinational corporations.
Background chapters provide a context for the Bosnian War that the
mainstream media has systematically ignored. Bosniacs, Nazi Muslims,
Mujahideen, and Bin Laden traces the rise of Bosnian Muslim fascism
and its connection to Islamic fundamentalism as exemplified by the
Nazi SS Handzar Division during WWII, which was organized by Himmler
and Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Alija
Izetbegovic, former President of Bosnia-Herzegovina, began his career
as recruiter for the Handzar Division and acted as a historical link,
connecting resurgent Muslim fascism and fundamentalism in Yugoslavia
in the 1990s to that of WWII. Ustashi, Murderer Monks, and the Modern
Croatian State examines the Ustashi Nazi Puppet state created by
Hitler in Croatia during WWII, and the involvement of the Roman
Catholic clergy in the administration of the Jasenovac death camp, as
well as many others like it. The contemporary Croatian state is shown
to be a direct heir to the Croatian Nazi puppet state of WWII.
The most controversial chapter is Srebrenica, the Phantom Massacre,
which analyzes the alleged “Srebrenica Massacre” and challenges the
groundless accusation that “7,000 Muslim men and boys” were killed
there. This analysis relies on mainstream news coverage of The Hague
Tribunal, the work of independent analysts, and the Srebrenica Report
(authored by Darko Trifunovic) that was issued by the Republika
Srpska in 2002. UN High Representative Paddy Ashdown dismissed this
2002 Report without ever having read it. The analysis argues
persuasively that at most about 1,800 armed Bosnian Muslim soldiers
died in combat, and that about 100 were killed in summary executions.
In other words, there was no massacre—only combat fatalities.
Seventy pages of interviews with General Mladic appear in English for
the first time, along with appendices that reprint key articles by
David Binder, A.M. Rosenthal, Chris Hedges, Kosta Cavoski, and T.W.
Carr. The Hague indictment is also reprinted
Ratko Mladic: Tragic Hero will contribute to a greater understanding
of General Mladic’s role in the Bosnian war that will benefit
scholars, historians, journalists and students, as well as Americans
who want to take a more critical look at U.S. military adventures
overseas.
Ratko Mladic is a tragic hero because he fought the rising tide of
Islamic fundamentalism and neo-fascism in the Balkans, which U.S.
foreign policy supported. Yet there is another, greater tragedy
looming: the U.S. itself, whose use of power, isolated from external
criticism and restraint in order to “fight evil,” has become self-
destructive. U.S. citizens have suffered a serious erosion of civil
liberties as the U.S. transformed itself from a republic into an
empire. Hubris destroys the great as well as the small.
The lesson we in the United States must learn is that we cannot fight
Islamic fundamentalist terrorism in the U.S. and in Europe by
harboring and supporting Islamic fundamentalist terrorism in Bosnia,
in Croatia, in Kosovo, in Macedonia and in Chechnya. The World Trade
Center attacks may be viewed as a monument to our corrupt and short-
sighted policies that tried to appease radical Islam in exchange for
cheap oil and commerce. It is high time for us to re-evaluate our
role in the Balkans, our relations with the Islamic world, and our
own national ideals and aspirations. No serious discussion of evil
can take place unless we acknowledge our own participation in it. And
General Mladic is at the heart of the matter.
---
http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/080.shtml
BOOK REVIEW
Justice or Vindictive Triumph?
By Carl Savich
Is the indictment by the Hague Tribunal of Ratko Mladic on war crimes
charges based on “justice” or “vindictive triumph”, revenge and
retribution? Is he indicted because he prevented NATO expansion and
US penetration into Southeastern Europe? Is his greatest crime
opposition to the US and NATO and the EU?
One person’s war criminal is another person’s hero. On June 30, 2006,
the ICTY convicted the senior Bosnian Muslim military commander of
Srebrenica of committing war crimes against Bosnian Serb civilians
because forces under his control tortured and murdered unarmed
Bosnian Serb civilians in Srebrenica. Oric was a convicted war
criminal. But he was regarded as a “hero” by Bosnian Muslims as
reported by AKI, “Convicted War Criminal Returns to Hero’s Welcome”.
Moreover, he was regarded as a hero in the US and the Western media.
The US and Western media reported with satisfaction his arrival in
Bosnia to cheering Bosnian Muslim crowds. Why and how is a convicted
war criminal a hero? His forces beheaded and slit the throats of
Bosnian Serb civilians and POWs. Oric himself led the attack on
Kravica where his forces burned down Serbian houses and destroyed the
Serbian Orthodox Church. Oric never took any Bosnian Serb POWs. He
ordered that all Bosnian Serb POWs be executed. He burned down at
least 50 Bosnian Serb villages in eastern Bosnia around Srebrenica.
Is he a “hero”? How is this to be explained?
Croatian General Ante Gotovina has been indicted for the mass murder
of over 150 Krajina Serb civilians during the Croatian takeover of UN
protected zones in Krajina. Over 200,000 Krajina Serbs were
ethnically cleansed from the Krajina in a US-planned operation in
1995. Yet the BBC reported that Gotovina is a hero in the West. In
the BBC article, “Croatian fugitive general seized”, BBC, December 8,
2005, the reported noted that: “Many Croats consider Gen. Gotovina to
be a hero.” How can a mass murderer be a “hero”? Is one person’s war
criminal another person’s hero? Are Naser Oric and Ante Gotovina war
criminals or heroes? Who decides? Based on what legal principles?
Does it matter if the accused is a proxy and ally of the US and NATO
and the EU? Does it matter if he advances US geopolitical, economic,
and military interests in Eastern Europe?
What about Ratko Mladic? Is he a war criminal or a hero?
Ratko Mladic, Tragic Hero, edited by Milo Yelesiyevich, is a
collection of essays, news articles, analyses, and interviews, which
rebuts the US propaganda on Ratko Mladic and the Bosnian civil war.
In the introduction, Yelesiyevich wrote that the book “attempts to
redress the obfuscations, omissions and outright lies the American
people have been subjected to.” Yelesiyevich argued that Mladic is a
“tragic hero”: Mladic is “a virtuous individual who is catapulted
into a series of intolerable yet unavoidable situations in which he
must make difficult moral decisions that ultimately bring misfortune
upon himself by means of his own tragic flaw.” He has “an excess of
virtue” which resulted in hubris. The tragedy is “not brought about
by villainy but by an error in judgment.” The misperceptions were
also created by the US and Western media and governments. Mladic is
quoted: “The West understands that the human mind has a limited
capacity, and that they can shape it as if it were well-kneaded
dough.” Mladic noted how Western PR firms, the corporate media, and
organizations “which accept money for their services”, were
“fabricating loathsome lies” and “demonizing us”.
The book is made up of three sections. The first section presents a
condensed biography and an analysis of Mladic’s military career and
record during the Bosnian civil war of 1992-1995 by Ljubodrag
Stojadinovic, “Ratko Mladic: Hero or War Criminal?” Stojadinovic
concluded that Mladic was neither a hero nor a war criminal but
somewhere in between. Instead of confronting the intellectual and
moral issues involved directly, Stojadinovic displays journalistic
detachment and coyly shirks the issues and sits on the fence. He does
quote Mladic, however, as refusing “to be tried by those whom he
himself would put on trial.” This implies that “justice” is based on
might makes right. Is “justice” merely about winners and losers? Do
the victors try the losers for “war crimes”? Why aren’t the victors
ever tried for war crimes? Why are the political and military leaders
of the losing and weak powers always tried for war crimes but never
the winning powers? Why are proxies and allies never prosecuted for
war crimes? Is it just “victor’s justice”?
The second section examines the historical background to the Bosnian
conflict with analyses of the World War II period.
This background has been carefully and systematically censored and
covered-up in the US and the West. The chapter "Bosniacs, Nazi
Muslims, Mujahideen, and Bin Laden" explored the origins of Bosnian
Muslim ultra-nationalism during World War II when Bosnian Muslims
formed two Nazi SS Divisions, Handzar and Kama, which were created by
Heinrich Himmler and Haj Amin el-Husseini, the Palestinian Grand
Mufti of Jerusalem. The connection of Alija Izetbegovic to radical
Islam and Muslim ultra-nationalism is examined with an analysis of
The Islamic Declaration, a book long suppressed and censored in the
US and the West. The role of the Afghan-Arab mujahedeen, Ossama bin
Laden, and Al-Qaeda in the Bosnian civil war is examined. The US
empowered Al-Qaeda in Bosnia by supporting the mujahedeen and Iranian
“volunteers” and relief and “assistance” to the Bosnian Muslim
forces. The US even allowed “secular” Alija Izetbegovic to visit
Tehran in 1993, at the height of the civil war. Iran also openly sent
shipments of arms and weapons routinely to the Bosnian Muslim forces
via Zagreb. At that time, Iran was the main supplier and ally of the
Bosnian Muslim regime, which the mainstream US media erroneously
claimed was “pluralist” and multi-ethnic, and Western-oriented. Two
prominent Western journalists, Renate Flottau and Eve-Ann Prentice,
even stated that they saw Ossama bin Laden in Sarajevo in 1994, at an
official meeting with Alija Izetbegovic. Misguided US advocacy
journalism and unprecedented propaganda that relied on the Holocaust
and “genocide” paradigms empowered radical Islam, US propaganda
portrayed the Bosnian Muslim faction as “victims” and the Jews of the
1990s, facing genocide. Such reckless and mindless propaganda only
strengthened Ossama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda and radical Islam. It gave
radical Islam moral and legal empowerment.
The chapter "Ustashi, Murderer Monks, and the Modern Croatian State"
analyzed the Ustasha Movement and its role in Croatian nationalism.
The Ustasha Nazi puppet state, the NDH, was created by Adolf Hitler
and Ante Pavelic. The NDH embarked on a systematic campaign to
exterminate the Serbian, Jewish, and Roma populations of Croatia and
Bosnia. The involvement of the Roman Catholic clergy in the genocide
and in the administration of the Jasenovac death camp was discussed.
The chapter "Srebrenica, the Phantom Massacre," analyzed the lack of
conclusive evidence to to warrant the conclusion that a “massacre”
occurred. Srebrenica is largely a US propaganda construct used to
justify U.S. support for the Bosnian Muslim faction during the civil
war. This analysis offers critical and opposing perspectives on
Srebrenica and presents evidence that disproves the US propaganda
allegations.
There is a section consisting of interviews that Ratko Mladic gave to
the press.
The last section examines the Hague Tribunal and the indictment
brought against Mladic.
The one-sided and biased nature of the ICTY has made it
controversial. Is it imposing “justice” or revenge and punishment on
those who opposed the “international community”? Controversial Swiss-
born prosecutor Carla Del Ponte has been referred to as “the new
Gestapo”, “La Puttana” or “the whore”, “the personification of
stubbornness”, and “the unguided missile”. Del Ponte has demonstrated
an obsession and an idee fixe in going after Serbian “war criminals”
almost exclusively. She showed all the zeal and determination of
German police chiefs Heinrich Himmler and Heinrich Muller and FBI
chief J. Edgar Hoover. According to the BBC News profile, “She takes
perverse pride in such labels---she says they show she is doing her
job.” The BBC notes that the “petite, chain smoking war crimes
prosecutor, who is famous for her ruthless pursuit of goals”, has a
“vigorous approach” to the pursuit of justice. She gained notoriety
in the 1980s by exposing the “pizza connection”, the link in the
Italian drug trade to Swiss banks.
Del Ponte was appointed ICTY prosecutor on September 15, 1999 after
the US/NATO bombardment and occupation of Yugoslavia, primarily to
rationalize and justify the illegal US/NATO aggression and war crimes
committed against Yugoslavia. She was, in essence, appointed by the
US and NATO, to give ex post facto legitimacy to their illegal war
against Yugoslavia, a war organized to help Albanian separatists and
secessionists achieve a Greater Albania. The US State department
absurdly and paradoxically itself labeled the KLA a “terrorist”
organization. Del Ponte was appointed to prosecute the Balkans case
and the Rwanda case. She was dismissed from the Rwanda case because
there was “insufficient attention” shown. African countries accused
her of “insufficient progress” on Rwanda.
Why this lack of commitment to Rwanda? Why doesn’t Del Ponte show
concern for a real genocide committed in Rwanada? Is this because
there is very little to gain for herself and her paymasters?
During the Rwandan genocide, US President Bill Clinton was more
concerned about adulterous dalliances and affairs than he was with
preventing a real genocide in Rwanda. Clinton and the US
“humanitarian interventionists” totally dismissed the Rwanda
genocide. Clinton was more concerned with Monica Lewinsky. This is
the moral calculus of humanitarian interventionism. It is not
surprising that Del Ponte would show “insufficient attention” to the
Rwandan genocide. This is what her paymasters have pursued all along.
Del Ponte administers “justice” in whatever manner her paymasters
dictate.
Is “justice” in the guise of “victor’s justice” or “vindictive
triumph” counterproductive to ensuring enduring peace and stability
in the Balkans? By not granting amnesty to all combatants following
the Dayton Peace Accords, “the international community” only
perpetuates ethnic and religious enmity and prolongs the divisiveness
and division in the region.
Ratko Mladic: Tragic Hero, edited, introduced, translated, and
published by Milo Yelesiyevich, rebuts the US propaganda allegations
regarding the role of Ratko Mladic in the Bosnian Civil War,
1992-1995. The book allows an unbiased and neutral reader to make up
his or her mind for themselves. Mladic has already been found guilty
and convicted in the US and corporate globalist media as a "war
criminal". He is guilty until proven innocent. And there is no
intention to prove him innocent. Guilt is thus assumed and presupposed.
The corporate media can induce us to think however its paymasters
want us to think. We were told that Iraqi troops had killed Kuwaiti
babies in the infamous Iraqi Incubator Hoax of Gulf War I. This was
later shown to be a blatant deception orchestrated by the US media
with collusion by the US government. We were told there were
concentration camps in Bosnia. This was exposed as a deception
concocted by US PR firms and in collusion with the US government and
media. We were told that there were “mass rapes” in Bosnia against
Bosnian Muslim women. This was proven to be a propaganda hoax. We
were told thee was a “genocide” in Kosovo. It was later shown to be a
separatist war of secession by Albanian terrorists supported by the
US government, NATO, the EU, and the globalist, corporate media. We
were told by our media that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in
Iraq. There were none. We were told by our media that Al-Qaeda had
links to Saddam Hussein. There were no links. We were told Hussein
sought to buy uranium from Africa. This was not true. In order to
foment war in Yugoslavia in 1999, we were told that there was a
"genocide" in Kosovo. This was not true. In fact, Kosovo was a
separatist terrorist conflict meant to create a Muslim statelet of
Kosova as part of Greater Albania. These events show a pattern of
deception and brainwashing that should trouble and perplex all
Americans. We should question a media and a government that
brainwashes and deceives its own citizens. These are not harmless and
meaningless lies and deceptions? They were the lies and untruths
meant to foment war and to incite racial, religious, and ethnic
conflict. They were the lies that kill. They were the lies that
fomented war. We need to ask why? We live in a democracy. We need to
hold people and governments accountable. We need answers. Where are
the Weapons of Mass Destruction? Where are the “concentration camps”,
“rape camps”, “rape motels”, in Bosnia? Where is the other side to
the Bosnian conflict?
This book gives the other side to the Bosnian civil war. The book
presents the historical context to the conflict. During World War II,
Adolf Hitler made Bosnia a part of a Greater Croatia which was ruled
by Croatian Roman Catholic and Bosnian Muslim leaders. This Nazi/
fascist Ustasha regime, made up of Croats and Bosnian Muslims,
embarked upon a systematic and planned campaign of genocide against
Serbs, Jews, and Roma. Hundreds of thousands of Serbs were murdered
in Bosnia and Croatia. Roman Catholic priests Alojzije Stepinac of
Zagreb and Ivan Saric of Sarajevo endorsed and sanctioned the Ustasha
genocide of Serbs, Jews, and Roma. There is Vatican complicity in
this genocide committed against Serbs and Jews. The Vatican under
Pope Pius XII had legates to the Nazi Croat puppet state and knew
what was happening but did nothing to prevent the genocide, indeed,
encouraging it.
In Bosnia, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem came to Sarajevo in 1943 to
form the Bosnian Muslim Nazi SS Division Handzar or Handschar, made
up of Bosnian Muslims. This Bosnian Muslim Nazi SS Division was
deployed in eastern Bosnia against mostly Serbian guerrillas and
resistance groups. Bosnian Muslim political leaders had written a
famous Memorandum in 1942 to Adolf Hitler requesting that he make
Muslim Bosnia a part of the Nazi New Order. The Bosnian Muslims would
form two Nazi SS Divisions, Handzar and Kama. The Bosnian Muslims
played a role in the Final Solution, the Holocaust. All of this
factual background is censored and suppressed in our free and open
societies and by our free media.
This is the context for the Bosnian civil war and for Ratko Mladic,
whose father was killed in 1945 fighting Nazi Croat and Bosnian
Muslim forces during the Holocaust. This event cast a shadow on
Mladic's view of Bosnia and Croatia. Mladic’s father was a Communist
Partisan. Mladic himself grew up under the Communist/socialist slogan
“brotherhood and unity” of the Josip Broz Tito regime and regarded
himself as a “Yugoslav”, not a Serb. He rose rapidly in the ranks of
the Yugoslav military. He was first stationed in Skopje in Macedonia
in 1965. When Yugoslavia began disintegrating along ethnic and
religious lines after the revival of rival nationalisms in 1990,
Mladic had to choose sides in an ethnic conflict. He did not want a
repeat of World War II. He did not want to witness again the genocide
and mass murder of the Serbian population. This is an important fact
in showing what motivated Mladic. It shows that Mladic came from an
anti-nationalist background.
The book dispels many of the US propaganda constructs. The Bosnian
Muslims had a well-armed military division stationed in Srebrenica.
The Bosnian Muslim commander of Srebrenica, Naser Oric, was convicted
of war crimes in 2006. Oric burned down Serbian Orthodox churches,
murdered Serbian civilians and POWs, and burned down at least 50
Serbian villages. His forces would castrate and cut the throats of
Serbian POWs and civilians and mutilate the bodies, usually by
decapitating the corpse or by circumcising the victim. Oric told the
UN commander Philippe Morillon that he never took any Serbian
prisoners, but executed all Serbian POWs he could find. Oric was
never tried for these blatant and egregious war crimes.
This created the background to Srebrenica. Srebrenica was a military
defeat and disaster for the Bosnian Muslim faction. It was a military
loss. All those killed were well-armed Bosnian Muslim military
forces. When is killing armed soldiers in a war considered "genocide"?
The US has created an absurd notion of war. When we or our proxies
kill, we do so in legitimate self-defense and are perfectly justified
in doing so. When those who oppose us kill, they are committing
genocide and illegal war crimes. This is an absurdity. War itself is
always organized murder. There is no such thing as a good war. The
real responsibility for the Yugoslav conflicts rests on those outside
powers that fomented the war, such as US ambassador Warren
Zimmermann, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, and Pope John Paul II.
They rejected diplomacy and negotiations and opted for ultimatums and
diktats that they knew would result in civil war. They bear ultimate
responsibility for the civil wars in the former Yugoslavia. But
paradoxically, they will not have to account for their actions.
Instead, scapegoats and straw men will be found. This book exposes
the absurd US propaganda claims. Moreover, there is no proof for any
of the allegations made about Srebrenica. There is only propaganda.
And this book does an excellent job in disproving the US-manufactured
propaganda.
This book also shows that war crimes were committed against Bosnian
Serb civilians, in Pofalici, in Celebici, and in the towns and
villages around Srebrenica. Ossama bin Laden made an official visit
to Sarajevo in 1994, meeting with Alija Izetbegovic in his office. Al-
Qaeda forces were actively fighting as members of the Bosnian Muslim
Army under ultra-nationalist radical Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic.
Al-Qaeda even formed a special unit in the Bosnian Muslim Army known
as the El Mujahedeen Unit. Iran was the major backer and supplier of
the Bosnian Muslim forces. Izetbegovic visited Tehran in 1993 on an
official diplomatic mission at the height of the Bosnian civil war.
The Ossama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and Iranian connection to the Alija
Izetbegovic regime has been very carefully covered-up. This is done
in a very subtle way. None of this factual material has been
presented in the US media. It has been censored and suppressed. Why?
This book allows you to make up your own mind based on all the facts
and not from handouts from the US State Department. This book allows
you to cut through the brainwashing and “infowar” technology and
propaganda and to decide for yourself. What harm can that do? Why is
the US propaganda machine so alarmed by an opposing view? What is
there to be so afraid of? Show us both sides to the issue. Let us
decide. That is real democracy and freedom.
This encyclopedic collection allows differing and opposing viewpoints
and analyses. Dissent and debate are crucial in a democracy. Lock-
step uniformity, conformity, and mindless subservience are anathema
in a true democracy. US President Thomas Jefferson noted that a well-
informed public is essential in a democracy:
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of
civilization, it expects what never was and never will be... [I]f we
are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the
responsibility of every American to be informed.”
Jefferson noted how images and perceptions can be disseminated to
manipulate and to deceive: “Those who don't read the newspapers are
better off than those who do insofar as those who know nothing are
better off than those whose heads are filled with half-truths and
lies.” One must be wary of a corporate media that seeks to “persuade”
by infowar technology and advocacy journalism. Jefferson was able to
see the danger even in his time.
Knowledge and information are essential for Jefferson. In a
democracy, one has to be informed: “I know of no safe depository of
the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; not
enlightened enough to exercise their control with wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform
their discretion. Enlighten the people generally and tyranny and
oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the
dawn of day.”
What was Ratko Mladic’s real crime? Why is he a “villain” and not a
“hero” in the New World Order? Is it because he opposed the
imposition of the New World Order from Washington and Bonn? Is that
his real “crime”? His biggest “crime” was standing up to Germany and
the US and the EU and NATO. He prevented NATO expansion and US
penetration into the Balkans, Southeastern Europe. Opposition and
dissent are always unacceptable when power is the sole criterion of
right. In a might makes right scenario, the greatest danger and the
greatest threat is opposition, any opposition, any dissent. Dissent
is, frankly, unacceptable. Why? Dissent implies freedom. Dissent
implies individuality and choice. You can choose to disagree. It is
this freedom to choose and to decide that is perceived as a threat.
As Thomas Jefferson noted, the decision a person makes can be altered
and manipulated through infowar techniques, public relations, a
corporate globalist media, and biased news sources. Ignorance and
democracy are incompatible. Ignorance and freedom are incompatible.
That is why this book is needed to allow a different perspective, a
different set of facts. It allows you to analyze all the different
sides to an issue and to decide for yourself.
Is there a distinction between “justice” and “the law”? As Thomas
Jefferson noted, “law is often but the tyrant's will” In US history
itself, the law was used to institutionalize slavery, segregation,
and the racist policy of “separate but equal” in the schools and in
public places, Law can be used to institutionalize and to justify
injustice. The Dred Scott case of 1857 is an important example of how
“the law” differs from “justice”. US Supreme Court Chief Justice
Roger Taney held that blacks were “beings of an inferior order, and
altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social
or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights
which the white man was bound to respect.” Blacks were legally
regarded as not citizens of the U.S. and legally subhuman, not
accorded the rights that “all men” enjoyed under the Declaration of
Independence and the US Constitution. Blacks were not human beings,
but property. “Justice” and the “law” do not always coincide.
Ratko Mladic. Is he a “hero” or “villain”? Decide for yourself. As
David Binder noted, this collection allows the reader to decide by
examining the full picture, not merely half the picture. Is it
justice or is it just the law imposed by NATO and the US? Is it
justice or the imposition of “the tyrant’s will”, the will of the US,
NATO, and the EU? This book allows the reader to determine whether
the Ratko Mladic case is about “justice” or about triumphal
vengeance, about going after and destroying those who would dare to
oppose the New World Order. It offers another perspective, a
perspective meticulously censored and suppressed in the US and
Western mainstream. Moreover, the book is essentially antiwar because
it shows how wars are manipulated and exploited and fomented by self-
interested outside powers and interests. They maliciously foment war
and incite hatred and encourage killing, then sit back and judge and
impose their “justice”.
This book is highly recommended. It encourages critical and
independent thought, not mindless, lock-step conformity and obeisance.
Translated, Edited, and Supplemented by Milo Yelesiyevich
New York. Unwritten History, Inc., 2006. 730 pp.
http://www.unwrittenhistory.com/
<< The only certainty of his whereabouts has been at the top of the
world's most-wanted-men list with a huge price on his head. Little
else is widely known about Gen. Ratko Mladic beyond the accusation of
committing war crimes during the 1992-1995 civil war in Bosnia.
Here for the first time is almost everything one could want to know
about Mladic — except where he has been for most of the last decade.
Milo Yelesiyevich has done a masterful job of assembling a huge
variety of material beginning with the revealing biography “Hero or
War Criminal?” by Ljubodrag Stojadinovic and including 96 pages of
translated interviews with Mladic. It concludes with the text of the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia indictments
against Mladic and Radovan Karadzic.
Altogether it constitutes an unvarnished portrait of a man widely
acclaimed for his military skills and bravery, but also criticized
for intemperate statements and accused of crimes on the battlefield.
Read this and make up your mind whether Ratko Mladic is guilty until
proven innocent as the Hague court holds, or innocent until proven
guilty. >>
— David Binder began covering the Balkans
for The New York Times in 1963
Ratko Mladic: Tragic Hero is the first book-length study to appear in
English about the controversial Serbian general. It departs radically
from mainstream news coverage of General Mladic because it presumes
him to be innocent of charges of war crimes and genocide until he has
been proven guilty. Furthermore, Ratko Mladic: Tragic Hero presumes
that the West has been acting against its own best interests by
supporting Islamic fundamentalist terrorism in the former Yugoslavia,
while at the same time attempting to prosecute General Mladic for
alleged crimes for which there is still no proof, even after the
passage of more than a decade. Genegal Ratko Mladic was the first
General to fight Islamic fundamentalism in Europe. Why has he been
demonized while others, who have done little or nothing—or who have
even aided and abetted the rise of Islamic fundamentalism—have been
praised?
Ratko Mladic, Tragic Hero consists of an abridgment of Mr.
Stojadinovic’s book, Ratko Mladic, Hero or War Criminal? (Evro,
Belgrade: 2001) which discusses Mladic’s biography, his successes and
failures as a general, the dilemmas he faced as a soldier, and tries
to answer the question: how good a general was he? and is he a war
criminal? It is followed by Bringing Democracy to Bosnia, by Gregory
Elich, a respected journalist whose work has appeared on
counterpunch.org and Covert Action, which examines the results of the
Dayton Peace Accords in Bosnia, and demonstrates that the West has
imposed a dictatorship in Bosnia that benefits only globalists and
multinational corporations.
Background chapters provide a context for the Bosnian War that the
mainstream media has systematically ignored. Bosniacs, Nazi Muslims,
Mujahideen, and Bin Laden traces the rise of Bosnian Muslim fascism
and its connection to Islamic fundamentalism as exemplified by the
Nazi SS Handzar Division during WWII, which was organized by Himmler
and Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Alija
Izetbegovic, former President of Bosnia-Herzegovina, began his career
as recruiter for the Handzar Division and acted as a historical link,
connecting resurgent Muslim fascism and fundamentalism in Yugoslavia
in the 1990s to that of WWII. Ustashi, Murderer Monks, and the Modern
Croatian State examines the Ustashi Nazi Puppet state created by
Hitler in Croatia during WWII, and the involvement of the Roman
Catholic clergy in the administration of the Jasenovac death camp, as
well as many others like it. The contemporary Croatian state is shown
to be a direct heir to the Croatian Nazi puppet state of WWII.
The most controversial chapter is Srebrenica, the Phantom Massacre,
which analyzes the alleged “Srebrenica Massacre” and challenges the
groundless accusation that “7,000 Muslim men and boys” were killed
there. This analysis relies on mainstream news coverage of The Hague
Tribunal, the work of independent analysts, and the Srebrenica Report
(authored by Darko Trifunovic) that was issued by the Republika
Srpska in 2002. UN High Representative Paddy Ashdown dismissed this
2002 Report without ever having read it. The analysis argues
persuasively that at most about 1,800 armed Bosnian Muslim soldiers
died in combat, and that about 100 were killed in summary executions.
In other words, there was no massacre—only combat fatalities.
Seventy pages of interviews with General Mladic appear in English for
the first time, along with appendices that reprint key articles by
David Binder, A.M. Rosenthal, Chris Hedges, Kosta Cavoski, and T.W.
Carr. The Hague indictment is also reprinted
Ratko Mladic: Tragic Hero will contribute to a greater understanding
of General Mladic’s role in the Bosnian war that will benefit
scholars, historians, journalists and students, as well as Americans
who want to take a more critical look at U.S. military adventures
overseas.
Ratko Mladic is a tragic hero because he fought the rising tide of
Islamic fundamentalism and neo-fascism in the Balkans, which U.S.
foreign policy supported. Yet there is another, greater tragedy
looming: the U.S. itself, whose use of power, isolated from external
criticism and restraint in order to “fight evil,” has become self-
destructive. U.S. citizens have suffered a serious erosion of civil
liberties as the U.S. transformed itself from a republic into an
empire. Hubris destroys the great as well as the small.
The lesson we in the United States must learn is that we cannot fight
Islamic fundamentalist terrorism in the U.S. and in Europe by
harboring and supporting Islamic fundamentalist terrorism in Bosnia,
in Croatia, in Kosovo, in Macedonia and in Chechnya. The World Trade
Center attacks may be viewed as a monument to our corrupt and short-
sighted policies that tried to appease radical Islam in exchange for
cheap oil and commerce. It is high time for us to re-evaluate our
role in the Balkans, our relations with the Islamic world, and our
own national ideals and aspirations. No serious discussion of evil
can take place unless we acknowledge our own participation in it. And
General Mladic is at the heart of the matter.
---
http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/080.shtml
BOOK REVIEW
Justice or Vindictive Triumph?
By Carl Savich
Is the indictment by the Hague Tribunal of Ratko Mladic on war crimes
charges based on “justice” or “vindictive triumph”, revenge and
retribution? Is he indicted because he prevented NATO expansion and
US penetration into Southeastern Europe? Is his greatest crime
opposition to the US and NATO and the EU?
One person’s war criminal is another person’s hero. On June 30, 2006,
the ICTY convicted the senior Bosnian Muslim military commander of
Srebrenica of committing war crimes against Bosnian Serb civilians
because forces under his control tortured and murdered unarmed
Bosnian Serb civilians in Srebrenica. Oric was a convicted war
criminal. But he was regarded as a “hero” by Bosnian Muslims as
reported by AKI, “Convicted War Criminal Returns to Hero’s Welcome”.
Moreover, he was regarded as a hero in the US and the Western media.
The US and Western media reported with satisfaction his arrival in
Bosnia to cheering Bosnian Muslim crowds. Why and how is a convicted
war criminal a hero? His forces beheaded and slit the throats of
Bosnian Serb civilians and POWs. Oric himself led the attack on
Kravica where his forces burned down Serbian houses and destroyed the
Serbian Orthodox Church. Oric never took any Bosnian Serb POWs. He
ordered that all Bosnian Serb POWs be executed. He burned down at
least 50 Bosnian Serb villages in eastern Bosnia around Srebrenica.
Is he a “hero”? How is this to be explained?
Croatian General Ante Gotovina has been indicted for the mass murder
of over 150 Krajina Serb civilians during the Croatian takeover of UN
protected zones in Krajina. Over 200,000 Krajina Serbs were
ethnically cleansed from the Krajina in a US-planned operation in
1995. Yet the BBC reported that Gotovina is a hero in the West. In
the BBC article, “Croatian fugitive general seized”, BBC, December 8,
2005, the reported noted that: “Many Croats consider Gen. Gotovina to
be a hero.” How can a mass murderer be a “hero”? Is one person’s war
criminal another person’s hero? Are Naser Oric and Ante Gotovina war
criminals or heroes? Who decides? Based on what legal principles?
Does it matter if the accused is a proxy and ally of the US and NATO
and the EU? Does it matter if he advances US geopolitical, economic,
and military interests in Eastern Europe?
What about Ratko Mladic? Is he a war criminal or a hero?
Ratko Mladic, Tragic Hero, edited by Milo Yelesiyevich, is a
collection of essays, news articles, analyses, and interviews, which
rebuts the US propaganda on Ratko Mladic and the Bosnian civil war.
In the introduction, Yelesiyevich wrote that the book “attempts to
redress the obfuscations, omissions and outright lies the American
people have been subjected to.” Yelesiyevich argued that Mladic is a
“tragic hero”: Mladic is “a virtuous individual who is catapulted
into a series of intolerable yet unavoidable situations in which he
must make difficult moral decisions that ultimately bring misfortune
upon himself by means of his own tragic flaw.” He has “an excess of
virtue” which resulted in hubris. The tragedy is “not brought about
by villainy but by an error in judgment.” The misperceptions were
also created by the US and Western media and governments. Mladic is
quoted: “The West understands that the human mind has a limited
capacity, and that they can shape it as if it were well-kneaded
dough.” Mladic noted how Western PR firms, the corporate media, and
organizations “which accept money for their services”, were
“fabricating loathsome lies” and “demonizing us”.
The book is made up of three sections. The first section presents a
condensed biography and an analysis of Mladic’s military career and
record during the Bosnian civil war of 1992-1995 by Ljubodrag
Stojadinovic, “Ratko Mladic: Hero or War Criminal?” Stojadinovic
concluded that Mladic was neither a hero nor a war criminal but
somewhere in between. Instead of confronting the intellectual and
moral issues involved directly, Stojadinovic displays journalistic
detachment and coyly shirks the issues and sits on the fence. He does
quote Mladic, however, as refusing “to be tried by those whom he
himself would put on trial.” This implies that “justice” is based on
might makes right. Is “justice” merely about winners and losers? Do
the victors try the losers for “war crimes”? Why aren’t the victors
ever tried for war crimes? Why are the political and military leaders
of the losing and weak powers always tried for war crimes but never
the winning powers? Why are proxies and allies never prosecuted for
war crimes? Is it just “victor’s justice”?
The second section examines the historical background to the Bosnian
conflict with analyses of the World War II period.
This background has been carefully and systematically censored and
covered-up in the US and the West. The chapter "Bosniacs, Nazi
Muslims, Mujahideen, and Bin Laden" explored the origins of Bosnian
Muslim ultra-nationalism during World War II when Bosnian Muslims
formed two Nazi SS Divisions, Handzar and Kama, which were created by
Heinrich Himmler and Haj Amin el-Husseini, the Palestinian Grand
Mufti of Jerusalem. The connection of Alija Izetbegovic to radical
Islam and Muslim ultra-nationalism is examined with an analysis of
The Islamic Declaration, a book long suppressed and censored in the
US and the West. The role of the Afghan-Arab mujahedeen, Ossama bin
Laden, and Al-Qaeda in the Bosnian civil war is examined. The US
empowered Al-Qaeda in Bosnia by supporting the mujahedeen and Iranian
“volunteers” and relief and “assistance” to the Bosnian Muslim
forces. The US even allowed “secular” Alija Izetbegovic to visit
Tehran in 1993, at the height of the civil war. Iran also openly sent
shipments of arms and weapons routinely to the Bosnian Muslim forces
via Zagreb. At that time, Iran was the main supplier and ally of the
Bosnian Muslim regime, which the mainstream US media erroneously
claimed was “pluralist” and multi-ethnic, and Western-oriented. Two
prominent Western journalists, Renate Flottau and Eve-Ann Prentice,
even stated that they saw Ossama bin Laden in Sarajevo in 1994, at an
official meeting with Alija Izetbegovic. Misguided US advocacy
journalism and unprecedented propaganda that relied on the Holocaust
and “genocide” paradigms empowered radical Islam, US propaganda
portrayed the Bosnian Muslim faction as “victims” and the Jews of the
1990s, facing genocide. Such reckless and mindless propaganda only
strengthened Ossama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda and radical Islam. It gave
radical Islam moral and legal empowerment.
The chapter "Ustashi, Murderer Monks, and the Modern Croatian State"
analyzed the Ustasha Movement and its role in Croatian nationalism.
The Ustasha Nazi puppet state, the NDH, was created by Adolf Hitler
and Ante Pavelic. The NDH embarked on a systematic campaign to
exterminate the Serbian, Jewish, and Roma populations of Croatia and
Bosnia. The involvement of the Roman Catholic clergy in the genocide
and in the administration of the Jasenovac death camp was discussed.
The chapter "Srebrenica, the Phantom Massacre," analyzed the lack of
conclusive evidence to to warrant the conclusion that a “massacre”
occurred. Srebrenica is largely a US propaganda construct used to
justify U.S. support for the Bosnian Muslim faction during the civil
war. This analysis offers critical and opposing perspectives on
Srebrenica and presents evidence that disproves the US propaganda
allegations.
There is a section consisting of interviews that Ratko Mladic gave to
the press.
The last section examines the Hague Tribunal and the indictment
brought against Mladic.
The one-sided and biased nature of the ICTY has made it
controversial. Is it imposing “justice” or revenge and punishment on
those who opposed the “international community”? Controversial Swiss-
born prosecutor Carla Del Ponte has been referred to as “the new
Gestapo”, “La Puttana” or “the whore”, “the personification of
stubbornness”, and “the unguided missile”. Del Ponte has demonstrated
an obsession and an idee fixe in going after Serbian “war criminals”
almost exclusively. She showed all the zeal and determination of
German police chiefs Heinrich Himmler and Heinrich Muller and FBI
chief J. Edgar Hoover. According to the BBC News profile, “She takes
perverse pride in such labels---she says they show she is doing her
job.” The BBC notes that the “petite, chain smoking war crimes
prosecutor, who is famous for her ruthless pursuit of goals”, has a
“vigorous approach” to the pursuit of justice. She gained notoriety
in the 1980s by exposing the “pizza connection”, the link in the
Italian drug trade to Swiss banks.
Del Ponte was appointed ICTY prosecutor on September 15, 1999 after
the US/NATO bombardment and occupation of Yugoslavia, primarily to
rationalize and justify the illegal US/NATO aggression and war crimes
committed against Yugoslavia. She was, in essence, appointed by the
US and NATO, to give ex post facto legitimacy to their illegal war
against Yugoslavia, a war organized to help Albanian separatists and
secessionists achieve a Greater Albania. The US State department
absurdly and paradoxically itself labeled the KLA a “terrorist”
organization. Del Ponte was appointed to prosecute the Balkans case
and the Rwanda case. She was dismissed from the Rwanda case because
there was “insufficient attention” shown. African countries accused
her of “insufficient progress” on Rwanda.
Why this lack of commitment to Rwanda? Why doesn’t Del Ponte show
concern for a real genocide committed in Rwanada? Is this because
there is very little to gain for herself and her paymasters?
During the Rwandan genocide, US President Bill Clinton was more
concerned about adulterous dalliances and affairs than he was with
preventing a real genocide in Rwanda. Clinton and the US
“humanitarian interventionists” totally dismissed the Rwanda
genocide. Clinton was more concerned with Monica Lewinsky. This is
the moral calculus of humanitarian interventionism. It is not
surprising that Del Ponte would show “insufficient attention” to the
Rwandan genocide. This is what her paymasters have pursued all along.
Del Ponte administers “justice” in whatever manner her paymasters
dictate.
Is “justice” in the guise of “victor’s justice” or “vindictive
triumph” counterproductive to ensuring enduring peace and stability
in the Balkans? By not granting amnesty to all combatants following
the Dayton Peace Accords, “the international community” only
perpetuates ethnic and religious enmity and prolongs the divisiveness
and division in the region.
Ratko Mladic: Tragic Hero, edited, introduced, translated, and
published by Milo Yelesiyevich, rebuts the US propaganda allegations
regarding the role of Ratko Mladic in the Bosnian Civil War,
1992-1995. The book allows an unbiased and neutral reader to make up
his or her mind for themselves. Mladic has already been found guilty
and convicted in the US and corporate globalist media as a "war
criminal". He is guilty until proven innocent. And there is no
intention to prove him innocent. Guilt is thus assumed and presupposed.
The corporate media can induce us to think however its paymasters
want us to think. We were told that Iraqi troops had killed Kuwaiti
babies in the infamous Iraqi Incubator Hoax of Gulf War I. This was
later shown to be a blatant deception orchestrated by the US media
with collusion by the US government. We were told there were
concentration camps in Bosnia. This was exposed as a deception
concocted by US PR firms and in collusion with the US government and
media. We were told that there were “mass rapes” in Bosnia against
Bosnian Muslim women. This was proven to be a propaganda hoax. We
were told thee was a “genocide” in Kosovo. It was later shown to be a
separatist war of secession by Albanian terrorists supported by the
US government, NATO, the EU, and the globalist, corporate media. We
were told by our media that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in
Iraq. There were none. We were told by our media that Al-Qaeda had
links to Saddam Hussein. There were no links. We were told Hussein
sought to buy uranium from Africa. This was not true. In order to
foment war in Yugoslavia in 1999, we were told that there was a
"genocide" in Kosovo. This was not true. In fact, Kosovo was a
separatist terrorist conflict meant to create a Muslim statelet of
Kosova as part of Greater Albania. These events show a pattern of
deception and brainwashing that should trouble and perplex all
Americans. We should question a media and a government that
brainwashes and deceives its own citizens. These are not harmless and
meaningless lies and deceptions? They were the lies and untruths
meant to foment war and to incite racial, religious, and ethnic
conflict. They were the lies that kill. They were the lies that
fomented war. We need to ask why? We live in a democracy. We need to
hold people and governments accountable. We need answers. Where are
the Weapons of Mass Destruction? Where are the “concentration camps”,
“rape camps”, “rape motels”, in Bosnia? Where is the other side to
the Bosnian conflict?
This book gives the other side to the Bosnian civil war. The book
presents the historical context to the conflict. During World War II,
Adolf Hitler made Bosnia a part of a Greater Croatia which was ruled
by Croatian Roman Catholic and Bosnian Muslim leaders. This Nazi/
fascist Ustasha regime, made up of Croats and Bosnian Muslims,
embarked upon a systematic and planned campaign of genocide against
Serbs, Jews, and Roma. Hundreds of thousands of Serbs were murdered
in Bosnia and Croatia. Roman Catholic priests Alojzije Stepinac of
Zagreb and Ivan Saric of Sarajevo endorsed and sanctioned the Ustasha
genocide of Serbs, Jews, and Roma. There is Vatican complicity in
this genocide committed against Serbs and Jews. The Vatican under
Pope Pius XII had legates to the Nazi Croat puppet state and knew
what was happening but did nothing to prevent the genocide, indeed,
encouraging it.
In Bosnia, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem came to Sarajevo in 1943 to
form the Bosnian Muslim Nazi SS Division Handzar or Handschar, made
up of Bosnian Muslims. This Bosnian Muslim Nazi SS Division was
deployed in eastern Bosnia against mostly Serbian guerrillas and
resistance groups. Bosnian Muslim political leaders had written a
famous Memorandum in 1942 to Adolf Hitler requesting that he make
Muslim Bosnia a part of the Nazi New Order. The Bosnian Muslims would
form two Nazi SS Divisions, Handzar and Kama. The Bosnian Muslims
played a role in the Final Solution, the Holocaust. All of this
factual background is censored and suppressed in our free and open
societies and by our free media.
This is the context for the Bosnian civil war and for Ratko Mladic,
whose father was killed in 1945 fighting Nazi Croat and Bosnian
Muslim forces during the Holocaust. This event cast a shadow on
Mladic's view of Bosnia and Croatia. Mladic’s father was a Communist
Partisan. Mladic himself grew up under the Communist/socialist slogan
“brotherhood and unity” of the Josip Broz Tito regime and regarded
himself as a “Yugoslav”, not a Serb. He rose rapidly in the ranks of
the Yugoslav military. He was first stationed in Skopje in Macedonia
in 1965. When Yugoslavia began disintegrating along ethnic and
religious lines after the revival of rival nationalisms in 1990,
Mladic had to choose sides in an ethnic conflict. He did not want a
repeat of World War II. He did not want to witness again the genocide
and mass murder of the Serbian population. This is an important fact
in showing what motivated Mladic. It shows that Mladic came from an
anti-nationalist background.
The book dispels many of the US propaganda constructs. The Bosnian
Muslims had a well-armed military division stationed in Srebrenica.
The Bosnian Muslim commander of Srebrenica, Naser Oric, was convicted
of war crimes in 2006. Oric burned down Serbian Orthodox churches,
murdered Serbian civilians and POWs, and burned down at least 50
Serbian villages. His forces would castrate and cut the throats of
Serbian POWs and civilians and mutilate the bodies, usually by
decapitating the corpse or by circumcising the victim. Oric told the
UN commander Philippe Morillon that he never took any Serbian
prisoners, but executed all Serbian POWs he could find. Oric was
never tried for these blatant and egregious war crimes.
This created the background to Srebrenica. Srebrenica was a military
defeat and disaster for the Bosnian Muslim faction. It was a military
loss. All those killed were well-armed Bosnian Muslim military
forces. When is killing armed soldiers in a war considered "genocide"?
The US has created an absurd notion of war. When we or our proxies
kill, we do so in legitimate self-defense and are perfectly justified
in doing so. When those who oppose us kill, they are committing
genocide and illegal war crimes. This is an absurdity. War itself is
always organized murder. There is no such thing as a good war. The
real responsibility for the Yugoslav conflicts rests on those outside
powers that fomented the war, such as US ambassador Warren
Zimmermann, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, and Pope John Paul II.
They rejected diplomacy and negotiations and opted for ultimatums and
diktats that they knew would result in civil war. They bear ultimate
responsibility for the civil wars in the former Yugoslavia. But
paradoxically, they will not have to account for their actions.
Instead, scapegoats and straw men will be found. This book exposes
the absurd US propaganda claims. Moreover, there is no proof for any
of the allegations made about Srebrenica. There is only propaganda.
And this book does an excellent job in disproving the US-manufactured
propaganda.
This book also shows that war crimes were committed against Bosnian
Serb civilians, in Pofalici, in Celebici, and in the towns and
villages around Srebrenica. Ossama bin Laden made an official visit
to Sarajevo in 1994, meeting with Alija Izetbegovic in his office. Al-
Qaeda forces were actively fighting as members of the Bosnian Muslim
Army under ultra-nationalist radical Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic.
Al-Qaeda even formed a special unit in the Bosnian Muslim Army known
as the El Mujahedeen Unit. Iran was the major backer and supplier of
the Bosnian Muslim forces. Izetbegovic visited Tehran in 1993 on an
official diplomatic mission at the height of the Bosnian civil war.
The Ossama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and Iranian connection to the Alija
Izetbegovic regime has been very carefully covered-up. This is done
in a very subtle way. None of this factual material has been
presented in the US media. It has been censored and suppressed. Why?
This book allows you to make up your own mind based on all the facts
and not from handouts from the US State Department. This book allows
you to cut through the brainwashing and “infowar” technology and
propaganda and to decide for yourself. What harm can that do? Why is
the US propaganda machine so alarmed by an opposing view? What is
there to be so afraid of? Show us both sides to the issue. Let us
decide. That is real democracy and freedom.
This encyclopedic collection allows differing and opposing viewpoints
and analyses. Dissent and debate are crucial in a democracy. Lock-
step uniformity, conformity, and mindless subservience are anathema
in a true democracy. US President Thomas Jefferson noted that a well-
informed public is essential in a democracy:
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of
civilization, it expects what never was and never will be... [I]f we
are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the
responsibility of every American to be informed.”
Jefferson noted how images and perceptions can be disseminated to
manipulate and to deceive: “Those who don't read the newspapers are
better off than those who do insofar as those who know nothing are
better off than those whose heads are filled with half-truths and
lies.” One must be wary of a corporate media that seeks to “persuade”
by infowar technology and advocacy journalism. Jefferson was able to
see the danger even in his time.
Knowledge and information are essential for Jefferson. In a
democracy, one has to be informed: “I know of no safe depository of
the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; not
enlightened enough to exercise their control with wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform
their discretion. Enlighten the people generally and tyranny and
oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the
dawn of day.”
What was Ratko Mladic’s real crime? Why is he a “villain” and not a
“hero” in the New World Order? Is it because he opposed the
imposition of the New World Order from Washington and Bonn? Is that
his real “crime”? His biggest “crime” was standing up to Germany and
the US and the EU and NATO. He prevented NATO expansion and US
penetration into the Balkans, Southeastern Europe. Opposition and
dissent are always unacceptable when power is the sole criterion of
right. In a might makes right scenario, the greatest danger and the
greatest threat is opposition, any opposition, any dissent. Dissent
is, frankly, unacceptable. Why? Dissent implies freedom. Dissent
implies individuality and choice. You can choose to disagree. It is
this freedom to choose and to decide that is perceived as a threat.
As Thomas Jefferson noted, the decision a person makes can be altered
and manipulated through infowar techniques, public relations, a
corporate globalist media, and biased news sources. Ignorance and
democracy are incompatible. Ignorance and freedom are incompatible.
That is why this book is needed to allow a different perspective, a
different set of facts. It allows you to analyze all the different
sides to an issue and to decide for yourself.
Is there a distinction between “justice” and “the law”? As Thomas
Jefferson noted, “law is often but the tyrant's will” In US history
itself, the law was used to institutionalize slavery, segregation,
and the racist policy of “separate but equal” in the schools and in
public places, Law can be used to institutionalize and to justify
injustice. The Dred Scott case of 1857 is an important example of how
“the law” differs from “justice”. US Supreme Court Chief Justice
Roger Taney held that blacks were “beings of an inferior order, and
altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social
or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights
which the white man was bound to respect.” Blacks were legally
regarded as not citizens of the U.S. and legally subhuman, not
accorded the rights that “all men” enjoyed under the Declaration of
Independence and the US Constitution. Blacks were not human beings,
but property. “Justice” and the “law” do not always coincide.
Ratko Mladic. Is he a “hero” or “villain”? Decide for yourself. As
David Binder noted, this collection allows the reader to decide by
examining the full picture, not merely half the picture. Is it
justice or is it just the law imposed by NATO and the US? Is it
justice or the imposition of “the tyrant’s will”, the will of the US,
NATO, and the EU? This book allows the reader to determine whether
the Ratko Mladic case is about “justice” or about triumphal
vengeance, about going after and destroying those who would dare to
oppose the New World Order. It offers another perspective, a
perspective meticulously censored and suppressed in the US and
Western mainstream. Moreover, the book is essentially antiwar because
it shows how wars are manipulated and exploited and fomented by self-
interested outside powers and interests. They maliciously foment war
and incite hatred and encourage killing, then sit back and judge and
impose their “justice”.
This book is highly recommended. It encourages critical and
independent thought, not mindless, lock-step conformity and obeisance.
